Watts v. Watts
Citation: 137 Wis. 2d 506 (1987)
Facts
A couple lived together for 12 years in a marital-like relationship without marrying. The woman contributed to the man’s business and household and bore two children. After they separated, she sought compensation for her contributions based on contract, quasi-contract, and unjust enrichment theories.
Issue
Can an unmarried cohabitant seek legal and equitable remedies (contract, unjust enrichment) arising from the relationship?
Holding
Yes. The unmarried cohabitant may pursue claims based on express or implied contract, as well as unjust enrichment, arising from the relationship. Public policy does not bar such claims as long as they are not based solely on the sexual aspect of the relationship.
Rule
Cohabitation claims: An unmarried cohabitant may bring claims for: (1) express contract, if the parties had an agreement; (2) implied contract, based on the parties’ conduct; and (3) unjust enrichment, if one party has been unjustly enriched by the other’s contributions. Courts will not enforce an agreement based solely on sexual services (which would be akin to prostitution), but will enforce agreements covering property, financial contributions, and services separate from the sexual relationship.
Significance
- Wisconsin’s leading case on cohabitation property claims (equivalent to California’s Marvin v. Marvin (1976))
- Shows that courts increasingly recognize the unfairness of denying legal remedies to non-marital partners who made substantial economic contributions
- Unjust enrichment theory allows recovery without proving a formal contract
- The court rejected the argument that public policy against non-marital cohabitation bars all claims — the policy concern is with agreements that promote prostitution, not with property claims arising from the relationship