The term "gold digger"—referring to a woman or man who pursues a romantic relationship primarily for its material benefits, entering into a quid pro quo, more-or-less equal exchange of relationship for money or gifts—is prevalent in pop culture and media. It is the name of a hit 2005 song recorded by rapper Kanye West. The internet offers material including advice on how to become a gold digger; advice on to how to avoid one; and rosters of famous gold diggers. The gold digger is also a prominent archetype in literary fiction.
One question raised by the extensive literature on the phenomenon is if and when an alleged gold digger will be able to keep all of the money and/or gifts that she or he has acquired during the course of a relationship after the relationship ends.
Common law recognizes a remedy called "unjust enrichment." Under this law, a person is "enriched" if he or she has received a "benefit," and he or she is "unjustly enriched" if the "retention of the benefit would be unjust." (Restatement (First) of Restitution § 1 cmt. a (1937)) Usually the "measure of restitution is the amount of enrichment received," except for in special cases, and only if the "loss suffered" by the donor "differs from the amount of benefit received."
Courts have found the possibility of unjust enrichment in cases where the apparent gold digger was already married to another man and committing adultery with the donor (Witkowski v. Blaskiewicz, 615 N.Y.S.2d 640, 642 (Civ. Ct. 1994)); where the gold digging spouse wrongfully terminated a relationship (Restatement (First) of Restitution § 58 cmt. c (1937)); or where the individual was intentionally "fanning [the] hope" of marriage while being "showered" with gifts (Sharp v. Kosmalski, 351 N.E.2d 721 (1976)). In this latter case, the Court explained:
Plaintiff came to depend upon defendant's companionship and, eventually, declared his love for her, proposing marriage to her. Notwithstanding her refusal of his proposal of marriage, defendant continued her association with plaintiff and permitted him to shower her with many gifts, fanning his hope that he could induce defendant to alter her decision concerning his marriage proposal. Defendant was given access to plaintiff's bank account, from which it is not denied that she withdrew substantial amounts of money. . . . This case seems to present the classic example of a situation where equity should intervene to scrutinize a transaction pregnant with opportunity for abuse and unfairness. It was for just this type of case that there evolved equitable principles and remedies to prevent injustices. Equity still lives.
Some states have statutes mirroring the common law concept of unjust enrichment. For example, in California:
Where either party to a contemplated marriage in this State makes a gift of money or property to the other on the basis or assumption that the marriage will take place, in the event that the donee refuses to enter into the marriage as contemplated or that it is given up by mutual consent, the donor may recover such gift or such part of its value as may, under all of the circumstances of the case, be found by a court or jury to be just. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1590 (West))
On the other hand, one may argue that if an alleged gold digger and his or her significant other were both consenting adults, aware of the dynamics of the relationship and entering into it with full awareness, then the presumed gold digger may be entitled to keep the money or gifts. After all, the individual's partner presumably received utility or benefits from the relationship, as well, even if they were not material or tangible. However, in cases where there is manifest injustice, the legal theory of unjust enrichment may mitigate unfairness caused by gold digging. As the Court in Sharp stated succinctly: "Equity still lives."
