Watts v. Watts

448 N.W.2d 292 (1989)

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

Sue Ann Watts (P) and James E. Watts (D) lived together from May 1969 to December 1981, and represented themselves as being married to one another, though they were not. They purchased property together and filed tax returns as husband and wife. P and the two children of their relationship assumed the Watts surname with Watts' consent. P also helped D in his landscaping business and maintained their cohabitational household. Three months after the relationship ended, P sued D seeking a share of the wealth accumulated by D during their twelve years of cohabitation. In 1987, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that P could maintain an action against D under the following legal theories: express contract, implied-in-fact contract, unjust enrichment (implied-in-law contract or quasi-contract), and partition. The jury found that there was an implied contract between D and P to share an increase of wealth, but awarded her 'zero' damages. On the second issue, the jury found that D was unjustly enriched by P, and awarded her $113,090.08. Eventually, the trial court granted a new trial on both the implied-in-fact contract issue and on unjust enrichment. A whole slew of appeals resulted.