Massachusetts is now a no-fault state when it comes to broken hearts — and costly engagement rings.
The Supreme Judicial Court last week jettisoned its 65-year-old legal rule that required judges to identify who is to blame for the end of a romance and award the engagement ring to the heartbroken party, whether they bought it or not.
“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,’“ the court said in its decision. “We now join the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue and retire the concept of fault.”
Writing for the court, Justice Dalila A. Wendlandt said the new rule is this: “When the planned wedding does not ensue and the engagement is ended, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault.”
The ruling means that Caroline Settino must return the $70,000 engagement ring she accepted from Bruce Johnson in August 2017. A Superior Court judge had ruled that Johnson was at fault for their marriage plans falling apart — he wrongly accused her of infidelity after reading her text messages — and awarded Settino ownership of the ring under the “at fault” standard.
Johnson’s attorney, Stephanie Taverna Siden, welcomed the ruling because her client will eventually get the pricey ring back, but also said it ends an obsolete legal standard that forced people into sharing intimate details of failed relationships.
“They modernized the law in the right direction by removing fault,” she said. “That’s why it’s an important decision, because it helps parties settle issues among themselves without needing to litigate, just like the no-fault divorce statute did when that was enacted in 1975.
“One of the benefits of this decision in removing fault from the issue of who owns the engagement ring after an engagement terminates is that it takes those intimate details out of the court,” she added. “Who would want their prior details of this relationship becoming public record?”
Settino’s attorney, Nicholas J. Rosenberg, could not be reached for comment.
The SJC reversed the decision by the lower courts.
“Assessing blame when one party concludes that a proposed marriage would fail is at odds with a principal purpose of an engagement period to test the permanency of the couple’s wish to marry,” Wendlandt wrote.
John R. Ellement can be reached at john.ellement@globe.com. Follow him @JREbosglobe.