An engagement ring is one of the most expensive items a person can purchase or receive. According to a study by TheKnot in 2022, the average cost of an engagement ring is $5,8001. It holds even more value as a proposal of marriage from one person to another, and is a symbol and profession of love.

In Massachusetts, an engagement ring is given on the implied condition that the proposed marriage will take place. See De Cicco v. Barker, 339 Mass. 457, 458 (1959). But the unfortunate reality is that not all proposals actually result in a marriage. In the midst of a prenuptial breakup, the question often becomes “Who keeps the engagement ring?”

I. As a matter of law in Massachusetts, if a contract to marry is terminated “without fault” of the donor, the donor may recover the ring.

For many years, Massachusetts has relied upon the seminal case on this issue, De Cicco v. Barker, in determining what happens to the engagement ring in the event of a broken engagement. In De Cicco, a suit was brought by the groom-to-be for recovery of a diamond engagement ring he gave his fiancée in contemplation of their marriage. Id. at 457. The donor of the engagement ring did not bring suit on the grounds that a contract to marry was breached, which action is barred in Massachusetts by the “Heart Balm” statutes. G.L. c. 207 §47A. Massachusetts, like other states across the country, prohibits marriage contracts from being the basis of a lawsuit. Prior to the enactment of this statute, a party could bring an action for breach and seek tort damages against the party who called off an engagement. Although the recipient in De Cicco sought dismissal of the donor’s suit pursuant to this statute, the Court in De Cicco recognized the donor’s right to bring action for unjust enrichment and restitution of property. De Cicco at 459. Simply put, the action in De Cicco was not about a breach of the marriage contract itself, but rather about the property exchanged between the parties with the expectation of marriage.

In the De Cicco case, because it was determined initially that the recipient had terminated the engagement without “adequate cause” or “fault” on the part of the donor, the engagement ring was returned to the donor. However, the decision did not define what “adequate fault” is nor did it elaborate on how such a determination was or should be made. De Cicco at 458.

II. How is a finding of fault, or a finding of “no-fault”, determined?

It was not until much later that the Massachusetts Appellate Court addressed the issue of how “fault” should be addressed within the context of a suit for the return of an engagement ring. Johnson v. Settino, No. 22-P-941 (Mass.App.Ct. Sept. 13, 2023). The issue recently came before the Court in the Johnson case, wherein the Court recognized that the De Cicco case did not expound on what “fault” is in this context. Id. at 8. Therefore, the Court explored precedent from other jurisdictions across the United States, and concluded that states generally implement one of the three following approaches in making this analysis:

a. “Traditional” Fault Based Approach, applied by a minority of states, permits recovery based on a conditional gift theory, and requires Courts to make a fault finding by determining whose underlying conduct was responsible or the breakup.

b. “Modern” No-Fault Based Approach, applied in many states as the majority rule, views an engagement ring as a conditional gift that upon termination of the engagement, is to be returned to the donor – regardless of fault.

c. No-Fault for the Donee Approach, applied in at least one state, Montana, treats an engagement ring as an irrevocable inter vivos gift such that the recipient would retain same.

Id. at 9-11.

Although these various approaches exist, there is no uniform process to assess “fault” and, understandably, determining who is at fault for calling off an engagement is a complex issue. Indeed, there are numerous reasons that could contribute to the termination of an engagement, such as lack of commonalities, in-law issues, religious differences, if one party was too hasty in a “rebound” situation, etc. See Id. at 13, n.16. Ultimately, the Court would be tasked with undertaking this difficult analysis, which is what they did in Johnson. Id. at 13.

III. In assessing whether the donor was “without fault,” the Court must consider whether the circumstances provided justification or adequate cause for the donor to break off the engagement.

In Johnson, the donor of the engagement rings reportedly decided to end the relationship with the recipient (his fiancée) for various reasons including his belief that his fiancée was cheating on him. Id. at 6. Ignoring the standard set in De Cicco where the donor’s conduct was the determining factor, in Johnson the lower court erred by focusing on the recipient’s conduct. Id. at 14-15. In doing so, the lower court in Johnson found that the donor failed to prove that the recipient was having the affair he alleged. Id. at 14. However, this was an incorrect application of the case law. Indeed, the Appeals Court found that the lower court placed an improper burden on the donor, who had appropriately sought to prove a different burden - that he was “without fault.” Id. at 14-15.

Not only did the Appellate Court in Johnson find that the lower court did not make the relevant inquiry under De Cicco, but further upon review of the lower court’s findings, the Appellate Court determined that the evidence was insufficient to find that the donor was “at fault” for the separation. Accordingly, the donor in Johnson was also entitled to have the engagement rings he had given his former fiancée returned to him. Id. at 16-17.

IV. Conclusion

The standard set in De Cicco, which implies a conditional gift fault-based approach, remains the precedent in Massachusetts: If the donor of the ring is without fault in the event of a broken engagement, the ring will be returned to the donor’s possession. Now, the Johnson opinion provided the Courts with direction and context when analyzing a donor’s fault in order to decide which party should retain the engagement rings. But, given that these determinations are very much fact-based, it would be fair to expect the issue of who keeps the engagement ring will continue to be raised and contested within the Courts.

It is important to note that these are not the principles or approaches applied to what happens to an engagement ring in the event of a divorce. Once a marriage occurs, the condition on which the engagement ring was given has been met. Generally, the recipient of the ring retains possession of same as a gift. However, in a divorce matter, Massachusetts is an equitable division of property state so Courts can consider many factors such as the length of the marriage or the value of the ring and can include such value in the division and assignment of the assets. Another factor would be whether the engagement ring is a family heirloom of one party. One way a person could plan and protect this kind of sentimental item would be by the terms of a prenuptial agreement.

Often heightened with emotion, these matters are not black and white. However, lawyers in this area and the Courts are well-equipped to provide guidance and assistance in navigating these issues within the confines of the law.