Watts v. Watts

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1987 · Contracts

ContractsPropertyunmarried cohabitantsimplied contractunjust enrichmentpublic policynonmarital cohabitationexpress contract

Facts

The plaintiff and defendant lived together for about 12 years in a marriage-like relationship, held themselves out as husband and wife, had two children, filed joint tax returns, maintained joint bank accounts, and purchased real and personal property together. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff quit her job at the defendant's urging, provided extensive homemaking, childcare, and business services, contributed personal property, and received no compensation. She further alleged that the defendant indicated orally and through conduct that she would share equally in the wealth accumulated during the relationship. After the relationship ended, the defendant refused to share the accumulated property or compensate her for her contributions.

Issue

Whether an unmarried cohabitant may state a claim for relief concerning property accumulated during a nonmarital cohabitation relationship. More specifically, the court considered whether the plaintiff could proceed under statutory property division, marriage by estoppel, contract, unjust enrichment with constructive trust, or partition theories.

Rule

Wisconsin's Family Code and sec. 767.255 do not authorize property division between unmarried cohabitants, and marriage by estoppel does not bring such parties within that statute. But nonmarital cohabitation does not make every agreement between cohabitants illegal, and an unmarried cohabitant may assert claims for breach of express or implied-in-fact contract, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and statutory or common-law partition where the claim is independent of the sexual relationship, supported by separate consideration or inequitable retention of benefits, and adequately pleaded.

🔒

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.

Lena Ortiz and Caleb Morrow lived together in Madison, Wisconsin, for nine years, raised one child, filed joint tax returns, and bought a house titled only in Caleb's name. After they separated, Lena sued seeking a court-ordered division of all property under Wisconsin's divorce property-division statute, arguing that they functioned as a family even though they never married.

How should the court rule on Lena's statutory property-division claim?

Explanation. The majority held that Wisconsin's property-division statute in ch. 767 does not extend to unmarried cohabitants. The Family Code emphasizes marriage, and the listed statutory factors plainly contemplate parties who are or have been married. A court may not use the statute simply because the couple resembled a family unit.