## Facts

- Sean Porter and Donna Zuromski were in a romantic relationship from 1993 to June 2007, were engaged, but never married.
- They initially lived with Zuromski’s mother; Zuromski paid monthly rent while Porter saved money, which was deposited into a joint checking account.
- In 1997–1998, the parties decided to buy a home together in Shady Side, Maryland, and initially applied jointly for a mortgage.
- Because Zuromski could not qualify due to credit problems and an impending bankruptcy, the parties agreed Porter would take title and obtain the mortgage in his name only.
- The down payment was paid from the joint account, and Zuromski paid Porter $3,700 as her contribution.
- The trial court found the parties agreed they would treat the home as jointly owned and Zuromski would pay half of the mortgage and other property expenses.
- For about nine years, Zuromski paid one-half of household expenses, including mortgage-related payments and utilities, and the parties made significant improvements to the property.
- After the relationship ended, Porter required Zuromski to leave, refused to divide equity, and refinanced the home, extracting substantial equity.

## Issues

1. Whether an unmarried cohabitant not on legal title may obtain an equitable ownership interest in real property titled solely in the other partner’s name under unjust enrichment and constructive trust theories.
2. Whether such a claim is barred as an impermissible “palimony” claim because it arises from a nonmarital romantic relationship.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
- The court held Zuromski established unjust enrichment based on her financial contributions and the parties’ agreement to treat the property as jointly owned.
- The court upheld imposition of a constructive trust and the appointment of a trustee to transfer title into both parties’ names to reflect a one-half interest for Zuromski.
- The court rejected Porter’s argument that the suit was an improper attempt to obtain “palimony,” treating it instead as a property and equity dispute.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment requires: (1) a benefit conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff, (2) the defendant’s knowledge or appreciation of the benefit, and (3) acceptance or retention of the benefit under circumstances making it inequitable to retain it without payment or restitution.
- A constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed to prevent unjust enrichment where legal title does not reflect the equitable interests created by the parties’ arrangement and contributions.
- Cohabitation and the absence of marriage do not bar application of standard equitable doctrines to resolve property disputes when the traditional elements of unjust enrichment are proven.
- A claim seeking recognition of an equitable property interest based on contributions and agreement is distinct from a claim seeking post-relationship support based solely on the existence of a nonmarital relationship.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed equitable relief granting Zuromski a one-half interest in the home, holding that Porter’s retention of sole title and equity after years of shared payments and an agreement to treat the property as jointly owned constituted unjust enrichment warranting a constructive trust, and that the claim was not barred as “palimony.”


Porter v. Zuromski, 6 A.3d 372 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010)