WEBVTT FILE
X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=MPEGTS:0,LOCAL:00:00:00.000

1
00:00:05.071 --> 00:00:06.740
Diamonds are forever.

2
00:00:06.740 --> 00:00:08.058
Sorry. Shirley Bassey.

3
00:00:08.058 --> 00:00:10.010
No, they apparently are not.

4
00:00:10.010 --> 00:00:13.847
The top court in the state is weighing
this very question as it considers

5
00:00:13.847 --> 00:00:18.835
a lawsuit between two people
whose engagement didn't exactly ring true.

6
00:00:19.019 --> 00:00:22.922
We're joined by reporter Dan Glaun
and Love Letters columnist Meredith

7
00:00:22.922 --> 00:00:28.311
Goldstein to discuss the fallout
over a $70,000 engagement ring.

8
00:00:29.012 --> 00:00:30.897
Meredith. Welcome, Dan.

9
00:00:30.897 --> 00:00:32.399
Thank you both for being here.

10
00:00:32.399 --> 00:00:34.617
Dan, I'm going to start with you.

11
00:00:34.617 --> 00:00:37.704
From what I understand,
$70,000 engagement ring

12
00:00:37.787 --> 00:00:40.940
given from a gentleman to his fiancee.

13
00:00:40.974 --> 00:00:43.193
Then he finds something on her phone.

14
00:00:43.193 --> 00:00:46.196
He gets weirded
out, wants to call off the engagement.

15
00:00:46.646 --> 00:00:48.348
What's the lawsuit about?

16
00:00:48.348 --> 00:00:51.051
Yeah. So, you know, it's a classic story.
Boy meets girl.

17
00:00:51.051 --> 00:00:53.420
Boy buys girl. Tiffany. Engagement ring.

18
00:00:53.420 --> 00:00:55.588
Tiffany. The blue box. The blue box.

19
00:00:55.588 --> 00:00:56.673
Oh, boy.

20
00:00:56.673 --> 00:01:00.009
Finds texts on girl's phone
asking for playtime with an old friend.

21
00:01:00.026 --> 00:01:02.512
Right? Happens all the time. But,

22
00:01:03.780 --> 00:01:05.698
that didn't
go over too well with this guy.

23
00:01:05.698 --> 00:01:08.034
he broke off the engagement,
asked for the engagement ring back.

24
00:01:08.034 --> 00:01:10.703
She said no. And,

25
00:01:10.703 --> 00:01:13.440
the unusual step
he took is suing to get it back.

26
00:01:13.440 --> 00:01:16.443
Which you can do in some cases
under Massachusetts law.

27
00:01:16.643 --> 00:01:19.496
it's been back and forth in the courts,
and now it's been appealed all the way

28
00:01:19.496 --> 00:01:22.315
up to the Supreme Judicial Court,
the highest court in Massachusetts.

29
00:01:22.315 --> 00:01:25.218
Who's going to rule on
who should get it back, a lawsuit

30
00:01:25.218 --> 00:01:28.288
about who should get the engagement ring
or who should get to keep it.

31
00:01:28.488 --> 00:01:31.591
Meredith, in your column on your podcast,

32
00:01:32.642 --> 00:01:33.693
is this common?

33
00:01:33.693 --> 00:01:35.762
Have you dealt with this before?

34
00:01:35.762 --> 00:01:37.497
I mean, what's the deal there?

35
00:01:37.497 --> 00:01:40.233
I think we're all really interested
when an engagement breaks off.

36
00:01:40.233 --> 00:01:41.201
Who keeps the ring?

37
00:01:41.201 --> 00:01:45.321
I, I think what's more
important to talk about is like, well,

38
00:01:45.688 --> 00:01:46.823
what does any of this mean?

39
00:01:46.823 --> 00:01:51.377
One of the big pieces of advice I give to
people getting married is read a divorce.

40
00:01:51.861 --> 00:01:52.428
agreement.

41
00:01:53.513 --> 00:01:56.432
It's going to sound pretty unromantic,
but I think people don't.

42
00:01:56.432 --> 00:01:57.617
And I'm a big romantic.

43
00:01:57.617 --> 00:02:02.939
It's a big part of my job that people
are entering into a legal agreement.

44
00:02:03.056 --> 00:02:05.041
The second they decide to get married.

45
00:02:05.041 --> 00:02:08.394
And I'm so glad the SJC is taking this on
to give it clarity.

46
00:02:08.962 --> 00:02:10.396
But know what you're signing up for.

47
00:02:10.396 --> 00:02:12.382
This isn't just love. It's a business.

48
00:02:12.382 --> 00:02:15.618
My heart is breaking.
No love without legal.

49
00:02:15.902 --> 00:02:17.220
It just doesn't say.

50
00:02:17.220 --> 00:02:19.923
I would say the people just don't do that.

51
00:02:19.923 --> 00:02:22.592
I find listen, I'm
not anti marriage, I love it.

52
00:02:22.592 --> 00:02:24.677
But you got to know what you're
buying into.

53
00:02:24.677 --> 00:02:27.730
Dan, what is the legal precedent here?

54
00:02:27.747 --> 00:02:30.083
Is there any legal precedent here?

55
00:02:30.083 --> 00:02:33.887
And could a you know, as Meredith
said, could a decision

56
00:02:33.887 --> 00:02:36.890
kind of set
the standard for cases to come?

57
00:02:37.290 --> 00:02:39.809
Well, I hate to break your heart further,
but this does date back

58
00:02:39.809 --> 00:02:43.530
to the early 20th century, when marriage
was much more an economic contract.

59
00:02:43.830 --> 00:02:47.634
So in the 1930s, a lot of states,
including Massachusetts, passed laws

60
00:02:47.634 --> 00:02:52.038
prohibiting suits over broken
promises to marry, over the concern

61
00:02:52.372 --> 00:02:56.910
that women were blackmailing men into
fulfilling engagements or marrying them.

62
00:02:57.360 --> 00:02:58.228
And so they passed this.

63
00:02:58.228 --> 00:03:00.747
But in the 1950s, men start saying, hey,

64
00:03:00.747 --> 00:03:02.282
this actually isn't working out too
well for me

65
00:03:02.282 --> 00:03:04.701
because I can't seem to get my engagement
ring back.

66
00:03:04.701 --> 00:03:08.538
So there was a court case in Massachusetts
in the 1950s where they established

67
00:03:08.538 --> 00:03:11.758
the precedent that you can sue
to get your engagement ring back

68
00:03:12.242 --> 00:03:15.078
if you're not at fault
for breaking up the relationship.

69
00:03:15.078 --> 00:03:17.213
And so that's what
the SJC is really ruling on.

70
00:03:17.213 --> 00:03:20.900
And white marriage,
the attention of the High Court is, the,

71
00:03:21.451 --> 00:03:25.855
the woman in this case is asking for
engagement rings to be irrevocable gifts.

72
00:03:25.855 --> 00:03:29.309
You know, no matter what the reason is,
the person who receives it keeps it.

73
00:03:29.692 --> 00:03:32.762
The man is asking, to get rid of that,

74
00:03:33.329 --> 00:03:36.299
false standard,
and whoever gives it gets it back.

75
00:03:36.299 --> 00:03:38.151
So nobody's happy with the law as it is.

76
00:03:38.151 --> 00:03:40.703
It's a matter of who's
going to come out on top in the end here.

77
00:03:40.703 --> 00:03:42.989
Meredith,
this touches on the gender roles, right?

78
00:03:42.989 --> 00:03:46.009
Well, I think, you know,
if we're talking about gender,

79
00:03:46.259 --> 00:03:48.261
there is like the illusion of the reality,
right?

80
00:03:48.261 --> 00:03:52.232
You're picturing an Instagram
image of two people, Apple

81
00:03:52.232 --> 00:03:55.051
picking one on bended knee. Right.
We all know this picture.

82
00:03:55.051 --> 00:03:58.488
And in fact,
the number of women who tell me they split

83
00:03:58.488 --> 00:04:01.908
the engagement ring cost
with their partner, we are in 2024.

84
00:04:01.908 --> 00:04:05.478
And the idea that this always happens
one way and that it always happens

85
00:04:05.478 --> 00:04:09.933
with heterosexual couples, and that if it
does, women aren't contributing.

86
00:04:09.933 --> 00:04:14.087
I know so many cases,
especially now, of a ring being an antique

87
00:04:14.087 --> 00:04:15.688
that was from someone's family.

88
00:04:15.688 --> 00:04:17.874
I don't think there is a way
we do this anymore,

89
00:04:17.874 --> 00:04:20.910
and I just want to remind everybody
that the people who invented

90
00:04:20.910 --> 00:04:24.597
the it's a few months of your salary
was the ring industry.

91
00:04:24.781 --> 00:04:29.602
So again, this speaks to think hard
and think long about what

92
00:04:30.353 --> 00:04:31.771
what you want to spend

93
00:04:31.771 --> 00:04:34.907
and whether this is a gift
and what what your intent is with it.

94
00:04:34.974 --> 00:04:38.878
Know you you have you both have touched on
some very interesting outlooks.

95
00:04:38.911 --> 00:04:41.898
What is the latest on this case?

96
00:04:41.931 --> 00:04:46.586
So the SJC has about three months
left to make a decision on this, which, by

97
00:04:46.586 --> 00:04:49.589
coincidence, is about the length of time
this engagement lasted.

98
00:04:50.273 --> 00:04:52.976
Reporter Dan Gladden and podcast host

99
00:04:52.976 --> 00:04:56.012
and columnist of Love
Letters, Meredith Goldstein.

100
00:04:56.012 --> 00:04:58.531
Thank you so much
for joining us. Thank you

101
00:04:59.482 --> 00:05:02.101
for daily access to Boston Globe today.

102
00:05:02.101 --> 00:05:06.022
All segments and episodes are available
on demand in the Boston

103
00:05:06.022 --> 00:05:08.007
Globe app by clicking Watch.