Lexplug logoLexplug

Watts v. Watts

Wisconsin Supreme Court
1987 Wisc. LEXIS 656, 405 N.W.2d 305, 137 Wis. 2d 506 (1987)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An unmarried cohabitant may recover a share of property accumulated during the relationship by bringing a claim based on contract, unjust enrichment, or partition, as public policy does not preclude such claims so long as they are independent of the sexual relationship.


Facts:

  • In 1967, Sue Ann Watts and James Watts began a relationship.
  • Shortly after, James Watts persuaded Sue Ann Watts to quit her job as a nurse's aide and move into an apartment he paid for, indicating he would provide for her.
  • Beginning in 1969, the parties lived together for 12 years in a 'marriage-like' relationship, having two children and holding themselves out to the public as husband and wife.
  • During the relationship, they filed joint income tax returns, maintained joint bank accounts, and purchased property as if married. James Watts also listed Sue Ann Watts as his wife on his medical and life insurance policies.
  • Sue Ann Watts provided childcare and homemaking services, contributed her personal property, and worked without compensation in James Watts's landscaping business.
  • She also started and managed another business with James Watts's sister-in-law, which she later ran herself.
  • In 1981, the relationship ended, and James Watts barred Sue Ann Watts from her business.
  • James Watts refused to share any of the business and personal wealth that was accumulated during their 12-year relationship through their joint efforts.

Procedural Posture:

  • Sue Ann Watts (plaintiff) filed an amended complaint against James Watts (defendant) in the Circuit Court for Dane County, a trial court of first instance.
  • The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
  • The circuit court granted the defendant's motion and entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.
  • The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
  • The court of appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, the state's highest court, which took jurisdiction.

Locked

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 an unmarried cohabitant state a claim upon which relief can be granted for a share of property accumulated during a long-term, nonmarital relationship by pleading causes of action in contract, unjust enrichment, and partition?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Abrahamson

Yes, an unmarried cohabitant can state a claim for a share of accumulated property under theories of contract, unjust enrichment, and partition. While the state's family law statutes governing property division in a divorce do not apply to unmarried couples, courts are not precluded from resolving property disputes between them using traditional common law principles. A contract claim is viable if the agreement to share property is supported by consideration independent of the parties' sexual relationship, such as homemaking, childcare, or business services. An unjust enrichment claim is appropriate where one party conferred a benefit on the other with the expectation of sharing in the accumulated wealth, and it would be inequitable for the other party to retain that benefit. Finally, statutory and common law partition is available to divide property held jointly or in common by unmarried individuals.



Analysis:

This case marked a significant departure from the traditional refusal of courts to adjudicate property disputes between unmarried cohabitants, a rule often based on the view that such relationships were 'meretricious.' The Watts decision established that while nonmarital relationships do not gain the status of marriage, the parties involved are not left without legal recourse. By allowing claims based on traditional contract, equity, and property law, the court provided a framework for achieving a fair division of assets without creating a judicial equivalent of 'common law marriage.' This ruling has been influential nationwide, reflecting a legal adaptation to changing social norms regarding cohabitation and ensuring that one party cannot be unjustly enriched at the expense of the other upon the dissolution of a long-term relationship.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Watts v. Watts (1987) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Watts v. Watts