## Facts

- Mona Cates and Elizabeth Swain were unmarried, same-sex cohabitants who lived together from 2000 to 2006 in several states.
- Swain purchased a home in Pensacola, Florida in her name; Cates paid \$2,000 in earnest money, and both contributed to improvements while Swain paid down the mortgage.
- In 2003, Cates purchased a home in Seattle, Washington in her name; Swain contributed \$34,000 from the Pensacola sale proceeds plus an additional \$2,000 used as the down payment.
- Cates later sold the Seattle property for a profit and used the equity to purchase a \$350,000 home in Tate County, Mississippi in her name.
- Swain paid \$5,000 toward the Mississippi closing costs and \$4,495 for carpeting.
- After the relationship ended, Swain sought restitution for her financial contributions; Cates contended Swain’s payments were repayments of loans Swain owed her.

## Issues

1. Whether the chancery court erred by denying Swain’s request to impose a constructive trust or resulting trust on the Mississippi home titled solely in Cates’s name.
2. Whether a chancery court may award restitution for unjust enrichment arising from identifiable contributions made during an unmarried cohabiting relationship, notwithstanding limits on enforcing agreements implied from cohabitation.
3. Whether the chancellor correctly calculated the amount of restitution awarded.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a constructive trust and resulting trust on the Mississippi property.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ determination that unjust enrichment relief was categorically unavailable because the parties were unmarried cohabitants.
- The Court held the chancellor had equitable authority to award unjust-enrichment restitution based on Swain’s proven financial contributions.
- The Court found a mathematical error in the chancellor’s award, vacated the judgment in part, and remanded for entry of judgment in the corrected amount of \$41,495.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment may provide restitution where one party receives a benefit under circumstances in which equity and good conscience require compensation, even when the parties are unmarried cohabitants.
- A claim seeking restitution for specific financial contributions is distinct from enforcement of an agreement implied solely from a cohabiting relationship.
- Constructive and resulting trusts are exceptional remedies and require proof satisfying traditional trust elements; a confidential relationship alone is insufficient absent abuse or other trust-triggering circumstances.
- Appellate courts may correct restitution awards when the record shows a computational error and remand for entry of the proper amount.

## Conclusion

The court permitted restitution for unjust enrichment between former unmarried cohabitants based on identifiable monetary contributions, while leaving intact the denial of trust-based relief, and remanded to reduce the award to \$41,495 due to a calculation error.


Cates v. Swain, 215 So. 3d 492 (Miss. 2013)