Lewis v. Lewis
Colorado Supreme Court
189 P.3d 1134 (2008)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Frank and Lucy Lewis (defendants) bought a house where their son Sammy and his wife, Cassandra Lewis (plaintiff) lived for 14 years. Sammy and Cassandra found the house, and Frank bought it for $29,500 with $5,000 down. Sammy and Cassandra paid the mortgage payments to Frank and Lucy, who paid the mortgage. Sammy and Cassandra paid all other expenses, made improvements, and described themselves as owners. Cassandra and Sammy later built an addition. When Frank tried to change the title, he learned it would require refinancing and told Sammy he could buy the house by repaying the $5,000 and refinancing, but nobody told Cassandra. Meanwhile, Sammy’s brother purchased the house next door under a similar arrangement. When Cassandra and Sammy divorced, Frank and Lucy sold the house, realizing about $109,000 in profit, but gave Cassandra nothing from the sale. Cassandra sued claiming the house was a gift or that the parties’ mutual purpose for the couple to own a house should be enforced to prevent unjustly enriching her in-laws. Her in-laws countered that the house was a rental, although they never paid customary landlord expenses or claimed rental income. The trial court awarded Cassandra the original purchase price less the mortgage balance, then on remand applied special-trust and unjust-enrichment theories to award Cassandra about $104,000, representing the sale proceeds less the $5,000 down payment. Frank and Lucy appealed. The appellate court reversed, finding no express trust and that enriching Frank and Lucy was not unjust. Cassandra appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Martinez, J.)
Dissent (Eid, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.