{"id":605,"date":"2011-08-19T11:22:33","date_gmt":"2011-08-19T15:22:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=605"},"modified":"2011-08-19T11:23:13","modified_gmt":"2011-08-19T15:23:13","slug":"watts-v-watts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/watts-v-watts\/","title":{"rendered":"Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Case Name: <\/strong>Watts v. Watts<br \/>\n<strong>Plaintiff: <\/strong>\u00a0Sue Ann Evans Watts<strong><br \/>\nDefendant:<\/strong> James Watts<strong><br \/>\nCitation: <\/strong>137 Wis. 2d 506<\/p>\n<p><strong>Key Facts:<\/strong> The parties began living together in a \u201cmarriage-like\u201d relationship, holding themselves out to the public as husband and wife. The plaintiff assumed the defendant\u2019s surname, had two children with the defendant who also assumed his surname. The plaintiff did the home making services and even worked in the defendant\u2019s office. She did not receive any compensation.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff alleges that the defendant 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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Procedural Posture: <\/strong>The circuit court dismissed the amended complaint stating that the statutes authorizing a court to divide property does not apply to unmarried persons. The circuit court did not analyze the four other legal theories.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>First legal theory \u2013 that her relationship with the defendant and their children constitute a family and entitle the plaintiff to bring an action for property division under the Family Code. The court rejected this claim because they believed the legislature specifically meant the legal family.<\/li>\n<li>Second legal theory \u2013 Because of the defendant\u2019s words and conduct, he should be estopped from asserting the lack of a legal marriage as a defense against the plaintiff\u2019s claim for property division under sec. 767. The court concluded that \u201cmarriage by estoppel\u201d should be applied in this cause because the legislature did not intend the family code to govern unmarried cohabitants.<\/li>\n<li>Third legal theory \u2013 The parties had a contract, either express or implied in fact contract, to share equally the property accumulated during their relationship, which the defendant breached.\u00a0 The defendant\u2019s defense was that their relationship was immoral and illegal and that any recognition of a contract between the parties contravenes public policy and weakens the integrity of marriage. The court was not persuaded by the defendant that enforcing an express or implied in fact contract would violate the Wisconsin Family Code.<\/li>\n<li>Fourth legal theory \u2013 Unjust enrichment. She alleges that the defendant accepted and retained the benefit of services she provided knowing that she expected to share equally in the wealth accumulated during their relationship and that it is unfair for the defendant to retain all the assets. She also states that a constructive trust should be imposed on the property as a result of the defendant\u2019s unjust enrichment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>A claim for unjust enrichment does not arise out of an agreement entered into by the parties. Rather, an action for recovery based upon unjust enrichment is grounded on the moral principle that one who has received a benefit has a duty to make restitution where retaining such a benefit would be unjust.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding: <\/strong>\u00a0The court concluded that the plaintiff had pleaded the facts necessary to state a claim for damages. Unmarried cohabitants may raise claims based upon unjust enrichment following the termination of their relationships where one of the parties attempts to retain an unreasonable amount of the property acquired through the efforts of both.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Judgment: <\/strong>The plaintiff\u2019s complaint has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted but that it may rest on contract, unjust enrichment or partition. Reversed for further proceedings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Name: Watts v. Watts Plaintiff: \u00a0Sue Ann Evans Watts Defendant: James Watts Citation: 137 Wis. 2d 506 Key Facts: The parties began living together in a \u201cmarriage-like\u201d relationship, holding themselves out to the public as husband and wife. The plaintiff assumed the defendant\u2019s surname, had two children with the defendant who also assumed his &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/watts-v-watts\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[81,13],"tags":[35,142],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v15.1.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506 -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Case brief for Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506. A claim for unjust enrichment does not arise out of an agreement entered into by the parties. Rather, an action for recovery based upon unjust enrichment is grounded on the moral principle that one who has received a benefit has a duty to make restitution where retaining such a benefit would be unjust.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/watts-v-watts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506 -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case brief for Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506. A claim for unjust enrichment does not arise out of an agreement entered into by the parties. Rather, an action for recovery based upon unjust enrichment is grounded on the moral principle that one who has received a benefit has a duty to make restitution where retaining such a benefit would be unjust.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/watts-v-watts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-19T15:22:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2011-08-19T15:23:13+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/watts-v-watts\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/watts-v-watts\/\",\"name\":\"Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506 -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-19T15:22:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-08-19T15:23:13+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Case brief for Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506. A claim for unjust enrichment does not arise out of an agreement entered into by the parties. Rather, an action for recovery based upon unjust enrichment is grounded on the moral principle that one who has received a benefit has a duty to make restitution where retaining such a benefit would be unjust.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/watts-v-watts\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/605"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=605"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/605\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":608,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/605\/revisions\/608"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}