Waage v. Borer
188 Wis. 2d 324, 525 N.W.2d 96, 1994 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1248 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unjust enrichment claim by one unmarried cohabitant against another following the termination of their relationship requires evidence that assets were accumulated through the joint efforts of both parties. Providing uncompensated domestic services, without a direct link to the accumulation of jointly-held assets, is insufficient to support such a claim.
Facts:
- In 1981, Dale E. Bower and Donald Waage began living together in a nonmarital relationship that lasted approximately eight years.
- During their cohabitation, Waage paid for rent and utilities, while Bower performed domestic services such as cleaning, cooking, laundry, and entertaining guests.
- The parties kept their finances and property entirely separate throughout their relationship.
- Bower believed they would eventually marry, and at one point, Waage purchased an engagement ring and wedding band, though they never became formally engaged.
- In 1989, Bower moved to Racine for a new job, and the relationship ended about two years later.
- Bower took the rings with her when she broke off the relationship.
- No evidence was presented to show that any assets or wealth were accumulated through the joint efforts of both parties during their time together.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Waage sued Dale E. Bower in a state trial court for conversion of engagement rings.
- Bower filed a counterclaim against Waage for unjust enrichment, seeking compensation for domestic services she provided.
- The trial court dismissed Bower's contract-based claims but allowed the unjust enrichment claim to proceed to a jury.
- The jury found in favor of Bower on her unjust enrichment claim and awarded her $25,000 in damages.
- The jury found in favor of Waage on his conversion claim, requiring Bower to return the rings.
- Waage, as the appellant, appealed the $25,000 judgment on the unjust enrichment claim to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
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 providing uncompensated domestic services, without evidence of jointly accumulated assets acquired through the parties' joint efforts, satisfy the legal standard for an unjust enrichment claim between unmarried cohabitants?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No. Providing uncompensated domestic services alone does not meet the legal standard for an unjust enrichment claim between unmarried cohabitants unless those services are linked to a joint accumulation of assets. The controlling precedent, Watts v. Watts, established a three-part test for such claims: 1) an accumulation of assets, 2) acquired through the joint efforts of both parties, and 3) retained by one party in an unreasonable amount. Bower failed to provide any evidence of the first element, an accumulation of assets. While Waage undoubtedly benefited from Bower's housekeeping, this is not the type of benefit contemplated by Watts, which requires that the claimant's efforts contribute to the acquisition of property. To allow recovery for domestic services based on an unfulfilled hope of marriage would functionally recreate the abolished cause of action for breach of promise to marry. The court found that Bower's claim was based on uncompensated services provided in expectation of marriage, not on her contributions to jointly acquired wealth, and therefore must fail.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the unjust enrichment doctrine for unmarried cohabitants established in Watts v. Watts. It establishes that a claimant cannot simply seek compensation for the value of their domestic labor or for personal sacrifices made during the relationship. Instead, the claimant must demonstrate a direct causal link between their efforts and the creation of a tangible, jointly-accumulated asset pool. This ruling makes it more difficult for cohabitants to succeed on unjust enrichment claims, reinforcing that cohabitation does not automatically create marital-like property rights and placing a higher evidentiary burden on the party seeking recovery.
Unlock the full brief for Waage v. Borer