A wealthy fiancee has learned she will finally get back the $70,000 Tiffany engagement ring she gave her partner after a seven-year court battle.

Bruce Johnson, 67, filed a lawsuit against 59-year-old teacher Caroline Settino after finding obscene messages sent to another man on her phone.

A Massachusetts court initially ruled in favor of Settino, finding that Johnson ‘mistakenly thought he was cheating on her.’

But in September, the case went to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled on Friday that Johnson should keep the ring.

Bruce Johnson, 67, and Caroline Settino, 59, called off their short-lived engagement in November 2017 after she accused him of cheating on her. Now, seven years later, the couple has made a decision about who will keep the $70,000 Tiffany ring and two additional bands.

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

The two first met in 2016, and over the next year Johnson spoiled her with expensive gifts as well as luxury holidays to New York, the Virgin Islands and Italy.

In November 2017, he gave her his $70,000 Tiffany diamond engagement ring, as well as two sparkling wedding rings for $3,700.

After that, Johnson said he felt Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive, often berating him and not accompanying him through his prostate cancer treatments.

Johnson recalled looking at his phone and finding the following message: ‘My Bruce will be in Connecticut for three days. ‘I need some playtime.’

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.

The decision on November 8 bucked the decades-old trend that an engagement ring was often understood as a conditional gift, establishing that the person who gave the priceless piece could take it back after a failed engagement; fault.’ Image: Justices consider bitter case at Massachusetts Supreme Court

Although Settino claimed the man was just a friend, Johnson still ended the engagement but still retained ownership of the ring.

The initial ruling came after the trial judge ruled in Settino’s favor, claiming he should have kept the flashy diamond-encrusted ring.

Johnson later appealed the decision, taking the case to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the highest jurisdiction in the state.

Judges overseeing the case said the dispute raised 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.

The decision on November 8 bucked the decades-old trend that an engagement ring was often understood as a conditional gift, establishing that the person who gave the priceless piece could take it back after a failed engagement; fault.’

‘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 judges wrote in their final 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 lawyer, Stephanie Taverna Siden, praised the decision: ‘We are very pleased with the court’s decision today. ‘This is a well-reasoned, fair and just decision and moves Massachusetts law in the right direction.’

DailyMail.com has reached out to both Settino and Johnson for comment.