## Facts

- Ann M. Robinson filed a dissolution action against her husband, Wylie W. Robinson, and asserted claims against Wylie’s parents, Earl J. and Alice M. Robinson, who held legal title to rural property on Johnson Road.
- With Earl and Alice’s knowledge and permission, Ann and Wylie constructed a residence and made substantial improvements on the Johnson Road land.
- Ann and Wylie used their own funds and labor and relied on a construction loan associated with the project.
- Ann claimed she believed she and Wylie would ultimately obtain ownership of the property; Earl and Alice denied any intent to transfer title.
- The trial court tried dissolution issues and Ann’s claims against Earl and Alice together, denying motions for change of venue and severance.
- In its judgment, the trial court treated Ann and Wylie as each holding a one-half interest in the house/improvements, valued improvements at $71,000 (land $12,000), recognized a $15,000 construction loan, and imposed liens on the parents’ property, including liens securing Wylie’s obligations (such as child support).
- Earl and Alice appealed the restitution and lien rulings; Wylie appealed various dissolution-related rulings; Ann cross-appealed on financial/property matters.

## Issues

1. Whether an improver who knows another holds title, and who improves the land with the owner’s permission but without the owner’s request or encouragement, may obtain restitution for unjust enrichment.
2. Whether the proper remedy for the improver is an ownership-type interest in the improvements or an equitable lien measured by the value added.
3. Whether a court may impose a lien on property owned by third parties to secure a spouse’s separate dissolution obligations (including child support and related debts).
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying change of venue and severance.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held Ann was entitled to restitution based on unjust enrichment arising from improvements made with the parents’ knowledge and consent.
- The court rejected the trial court’s characterization of Ann’s remedy as a one-half ownership interest in the house/improvements and held the proper form of relief was an equitable lien reflecting Ann’s contribution/value of improvements (accounting for relevant offsets such as the construction loan and land ownership).
- The court reversed the portion of the judgment imposing liens on the parents’ property to secure Wylie’s separate obligations to Ann, concluding those debts could not be shifted onto property owned by non-debtor third parties.
- The court upheld the trial court’s denial of change of venue and severance, and largely affirmed the dissolution-related property rulings, including treatment of Wylie’s teacher retirement pension as marital property.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment may support restitution where an owner knowingly permits substantial improvements to the owner’s land and retention of the benefit without compensation would be inequitable, even absent the owner’s request or active encouragement.
- When legal title remains in a third party, restitution for improvements is properly implemented through an equitable lien (a remedial device), not by awarding the improver legal title or an ownership-like interest inconsistent with record ownership.
- An equitable lien must be tied to the unjust enrichment attributable to the improvements; it cannot be used to encumber an innocent third party’s property to secure another person’s separate dissolution obligations (including child support arrearages and related debts).
- Trial courts have discretion to deny severance and change of venue in consolidated dissolution and related equitable claims, absent an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court recognized restitution for improvements made to another’s land with the owner’s consent by granting an equitable lien measured by the value of the improvements, but it limited the remedy to Ann’s unjust enrichment claim and barred using the parents’ property as security for Wylie’s independent dissolution debts; the cause was remanded to revise the judgment consistent with those limits.


Robinson v. Robinson, 100 Ill. App. 3d 437 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1981)