The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 1984, D leased a piece of residential property to P month to month. The dwelling was old, and its condition was reflected by the rent charged by D: $31.00 per month until 1988 and $46.00 per month thereafter. From 1984 through 1987, P made substantial improvements to the leased premises. These improvements included, inter alia: two new bathrooms, carpeting the floors, a new septic system, new windows, a new furnace, a new kitchen, wiring the entire house, two new porches, new plumbing, and painting the outside of the house. P never demanded or requested that D pay for these improvements. In April of 1991, D gave P fifteen days notice to vacate the leased premises. In response, P sued asking for a life estate in the leased premises; or alternatively, enter judgment against D for the value of the improvements they had made to the real estate. The court gave the judgment to P under the theory of unjust enrichment, to recover $11,790.00 for the improvements they had made to the leased realty. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.