Opinion
No. CV 02 039 81 67
March 21, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The present action arises out of a non-marital co-habitating arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant. During the 1990s the plaintiff and the defendant began dating. The plaintiff then moved out of her condo in Shelton, Connecticut and began co-habitating with the defendant in his condo in Branford, Connecticut. The parties initially shared expenses but thereafter the defendant made the primary payments for the Branford condo so that the plaintiff could save money to utilize for the down payment for the purchase of a house. The parties then purchased a home in Cheshire, Connecticut and the title and mortgage were taken in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant's name was subsequently placed on the title but not the mortgage. The primary down payment made was contributed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff then experienced medical problems and became unemployed. The defendant then paid primarily all the expenses related to the home. While in Cheshire the plaintiff became involved in legal difficulties resulting from the accidental discharging of a firearm. The plaintiff paid approximately $16,500 for attorneys fees and a bond. In March of 2000 the parties sold the Cheshire home, and the net proceeds, by agreement were divided equally. The Court finds that whatever financial arrangements may have existed or not existed between the parties were resolved by sharing the proceeds equally from the sale of the Cheshire property.
A home was then purchased in Guilford, Connecticut and the defendant paid the entire down payment for the purchase of the property. The defendant also maintained all expenses relating to that property. At the time that the parties moved into the Guilford home, the plaintiff had medical problems, was not working, and was unable to work. The complaint filed by the plaintiff asserts that she was locked out of the house in April of 2002 and claims an interest in the Guilford property and other damages. Complaint filed by the plaintiff is an eight-count alleging breach of contract, conversion, civil theft, an equitable interest in real estate, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant has filed an answer, special defenses and a counter claim essentially asserting that the plaintiff agreed to pay $1,000 per month rent while she stayed at the Guilford property which she did not pay.
The court finds that there is insufficient evidence for the court to determine that an expressed or implied contract had been made by either of the parties with respect to financial arrangements relating to the Guilford property. The court expressly finds that there was no express or implied understanding, contract or agreement with respect to the plaintiff having an interest in the Guilford property or that the plaintiff had agreed to pay $1,000 a month rent for the Guilford property.
It is apparent that the parties lived, like husband and wife, for some period of time. While there are disputes as to whether they shared the same bedroom during the latter part of the time they lived at the Cheshire property and the entire time they lived at the Guilford property, it was apparent that they were sharing the same household. Although the plaintiff did numerous services, cooking, cleaning, etc. at the Guilford property the court cannot find that there was an expectation of monetary payment for such services. The court cannot find any express of implied contract between the parties with respect to the various contributions which they both made during their time that they shared the same household.
However there were certain payments made by the plaintiff which improved the defendants' Guilford home. Unjust enrichment is a legal doctrine to be applied where no remedy is available pursuant to a contract. In order for the plaintiff to recover under the doctrine, it must be shown that the defendant was benefitted, that the benefit was unjust, the failure of payment operated to the detriment of the plaintiff. AC Corporation v. Pernaselci, 2 Conn.App. 264 (1984). The plaintiff did purchase various, items for the household including ceramic tile, kitchen cabinets, other flooring products and lighting ($3,000; $5,339.89; $2,964.82; $638.18; and $187.18) totaling $12,130.07. Under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, the Court finds that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff those sums. The plaintiff also provided numerous household items for the home, numerous items of furniture. The court cannot find the value of those items at the time the relationship terminated although there is basis for a finding as to their cost at the time of purchase.
When the relationship terminated, the defendant locked the Plaintiff out of the house and the plaintiff was required to find other living arrangements. While the defendant did provide an opportunity on one occasion for the plaintiff to remove items from the house, he did not answer additional phone calls seeking to obtain additional items. He did drop off in the driveway where the plaintiff was living certain items belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant eventually held a tag sale where numerous items belonging to the plaintiff were sold for the sum of $1,800. Such action constitutes a conversion of the plaintiff's property. See Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc. 49 Conn.App. 152, 169 (1998) cert. denied 247 Conn. 905 (1998).
The manner in which the defendant terminated the relationship was offensive and insensitive. However, such actions do not provide a basis for recovery for either intentional or negligent affliction of emotional distress under the requirement set forth in such cases as Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394 (2005) and Gagnon v. Housatonic Valley Tourism District, 92 Conn.App. 835 (2005).
Accordingly, judgment may enter for the plaintiff on the complaint in the amount of $13,930.07 and judgment may enter for the plaintiff on the counterclaim.