Simmons v. Samulewicz
304 P.3d 648
Haw. App.2013Background
- Simmons and Samulewicz had a long-term romantic relationship, lived together, and planned marriage but never obtained a marriage license.
- They purchased the Kuupua Street Property in 2002 as joint tenants, with Simmons co-signing the mortgage and agreeing to share mortgage, utilities, taxes, improvements, and any equity.
- In 2004 Simmons transferred his title to Samulewicz, alleging the transfer was to protect the property and reflect their relationship; she disputes any trust or ownership interest.
- The couple later funded or planned acquisitions (Rental Property in Hawaii and Florida Property) with Simmons alleging a trust arrangement and shared income, which Samulewicz denies.
- In 2007 their relationship ended; subsequent district and family court actions dealt with possession and quasi-marital property, but these did not resolve the parties’ monetary or ownership claims; Simmons filed this circuit court action in 2008 seeking, inter alia, damages and recognition of a partnership/trust-based arrangement.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Samulewicz on Simmons’s express and implied contract claims and awarded attorney’s fees; the Final Judgment was entered in favor of Samulewicz; Simmons appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata/Collateral estoppel applicability | Simmons argues prior actions preclude current claims | Samulewicz contends prior actions bar relitigation | Not precluded; prior actions lacked final merits judgments on the issues here |
| Existence of express or implied partnership | Simmons contends a partnership/joint venture existed and supported contract claims | Samulewicz disputes any partnership or enterprise | No genuine issue of material fact; no partnership implied or express; contract claims fail |
| Unjust enrichment claim viability | Simmons argues enrichment from mortgage payments and improvements | Samulewicz contends enrichment not unjust and services were gratuitous | Summary judgment on unjust enrichment improper; genuine issue of material fact exists |
| Attorneys’ fees under statute | Fees were improperly awarded | Fees justified if prevail on assumpsit | Vacate award of attorneys’ fees pending outcome of unjust enrichment dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorrance v. Lee, 90 Hawai i 143 (1999) (distinguishes claim vs. issue preclusion; privity and final judgment required for preclusion)
- Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawai'i 43 (2004) (requirements for claim preclusion if final judgment on merits, identity of claims)
- Kahale v. City and County of Honolulu, 104 Hawai'i 341 (2004) (summary judgment standard and de novo review; how to view material facts)
- Small v. Badenhop, 67 Haw. 626 (1985) (unjust enrichment concept and restitution against a party in a relationship)
- Holstein v. Benedict, 22 Haw. 441 (1915) (household services presumed gratuitous; exception for express contract or circumstances showing compensation expected)