Who keeps the engagement ring after a breakup? A court just weighed in

About a year into dating, Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino got engaged in 2017 after Johnson proposed with a $70,000 Tiffany ring.
But instead of the ring helping them live happily ever after, it brought them to court.
After Johnson broke up with Settino a few months into their engagement, he sued to get the ring back. It was a controversial lawsuit, because a 65-year-old legal precedent said that if you choose to break up, you forfeit the ring, according to The Washington Post.
But on Friday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took Johnson’s side, ruling that, “from now on, an engagement ring must be returned to the buyer if the wedding falls through, regardless of who’s at fault,” as the Post reported.
The court’s ruling centered on the idea that determining fault is difficult.
In the case of Johnson and Settino’s break up, Johnson was the one who actually called off the wedding. But he only did so after a period of conflict involving both parties.
His decision was reasonable based on the actions of both people, a lower court that also ruled in favor of Johnson said.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said that engagement rings should be considered a conditional gift, something that’s not fully transferred to the recipient until the marriage takes place.
During the hearing and in a statement released after Friday’s ruling, Settino’s attorney criticized that claim, arguing that it doesn’t make sense to say the gift of the ring won’t be “fully vested” until the engagement plays out.
“You’re transferring title of property ownership, and the ring is either yours or it’s mine,” the attorney said, according to The Washington Post. “There is no such thing as this, ‘It’s yours for now but then I’m going to bring action to take it back.’”
But Johnson’s attorney applauded the court for taking Johnson’s side and updating what she felt was an outdated legal precedent.
“They moved the law in Massachusetts in the right direction,” Stephanie Taverna Siden, Johnson’s attorney, told The Washington Post. “And our client felt justified in getting the ring back and having the law in Massachusetts be developed so that hopefully no other parties will have to fight over this.”
This month’s ruling only applies to engagement ring conflicts in Massachusetts, although judges elsewhere may take cues in the future from what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said.
As it stands, many states already see engagement rings as conditional gifts, while others take fault into consideration, as Massachusetts used to do, according to USA Today.
“Montana is an interesting exception: That state considers the engagement ring an unconditional gift. The ring is kept by the recipient, even if the marriage never occurs and no matter who broke the engagement,” USA Today reported.
Montana’s law, as well as the laws focused on fault, goes against the wisdom of etiquette experts, who generally advise returning the ring to the person who proposed, especially if it’s a family ring.
Once a marriage takes place, most states say that the gift-giving process is complete and that the ring belongs to the recipient, even after a divorce, per USA Today.