The Return Of The Ring

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that an engagement and wedding ring must be returned if the nuptials are cancelled regardless of fault

This case presents the question whether the issue of “who is at fault” should continue to govern the rights to engagement rings given in contemplation of marriage when the anticipated wedding does not come to pass. More than six decades ago, we recognized that an antenuptial ring generally is understood to be a conditional gift and determined that the donor may recover the ring following a failed engagement, but only if the donor was “without fault.” De Cicco v. Barker, 339 Mass. 457, 458 (1959). We now join the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue and retire the concept of fault in this context; where, as here, the planned wedding does not ensue and the engagement is ended, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault. Further concluding that the same rule applies to the wedding band the donor, Bruce Johnson, gave to the donee, Caroline Settino, and that prejudgment interest on Settino’s counterclaim was miscalculated, we reverse in part and remand for recalculation of prejudgment interest.

The prospective bridegroom had paid for his intended’s medical expenses as well as gifts and vacations

The couple started looking at engagement rings. Eventually, Johnson bought a $70,000 diamond engagement ring. He gave the receipt for the ring to Settino.

In August 2017, Johnson asked Settino’s father for permission to marry her. Later that month, Johnson asked Settino to marry him, presenting her with the diamond engagement ring at a prearranged dinner at a restaurant on Cape Cod. Settino accepted the proposal and the ring; the happy couple was greeted by applause by fellow restaurant patrons.

In October 2017, Johnson purchased two wedding bands at a cost of approximately $3,700. He gave both bands, and the receipt, to Settino. The couple proceeded to make plans for their wedding, which they set for September 2018.

Trouble in paradise

Soon, however, Johnson began to notice certain of Settino’s behaviors that he found to be troubling; Settino, in his view, was becoming increasingly critical and unsupportive of him. She repeatedly called him a “moron,” treated him like a child, complained about how he used his cellular telephone, and berated him over spilled drinks. She did not accompany him to treatments when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. If something went wrong, Settino blamed Johnson. When the couple quarreled, Settino would yell at Johnson and storm away on the few occasions that Johnson defended himself. Johnson also began to feel as though Settino did not appreciate his accomplishments. Still, Johnson did not consider canceling the planned nuptial.

Then, one evening in November 2017 following an argument between the couple, Settino made a comment to the effect that she “was a good-looking woman, and she could get a man whenever she wanted.” Settino stormed off to bed, leaving her cellular telephone behind.

Troubled by Settino’s statement, Johnson looked at Settino’s cellular telephone and discovered a message from Settino to a man whom Johnson did not know. The message stated: “My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime.” His interest piqued, Johnson continued to peruse Settino’s cellular telephone; he found additional messages from the man, including one voice mail message in which the man referred to Settino as “cupcake” and lamented that the two did not see each other often enough.

Johnson, whose first marriage ended on account of infidelity, confronted Settino the next morning. Settino explained that the man was a long-time friend and denied any sexual affair with the man. Johnson, however, remained troubled by this previously undisclosed friend in Settino’s life.

In the two weeks that followed, Johnson took stock of his entire relationship with Settino. Thereafter, Johnson ended the engagement. Settino kept the engagement ring and wedding bands. For his part, although he had promised to do so prior to the break up, Johnson failed to pay for the second part of Settino’s dental implant surgery.

Prior precedent

And where, as here, the rule does not involve an interpretation of a statute and instead was of our own making, we have considered whether the prior court’s rationale continues to be “consonant with the needs of contemporary society.” Lewis v. Lewis, 370 Mass. 619, 628 (1976). We are amenable to changing an “outdated” or unworkable rule; “[o]ne of the great virtues of the common law is its dynamic nature that makes it adaptable to the requirements of society at the time of its application in court.” Shiel, supra, quoting Lewis, supra. Applying these considerations to the fault analysis adopted in De Cicco, we conclude it is time to let it go.

The oral argument is linked here. (Mike Frisch)