Mitchell v. Moore

729 A.2d 1200 (1999)

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, two men, met and quickly developed a romantic relationship. P accepted D's invitation to spend his 'off season' D's Chester County farm. By 1985, P had permanently resided at D's farm without paying rent, worked a full-time job with a company located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and assisted D in maintaining his house and farm. Among other things, P took care of the farm animals, which included aiding in the breeding of sheep and birds. In 1990, P enrolled at Penn State University for graduate studies. As a result of his academic schedule, he was unable to run the sheep and bird businesses or maintain the farm. Soon thereafter, the parties' relationship soured; P moved out of D's residence in June of 1994. P sued D sounding in fraud, quantum meruit, and implied contract. P sought compensation, in the form of restitution, for the services he rendered to D throughout the thirteen years the two men lived together on the farm. P alleged that D had: promised him compensation for his services rendered to maintain and operate his farm; agreed to compensate him for his help in running an antique cooperative (co-op) that D had purchased; promised him future compensation and the devise of property in a will and codicil; and failed to compensate him for monetary contributions he had made towards D's purchase of real estate on Amelia Island, Florida. D filed a demurrer. The court struck P's claim of fraud for lack of specificity, see Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b), but granting P leave to file an amended complaint. P filed an amended complaint, now including only counts for quantum meruit/unjust enrichment and implied contract. D filed a counterclaim seeking $139,300.00 representing reasonable rent for the 139 months P lived on his farm rent-free and as compensation for various utility and telephone bills, taxes, car payments, and other miscellaneous expenses paid by D on P's behalf. P got the verdict on unjust enrichment and against D on the counterclaim. This appeal resulted.