World Shiner
advertisement
World Shiner
advertisement
World Shiner
advertisement
Goto your account
Search Stories by: 
and/or
 

News












In what’s been described as a ‘landmark ruling’, a state court in the US has ordered a bride-to-be to return a diamond engagement ring to her former fiancé. | Source: Adobe Stock
In what’s been described as a ‘landmark ruling’, a state court in the US has ordered a bride-to-be to return a diamond engagement ring to her former fiancé. | Source: Adobe Stock

Legal fight: Who keeps the engagement ring when the romance ends?

In what’s been described as a ‘landmark ruling’, a court has ordered a bride-to-be to return a diamond engagement ring to her former fiancé overturning a 65-year legal position.

According to court filings, the case involved Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who started dating in the summer of 2016.

A $USD70,000 engagement ring was purchased by Johnson in August 2017 from Tiffany & Co. to mark an engagement; however, the wedding was cancelled later that year after allegations of infidelity emerged.

A US trial judge initially concluded that Settino was entitled to keep the engagement ring; however, in September, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard the case and ruled that Johnson should keep it.

On 8 November, the court declared the ring a ‘conditional gift’ and ordered its return as the wedding did not occur.

Six judges unanimously reached the decision, which reverses the 'fault-based' position held by courts in Massachusetts for the past 65 years.

“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,” the decision reads.

“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.”

According to the Associated Press, Johnson’s lawyer praised the court's decision. However, a legal representative for Settino argued that the ruling was based on outdated beliefs.

“We firmly believe that the notion of an engagement ring as a conditional gift is predicated on outdated notions and should no longer be a legal loophole in our otherwise well-established rule that a breach of a promise to marry is not an injury recognised by law,” the representative said.

In Australia, engagement rings are broadly defined as ‘conditional gifts’. If the marriage doesn’t proceed, rings are typically returned; however, in the event of exceptional circumstances, including domestic violence, family heirlooms, and mutual, among others, the recipient may be able to maintain possession.

More reading
A beginner's blueprint: Bridal & engagement jewellery sales
Case study: Diamond dealer takes legal action for reinstatement as CEO
Turning point: Sentence handed down for high-profile jewellery store robbery
Michael Hill successfully appeals judgement
New money laundering laws: What do jewellers need to know?
Damages: Michael Hill International faces Supreme Court judgement

 











BECKS
advertisement





Read current issue

login to my account
Username: Password:
SAMS Group Australia
advertisement
Rapid Casting
advertisement
SAMS Group Australia
advertisement
© 2024 Befindan Media