You ask your partner, “Will you marry me?” and they say yes. If you put a ring on their finger, that ring is a “conditional gift,” says the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. It’s conditioned on your partner following through with their promise to marry you. If the marriage doesn’t occur, they have to return the ring.
In years past, Massachusetts followed a rule that said the partner who was not “at fault” for the breakup gets to keep the ring. That is, if the ring-giver was not at fault for the breakup, they are entitled to have the ring returned. If the ring-giver was at fault for the breakup, then the recipient can keep the ring.
In Johnson v. Settino, published November 8, 2024, the court has retired the “at fault” rule. It determined that this brings Massachusetts into line with the majority of states, and is consistent with the legislative intent behind the “no fault” divorce, which is now the standard in Massachusetts.
This clearcut rule also avoids the courts engaging in an intrusive and possibly embarrassing fact-finding mission when someone refuses to return an engagement ring. Just like with divorces, the courts generally don’t want to dig around in dirty laundry in order to determine who is responsible for the demise of an engagement. And, more likely than not, the parties themselves probably don’t want to air their dirty laundry.
Read more about the opinion here: Johnson v. Settino.
