By request, another poll. Here are the facts:
A woman is engaged to a man. They live together in a small apartment in California. Woman pays 100% of the rent; in lieu of a rent contribution, Man saves for a down payment on a house. At present, the amount of savings is over $10,000. Man also purchased a $13,000 engagement ring for Woman. Man, however, has a drinking problem that causes violent outbursts (property damage and physical attacks on people at bars). Woman consequently breaks off engagement with Man. California law characterizes engagement rings as implied conditional gifts, but attribution of fault for the dissolution of the engagement is not irrelevant. What is the proper distribution of assets in the aftermath of this breakup? (Extra credit for case citations!)
A woman is engaged to a man. They live together in a small apartment in California. Woman pays 100% of the rent; in lieu of a rent contribution, Man saves for a down payment on a house. At present, the amount of savings is over $10,000. Man also purchased a $13,000 engagement ring for Woman. Man, however, has a drinking problem that causes violent outbursts (property damage and physical attacks on people at bars). Woman consequently breaks off engagement with Man. California law characterizes engagement rings as implied conditional gifts, but attribution of fault for the dissolution of the engagement is not irrelevant. What is the proper distribution of assets in the aftermath of this breakup? (Extra credit for case citations!)