Haefner v. Fitzgibbon

2 Fitzgibbon first argues that the circuit court erred in awarding property to Kimberly Haefner on a theory of unjust enrichment. A claim on this theory traditionally requires "proof of three elements: (1) a benefit conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff, (2) appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit, and (3) acceptance or retention of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances making it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit." Ulrich v. Zemke, 2002 WI App 246, 10, 258 Wis. 2d 180, 654 N.W.2d 458 (citation omitted). However, in the context of a non-marital cohabitation case, these elements are satisfied by showing: "(1) an accumulation of assets, (2) acquired through the efforts of the claimant and the other party, and (3) retained by the other party in an unreasonable amount." Id., 11 (citation omitted).