Who gets the diamond in a breakup? SJC hears case over $70K Tiffany ring.

The flagship store of Tiffany & Co. on Fifth Avenue in New York.NYT

What happens when a diamond is not, in fact, forever?

That’s the question facing the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, as it considers a lawsuit between a man and his former fiancée over who should keep a $70,000 engagement ring.

Bruce Johnson is suing Caroline Settino for ownership of the ring, in a case fraught with gender politics that could overturn decades of legal precedent in the state.

Johnson and Settino had been discussing marriage for months before August 2017, when Johnson went to Tiffany & Co. in Boston and spent more than $70,000 on an engagement ring, according to legal filings. When he gave her the ring, the scene was idyllic. They sat at a corner table at a Harwich resort overlooking Pleasant Bay. The room of diners applauded them, and they had a champagne toast.

Three months later, the post-engagement glow had faded. Johnson went through Settino’s phone after an argument and found texts telling another man when Johnson would be out of town and expressing a desire for “playtime.”

Johnson accused Settino of having an affair. She claimed the man was a platonic friend and they were only going to meet for drinks. Johnson called off the engagement and demanded the ring back, setting off a years-long legal battle that is now before Massachusetts’ highest court.

Engagement rings are treated differently than other gifts in Massachusetts, under the precedent of DeCicco v. Barker — a court case from 1959, more than 15 years before no-fault divorce became legal in the state. Under DeCicco, the giver of the ring is entitled to have it returned if the engagement is “terminated without the fault of the donor.”

A judge in Plymouth Superior Court sided with Settino, finding there was no affair and that Johnson was at fault for calling off the engagement. An appeals court reversed that decision last year, ruling that Johnson might have been justified even if he was mistaken about Settino’s alleged infidelity.

Settino is asking the Supreme Judicial Court not just to restore the trial court’s ruling, but to overhaul the state’s approach to engagement ring disputes.

Her attorneys describe DeCicco’s “conditional gift” standard as “rooted in sexist tropes” and “inequitable.” They are arguing that state law generally bars legal claims based on broken promises to marry but makes an exception for engagement rings usually given by men.

“That concept is a legal fiction that subverts the policy of not enforcing contracts to marry,” Settino’s attorney, Nicholas J. Rosenberg, said in a statement.

Settino’s filing argues that courts should not be “arbiters of the demise of romantic relationships,” and calls for the SJC to follow the state of Montana in making engagement rings irrevocable gifts.

Johnson is requesting a different change to the law — that engagement rings should be returned to the buyer no matter who is at fault for ending the relationship. A majority of other states have adopted that standard, according to Johnson’s appeal.

“The no-fault conditional gift theory is the right approach because it protects the institution of marriage by preserving the uniqueness of the engagement ring as opposed to any other gift,” Johnson’s attorneys wrote.

The Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in the case on Sept. 6 and there is no set date for its decision.

Attorneys for Johnson declined to comment.