The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was a widower with seven children to raise, ranging in age from three to eleven. Ds lived nearby with their four children. D, a devoted churchwoman, asked if she could take P's children to church. She later became a babysitter and took care of the P's children, sometimes at home and sometimes at hers, for which she was paid $25.00 per week. In September 1960, Ds and P waited out a hurricane in Ds' home. Ds' house was 600 square feet in all and had no inside plumbing. Ds and P decided to see if the two families could live together. P enlarged the house with a bedroom and bath, along with various improvements. D had another child, and for a time, until the P children began to move out, fifteen people (three adults and twelve children) lived in the house. D ran the household, did the cooking, and saw that the children cleaned, helped with the washing, and did such chores as were required. Both P and Ds were employed. P, on several occasions, obtained employment for Mr. Frambach (D), and their earnings were not substantially different, although P had the larger income. D wrote checks on both accounts and decided in large measure which account would be used to pay a particular bill. Whatever money was available was used wherever it was most needed. Very often, the three shopped together for clothes, furniture, and automobiles. Improvements in the home continued to be made. P’s contributions to these improvements undoubtedly were the most valuable, although everyone assisted. The value of the home appreciated to approximately $65,000. This lasted for nineteen years until the last of the P children were grown and gone. D called P at work and told him to come get his things and get out. He was given thirty minutes to comply. P brought suit to impose an equitable lien on the property. P claimed that the Ds had promised him a place to live for the rest of his life in exchange for his work. P alleged reliance on this promise and that Ds will be unjustly enriched at his expense if he is not compensated for his work. Ds denied that they had made any such promise, claiming that without the improvements, it would have been impossible to house that many people. The court treated the relationship as a family with a divorce and decided to make P a tenant in common. Ds appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.