Mitchell v. Moore
729 A.2d 1200 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Services rendered between unmarried cohabitants in a close, personal, and family-like relationship are presumed to be gratuitous. To recover for such services under a theory of unjust enrichment, this presumption must be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of an expectation of payment.
Facts:
- In 1980, Thomas Mitchell and William Moore met and began a romantic relationship.
- Beginning in 1981, Mitchell started spending his off-seasons at Moore's farm in Pennsylvania, and by 1985, he had moved in permanently, living rent-free.
- While living with Moore, Mitchell worked a full-time job but also assisted Moore with maintaining the house and farm, which included caring for farm animals and helping with breeding businesses.
- Throughout their cohabitation, Moore paid many of Mitchell's personal expenses, including car payments, credit card bills, and phone bills.
- Mitchell celebrated holidays with Moore's immediate family and was treated as a member of the family.
- In 1990, Mitchell enrolled in graduate school, which reduced his ability to perform work on the farm.
- The parties' relationship deteriorated, and Mitchell moved out of Moore's residence in June of 1994.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Mitchell filed a lawsuit against William Moore in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County.
- Mitchell's initial complaint included claims of fraud, quantum meruit, and implied contract; the trial court struck the fraud claim.
- Mitchell filed an amended complaint alleging quantum meruit/unjust enrichment and implied contract.
- Moore filed a counterclaim seeking reimbursement for rent and other expenses paid on Mitchell's behalf.
- Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of $130,000 in favor of Mitchell on his unjust enrichment claim and found against Moore on his counterclaim.
- Moore filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (J.N.O.V.), which the trial court denied.
- Moore, as the appellant, appealed the denial of his post-trial motions to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of unjust enrichment permit recovery for services rendered by one partner to another within the context of a long-term, romantic, cohabiting relationship, where significant mutual benefits were exchanged?
Opinions:
Majority - Cirillo, President Judge Emeritus
No. Recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not permitted for services rendered between unmarried cohabitants where the nature of their close, personal relationship gives rise to a presumption that such services were gratuitous, and that presumption is not overcome by clear evidence to the contrary. The court reasoned that to prove unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must show that it would be unconscionable for the defendant to retain the benefit of the plaintiff's services without payment. However, in relationships that are family-like, even if not by blood, there is a presumption that services are performed gratuitously out of affection and mutual dependence, not with an expectation of payment. Here, Mitchell received substantial benefits, such as rent-free living and payment of his bills, which served as compensation and rebutted the claim that Moore was 'unjustly' enriched. Furthermore, Mitchell's own testimony and a letter he wrote stating his work was a 'gift to our relationship' confirmed the gratuitous nature of his services, meaning the law will not imply a contract where the parties' actions suggest none was intended.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional judicial reluctance to treat unmarried, cohabiting relationships as commercial arrangements. It establishes a significant legal hurdle for individuals seeking compensation for services rendered during such a relationship, creating a strong presumption of gratuitousness that is difficult to rebut. The ruling solidifies the principle that, absent a clear agreement or express contract, courts in Pennsylvania will not imply a contract for payment for domestic or other services between romantic partners. This impacts future 'palimony'-style claims by requiring plaintiffs to present compelling evidence that their relationship was, at least in part, a business venture with a clear expectation of compensation, rather than one based on mutual support and affection.
Unlock the full brief for Mitchell v. Moore