Estranged couple sparks heated debate after taking $70,000 Tiffany engagement ring dispute to Supreme Court – so who DO YOU think should keep it?

An estranged Boston couple has sparked heated debate after taking their dispute over who gets to keep the $70,000 Tiffany engagement ring to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Bruce Johnson, 67, and Caroline Settino, 59, ended their brief engagement in November 2017 after he accused her of cheating on him.

Now, seven years later, the couple is still fighting over who gets to keep the $70,000 Tiffany ring and the other two rings.

The fight has spread to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts, the state’s highest court.

In the Commonwealth state, a ring is considered a “conditional gift” and the giver can only get the jewelry back if he or she is not to blame for the end of the relationship.

However, this sparked a huge debate about whether Settino should keep the ring or not. Many Bostonians believe Johnson should get the flashy jewelry back.

“It’s back to the man,” one buyer told CBS Boston. “It’s been canceled, it’s all over.”

The dispute escalated to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. In the Commonwealth state, a ring is considered a “conditional gift” and the giver can only get the jewelry back if he is not responsible for the end of the relationship. IMAGE: The ring at the center of the dispute

“She should return the ring. It’s not hers. There is no wedding,” another person told the outlet.

However, one woman was of the opinion that Settino should keep it because “he gave it to her.”

The decision now rests with the SJC and it is unknown when the court will make a decision on the matter.

Johnson argues that he was allowed to keep the Tiffany piece because he was “verbally abused” by Settino during their engagement. According to court documents, Settino often berated him for spilling a drink or “how he ate oysters.”

He claimed that she also called him an “idiot” and treated him like a child.

He also said he believed she was cheating on him after he searched her phone following an argument in November 2017.

During the argument, Settino allegedly told him, “I’m a good-looking woman. I can get a man whenever I want.”

When he searched her phone, he found a text message to a man he didn’t know that allegedly read, “My Bruce will be in Connecticut for three days. I need some free time.”

Johnson interpreted the text message as an invitation to have sex and broke off the engagement a few weeks later after listening to a voicemail in which the man said Settino hadn’t seen him “enough.”

Settino had told Johnson the man was just a friend – a view the court upheld – but Johnson said he could not trust her, especially after previous relationships had ended due to infidelity in his past.

A court ruled that his accusation was false and blamed him for the end of the relationship, so he was not allowed to get the ring back. The Superior Court judge also ruled that Johnson must pay $42,982 for Settino’s dental work, which he had previously agreed to pay for, according to court documents.

On Friday, Johnson’s attorney, Stephanie Taverna Siden, argued that the decision should be overturned and her client should get the ring back, and that Massachusetts law should be changed.

The decision now rests with the Supreme Judicial Council and it is not known when the court will make a decision on the matter. Johnson was found guilty of accusing Settino of infidelity, which the court found to be false, making him responsible for ending the relationship.

“Because the person who spent money or value on the ring does so on the condition, ‘I’m going to propose to you, we’re going to get married and spend our lives together.’ If you turn the ring into a gift, the person who gave the ring loses the value of the ring if the marriage doesn’t go through,” she argued, according to CBS Boston.

Settino’s attorney, Nick Rosenberg, argued that adopting a no-fault rule for conditional gifts would amount to a “violation of a private act” and that there are “no conditional gifts” in Massachusetts.

Ring return suits are essentially the last remaining form of litigation involving broken engagements recognized by U.S. courts after states began abolishing “heart balm” suits that women could previously bring when a marriage promise was broken in the 1930s.

Originally, many states handled ring-related cases according to the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1959, which held that the giver of an engagement ring was entitled to the return of the ring if that person was “not at fault” for the dissolution of the engagement.

But now a majority of states, including New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, consider an engagement ring a conditional gift that must be returned to the giver at the end of the engagement period, regardless of fault, with few exceptions, such as if one of the parties is still married to someone else.

This has sparked a huge debate about whether or not Settino should be allowed to keep the ring. One woman (left) agreed that Settino should be allowed to keep it because “he gave it to her.” Another (right) said, “She should give the ring back, it’s not yours, there’s no wedding.”

This approach came into vogue when states adopted no-fault divorce, but critics say it perpetuates gender discrimination. In the US, brides’ families often pay for the wedding ceremony, but only the engagement ring can be sued for if the wedding is called off.

“The ring is tied to the condition: ‘You are with me, and as long as you are with me, you are mine,'” Settino said. “That’s what I find archaic about the law.”

They believe courts should recuse themselves from regulating engagement rings. That’s exactly what the Montana Supreme Court did in 2002 when it broke new ground with a no-return policy that treated the ring no differently than any other gift.

Johnson also wants a revision of the rules of engagement in Massachusetts. However, he is urging the court to adopt the no-fault approach that most states follow. His lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.

Still, Settino said, “I will never wear that ring again.”

In the meantime, the ring will remain in trust while the dispute is resolved.