Bonina v. Sheppard

78 N.E.3d 128 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Stephen Bonina (P) and Jane A. Sheppard (D) were involved in a long-term nonmarital relationship. P, a contractor, expended significant funds and labor to improve the home in which the couple lived for sixteen years, which was owned by D. P and D met in 1989 and began dating shortly thereafter. Three years later, the parties became interested in purchasing a home that had been vacant for two years. During negotiations with the bank, the parties coauthored a letter declaring their serious interest in the home and explaining that the cost to bring the home to livable condition was $43,500, based on estimations by P and another contractor. In May 1993, D purchased the home for $131,500 in her name only, becoming the sole obligor on the mortgage. The entire home had to be gutted, and the necessary repairs cost much more than anticipated. The parties moved into the home in September 1993. P paid one-half of the mortgage payments, taxes, and living expenses during the cohabitation. He used various places in the home as his office for his contracting business. Between 1993 and 1998, P spent $74,068.94 on improvements and maintenance. From 1999 to 2004, P spent approximately $98,352.02 on improvements. D spent $46,532.99. In 2005, P contributed approximately $17,967.32. From 2006 to 2008, P contributed an additional $3,572.24 for repairs and maintenance. The relationship deteriorated, and P moved out in February 2009. P had contributed $93,744.94 towards the monthly mortgage payments, which represented approximately one-half of the payments due during the sixteen years that he lived in the home. P seeks restitution for his contributions to the home under an unjust enrichment theory. The judge awarded P $156,913.07 in restitution, which represented his costs to purchase the materials and the fixtures to improve the home. D appealed.