Unjust enrichment by a former cohabitant is founded on the premise of a mutual undertaking or joint enterprise which results in an accumulation of assets in which the parties expected to share equally but which are unfairly retained by one party.
Trial court had no authority to order a financial judgment for cohabitating parties where the only action pled and litigated was whether one party had any interest. The court’s only authority was to partition the property. (Not published, but citable)
Trial court had no authority to order a financial judgment for cohabitating parties where the only action pled and litigated was whether one party had any interest. The court’s only authority was to partition the property. (Not published, but citable)
Trial court erred by applying unjust enrichment claim to each parcel of land rather than considering the overall scope of the joint enterprise.
Court can consider premarital cohabitation as a factor in maintenance under §767.26(9) Wis. Stats.
Premarital relationship should have been excluded from consideration in maintenance decision. Review granted.
Unjust enrichment award reversed where parties never held themselves out as husband and wife, maintained separate accounts and filed separate taxes.
Performing household services does not give rise to claim of unjust enrichment under Watts. Services must be linked to an accumulation of wealth or assets during the relationship.
Premarital contributions as unmarried cohabitator is not a relevant factor on wife’s maintenance claim.
Maintenance termination on cohabitation affirmed where boyfriend provided financial assistance.
Nonmarital cohabitation does not render every agreement between the cohabiting parties illegal and does not automatically preclude one of the parties from seeking judicial relief.
A party to a nonmarital cohabitation is not precluded from bringing a claim for restitution, on the theory of unjust enrichment.
Maintenance termination on cohabitation affirmed where boyfriend provided financial assistance.
Cohabitation may be change of circumstances warranting modification of maintenance.
Cohabitation can be change in circumstances to stop maintenance.
Settlement agreement the unequivocally provides for the termination of alimony on cohabitation is enforceable. Trial court properly found cohabitation even though the man maintained a separate residence.
Where premarital cohabitation results in marriage, the “economic partnership” begins during the period of premarital cohabitation.
Cohabitation refers to person of opposite sex – not to homosexual relationship.
Evidence was insufficient to establish that former wife was engaged in “cohabitation” with a male within meaning of marital settlement agreement, as required for modification of alimony where male paid rent and there was no intimate relationship.