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

P asked Elizabeth Balano for permission to renovate a building owned by her. Elizabeth approved with the understanding that P would pay her $60.00 per month after he 'got the business up and running.' Elizabeth signed notes to various town authorities approving P's work and allowing him to procure permits. She also gave him a signed note on December 11, 1991, stating: 'To Whom it may Concern -- David can use my house as long as he needs it.' P revamped the building and held two art shows in 1994 and 1995. Elizabeth died in October of 1995, and D offered P one year of free rent, after which his rent would be $60 per month, but for no definite term. P rejected the offer. P has, in fact, never paid rent. P filed a claim against the estate. The probate court rejected P's theory of quantum meruit but did allow P to recover $12,300 as unjust enrichment based on what the court found to be the value of the improvements to the building. P appealed. P argues that he and Elizabeth had an understanding that for the renovations he made to the building he reasonably expected to receive, and Elizabeth promised to give, 'the use of the building at no or nominal rent' for as long as he needed it, and that this understanding entitles him to recover from the estate in quantum meruit.

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.