Cates v. Swain

Mississippi Court of Appeals · Family Law

Family LawUnjust EnrichmentConstructive TrustResulting TrustUnmarried Cohabitantsunmarried cohabitantssame-sex cohabitantsunjust enrichment

Facts

Cates and Swain were in an intimate cohabiting relationship for more than five years and lived together in Florida, Washington, and Mississippi. During that time, they made various financial contributions to homes and other assets, but they intentionally titled the homes individually, never formalized loans, and made no express agreement giving Swain an interest in property titled only in Cates's name or requiring repayment of contributions. Swain contributed money connected to the Washington and Mississippi homes, including funds from the sale of her Florida home, $5,000 for Mississippi closing costs, and $4,449 for carpeting. After the relationship ended, Swain sued seeking a constructive or resulting trust in the Mississippi home and reimbursement for her contributions.

Issue

May an unmarried cohabitant recover under unjust enrichment for financial contributions made during the relationship when there was no express agreement for repayment or ownership? Also, did the evidence clearly and convincingly establish a constructive or resulting trust in Cates's favor-held property?

Rule

Under Mississippi law, courts may not extend implied contractual remedies, including unjust enrichment, to unmarried cohabitants based on cohabitation alone; absent an express agreement, financial contributions made during such cohabitation are treated as gratuitous. A constructive trust requires clear and convincing proof that property was obtained or held through fraud, abuse of confidence, or other unconscionable conduct, and a resulting trust requires clear and convincing proof that title was taken in one person for the benefit of another who actually furnished the purchase money.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Jordan Pike and Elena Ruiz lived together for four years in Biloxi, Mississippi. During the relationship, Jordan paid $18,000 to remodel Elena's house, which was titled only in Elena's name, and the couple never made any oral or written promise that Jordan would be repaid or receive an ownership interest.

After the relationship ends, Jordan sues Elena in Mississippi for unjust enrichment to recover the remodeling money. What is the most likely result?

Explanation. The majority held that unjust enrichment is a quasi-contract or implied-in-law contract remedy. Mississippi courts may not extend such implied contractual remedies to unmarried cohabitants based solely on cohabitation absent an express agreement for remuneration or ownership. So Jordan's contributions are treated as gratuitous, and his unjust-enrichment claim fails. (Derived from Cates v. Swain (n.d.).)