Jeffrey L. McMahel v. Mary A. Deaton
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 338
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- McMahel and Deaton cohabited from 1996 to 2014, had one child (1998), and commingled finances via a joint Hoosier Hills checking account for many years.
- Deaton filed a Complaint for Partition and/or Unjust Enrichment after the breakup; McMahel counterclaimed for trespass and conversion.
- Evidence: ten years of joint bank statements, testimony about shared expenses (mortgage, utilities, vehicle purchases), an appraisal valuing the Sandyhook Road home at $105,000, retirement-account statements, and an itemized list of personal property values.
- The trial court found commingling, long-term cohabitation forming a family unit, and that Deaton conferred measurable economic and domestic benefits; it concluded unjust enrichment/ equitable relief was available and awarded Deaton specific items plus an equalization payment of $13,102.30.
- McMahel appealed, arguing (1) Bright v. Kuehl and related equitable remedies for unmarried cohabitants should be reconsidered and (2) the evidence did not support a finding of unjust enrichment or implied contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Deaton) | Defendant's Argument (McMahel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana courts may grant equitable relief (unjust enrichment or implied contract) to unmarried, formerly cohabiting persons | Bright controls; equitable theories apply and Deaton is entitled to relief for contributions during cohabitation | Bright should be overruled; an express agreement should be required before dividing property acquired during nonmarital cohabitation | Court declines to revisit Bright and affirms that unjust enrichment/implied-contract theories permit relief for unmarried cohabitants |
| Whether the trial court’s factual findings and award (specific property + $13,102.30) are clearly erroneous | The evidence (commingled account, payments from the joint account, domestic services, shared purchases) supports an equitable award proportionate to Deaton’s contributions | There was no showing McMahel was unjustly enriched or that Deaton’s contributions were intended as non-gifts; the court treated the case like a divorce and ignored preexisting assets | Findings are supported by the record; the award (about 30% of combined assets) was proportional to Deaton’s share of combined income and not clearly erroneous; affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Bright v. Kuehl, 650 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (holding unmarried cohabitants may recover on express contract or equitable theories such as implied contract or unjust enrichment)
- Glasgo v. Glasgo, 410 N.E.2d 1325 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (permitting recovery for contributions during a marital-like relationship despite public policy concerns about common-law marriage)
- Chestnut v. Chestnut, 499 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (approving consideration of premarital cohabitation contributions in property distribution)
- Turner v. Freed, 792 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (affirming unjust-enrichment award to cohabitant who provided domestic and financial contributions)
- Sclamberg v. Sclamberg, 41 N.E.2d 801 (Ind. 1942) (permitting equitable settlement of property rights arising from a marital-like relation even when the marriage is void)
- Neibert v. Perdomo, 54 N.E.3d 1046 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (discussing Bright and equitable relief for cohabitants)
- Putz v. Allie, 785 N.E.2d 577 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Bright in the context of cohabitation and equitable remedies)