It started with a $70,000 Tiffany diamond and ended in the highest court in Massachusetts. You’ve probably heard the basics: a guy buys an expensive ring, the engagement falls apart, and suddenly everyone is arguing over who gets to keep the rock. But the legal battle between Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino wasn’t just about the money. It actually blew up a 65-year-old legal rule that forced judges to act like relationship therapists.
Honestly, the whole thing feels like a reality TV plot that took a very serious wrong turn into a courtroom.
The $70,000 Misunderstanding?
Bruce and Caroline met back in 2016. Things moved fast. They were jet-setting to Italy, the Virgin Islands, and Bar Harbor. Bruce was dropping serious cash on gifts—handbags, shoes, jewelry. He even agreed to pay for her dental implants. By August 2017, he popped the question with that famous $70,000 ring.
Then, everything went south.
Bruce claimed Caroline became verbally abusive, calling him a "moron" and treating him like a child. He even said she didn't show up for him when he was battling prostate cancer. The breaking point? A text message he found on her phone that said, "My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime."
He thought she was cheating. She said the guy was just a friend of 40 years.
Why the Courts Couldn't Agree
For years, Massachusetts followed a "fault-based" rule from 1959. Basically, if you were the one who "caused" the breakup, you lost the ring.
- The Trial Judge's Take: Initially, a judge ruled that Bruce was at fault because he was "mistaken" about the affair. Since he ended the engagement based on a hunch that wasn't proven, Caroline got to keep the ring.
- The Appeals Court Flip: They saw it differently. They argued that you shouldn't be penalized just for being the one to walk away, especially if you had a "reasonable" belief that things weren't working.
- The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) Final Word: In late 2024, the SJC stepped in and basically said, "We’re done with this."
They realized that trying to figure out who "started it" in a breakup is a nightmare for the legal system. How do you quantify "verbal abuse" or "lack of support" against a "misunderstood" text message? You can't.
The Death of the "Fault" Rule
The court officially retired the concept of fault in engagement ring disputes. They joined the "modern trend" seen in most other states. Now, in Massachusetts, an engagement ring is officially a conditional gift.
The condition is marriage. No wedding? No ring.
It doesn't matter if you cheated, if he was mean, or if you both just realized you hate each other's taste in movies. If the "I dos" don't happen, the ring goes back to the person who bought it.
The justices pointed out that we already have no-fault divorce. It seemed pretty weird to have a "no-fault" system for ending a marriage but a "high-drama fault system" for ending an engagement.
What about the dental implants?
Interestingly, the legal drama wasn't just about the jewelry. Caroline had counter-sued because Bruce stopped paying for the second half of her dental surgery after the breakup. While the ring had to go back, the court had to handle the breach of contract regarding her medical expenses separately. It’s a reminder that while the ring is "conditional," other promises made during a relationship might actually stick.
Why This Matters for You
If you're living in a state like Massachusetts (or really anywhere else now), the Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino case is a massive cautionary tale.
The days of keeping the ring as a "consolation prize" for a bad breakup are mostly over. Here is the reality of how this works now:
🔗 Read more: US-China Rivalry Intensifies Over Panama Canal's Influence and Control: What Really Happened
- The Receipt Rule: Bruce used to give Caroline the receipts for her gifts. In court, her lawyers tried to argue this meant the ring was an "unconditional" gift. The court didn't buy it.
- The Marriage Condition: Unless you have a written agreement saying otherwise, the law assumes the ring is a down payment on a wedding.
- Heirlooms are Tricky: If the ring was a family heirloom, the "return to sender" rule is even more strictly enforced because of the sentimental value to the giver's family.
Moving Forward: Protecting Yourself
Look, nobody wants to think about a breakup when they're buying a diamond. But $70,000 is a lot of money to leave to a judge's discretion.
If you're in a high-asset relationship or giving a significant gift, consider a "prenup-lite" or a simple written agreement. It sounds unromantic, but so is a six-year legal battle that ends up in the Supreme Court.
Most people should realize that "no-fault" is the new standard. If the wedding is off, the ring is gone. It's cleaner, it's faster, and it keeps your private text messages out of the public record.
Next Steps for Couples:
- Check your state's specific "Heart Balm" laws; most have moved to the no-fault standard, but a few outliers remain.
- Keep documentation of the purchase, but realize that giving a receipt doesn't automatically make it a "permanent" gift.
- If you're on the receiving end, understand that the ring is legally a placeholder until the ceremony is finished.