WATTS V. WATTS
448 N.W.2d 292 (1989)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Defendant (M), ex-boyfriend, sought review of an order which granted
a new trial on the issues of implied-in-fact contract and unjust enrichment in Plaintiff
(W), ex-girlfriend's, action to recover a share of the wealth accumulated by the M during
the period of their cohabitation.
FACTS: Sue Ann Watts (P) and James E. Watts (D) lived together from May, 1969, to
December, 1981, and represented themselves as being married to one another, though they were
not. They purchased property together, and filed tax returns as husband and wife. P and the
two children of their relationship assumed the Watts surname with Watts' consent. P also
helped D in his landscaping business, and maintained their cohabitational household. Three
months after the relationship ended, P sued D seeking a share of the wealth accumulated by D
during their twelve years of cohabitation. In 1987, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that P
could maintain an action against D under the following legal theories: express contract,
implied-in-fact contract, unjust enrichment (implied-in-law contract or quasi-contract), and
partition. The jury found that there was an implied contract between D and P to share an
increase of wealth, but awarded her 'zero' damages. On the second issue, the jury found that
D was unjustly enriched by P, and awarded her $113,090.08. Eventually the trial court
granted a new trial on both the implied-in-fact contract issue and on unjust enrichment. A
whole slew of appeals resulted.
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.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment