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

Sue Ann Watts (P) and James E. Watts (D) lived together from May 1969 to December 1981, and represented themselves as being married to one another, though they were not. They purchased property together and filed tax returns as husband and wife. P and the two children of their relationship assumed the Watts surname with Watts' consent. P also helped D in his landscaping business and maintained their cohabitational household. Three months after the relationship ended, P sued D seeking a share of the wealth accumulated by D during their twelve years of cohabitation. In 1987, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that P could maintain an action against D under the following legal theories: express contract, implied-in-fact contract, unjust enrichment (implied-in-law contract or quasi-contract), and partition. The jury found that there was an implied contract between D and P to share an increase of wealth, but awarded her 'zero' damages. On the second issue, the jury found that D was unjustly enriched by P, and awarded her $113,090.08. Eventually, the trial court granted a new trial on both the implied-in-fact contract issue and on unjust enrichment. A whole slew of appeals resulted.

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.