Brief Fact Summary. A couple, together for twelve years, terminated their relationship. The woman seeks to recover property she helped acquire during their relationship.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Even if parties are not married and did not have a formal agreement as to property rights, property distribution can be obtained through contract and unjust enrichment claims.
If the language of the statute is ambiguous, we examine the scope, history, context, subject matter and object of the statute in order to ascertain the intent of the legislature.View Full Point of Law
Issue. When the relationship of an unmarried couple terminates and one party attempts to retain an unreasonable amount of property acquired through the efforts of both, can a claim of breach of contract and unjust enrichment be successfully brought?
Public policy does not prevent an unmarried cohabitant from asserting a contract claim against the other party in the cohabitation as long as the claim exists independently of the sexual relationship and is supported by separate consideration.
Claims for breach of an express or implied contract do not arise out of an agreement entered into by the parties. Recovery for unjust enrichment is grounded on the moral principal that one who has received a benefit has a duty to make restitution where retaining such a benefit would be unjust. This is often called a quasi contract.
An action for unjust enrichment has three parts: (1) a benefit conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff, (2) appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit, and (3) acceptance of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances making it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit.
Unmarried cohabitants may raise claims based upon unjust enrichment following the termination of their relationships when one of the party’s attempts to retain an unreasonable amount of the property acquired through the efforts of both.
Here, plaintiff alleges her contributions increased the assets of the company and that she was never compensated for her contributions. Defendant accepted her services knowing she expected to share the benefits. This is sufficient to state a claim for recovery based upon just enrichment.
Discussion. Allowing no relief to one party in an unmarried relationship effectively provided total relief to the other, by leaving that party with all the assets that were acquired by the efforts of both. That would be an unfair result, as this court notes.