Blog

Factual Background:

Johnson and decedent were romantically involved and lived together from 1993 to 2007.  Johnson deposited a portion of her paycheck into decedent’s bank account every month, and her living expenses were paid out of that bank account.  During their cohabitation, decedent bought Johnson multiple vehicles, bought a rental property, and built a new house for them to live in.  Johnson’s name was not added to the house or the rental property.  Her name was added to the bank accounts and the vehicles.

At the time of decedent’s death, Johnson and decedent were the joint owners of a $30,000 certificate of deposit, a $3,300 bank account, and a 2007 Envoy.  Johnson also owned her own $30,000 certificate of deposit, and she kept decedent’s tax return and furniture from the residence.  An estate was opened, and the only property in the estate was the residence (valued at $133,500) and the rental property (valued at $75,000).

Johnson filed suit against the Personal Representative, asserting a claim of unjust enrichment against the Estate.  With respect to the residence, Johnson alleged that she made financial contributions to the cost of construction and provided labor in the completion of the home.  Johnson also alleged that she had made financial contributions to the acquisition of the Rental Property.  She asked to be awarded one-half of the values of these properties, plus attorney’s fees.

Douglas County Circuit Court, J. Moody, Held:

The circuit court entered judgment against Johnson, denying her unjust enrichment claim against decedent’s estate.  The court found that Johnson had failed to meet her burden of proving that she had contributed funds used to buy either property.  Instead, the evidence showed that decedent’s funds were used for the purchases.  Johnson appealed.

Court of Appeals, J. Bates, Held:

Affirmed.  The trial court made a specific factual finding that decedent’s funds, rather than Johnson’s funds, were used to purchase the two properties.  Considering the facts, this finding was not against the weight of the evidence.  In an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff has to prove that she conferred a benefit on the defendant, and plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing she contributed to these properties.  Further, Missouri law does not permit recovery on an unjust enrichment theory if the parties receive what they intended to obtain.  The record showed that Johnson willingly deposited her earnings into the bank account in exchange for all of her living expenses being paid.  Johnson received at least as much from decedent as she contributed to him.