Recent Georgia Court of Appeals Decision: Unjust Enrichment and Pre-Marital Contributions to Property
In a recent decision, the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed the often-complex issue of pre-marital contributions to property in the context of an unjust enrichment claim. The ruling in Tapplin v. Tapplin, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 417, offers significant insights into how Georgia courts handle claims of unjust enrichment, especially when one party has made substantial contributions to a property owned by the other party prior to marriage.
Case Background
The case involves Patrick and Cheryl Tapplin, who were first married in the 1980s, divorced in the 1990s, reconciled shortly thereafter, and then lived together for several years before remarrying in 2021. During their period of cohabitation, Patrick purchased a home in 2010 in his own name. Cheryl, who was dealing with financial issues stemming from past credit problems, could not be included on the mortgage. Despite the sole ownership, Cheryl contributed regularly to the family’s living expenses, including maintenance and improvements to the property. After the couple’s second separation and subsequent divorce, Cheryl claimed a share of the home’s equity based on her financial contributions during the years of cohabitation.
The Court’s Analysis of Unjust Enrichment
Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine that allows one party to recover the value of benefits conferred to another party when no express contract exists. In Georgia, a claim of unjust enrichment arises when one party retains a benefit conferred by another party, under circumstances where retention of the benefit would be unjust without compensating the provider.
In this case, the trial court awarded Cheryl 30% of the home’s equity, concluding that her contributions over several years warranted compensation under a theory of unjust enrichment. The appellate court, however, modified the trial court’s ruling:
Pre-Marital Cohabitation Contributions: The appellate court affirmed that Cheryl could recover some portion of the equity in the home based on her financial contributions before the parties’ remarriage in 2021. Georgia law supports claims of unjust enrichment in cases where one party has made financial contributions to property owned by the other party during a non-marital, cohabiting relationship. Cheryl’s payments for repairs, monthly living expenses, and improvements to the property were sufficient to justify an award under the unjust enrichment doctrine.
Marital Contributions: The court vacated the portion of the trial court’s award that included contributions Cheryl made during the parties' remarriage. Georgia law generally treats property acquired or improved during the marriage as subject to equitable division rather than unjust enrichment. Therefore, the court found that Cheryl's financial contributions to the property during the marriage could not be the basis for an unjust enrichment claim because the couple was legally married at that time. Instead, those contributions should have been adjudicated as part of an equitable division of marital property claim.
Implications for Unwed Parties and Contributions to Property
This decision provides critical guidance for couples who contribute to property without being legally married. It emphasizes that:
Contributions Made Before Marriage: Individuals may be able to pursue claims for unjust enrichment if they have made substantial contributions to a property owned solely by the other party during cohabitation. These contributions could include direct financial payments, improvements, and other support related to the property's maintenance and increased value.
Potential Limitations in Married Contexts: Once parties are married, Georgia law generally defaults to principles of equitable division of marital property. This distinction limits the applicability of unjust enrichment to the period of pre-marital cohabitation unless there are separate agreements regarding property ownership.
Conclusion
The Tapplin case serves as a reminder that Georgia’s courts continue to recognize unjust enrichment claims in the context of non-marital cohabitation and separately titled property. This decision underscores the importance of clear agreements between partners, whether married or not, regarding property contributions and ownership. For those navigating these complex issues, consulting with experienced family law counsel is essential.
If you have questions about unjust enrichment, property rights, or related issues, Resurgens Legal Counsel is here to help. Schedule a consultation today through our website or by calling 770-765-7550.