# Collins v. Davis

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · June 5, 1984 · 68 N.C. App. 588

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9623608

## Case

- **Full name:** Donald S. Collins v. Beverly Ann Davis (Williams)
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** June 5, 1984
- **Citations:** 68 N.C. App. 588; 315 S.E.2d 759; 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3437
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Braswell
- **Judges:** Wells, Braswell
- **Cited by:** 71 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9623608

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reasoning that a married man living with a single woman was not barred from bringing a suit in equity for unjust enrichment when he contributed to the purchase of a house titled in the woman’s name, if the agreement was not based exclusively on sexual intercourse
- stating recovery under unjust enrichment based is appropriate in circumstances where it would be “unfair for the recipient to retain” the benefit of the claimant’s services, but that “more must be shown than that one party voluntarily benefitted another”
- stating recovery under quantum meruit based upon contract implied-in-law is only proper in circumstances such that it would be “unfair” for the recipient to retain the benefit of the claimant’s services

## Opinion text

Judge Braswell
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would vote to affirm the order of the trial judge.
At the willing risk of being called an old fogy, I cannot accept that it is either equity or law to place the stamp of approval of public policy upon the undisputed facts in this case. Adultery is still against the law in North Carolina. Living in adultery is the consideration that formed the basis of this real estate transaction. Each party knew that the plaintiff was married to another at all the times involved. The man, the plaintiff, has, in legal effect, given a gift to his paramour. The illegal relationship bars the plaintiffs right to any recovery.
Here, the parties did not live together under color of marriage in a good faith belief of a legal marriage. In such a situation equity would come to the aid of the parties in a division of property acquired during the relationship.
*594 It strains the public policy of the law against adultery to contrive to aid nonmarital cohabitation by engrafting any form of resulting trust or unjust enrichment theory on the illicit conduct in this record. The court should not lend its hand to aid either party. See Annot., 3 A.L.R. 4th, 13 , 49 (1981).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9623608. Public record. Not legal advice.