WATTS V. WATTS
405 N.W.2d 303 (Wis. 1987)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Sue Ann Watts (P), female cohabitant, sought review of a judgment that dismissed her action against James Watts (D), male cohabitant, for failure to state a claim. P asserted various theories to support her alleged entitlement to an accounting and a share of D's accumulated personal and business assets.
FACTS: P and D met in 1967, when she was 19 years old, was living with her parents and was working full time as a nurse's aide in preparation for a nursing career. D persuaded P to move into an apartment paid for by him and to quit her job. D 'indicated' to P that he would provide for her. The parties began living together in a 'marriage-like' relationship, holding themselves out to the public as husband and wife. P assumed D's surname as her own. P gave birth to two children who were also given D's surname. They filed joint income tax returns and maintained joint bank accounts asserting that they were husband and wife. D insured P as his wife on his medical insurance policy. He also took out a life insurance policy on her as his wife, naming himself as the beneficiary. They purchased real and personal property as husband and wife. P executed documents and obligated herself on promissory notes to lending institutions as D's wife. P contributed childcare and homemaking services, including cleaning, cooking, laundering, shopping, running errands, and maintaining the grounds surrounding the parties' home. P contributed personal property to the relationship which she owned at the beginning of the relationship or acquired through gifts or purchases during the relationship. P served as hostess for D for social and business-related events. P cooked and cleaned for D and his employees while his business, a landscaping service, was building and landscaping a golf course. From 1973 to 1976, P worked 20-25 hours per week at D's office, performing duties as a receptionist, typist, and assistant book-keeper. From 1976 to 1981, P worked 40-60 hours per week at a business she started with D's sister-in-law, then continued and managed herself after the dissolution of that partnership. In 1981 P claims D made their relationship so intolerable that she was forced to move from their home and their relationship was irretrievably broken. D barred P from returning to her business. P alleges that the business and personal wealth of the couple increased. due in part to her contributions. P alleges that she never received any compensation for these contributions to the relationship and that D indicated to the plaintiff both orally and through his conduct that he considered her to be his wife and that she would share equally in the increased wealth. Since the breakdown of the relationship D has refused to share equally with her the wealth accumulated through their joint efforts or to compensate her in any way for her contributions to the relationship. P sued under family and contract law and the case was dismissed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment