If love goes sour and the wedding is cancelled, who can keep the engagement ring?

The highest court in Massachusetts has been asked to rule on a $70,000 ring at the center of the dispute.

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

• Read more: Getting engaged on vacation? You might want to rethink this

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

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

According to court records, Johnson said he felt Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive after that, berating him and not accompanying him to treatments when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

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

“My Bruce will be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime,” the message read. She also found messages from the man, including a voicemail in which the man referred to Settino as “cake” and said they didn’t like each other enough. Settino said the man was just a friend.

• Read more: Here are the best days to get married, start a diet or quit smoking

Johnson ended the engagement. However, ownership of the ring was up in the air.

The trial judge initially concluded that Settino had the right to keep the engagement ring, suggesting that Johnson “mistakenly thought Settino was cheating on her and called off the engagement.” The appeals court ruled that Johnson should keep the ring.

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

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

More than sixty years ago, the court found that an engagement ring was generally understood to be a conditional gift, and ruled that the person who gave it could take it back after a failed engagement, but only if the person was “flawless.”

“We now agree with the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions considering the issue and retire the concept of fault in this context,” the justices wrote in Friday’s decision. “When the planned wedding does not take place and the engagement ends, as here, 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 today’s decision of the court. This is a well-reasoned, fair and equitable decision and moves Massachusetts law in the right direction,” Siden said.

Settino’s attorney said they were disappointed but respected the court’s decision to follow majority rule among the states.

“We firmly believe that the concept of an engagement ring as a conditional gift is based on outdated concepts and that there should no longer be a legal loophole in our well-established rule that the breach of promise to marry is not an injury recognized by law,” said Nicholas Rosenberg.

Rebecca Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor who studies engagement ring law, said she wasn’t surprised the court rejected the fault standard, saying it doesn’t really fit modern family law.

“I’m a little disappointed that they didn’t give more consideration to the other no-fault option. This means the gift stays with the person who receives it, as is standard with most gifts,” he said. “The court calls an engagement ring a conditional gift, but the engagement ring rule is not the same as the rule that applies to all other types of conditional gifts.”