The Analysis Of The Case Of Pre-marital Gift

In recent years, with people’s material wealth getting more and more rich, the quality of life has become increasingly higher, which leading many young couples to get married and buy a house together. Although the contribution is different, the property right belongs to the couples, but for various reasons, these couples did not eventually get married, which results series on pre-marital property for legal issues and disputes. This case is a typical case that the actual funding party asks not funded one return the property when lovers did not get married but the house funded by one parent by the total property. There are two controversies in this case:First, whether the plaintiffs gift of property is conditional gift; second, whether the defendant conducts for refusing to return the gift of property constitutes unjust enrichment. How to define pre-marital gift of property is crucial. Currently there are four theories of the more common view which are the voluntary gift, gift for purpose, conditional gift, and unjust enrichment. In this case, the behavior that plaintiff wrote the defendant’s name on the real estate license belongs to pre-marital property gift, but not conditional gift. According to the four factors of unjust enrichment, the defendant in this case actually achieve profit form the plaintiff’s gift, but not plaintiff give the house for getting marriage. When such expectations cannot be achieved, the defendant obtained the property without legal basis. It constitutes unjust enrichment; the defendant should return the property. In addition, there is a big rift on the problem of who should bear the cost of decoration of the house, although both the plaintiff and the defendant have offered beneficial evidence of each, but which can not fully prove their claim. The Court finds both of them owned the property right according to the principle of equity is not appropriate. The court should find the cost of buying the house and decoration belong to plaintiff’s mother and determinate the fact that the defendant has no contribution to the house according to proof standard, which can better protect the plaintiffs rights.