Cobren v. Anderson
385 S.W.3d 319
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Cobren and Anderson began a romantic relationship in 1998 and planned marriage; Cobren bought property in 2003 and moved to Arkansas.
- To pay Cobren's legal and personal expenses after 2003, the parties orally agreed Cobren would give Anderson a one-half interest in the property and Anderson would obtain loans secured by a mortgage on that interest.
- On May 18, 2004, Cobren conveyed a one-half interest to Anderson; Anderson then obtained three mortgages totaling about $160,801 between December 2004 and April 2005.
- Anderson paid most mortgage payments after separating in 2006; Cobren allegedly used the funds for his business and personal debts, with Anderson seeking reimbursement.
- In December 2007 Anderson sued; after trial, the court awarded Anderson an equitable lien on Cobren’s presumptive share of sale proceeds and awarded various sums based on loans and unjust enrichment.
- March 22, 2010 judgment awarded Anderson $68,732.92 from sale proceeds and $65,200.81 plus costs for money loaned, via an equitable lien; personal property and fair rental value were not awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied contract vs unjust enrichment | Anderson argues an express loan-and-repayment agreement existed. | Cobren contends no express contract; any recovery should be under unjust enrichment if at all. | Trial court did not rely on a mere implied-in-fact contract; unjust enrichment was alternative basis; affirmed. |
| Equitable lien on Cobren's property | Equitable lien is warranted to prevent unjust enrichment given the repayment promises and funds advanced. | No express agreement to create a lien and no fraud; lien improper without adequate remedy at law. | Equitable lien properly imposed; sufficient evidence of agreement and need to prevent unjust enrichment. |
| Double or triple recovery | Awarding both loan repayments and share value could yield duplicative recovery. | Court properly allocated recoveries under both contract and unjust enrichment theories without double counting. | Court's distribution not clearly erroneous; affirm on this issue. |
| Presumption of gift | N/A as addressed only if trial court ruled on it; assertion that some money could be a gift. | N/A as addressed only if trial court ruled on it; Cobren challenges gifts theory. | Court did not make a gift finding; not addressed on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- K.C. Props. of Nw. Ark., Inc. v. Lowell Inv. Partners, LLC, 373 Ark. 14, 280 S.W.3d 1 (2008) (distinguishes express vs. implied contracts; quasi-contract rules)
- Coleman’s Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 55 Ark.App. 275, 935 S.W.2d 289 (1996) (implied-in-law/unjust enrichment as alternative relief)
- C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Seay, 369 Ark. 354, 255 S.W.3d 445 (2007) (equitable liens may arise beyond fraud where appropriate)
- Machen v. Machen, 2011 Ark. App. 47, 380 S.W.3d 497 (2011) (facts and credibility determinations defer to trial court)
- City of Damascus v. Bivens, 291 Ark. 600, 726 S.W.2d 677 (1987) (unjust enrichment/constructive relief principles)
- Roberts Contracting Co. v. Valentine-Wooten Rd. Pub. Facility Bd., 2009 Ark. App. 437, 320 S.W.3d 1 (2009) (contract-based recovery may inform unjust enrichment awards)
- Pettus v. McDonald, 343 Ark. 507, 36 S.W.3d 745 (2001) (implied-in-fact vs. implied-in-law contracts distinctions)