Bruce Johnson was nearing 60 when he proposed to Caroline Settino, his first serious romantic partner in 33 years after a contentious divorce in 1984, which was triggered by adultery.

Over those 33 years, Bruce focused on building his career, achieving numerous financial and personal milestones. When he met Caroline in 2017, he believed he had finally found “the one” after decades spent healing from his deepest heartbreak.

The two met at a tavren in Hingham MA, where they talked all night and then made plans to go kayaking the next day. From there, the relationship took root.

Bruce described his new partner as ‘the spectacular and perfect woman for him’; ‘a goddess for him’; and ‘the best thing ever put on this planet’.

Over the next several months, Bruce spoiled his soon to be wife with extravagant gifts: Tiffany rings, Burberry coats, Coach bags, artwork, Ugg boots, and the occasional charcuterie board.

The couple talked about marriage and browsed engagement rings together. Shortly after, Bruce met with Caroline’s parents over lunch to formally ask for her hand.

The next week, Bruce arranged an engagement dinner at an upscale beach side resort and golf club in Cape Cod. He dedicated hours to planning the engagement, drafting and revising his proposal countless times until it felt perfect.

With tears of joy streaming down her face, Caroline eagerly said yes as the restaurant erupted in cheers and applause for the newly engaged couple.

On one knee, Bruce slipped the $70k Tiffany diamond ring onto his “goddess’s” left ring finger.

In the following weeks, Bruce took charge of the wedding plans, placing a $60,000 down payment on a high-end venue and reserving 50 rooms for their guests.

Everything seemed ideal for the blossoming couple—a picture-perfect life with discussions of children and building a family on the horizon, supported by a financially stable provider.

But then, the signs of trouble began to take hold.

Bruce began noticing toxic behaviors in Caroline. She would berate him over trivial mistakes, like spilling a drink, frequently calling him a “moron” and belittling his appearance. She’d adjust his clothing, criticize him for crossing his arms, and mock him for taking too long to check his text messages. When he got prostate cancer she also refused to accompany him to appointments.

A few months into their engagement, the minor arguments escalated when, during a fight, Caroline told Bruce that she was an attractive woman and could find a man whenever she wanted.

After the argument, Bruce noticed Caroline’s phone on the counter and decided to look through it. He discovered a message from Steven Henault mentioning the need for some “playtime,” which he interpreted as a reference to intimacy. Steven also referred to Caroline as “cupcake” in their texts.

Caroline denied having an affair, insisting that she and Steven had been friends for 40 years and that “playtime” simply meant going out for drinks.

Following the texts and the persistent petty arguments, Bruce ended the engagement and, after Caroline refused to return the ring, he sued to recover the $70,000 value.

The Lawsuit

In Brice’s initial case, the judge ruled in Caroline’s favor, letting her keep the ring and citing standard Massachusetts law, which states that an engagement ring is a conditional gift that must be returned to the donor if the marriage doesn’t occur—provided the donor is not at fault for ending the engagement.

Essentially, the ring is given on the condition of marriage. If the marriage doesn’t happen, the ring is returned. However, since Bruce was the one who called off the engagement, he was deemed at fault for the broken condition, allowing Caroline to keep the ring.

If Caroline broke off the engagement, then Bruce would have been able to keep it.Bruce appealed the decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which overturned the lower court’s ruling and allowed him to reclaim the ring.

This Supreme Court decision not only reversed the earlier ruling in Bruce’s case but it also established a new precedent in Massachusetts. The court adopted the modern view on engagement rings, stating that the donor is entitled to the ring’s return regardless of who was at fault for ending the engagement.

The discussion followed a similar pattern of reasoning in a recent Connecticut engagement ring lawsuit.

In its reasoning for the law change, the court cited public policy concerns and the challenges of determining “fault” in cases involving engagement rings and broken engagements under the traditional approach.

The court ruled that as a result of those considerations, the modern trend, and now majority view among courts that have considered this issue, is that the only relevant inquiry in conditional engagement gift cases is whether the condition under which the gift was made — that is, the marriage ceremony — has failed to occur. Where the planned nuptial does not come to pass, the engagement gift must be returned to the donor.