As reported by Reuters, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that a $70,000 engagement ring must be returned to its original owner, Bruce Johnson, after he called off his engagement to Caroline Settino. In doing so, the court has effectively abandoned a 1959 precedent requiring courts to determine which party was “at fault” for ending the engagement to decide ownership of the ring. In Friday’s decision, the justices instead adopted a no-fault approach that treats engagement rings as conditional gifts, which should be returned if the marriage does not occur.

The high court’s ruling comes after Johnson took Settino to court to retrieve the ring, alleging that he ended the engagement in 2017 after seeing messages on her phone from another man and suspecting an affair. Settino, however, denies the accusation, stating the man was simply an old friend. Johnson’s lawyer argued that even under the previous standard, her client was entitled to the ring. However, the justices took the opportunity to modernize the law, noting that courts in most states no longer delve into the details of why a relationship ended in these cases. Justice Scott Kafker commented on the outdated approach, calling it “old-fashioned and kind of silly” to ask judges to assess the “fault” of one party or another over a breakup.

The decision aligns Massachusetts with the current trend among U.S. states, where most treat engagement rings as conditional gifts that must be returned if the marriage is called off. This stance reflects the broader shift in family law toward no-fault standards, which began with the rise of no-fault divorce. The court’s ruling marks an end to 65 years of legal wrangling in the state over broken engagements, allowing future cases to proceed without a judicial investigation into the breakup.

Despite the ruling, some justices expressed interest in examining the nature of engagement rings as conditional gifts. Justice Dalila Wendlandt questioned why a ring should be considered different from other gifts that might be exchanged between partners during an engagement, such as a bracelet or car, which generally don’t have to be returned. In response, Johnson’s attorney argued that engagement rings carry unique significance, symbolizing a specific commitment to marry.

For Settino’s part, her lawyer, Nicholas Rosenberg, argued for a “no-take-backs” approach like the one used by Montana, where engagement rings are treated as irrevocable gifts. Rosenberg voiced concern that the traditional view of engagement rings as conditional is “highly gendered” and rooted in outdated norms. He argued that under the principle that “a gift is a gift,” the engagement ring should have been Settino’s to keep, regardless of the breakup.

The ruling reinforces a trend of moving away from “heart balm” litigation—legal claims once recognized in the 1930s that allowed jilted fiancées to sue over broken marriage promises. Today, engagement ring disputes are among the last remaining types of such claims in the U.S. Massachusetts's now-adopted, more modern, no-fault standard signals an increased reluctance among courts to litigate personal details of broken engagements.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision could reduce future litigation over engagement rings by setting a precedent that allows individuals to claim a ring if the marriage is called off, without the need for a judicial assessment of the breakup's cause.