In October 2009 Laurie Brumgard purchased a house in Wakefield, Massachusetts. At the time, she was dating James Moretti. The couple met in 2007 and lived together for over year before Laurie’s real estate purchase.
James was not on the property’s title. But Laurie allowed him to live at the home with her. Initially, James contributed $1,000 per month towards the mortgage. He stopped making payments, however, after 7 or 8 months and instead lived at the home rent free.
Between 2009 and 2013, James replaced the home’s front doorway, replaced the living room floor, installed new cabinets, and replaced the outside walkway. All materials were purchased with Laurie’s credit card.
James claims that this was done based on an oral agreement with Laurie. The gist of the agreement was that Laurie would pay the bills and, in exchange, James would fix up the home.
Laurie sold the house in 2013 and bought a new home in Middlesex. She again allowed James to move in with her rent free. At the Middlesex property, James retiled parts of the house, painted walls, and landscaped.
The couple broke up in 2018 and James moved out the house.
He eventually filed a lawsuit against Laurie seeking damages for unjust enrichment. According to Massachusetts case law,
Unjust enrichment occurs when a party retains the property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. The plaintiff must establish not only that the defendant received a benefit, but also that such a benefit was unjust. Whether the benefit was unjust turns on the reasonable expectations of the parties. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
Bonina v. Sheppard, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 622 (2017).
The case made its way to a jury trial. After all evidence had been presented, Laurie’s attorney moved for a directed verdict in his client’s favor. The motion was allowed and James’ lawsuit was essentially thrown out before the jury could render a verdict.
James appealed the decision and today the Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling. According to the justices,
Moretti presented no evidence to establish either the value of his labor or what he spent out-of pocket for the materials, purchased on Brumgard’s credit cards, used to renovate the homes. Nor did he present competent evidence that any appreciation in value to either home was due to his contributions. Instead, he merely offered photographs of the homes and his own opinion of the Middleton home’s value. On the other hand, there was uncontroverted evidence that Brumgard spent an estimated $450,000 on mortgages, utilities, and building materials for the two homes. Even if we accept that Moretti paid $1,000 per month for the first eight months at the Wakefield home, he otherwise lived rent free for roughly eight years in Brumgard’s homes.
To read the full opinion, click the document below.
great article