Domestic relations – Failed engagement – Ring

Listen to this article

Where a planned wedding was called off, the engagement ring must be returned to the plaintiff donor 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. …

“We reverse so much of the judgment as awarded the engagement ring and wedding band to Settino, and judgment shall enter for Johnson on that count. We vacate so much of the judgment as awarded prejudgment interest. The matter is remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest and entry of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion.”

Johnson v. Settino (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-124-24) (23 pages) (Wendlandt, J.) The case was heard by Brian S. Glenny, J., and a motion to alter or amend the judgment also was heard by him. Stephanie Taverna Siden for the plaintiff; Nicholas J. Rosenberg for the defendant (Docket No. SJC-13555) (Nov. 8, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.