Who gets to keep a $70,000 engagement ring? Case goes before Massachusetts Supreme Court
America’s premier country artist Beyoncé famously sang that “if you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it.” There’s a flip side to that coin, though; the inverse is true, too. While I don’t have a music video with a catchy dance prepared just yet, I am prepared to tell you this: if you aren’t totally certain that you like it, then please, I beg you, do not put a ring on it.
In Massachusetts, an engagement ring is considered a conditional gift. If you consider giving someone a gift a “transaction,” this means that the transaction is not considered completed – and thus the person who received the gift doesn’t really have the gift – until all of its conditions, whether explicit or implied, are satisfied. This type of gift is revocable upon failure to satisfy one or more of the conditions attached to the gift. So in the case of an engagement ring given when proposing to a significant other, Massachusetts law regarding conditional gifts says that the giver can reclaim it if the receiver ends the engagement.
However, there is a giant catch: in order to reclaim it, the person who proposed and gave the ring has to prove that they were not to blame for the end of the relationship. So let’s say you propose to your partner, certain that you’ll be together forever. You saved up for months and got her what you imagine very well may be her dream engagement ring (spoiler: it isn’t, and next time get one without a Red Sox logo). She says yes.
Cut to a few months later. She decides to end it. Now, if the reason she ends it is because she’s taking off with some guy she just met and she’s taking all of your comfiest sweatshirts with her, then you’re entitled to reclaim the ring (and, heck, maybe even the hoodies). However, if she can provide evidence that she’s leaving with this guy because you cheated on her, or that you were abusive in some way, or that you were at fault for the breakup, then she’s entitled to keep that ring as a going away present of sorts.
But what exactly does it mean to be “at fault” for a breakup? Fault or adequate cause is determined by examining the circumstances surrounding the termination of the engagement. For instance, if the ring giver terminates the engagement based on a mistaken belief that their partner was unfaithful, the court may consider whether the ring giver’s actions were justified under the circumstances. So it’s not an objective test; rather, a court will look at the facts of the case and determine whether or not the person who left was justified in doing so.
This principle was established by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the 1959 case of De Cicco v. Barker, where the court held that an engagement ring is given on the implied condition that the marriage will take place.
This situation still arises today. Read my post about the Connecticut financial executive, Jay Maffe, who sued his ex for the engagement ring.
Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court sought to determine the matter Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who were briefly engaged in 2017.
According to court documents, Bruce bought an engagement ring from Tiffany’s in Boston for more than $70,000. Soon after, he began to suspect that Caroline was having an affair with another man, and called off the engagement.
Understandably, he wanted the ring back, but it was up to the Court to decide whether or not he would be able to recover it. This inevitably led to the question of who was at fault. Bruce said she had an affair and was abusive. Caroline argued that there was no affair – the man she texted was just a friend (although it’s possible this was a “You vs. the Guy She Told You Not to Worry About” situation).. A trial court judge ruled in her favor, saying Johnson was at fault because it was his decision to call off the engagement. Initially, it seemed as though Caroline would get to keep the ring.
However, Bruce appealed the decision and the ruling was reversed. However, the Court kind of told on itself in their reversal. The appeals court said the existence or non-existence of an affair was not the only factor in the case; Johnson may still have had solid reasons to call off the engagement. It seems as though the Court is saying that, in instances where it’s unclear who exactly is at fault, they will give the benefit of the doubt to the person ending the relationship. Had it been Bruce who had the affair, though, it’s likely he would not have been able to recover. At that point, he’d be enough at fault to bar him from getting that ring back.
And if you aren’t absolutely, positively, 100% sure that this marriage is going to last ‘til death do you part, then be careful what you say when giving your partner the ring or even just when you’re discussing it. I’ve previously written about an instance where a man – probably not thinking this would be taken literally in a court of law – said that his fiance could keep the ring even if the relationship didn’t work out.
We all want to believe that engaged couples will get married and live happily ever after. However, that’s not how the world works, and custody battles over engagement rings are something you need to think about when you’re thinking about proposing. Love is real, but the law is realer. If you’re considering getting down on one knee, be careful; you might end up on two knees, begging for your ring back. If that ends up being the case, you know who to call.
It’s important to plan for the future. If you need a prenup, a will, trust, or estate plan, call or email me today:
(860) 913 0210