 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Watts v. Watts: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
m (DeRien moved page Watts v. Watts (1987) to Watts v. Watts: shorten for both 1987 & 1989) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court=Wisconsin Supreme Court | |court=Wisconsin Supreme Court | ||
|citation=405 N.W.2d 305 | |citation=405 N.W.2d 305 (1987), 152 Wis.2d 370, 448 N.W.2d 292 (1989) | ||
|date= | |date=September 26, 1989 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|other_subjects=Family Law*Property | |other_subjects=Family Law*Property | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
What are the property rights of un-married co-habitants? | What are the property rights of un-married co-habitants? | ||
|holding=An un-married cohabitant may bring claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, & partition of property to seek a share of property accumulated during the relationship. | |holding=* An un-married cohabitant may bring claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, & [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/partition partition] of property to seek a share of property accumulated during the relationship. | ||
* Decided May 11, 1987 | |||
* Decided September 26, 1989 | |||
|judgment=Reversed | |judgment=Reversed | ||
|reasons=* A contract may be implied by the parties' conduct. A legal marriage isn't always necessary. | |reasons=* A contract may be implied by the parties' conduct. A legal marriage isn't always necessary. | ||
* A woman's childbearing or domestic services is sufficient consideration to form an enforceable contract. | * A woman's childbearing or domestic services is sufficient consideration to form an enforceable contract. | ||
|comments=At least 1 state has ruled against an un-married co-habitant. | |comments=At least 1 U.S. state has ruled against an un-married co-habitant. | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/1987/85-0451-9.html | |link=https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/1987/85-0451-9.html | ||
|source_type=1987 text | |||
|case_text_source=Justia | |case_text_source=Justia | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/court-of-appeals/1989/88-2221-6.html#:~:text | |||
|source_type=1989 text | |||
|case_text_source=Justia | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/watts-bischoff-v-watts | |||
|case_text_source=CaseText | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/watts-v-watts | |||
|source_type=Video summary | |||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | |||
|case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video | |||
|service=YouTube | |||
|id=OTHGO16Fex0 | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video | |||
|service=YouTube | |||
|id=qrfEq9ugWvE | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:49, January 31, 2024
| Watts v. Watts | |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 405 N.W.2d 305 (1987), 152 Wis.2d 370, 448 N.W.2d 292 (1989) |
| Date decided | September 26, 1989 |
Facts
- In the early 1970s, Ms. Evans met Mr. Watts when she was 19 years old.
- She started co-habiting with her lover based on his assurance that he would provide for her.
- She abandoned her career plans.
- The un-married couple lived together.
- They begot 2 children & raised them over the next 12 years.
- She took the last name of Watts.
- They became common-law spouses.
- The couple identified as spouses on their joint bank accounts, tax returns, home loans, and insurance policies.
- Initially, the mother took a part-time position at the company of Watts.
- Later, she started her own company.
- The couple separated in 1981.
- The wife moved out.
- The husband refused to give her any of the couple's property.
Procedural History
- The wife took the husband to court.
- The wife sought a division of assets.
- The woman lost in the trial court for failure to state a claim.
Issues
Can someone in a non-marital, co-habiting relationship claim a share of property accumulated during their romantic relationship?
What are the property rights of un-married co-habitants?Holding
- An un-married cohabitant may bring claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, & partition of property to seek a share of property accumulated during the relationship.
- Decided May 11, 1987
- Decided September 26, 1989
Judgment
Reversed
Reasons
- A contract may be implied by the parties' conduct. A legal marriage isn't always necessary.
- A woman's childbearing or domestic services is sufficient consideration to form an enforceable contract.
Comments
At least 1 U.S. state has ruled against an un-married co-habitant.
Resources
