BOSTON — Who gets to keep an engagement ring if a romance turns sour and the wedding is called off?

That’s what Massachusetts’ highest court has been asked to decide, with a $70,000 ring at the center of the dispute.

The court finally ruled Friday that an engagement ring must be returned to the person who bought it, ending a six-decade rule that required judges to try to identify who was responsible for the end of the relationship .

The case involved Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who began dating in the summer of 2016, according to court filings. Over the next year, they traveled together, visiting New York, Bar Harbor, Maine, the Virgin Islands and Italy. Johnson paid for the vacation and also gave Settino jewelry, clothes, shoes and handbags.

Eventually, Johnson purchased a diamond engagement ring worth $70,000 and, in August 2017, asked Settino’s father for permission to marry her. Two months later, he also purchased two wedding rings for around $3,700.

Johnson said he felt like after that, Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive, including berating him and not accompanying him to treatments when he was diagnosed with cancer. the prostate, according to court filings.

At one point, Johnson looked at Settino’s cell phone and discovered a message from her to a man he didn’t know.

“My Bruce is going to spend three days in Connecticut. I need some playtime,” the message read. He also found messages from the man, including a voicemail in which the man called Settino a “cupcake” and said that they didn’t see each other enough. Settino said this man was just a friend.

Johnson ended the engagement. But ownership of the ring remained up in the air.

A trial judge initially found that Settino was entitled to keep the engagement ring, finding that Johnson “wrongly believed Settino was cheating on him and called off the engagement.” An appeals court ruled that Johnson should get the ring back.

In September, the case went to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ultimately ruled that Johnson should keep the ring.

In their ruling, the justices said the case raised the question of whether the question of “who is at fault” should continue to govern rights to engagement rings when the marriage does not take place.

More than sixty years ago, the court held that an engagement ring is generally considered a conditional gift and determined that the person giving it can get it back after the engagement breaks down, but only if that person is ” without fail “.

“We now join the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue and abandon the concept of fault in this context,” the justices wrote in Friday’s ruling. “When, as here, the planned wedding does not take place and the engagement is over, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor, regardless of fault.”

Johnson’s attorney, Stephanie Taverna Siden, welcomed the decision.

“We are very pleased with the court’s decision today. It is a well-reasoned, fair and just decision that moves Massachusetts law in the right direction,” Siden said.

An attorney for Settino did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.