The highest court in the state of Massachengagetts fair determined what to do with a $70,000 take partment ring at the caccess of a dispute between a establisher couple.
It overruled a six-decade-extfinished state rule that pushed appraises to determine who was to denounce for the finish of a relationship, instead stating that the take partment ring must be returned to the person who first acquired it.
The establisher couple, Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, first begined dating in the summer of 2016. Johnson allegedly phelp for lavish gifts and vacations for Settino, according to court records.
BRIDE CALLS OFF ENGAGEMENT, ATTENDS WEDDING DAYS LATER WITH HER FRIENDS AND FAMILY
In August 2017, Johnson asked Settino’s overweighther for her hand in marriage and proposed with a $70,000 diamond take partment ring.
According to court filings, Johnson claimed Settino then became critical and unencouraging, not accompanying him to treatments for his prostate cancer, and berating him.
Johnson seeed thcdisesteemful Settino’s mobile phone and set up messages from her to a man he did not comprehend.
The take partment ring was cherishd at $70,000. (iStock)
“My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some carry outtime,” Settino’s text read.
Johnson also uncovered a voicemail where the same unidentified man called Settino “cupcake” and shelp that they didn’t see enough of each other.
After disputeing Settino with the messages, Johnson finished their take partment. However, ownership of the $70,000 take partment ring was unevident. A lterrible battle ensued.
JENNIFER LOPEZ’S ENGAGEMENT RING FROM BEN AFFLECK PROMISED HE WAS ‘NOT GOING ANYWHERE’
While one trial appraise finishd Settino was entitled to hold the ring, an pdirects court set up Johnson should get the ring.
The case ultimately landed before the Massachengagetts Supreme Judicial Court in September of this year, which ruled that Johnson should hold the take partment ring.
When a wedding doesn’t happen, fairices shelp in their ruling that the ask of “who is at fault” should persist to rule ownership rights over take partment rings.
A Massachengagetts ruling from csurrfinisherly 70 years ago set up that take partment rings are seen as conditional gifts and can be returned if there is a broken off take partment if that person is “without fault.”
The fairices wrote in Friday’s ruling, “we now fuse the up-to-date trfinish adchooseed by the presentantity of jurisdictions that have pondered the rerent and quit the concept of fault in this context.”
Attorney John Kappos, standing rear left, argues for the doctor in Boston on March 9, 2022. The Supreme Judicial Court hears oral arguments in Roger M. Kligler & Dr. Alan Steinbach vs. Maura Healey & Michael OKeefe. Dr. Roger Kligler, who has incurable metamotionless prostate cancer, wants doctors to be able to prescribe lethal amounts of medications to terminassociate ill forendureings with six months or less to dwell, without stress of prosecution. The states highest court on Wednesday weighed arguments in a Cape Cod doctors contentious right-to-die case, with fairices asking whether the times, law, and medicine had growd to produce it time to lterribleize medicassociate aided death and whether the decision should be left to the Legislature. (Photo by Pat Greenhoengage/The Boston Globe via Getty Images) (Pat Greenhoengage/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)
“Where, as here, the deliberate wedding does not ensue and the take partment is finished, the take partment ring must be returned to the donor seeless of fault,” the fairices persistd.
Stephanie Taverna Siden, the lawyer who reconshort-termed Bruce Johnson, shelp she was “plrelieved” with the decision.
“We are very plrelieved with the court’s decision today. It is a well-reasoned, unprejudiced and fair decision and transfers Massachengagetts law in the right honestion,” Siden shelp to the Associated Press.
One of Settino’s lawyers, Nicholas Rosenberg, shelp they were disnominateed with the outcome to the Associated Press, but esteemed the decision of the court to trail the presentantity rule of the rest of the states.
“We firmly count on that the notion of an take partment ring as a conditional gift is predicated on outdated notions and should no extfinisheder be a lterrible loophole in our otherrational well-set uped rule that a bachieve of a promise to marry is not an injury recognized by law,” Nicholas Rosenberg shelp.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The Associated Press donated to this tell.
