Gazvoda v. Wright Ind. App. Unpub. Lexis

384 (2007)

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

P and D began living together in August 1988. D had just turned seventeen and was still in high school, and D was twenty-eight and earning $9.00 per hour working at an electric company. Their combined net worth was less than $2,000.00. P obtained his electrician's license and D dropped out of high school when P asked her to accompany him to job sites to learn the electric business so they could start a business of their own in the future. They worked together every day, sometimes for up to twelve hours. Between 1989 and 1993, they built up an electrical business. D neither requested nor received hourly compensation for her work. D also maintained the parties' home and was responsible for the cooking and cleaning. D gave birth to the parties' daughter, J. D ceased most of the work she did for the electrical business and devoted her time to taking care of J. Shortly after J. was born, the parties opened a joint checking account in the name of Bruce and Sabrina Gazvoda. P deposited the business's income into the account, and P paid the bills. P incorporated the electrical services business as Bruce's Electric Services, Inc. P started a limited liability company which included several rental properties that P built. D had significant responsibilities for the rental properties, including managing and maintaining them. They discussed marriage on several occasions. P told D that the businesses and assets belonged to both of them and that marriage was just a piece of paper. D left Bruce. P filed a Declaratory Action for Determination of Interests in Property. D filed a counter-complaint under the theories of implied contract and unjust enrichment. At the time of the action, their combined net worth was over one million dollars. A vocational specialist valued D's services from 1989 to 2003 at $471,628. D sought recovery of $720,336.19 based on an amortization of those figures as well as prejudgment interest. The court held that D made contributions to the family and then some. D worked in the field as an electrician's helper, handled paperwork, served as a receptionist, and provided significant services for the rental properties all without direct compensation and all in lieu of independent work that may have provided her with a separate salary, allowing her to accumulate assets in her name, and allowing her to contribute toward Social Security. The court found that P would be unjustly enriched were he to retain the full value of the assets accumulated through the joint efforts of the parties during the parties' cohabitation. But the court held that the efforts and comments were insufficient to create an expectation of an equal division of property upon any separation of the parties. P contributed more to the businesses than P. The presumption of an equal division of assets that would apply in a dissolution of marriage would not apply under these circumstances. The court awarded D $250,000.00. P appealed.