Bright v. Kuehl
650 N.E.2d 311
Ind. Ct. App.
1995
Check Treatment

*1 BRIGHT, (Carpenter) L. Catherine

Appellant-Defendant, KUEHL, Jr.,

Ronald E.

Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 66A03-9407-CV-00255. Appeals

Court of of Indiana.

April

Rehearing Aug. Denied *2 Roberts, Peru, appellant.

Patrick J. Rochester, appellee. Byron Tinkey, L. OPINION STATON, Judge. Bright ("Bright") (Carpenter) L.

Catherine judgment of appeals from the trial court's against in favor of Ronald her and ("Kuehl"). Kuehl, appeal, In E. her Jr. for our review raises four issues into two and restate as which we consolidate follows: in de- I. the trial court erred Whether termining that Kuehl was entitled arising out of his co- Bright. habitation erred II. the trial court Whether punitive damages. awarding Kuehl and remand. We reverse April Kuehl met engaged. August thereafter became soon residence Bright moved into Kuehl's April together until couple lived eight period, During this month through tempo- Bright did secretarial work rary employment agency. Kuehl worked laid engineering technician until he was off, being February After laid off Kuch] unemploy- per week collected$95.00 work occasional construction ment and did $20,000 damages.1 The ages and teaching. After Kuehl was and substitute $5,759 damages on job court awarded off, as a a second laid worked judgment the net counterclaim.2 her waitress. *3 $22,511.39. favor of Kuchl was in cohabitation, bills were During all their from Kuehl's paid all checks were drawn and court judgment, a for the As basis deposited pay- her checking account. found: Kuehl balanced Kuekhl's account. checks into express con- [Nlotwithstanding lack of signed monthly. checkbook Cathy, a con- Ronald and tract between and used credit on the account checks drawn relationship implied from this tract can be in name. With these cards held Kuehl's of tipped her measure generally and also checks, and Bright bought household items control, financially, psychologically, and paid card bills clothing, and credit Ronald, consequence, with physically over and Bright's in vehicle parties also traded to some- his entitlement and therefrom titled Prix which was a 1990 Grand side, financial for On the thing return. names. in both their benefit expenditures to her example, her cohabitation, Bright and Throughout their contribution, to his det- outweighed her far relationship which a tumultuous Kuehl had Unjust enrichment riment. protective mutual order culminated in a naturally and to flow considerations seem from parties were restrained which both favor, logically Ronald's therefrom other,. a threatening each abusing and Cathy. rendering entitlement some result, Bright could couple separated and any retrieve Kuehl's residence to not enter Record, p. 26. , subsequently re- belongings. Bright did her judgment. appeals now two police officer and obtained turn with a all of the clothing. Kuehl retained boxes general initially that a noteWe acquired by either household items any legal upon affirmed judgment will be including the Grand during the cohabitation evidence, and the with the theory consistent payments. to make Prix which he continues reweighs the evidence of review neither against Bright seek- filed suit Kuehl then credibility of the witnesses. rejudges the nor alleged arising Bright's ing damages from Ind.App., 641 v. Jones Jones of his credit use and control unauthorized judg reviewing general 101. When checkbook, Bright's destruction cards and ment, trial court cor presume in- expenses property, medical personal presump law. Id. rectly followed the Bright's physical at- curred as a result correctly followed the trial court tion that tacks, use of Bright's excessive strongest presumptions is one of the law Kueh] $14,000 compensato- sought phone. of a case on consideration applicable to our damages, punitive plus ry damages treble appeal. attorney Bright counter- fees. damages, and compensatory and seeking claimed I. unjust envrich- damages retention a result of his ment as Damages Arising Out Cohabitation suffering pain and and for personal property, conduct. Kuehl's abusive resulting from court's deci that the trial Bright contends there is no contrary to law because trial, sion is the court awarded Following a bench $28,270.39 allows for in Indiana which judgment in favor of Kuehl of action cause during a cohabi expended recovery of funds $8,270.39 compensatory dam consisting of Bright's as: itemized 2. The trial court trial court itemized 1. The checks, $1786.00 for for as: car, $2,800.00 for $840.00 equity accounts, charge payment $4623.05 val- discount, $2,119.00 Motors General damages, personal property. of vehicle ue of converted for reimbursement $1511.34 for a for medical expenses, $250.00 $100.00 Video Cassette Recorder. law legislature's prohibition of common contemplation of mar arrangement tation fraud, marriages. The court concluded: riage deceit or a contract.3 absent denying rationale apply To the traditional presents an issue of first This case party in cases where con to one impression in Indiana: whether simply void because tracts are held to be relief based contributions entitled to posited illegal are sexual relations subsequent mar during eohabitation without unfair, unjust, bargain for the sideration riage express agreement. absent unnecessary unduly re harsh. Such analysis begins Glasgo Glasgo Our probably more to discredit sults do de- Ind.App., 410 N.E.2d trans. legal system eyes in the of the those *4 There, sued her former mied. a former wife of the facts of the case than learn the accumulat for one-half of assets husband marriage or strengthen the institution of period of cohabitation after during their ed society. deny fiber of our To the moral The trial court awarded the their divoree. party in such a relation to one property acquired the former wife a share of ship unjustly enrich the essence to by during their cohabitation. On parties the other.5 argued husband the appeal, the former Id. presented of action an unenforceable cause However, G¥lasgocourt noted that co He contended that claims the claim Indiana. automatically give rise to habitation does against pub- by cohabitants were nonmarried property presumed intention of shared the policy lie in Indiana because common law "[rJlecovery by parties and marriages prohibited rights between the statute.4 Id. were only parties seeking relief would be based at 1327. upon legally equita contractual viable and/or decision, affirming trial court's this In the parties grounds which the could establish ble equitable propriety the of an court addressed according particular own cireum- to their couples in instances where claim for relief Id. at 1331-1332. stances.4 marrying. together without The court live (1986), Ind.App., In granting petitioner the Chestnut v. Chestnut expressly stated that approved ra- public policy 499 N.E.2d this court the against the of this relief was not any way upon Glasgo affirming the trial court's impinge not in tionale state and did marriage Kueh] authority substituting any for the institution of failed to cite ment 3. We note that appellee's present any cogent argument by at or the State. Id. 31 Ill.Dec. sanctioned any allegation Generally, waives of brief. "[wle at 1209. The court 394 N.E.2d opined: provide any citation to say judicial recogni error if the fails to confidently cannot Ind.Appellate authority Rule or statutes. property rights between unmarried coha tion of Co., 8.3(A)(7); Stenberg Captain & Inc. v. marriage will not make that alternative to bitants Ind.App., trans. denied. Such engage by allowing parties to more attractive brief, subjects file a the is akin to failure to relationships greater security." such upon appellant's appellee the to reversal rationale, the court determined Based upon prima v. Holland facie error. Hacker of Cf. the claim of the a woman petitioner, trans. during years with the defendant for fifteen lived Nevertheless, by we are not bound this three children were born to the relation we choose to address this lesser standard and public ship, was unenforceable as it contravened appeal on the merits. statutory policy implicit the in the scheme of Marriage Marriage Ilinois and Dissolution of (formerly LC. 31-1-7- 4. Ind.Code 31-7-6-1 See Act, disfavoring grant mutually enforce the of 1). rights knowingly property unmarried co able at habitants. Id. 31 Ill.Dec. at extensively analyzed Glasgo, the 5. In the court 77 Ill.2d Hewitt, of Hewitt v. decision reached This court determined that the results Hewitt, Dec. 394 N.E.2d 1204. 31 Ill. unduly the court in Hewitt were harsh Supreme that individu Illinois Court determined unnecessary stating ""we are not convinced jointly al claims of unmarried cohabitants impact recognition relationships of theory property accumulated Glasgos' upon our such as the Hewitts' or public policy implied contract contradicted society marriage to be of and the institution explained that the issue the state. The court rights greater importance of the imme- appropriate than for the whether it was rested arrange- grant legal private Glasgo, supra, to a parties." court to status at 1329-30. diate trial court equitable considerations. contributions the wife's to include decision implied from can a contract in the distri- determined during premarital cohabitation upon Bright's control relationship based upon dissolution. property marital bution of expendi- against fact that her would be and the noted that it The court over outweighed her contribu- ignore the wife's own benefit public policy to for her tures marriage period prior contribution, Kuehl to re- during the thus entitled tions eventually mar- partner and her since she lief. at 787.

ried. theory im recover under To similarly adopted jurisdictions have Other usually re contract, plaintiff plied that unmar and have held right to relief this impli that the defendant establish quired to such may claims couples raise ried requested the benefits expressly edly or unjust enrichment contract Vanderburgh Humane Biggerstaff ferred. their relation following the termination (1983), Ind.App., 453 N.E.2d Society, Inc. attempts to parties ships one of the where benefit, subject commonly the Any proper amount retain an unreasonable one, not compensation, which pecuniary both. See through the efforts of ty upon another *5 gift, v. confers intending of Marvin it as a landmark decision eg., the it, foundation adequate is an accepts 660, Cal.Rptr. (1976), who 134 18 Cal.3d Marvin also; Boland v. 315, promise to ren implied P.2d 106 created legally 557 or a 142; (1987), 333, (1988), 521 A.2d 202 Conn. Ind. v. Cole Catalano its value. Cole der back 1248, (1984), D.C.App., 476 A.2d 1250. N.E.2d App., 517 v. Rostad Mason Mn., (1983), 662; 337 Eriksen Estate of the Glasgo and where Chestnut Unlike (1984), 671; Nev. Hay 100 Hay v. N.W.2d in the assets sought their share petitioners' (1984), 672; 68 196, Davis 678 P.2d Collins cohabitation, here during the accumulated by 312 N.C.App. 315 S.E.2d aff'd alleged damages for Kuehl seeks 892; v. Knauer Knauer 321 S.E.2d N.C. injuries sustained of his funds misuse 553; 206, 470 A.2d (1983), Pa.Super. 233 the cohabitation. course of during the 405 137 Wis.2d v. Watts Watts denied. review N.W.2d Bright record reveals of the review Our such, that a who we determine As upon de- their funds commingled Kuch! subsequent without with another cohabitates checking account. posit into Kuehl's upon a to relief marriage is entitled Bright regularly used that indicates record or a viable express contract of an pay- for various checking account unjust or implied contract theory as an such not record does expenses. The ments enrichment. attempted prevent that Kuehl indicate relationship soured. the until the actions whether must now examine we notion that support the record does awarded properly trial Bright with unjust monies to provided these contract and Kuehl implied based return that she would enrichment, expectation there was sufficient whether expenses dur- money spent on judgment.6 she support amount of evidence or that cohabitation of their ing the course sufficiency of the evi- Our test requested expressly impliedly or weigh neither that we requires denee these benefits. credibility. questions of resolve nor evidence probative only to the evidence We look determine, based inferences reasonable and the value cir- particular these Glasgo, that rationale support the verdict. which therefrom drawn Kuehl do not establish cumstances Ind., N.E.2d v. Roberts Martin theory of upon a based to relief entitled reject therefore implied contract. We implied contract upon an reliance court's trial upon the its decision The trial court relief, enrichment, Kuehl theory to award contract, unjust notion her brief. issue in the fourth sufficiency evidence Bright raises We note that compen- judgment court's the trial reverse the trial contends that unjust applying the doctrine of satory damages favor. court erred unjust prevail on a claim for enrichment. To enrichment, plaintiff must establish that IL conferred on benefit has been

measurable cireumstances that the defendant under such Damages Punitive with retention of the benefit the defendant's unjust.7 Bayh v. payment would be Son out contends (1991), Ind., nenburg awarding Kuehl dama court erred denied, denied, 1094, 112 502 U.S. reh. cert. damages may be awarded ges.8 Punitive Principles of 117 L.Ed.2d 415. S.Ct. convincing evidence only if there is clear and unjust equity prohibit enrichment of a malice, fraud, the defendant acted with accepts unrequested benefits anoth oppressiveness gross negligence, or despite having opportunity provides er law, of fact or was not the result of mistake v. Moore decline those benefits Olsson over-zealousness, judgment, error or honest reh. failing. negligence, or other human mere punitive damages affirm an award of We will Here, together Bright and Kuehl moved if, only probative considering evidence expenses. They commin- and shared their it, supporting the reasonable inferences essentially handled their gled their funds and reasonably of fact could find such a trier Although contrib- together. finances proven clear and convinc were greater financially, we cannot uted a amount ing Erie Insurance Co. v. Hickman evidence. unjustly was enriched conclude (1 993), Ind., 515, 520-521. *6 light fact that Kuehl by her actions of the during much the assets retained purpose punitive damages acknowledge we the cohabitation. While thereby punish wrongdoer and deter is to remedy unjust enrichment is a available that engaging in from similar conduct. others another, who has cohabitated with Archem, (1990), Ind.App., Inc. v. 549 Simo that agree not with the trial court we do denied, 1054, 1061, trans. cert. dis N.E.2d showing that was un- Kuehl made a missed, 944, 112 111 498 U.S. S.Ct. justly enriched. We therefore conclude unjust primary fac enrich- There are two the trial court's reliance L.Ed.2d 1032. inappropri- ment to afford Kuehl relief was properly which should be considered tors (1) ate. punitive damages: reviewing an award of and the extent of the the nature of the tort sum, conclude that the civeum- we sustained; damages the eco actual relief before us do not afford Kuehl stances theory, wealth of the defendant. upon any equitable and we nomic enrichment, proceedings unjust quantum the "record of contains me states that 7. We note that presentation of the case" and that the verbatim constructive con ruit, contract implied-in-law, tract, legal quasi-contract merely are fictions punitive not indicate that the issue of record does by the common law courts in order invented properly damages to the trial was ever submitted permit recovery no con where in fact there is However, Appellant's Reply Br. at 4. court. tract, are such that where circumstances but parts the record which are not trans note that justice and immutable under the law of natural appeal to the court on shall nevertheless mitted though had be a there there should pur part appeal of the record on for all infra, Bayh, (citing promise. at 408 Clark been a 7.2(B); Lowry Ind.Appellate poses. Rule v. Low Peoples Ind. Sav. & Loan Ass'n 221 v. (1992), Ind.App., ry N.E.2d n. 590 681, 682). N.E.2d complaint the amended al trans. denied. damages part leging punitive the record and is argues trial court was also properly was submitted to issue awarding punitive prevented dam from we determine that court. As damages only requested ages he treble because improperly that the trial court awarded brief, tention appellee complaint. Attached to his in his damages grounds punitive that he on the complaint copy annexed a of his amended Kuch! only specifically plead treble is without punitive prayed specifically for relief of brief, erroneously damages. reply merit. In her dissenting. GARRARD, Judge, actual must establish A ~ punitive may recover he damages before disagree I do not dissent. respectfully I equita grant of affirmative damages and law. majority's statement damage punitive support a also relief will ble that the is such Certainly, the evidence (1991), Ind.App., v. Jones award. Grimes contract/unjust might have found no Howev trans. denied. however, evidence, enrichment. damages to be er, allowing punitive rule I believe court's conclusion supports the equitable by affirmative supported reweighing the evi- majority guilty of strictly construed. must be to be inferences the reasonable dence and deciding to reverse. drawn therefrom was not that Kuehl Because we determine function. not our That damages because compensatory entitled his claims on to make a his failure are punitive I find that would relief, judgment for convincing evi- by clear and demonstrated v. Ameri Sullivan damages cannot stand. however, por- dence, vacate and would Ind., Reading, PA can Cas. Co. of judgment. tion of Grimes, 134, 140; supra, at 859-860. Notwithstanding our reversal puni we note that damages, showing of upon a damages are awarded

tive on the de which focuses conduct

intentional Peterson v. Culver of mind. state fendant's Foundation

Educational As indicat reh. CURRY, Appellant-Petitioner, Mark parties shows supra, the record ed living expenses agreed to share impliedly as exhibited during their cohabitation Indiana, Appellee-Respondent. STATE credit cards turn over his Kuehl's decision No. 49A04-9409-PC-351. Moreover, use. and checkbook Kuehl and indicates the record *7 Indiana. Appeals of Court pur Bright had marry and that planned cir Kuehl. Such wedding ring for May chased Bright moved do not show cumstances July Rehearing Denied intentionally attempt in an in with maliciously exhaust him or to defraud

assets. evidence conclude convincingly show clearly and

does not warranting the manner in a

Bright acted According- damages.

imposition punitive award trial court's

ly, we reverse favor. in Kuehl's

punitive with instructions remanded

Reversed judgments of vacate the court to

to the trial favor.

FRIEDLANDER, J., concurs. separate

GARRARD, J., and files dissents

opinion.