- The two were never married though Carroll did at times use the name Lee. They split up in 1982. - Prior to the relationship neither party owned much property and no land
- Over the course of their relationship they jointly acquired three parcels of real property that were titled to them in three different ways - When together, Paul supplied all the money and Carroll was in the home - Carroll filed for a one half interest in the jointly titled property - Paul proved that the money used to acquire all this property was made from his repair shop that was his alone so, because the two were not married Carroll must prove that an agreement existed between the two of them that they would be co-owners - Trial Court ruled in favor of Carroll, finding an implied contract that they would be co- owners, Paul appealed and won a reversal, Carroll petitioned the Supreme Court of Arizona to review the case. Opinion (Gordon, Vice Chief Justice, Arizona Supreme Court): - In Cook v. Cook this court approved an agreement between unmarried cohabitants to pool assets - Court of appeals in this case did not recognize the Cooks decision bc in that case both were contributing monetarily and in this case only Paul Lee was making money - Carroll does not have to prove that her labor produced money used to buy the property because they had an implied partnership/joint enterprise based on the facts presented - Testimony from trial court revealed Paul wanted Carroll to be at home (not working) and he intended for her to be a co-owner - Thus, Carroll has right to seek her portion of the property. Decision reversed. DESKOVICK ET AL. v. PORZIO (1963) Facts: - Plaintiffs are brothers: Michael and Peter. Their father, Peter Sr., was hospitalized in 1958 until his death in 1959. - Michael paid the medical bills bc he was under the impression that his father was unable to pay bc his father had apparently genuinely expressed fears in not being able to pay. - After his death, it became clear Peter Sr.’s estate could have paid the bills. The plaintiffs then brought this action against their father’s executor, Porzio. - Plaintiffs felt there was an implied contract between them and their father - There was conflicting evidence as to whether Michael planned to be repaid by his father but the trial court found there was not and thus no implied contract existed. Trial court ruled in favor of Porzio - During the appeal the plaintiffs made their first claim that quasi-contractual liability existed. As a rule, parties cannot raise new issues on appeal, though this was permitted in this case. Opinion (Conford, Justice, Superior Court of New Jersey): - Plaintiff’s intent to be repaid is immaterial because Peter Sr. did not have the mutual understanding with Michael that he would be paid back.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 12 pages?
- Spring '08