## Facts

- Ann M. Johnson and John A. Zent began a close personal relationship in late 1979; they did not marry and kept separate residences but spent substantial time together.
- Over time, Zent became progressively incapacitated due to back surgery, strokes, and Alzheimer’s disease, requiring increasing daily assistance.
- Johnson provided household and caregiving services from 1980 to 1988, including housekeeping, cooking, laundry, shopping, transportation to medical appointments, postsurgical care, medication administration, and pet care.
- Zent entered a nursing home in June 1988 and died about three weeks later.
- Johnson filed a creditor’s claim against Zent’s estate for $31,025, itemized as $9,125 (1980–1985 at $5/day) and $21,900 (1985–1988 at $20/day).
- The personal representative disallowed the claim; the county court affirmed, finding no contract (express or implied-in-fact) and no unjust enrichment because the services were gratuitous due to the parties’ intimate relationship.
- Johnson appealed, challenging the rejection of recovery under contract implied in law (quasi-contract) and unjust enrichment.

## Issues

1. Whether the estate was unjustly enriched by Johnson’s household and caregiving services so that restitution under a contract implied in law was available.
2. Whether a nonmarital intimate relationship, by itself, justified treating extensive caregiving services as gratuitous.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the county court’s disallowance of Johnson’s claim and remanded.
- The court held that the county court erred in concluding there was no contract implied in law and no unjust enrichment based solely on the parties’ personal relationship.
- The court directed further proceedings to determine which services were compensable and their reasonable value under unjust-enrichment principles.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment and contract implied in law (quasi-contract) are related equitable doctrines permitting recovery when one party retains benefits that, in equity and justice, should be paid for.
- A contract implied in law does not depend on an actual agreement; it is imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment.
- Unjust enrichment generally requires: (1) enrichment, (2) impoverishment, (3) a connection between them, (4) absence of justification for retention of the benefit, and (5) no adequate legal remedy.
- A presumption that services are gratuitous commonly applies in certain family relationships, but it does not automatically apply to nonmarital romantic relationships.
- Extensive, non-incidental caregiving services to an incapacitated person may support restitution, even absent an express agreement, when the circumstances suggest the recipient obtained a compensable benefit.

## Conclusion

The court required the estate claim to be reconsidered under unjust-enrichment and quasi-contract principles, holding that an intimate, nonmarital relationship does not automatically render substantial caregiving services gratuitous and that further fact-finding was needed on compensability and reasonable value.


Matter of Estate of Zent, 459 N.W.2d 795 (N.D. 1990)