An estranged Boston couple has sparked a heated debate after taking their fight over who gets to keep their $70,000 Tiffany engagement ring to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
Bruce Johnson, 67, and Caroline Settino, 59, called off their brief engagement in November 2017 after he accused her of cheating on him.
Now, seven years later, the couple is still fighting over who will get the $70,000 Tiffany ring and two additional wedding bands.
The fight has reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the highest jurisdiction in the state.
In the Commonwealth, a ring is considered a “conditional gift” and the giver can only get the jewelry back if he or she is not at fault for the end of the relationship.
However, this has sparked a huge debate over whether or not Settino should keep the ring, with many Bostonians saying that Johnson should get the flashy jewelry back.
“It’s the man’s property,” one buyer said. CBS Boston‘It’s cancelled, it’s all over.’
Bruce Johnson, 67, and Caroline Settino, 59, called off their brief engagement in November 2017 after he accused her of cheating on him. Now, seven years later, the couple is still fighting over who gets to keep the $70,000 Tiffany ring and two additional wedding bands.
The dispute has reached the Massachusetts Supreme Court. In this state, a ring is considered a “conditional gift” and the giver can only get the jewel back if he or she is not at fault for the breakdown of the relationship. IN THE PICTURE: The ring at the center of the dispute
“You should give the ring back, it’s not yours, there’s no wedding,” another told the outlet.
However, one woman agreed that Settino should keep it because “he gave it to her as a gift.”
The decision is now in the hands of the SJC and it is unknown when the court will make a decision on the matter.
Johnson maintains that he deserved to keep the Tiffany piece because he suffered “verbal abuse” from Settino during their engagement, who often scolded him for spilling a drink or “how he ate oysters,” according to court documents.
She also allegedly called him an “idiot” and treated him like a child, he claimed.
He also said he believed she was cheating on him after checking her phone following an argument in November 2017.
During the argument, Settino allegedly told her: “I’m a beautiful woman. I can get a man whenever I want.”
After checking her phone, she found a text message addressed to a man she didn’t know, which allegedly read: “My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some time to play.”
Johnson interpreted the text as an invitation to sex and after hearing a voicemail in which the man said Settino “didn’t see him often enough,” she called off the engagement a few weeks later.
Settino had told Johnson the man was just a friend (a view upheld by a court), but Johnson said he could not trust her, especially after previous relationships had ended due to infidelities in her past.
A court ruled his accusation was false and found him at fault for ending the relationship, so he was not allowed to get the ring back. The Superior Court judge also ruled that Johnson had to pay $42,982 for Settino’s dental work that he had agreed to pay for earlier, according to court documents.
On Friday, Johnson’s attorney, Stephanie Taverna Siden, argued that the decision should be reversed and that her client should receive the ring back and that Massachusetts state law should be changed.
The decision now rests with the SJC and it is unknown when the court will make a decision on the matter. Johnson was found guilty because he accused Settino of infidelity, which a court ruled was false, leading to the end of the relationship.
“Because the person who has spent money or value on the ring is doing so under the condition of ‘I’m proposing to you, we’re going to get married and we’re going to live a life together.’ If you exchange the ring for a gift, that person who gave the ring loses the value of the ring if the marriage doesn’t take place,” he argued, according to CBS Boston.
Settino’s attorney, Nick Rosenberg, argued that instituting a no-fault conditional gift rule would be “interpreting a private act” and “we don’t have conditional gifts in Massachusetts.”
Suits seeking the return of rings are essentially the last remaining type of litigation over broken engagements recognized by American courts, after states in the 1930s began abolishing the “heart balm” claims that women had previously been able to bring when a promise of marriage was canceled.
Initially, many states handled ring cases much like the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in 1959, when it said that a giver of an engagement ring was entitled to its return as long as that person was not “at fault” for breaking the engagement.
But now, most states, including New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, treat the engagement ring as a conditional gift that must be returned to the giver at the end of the engagement, regardless of fault, with a few exceptions, such as if one of the parties is still married to someone else.
This has sparked a huge debate over whether Settino should keep the ring or not. One woman (left) agreed that Settino should keep it because “he gave it to her as a gift.” Another (right) said: “He should give the ring back, it’s not yours, there’s no wedding.”
This approach became fashionable when states adopted no-fault divorce. However, critics say it perpetuates gender bias. In the United States, brides’ families often foot the bill for wedding ceremonies, but can only be sued for the engagement ring when the nuptials are called off.
“The ring depends on you being with me and as long as you’re with me you’re mine,” Settino said. “That’s what I find archaic about the law.”
She said courts should stop regulating engagement rings, which is what the Montana Supreme Court did in 2002 when it blazed a new trail with a no-return policy that treated the ring like any other gift.
Johnson also wants reform of Massachusetts’s procedural rules, but urges the court to adopt the no-fault approach followed by most states. His attorney did not respond to requests for comment.
However, Settino said: “I will never wear that ring again.”
Meanwhile, the ring remains in custody while the dispute is resolved.
(tags to translate)dailymail
