Cates v. Swain

215 So.3d 492 2013 WL 1831783 (Miss. 2013) fix with cite.

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

Swain (P) and Cates (D) (both female) met through an online dating service and began a relationship while living in different states. During the entirety of her relationship with D, P was married and estranged from her husband. P testified that she remained married so that her husband could remain covered under her medical insurance policy, and so that P could claim a larger housing allowance from the Navy than she would have been entitled to as a single individual. P divorced after her relationship with D had ended. P transferred to Pensacola, Florida, and bought a house there. D provided $2,000 in earnest money toward the purchase of the house, residing there and in New York. P made the monthly mortgage payments and significantly paid down the principal. The two made improvements to the house. In 2003, they moved to Seattle, Washington. D bought a home in Seattle, where the two cohabitated. P sold the Florida home and received $32,000 in equity. P gave D a check for $34,000, representing the equity in the Florida home, plus an extra $2,000 as an investment. D used this money for the down payment on the Washington home, which D purchased for $191,000. D testified that the check was repayment for undocumented loans. P and D made various improvements to the Washington home, and in 2005 the residence sold for $300,000. They moved to Tate County where D bought a home for $350,000, using the equity from the sale of the Washington home. P provided D a check for $5,000 with “closing costs” written in the memo line. She also paid $4,495 to carpet the home. D characterized these expenditures as repayments for undocumented loans to P. P moved out in March 2006. P sued D alleging that they had been cohabitants, that they had been involved in several joint ventures together, and that they had entered into an agreement for P to invest the proceeds from the sale of her Florida home into future purchases of real property in Washington and Mississippi. P requested that the chancery court declare a constructive trust or a resulting trust in the Mississippi home and that D had been unjustly enriched. The chancellor rejected P's claims of a constructive trust or a resulting trust but found P was entitled to recover the equity from her Florida home. The chancellor entered a judgment in the amount of $44,995 in favor of P. The Court of Appeals reversed. It found that “Mississippi does not enforce contracts implied from the relationship of unmarried cohabitants.” Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that the chancellor had lacked the authority to grant the remedy of unjust enrichment. P appealed.