Legal Question in Administrative Law in California

Re: Contract Validity

The requirements for a valid contract are (1) an exchange of consideration; (2) legal subject matter; (3) parties with legal capacity to contract; and (4) a "meeting of the minds," i.e. an offer and acceptance.

All of these simple little phrases have technical meanings. Legal capacity to contract, for example, usually requires the parties to be 18 years of age or older and not feeble-minded nor legall insane. Meeting of the minds means that, as viewed by an objective bystander, the contracting parties had a deal. Legal subject matter means both that the contract wasn't illegal as such, like murder-for-hire, also that the subject matter is something for which the law allows a suit for damages as a matter of policy -- this is the reason, for example, why you can't sue someone for breaking a social engagement like a date.

The requirement of consideration means that each party gives up something in exchange for what he or she is to receive under the contract. Here, the contract seems to be in settlement of a disputed dabt. A judge would find consideration in each side giving up its right to ask for a larger or smaller amount and/or different payment terms.

On the face of it, assuming you're at least 18, the contract is valid and potentially enforceable. The fact that you are to make payments to your ex, and not her mother, doesn't make the contract any less valid, nor would it matter which of them signed it.

Sometimes there are defenses to a facially-valid contract, such as fraud, mistake, undue influence, "failure of consideration," etc., but I don't see any here that would obviously come into play.

If the amount is significant, you might want to show it to a local attorney, but on the facts given it sounds valid and enforceable.

As to the ring, the general rule is that it is a gift; there is no right to demand the return of a completed gift. A gift is completed when the thing is given to the donee and accepted by her.