## Facts

- Mernis Adams was a married man; Frances Jensen-Thomas was a divorced woman.
- Adams and Jensen-Thomas carried on a secret extramarital relationship for about four years, during which Adams continued to live with his wife and family.
- During the relationship, Adams repeatedly transferred money and other property to Jensen-Thomas.
- Some of Adams’s funds were used to acquire, improve, or maintain property titled in Jensen-Thomas’s name, giving rise to a dispute over whether Adams retained any beneficial interest in that property.
- The parties discussed marriage, but the relationship ended when Adams did not leave his wife as quickly as Jensen-Thomas wanted; they never married.
- After the breakup, Adams sued seeking return of money/property (or an ownership interest), asserting theories including that the transfers were conditional (including on marriage) and that equity required relief through trust-based remedies (such as constructive or resulting trust) or restitution.
- Jensen-Thomas maintained the transfers were gifts and denied any enforceable understanding that she held property for Adams’s benefit.
- A jury returned a verdict awarding Adams $4,298.
- Both parties appealed from the judgment based on the verdict: Adams contended the award was too small, and Jensen-Thomas contended it was too large (and that Adams was not entitled to recovery on the facts and governing equitable principles).

## Issues

1. When one party to a secret extramarital relationship furnishes money used to acquire or improve property titled in the other party’s name, may the payor obtain relief through resulting trust, constructive trust, or restitution, or are the transfers treated as nonrecoverable gifts?
2. What role does the parties’ intent at the time of the transfers play in determining whether equity presumes a resulting trust or instead treats the transfer as a gift that defeats any trust presumption?
3. Does the illicit character of the relationship categorically bar equitable property relief, or may a court grant relief when doing so does not require enforcement of an immoral bargain?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the dispute had to be resolved under correct equitable principles governing property titled in one person’s name but funded by another, with the outcome turning on intent (including whether the contributions were intended as gifts).
- Because the trial court’s disposition did not properly apply those principles to the evidence concerning intent and ownership, the verdict-based judgment could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- When one person supplies purchase money for property and title is taken in another’s name, equity may presume a purchase-money resulting trust in favor of the payor, but that presumption is rebuttable.
- Evidence that the payor intended the transfer as a gift can negate any trust intent that would otherwise be presumed from the payment of consideration.
- A constructive trust is an equitable remedy that may be imposed to prevent unjust enrichment when one party holds title under circumstances where it would be unfair to allow retention of the benefit, but it depends on proof supporting that equitable basis.
- The fact that parties were engaged in an adulterous or otherwise illicit relationship does not automatically foreclose property or restitutionary claims; however, courts will not grant relief that requires enforcing an agreement whose consideration is the illicit relationship itself.
- In disputes arising from nonmarital intimate relationships, courts focus on objective evidence of ownership intent (gift versus beneficial ownership for the payor or joint benefit) rather than awarding or denying relief as a matter of moral approval or disapproval.

## Conclusion

Adams v. Jensen-Thomas involved a married man’s attempt to reclaim money and property transferred to his partner during a secret four-year affair, including funds connected to property titled in her name. The Court of Appeals reversed the verdict-based judgment and remanded, explaining that equitable relief such as resulting trust, constructive trust, or restitution depends on the parties’ intent and proof of unjust enrichment, and that evidence of a gift intent defeats any presumption that the recipient held the property in trust for the payor, even though the relationship was illicit.


Adams v. Jensen-Thomas, 571 P.2d 958 (1977)