Scorned fiancée lastly learns if she will be able to maintain $70k Tiffany’s engagement ring after bitter courtroom battle
A wealthy fiance has finally learned he will get back the $70,000 Tiffany’s engagement ring he gave his partner following a seven-year court battle.
Bruce Johnson, 67, took teacher Caroline Settino, 59, to court over the proposal after they fell out when he found salacious messages on her phone to another man.
A Massachusetts court first ruled in favor of Settino finding Johnson ‘mistakenly thought she was cheating on him’.
But in September the case landed before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled on Friday Johnson should keep the ring.
Bruce Johnson, 67, and Caroline Settino, 59, called off their brief engagement in November 2017 after he accused her of cheating on him. Now, seven years later, the couple have received a ruling over who gets to keep the $70,000 Tiffany’s ring and the two additional bands
In September, the case landed before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled on Friday that Johnson should keep the ring
The pair first met in 2016 and over the next year Johnson spoiled her with luxury vacations to New York, the Virgin Islands and Italy as well as expensive gifts.
In November 2017 he gave her the $70,000 Tiffany diamond engagement ring as well as two sparkling wedding bands for another $3,700.
It was after this Johnson said he felt Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive, often berating him and not accompanying him to his prostate cancer treatments.
Johnson recalled looking through her phone and finding a message reading: ‘My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime.’
He also found messages from the man, including a voicemail in which the man referred to Settino as ‘cupcake’ and said they didn’t see enough of each other.
The November 8 ruling went against the decades-old trend that an engagement ring is generally understood to be a conditional gift, determining that the person who gives the priceless piece can get it back after a failed engagement – but only if that person was ‘without fault.’ Pictured: Justices handle the bitter case in the Massachusetts Supreme court
Settino claims that the man was just a friend, yet Johnson ended the engagement anyway – but ownership of the ring remained up for grabs.
The initial ruling came as a trial judge ruled in Settino’s favor alleging she should keep the flashy diamond-encrusted ring.
Johnson later appealed the ruling moving the case along to the highest jurisdiction in the state, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Justices overseeing the case said the dispute raised the question of whether the issue of ‘who is at fault’ should continue to govern the rights to engagement rings when the wedding doesn’t happen.
The November 8 ruling went against the decades-old trend that an engagement ring is generally understood to be a conditional gift, determining that the person who gives the priceless piece can get it back after a failed engagement – but only if that person was ‘without fault.’
‘We now join the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue and retire the concept of fault in this context,’ the justices wrote in the recent ruling.
‘Where, as here, the planned wedding does not ensue and the engagement is ended, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault.’
Stephanie Taverna Siden, Johnson’s lawyer, praised the ruling: ‘We are very pleased with the court’s decision today. It is a well-reasoned, fair and just decision and moves Massachusetts law in the right direction.’
DailyMail.com has reached out to both, Settino and Johnson, for comment.
