Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

Cates v. Swain

Supreme Court of Mississippi
2013 WL 1831783 (Miss. 2013)


Elizabeth Swain (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Mona Cates (defendant), alleging that Cates had been unjustly enriched as a result of their same-sex, unmarried-cohabitant relationship. Swain had purchased a home in Pensacola, Florida. Cates provided $2,000 in earnest money toward the purchase of the home. Three years later, Swain and Cates moved to Seattle, Washington. Cates purchased a home for $191,000, using $34,000 given to her by Swain, representing the equity from the sale of the Pensacola home, plus an additional $2,000 from Swain’s personal funds. Subsequently, Cates sold the Seattle home for $300,000. Swain and Cates moved to Mississippi, where Cates bought a $350,000 home, using the equity from the sale of the Seattle home. Swain provided Cates with $5,000 for closing costs and $4,495 to carpet the house. Later, the relationship deteriorated. In her complaint, Swain alleged that she and Cates had entered into an agreement for Swain to invest the proceeds from the sale of the Pensacola home into the Seattle and Mississippi homes and that, as a result of the money given to her, Cates had been unjustly enriched. Swain also urged the trial court to impose a constructive or resulting trust in the Mississippi home. At trial, Cates testified that Swain’s financial contributions constituted the repayment of various loans. The trial court rejected Swain’s claim for a constructive or resulting trust but found that Cates had been unjustly enriched and held that Swain was entitled to recover: (1) the equity from the Pensacola house, (2) the $5,000 paid for closing costs on the Mississippi home, and (3) $4,495 to carpet the Mississippi home. Cates appealed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Mississippi would not enforce contracts implied from a relationship between unmarried cohabitants. The Supreme Court of Mississippi granted Swain’s petition for certiorari to review.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Chandler, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 498,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial