Infidelity Accusations
In court, Johnson claimed that Settino had not only withdrawn from the relationship but also became unsupportive and unfaithful. A key piece of evidence? Texts between Settino and an unidentified man revealed Johnson’s suspicions of infidelity. In one telling message, Settino allegedly wrote, “My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime.” There was also a voicemail from this same man, addressing her as “cupcake” and hinting that their meetings weren’t infrequent.
Confronted with these findings, Johnson called off the engagement and requested the ring’s return. Settino, however, argued that the ring was hers, and the couple found themselves locked in a legal dispute.
The Court’s Decision to Remove “Fault” From the Equation
The lower courts went back and forth, with one trial judge ruling in Settino’s favor and an appellate court siding with Johnson. Ultimately, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court intervened, ruling that fault should no longer be a deciding factor in engagement ring ownership. The justices noted in their ruling that “fault” had no place in determining who keeps the ring when a wedding is canceled. In their view, the ring should go back to the purchaser if the marriage doesn’t happen.
This decision puts Massachusetts in line with most U.S. states, which already follow a similar standard. In a statement, Johnson’s attorney, Stephanie Taverna Siden, expressed satisfaction, calling it “a well-reasoned, fair, and just decision” that modernizes Massachusetts law. Settino’s legal team, however, saw things differently. Nicholas Rosenberg, one of her attorneys, commented that treating an engagement ring strictly as a conditional gift is outdated and that the “fault rule” shouldn’t be treated as a “legal loophole” to retrieve a ring after a breakup.
