Corbeille v. Barone-Corbeille

• Decision Date: 14 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2021AP453
• Parties: Curtis Corbeille, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elisa Barone-Corbeille, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Curtis Corbeille, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elisa Barone-Corbeille, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 2021AP453

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III

June 14, 2022

This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BROWN COUNTY: NO 2020CV705 THOMAS J. WALSH, JUDGE.

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Gill, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in Wis.Stat. Rule 809.23(3).

PER CURIAM

¶1 Curtis Corbeille appeals the circuit court's order dismissing his complaint against Elisa Barone-Corbeille.^[1] Specifically, Corbeille appeals the dismissal of his claims for unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. Because we agree with the court that Corbeille failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 We take the following facts from Corbeille's amended complaint. In 2011, Corbeille and Barone, who were then married, purchased a home in Green Bay for $118, 000. They agreed to have the property titled in the name of Barone's parents, Louis and Barbara Barone, due to there being a money judgment filed against Corbeille.^[2] Corbeille alleges that at the time of purchase, "[i]t was agreed by all … that said property belonged to Corbeille and Barone jointly." Corbeille paid the mortgage and property taxes. To make these payments, Corbeille deposited his paychecks into a checking account that was under Barone's name.

¶3 Corbeille alleges that in 2016, "Barone engaged in a scheme to transfer the property out of her name, to her parents." Barone drafted and presented a quitclaim deed for Corbeille to sign. Barone told Corbeille that signing the document would simplify their divorce proceedings. Corbeille signed the quitclaim deed, and Barone filed for divorce approximately one month later. Corbeille alleges that "until their divorce was finalized … both parties lived at the property with the understanding that when the property would eventually be sold, the proceeds would be split between Corbeille and Barone equally." The divorce was finalized in April 2017.

¶4 After the divorce, Corbeille continued to live at the property and contributed to the mortgage payment until the property was sold in April 2018. Corbeille alleges that Barone again promised Corbeille that any proceeds from the sale of the property would be split equally, even though the title to the property was in her parents' names. Corbeille alleges that in reliance on this promise, he provided $40, 000 worth of money and labor for remodeling that increased the property's value. He alleges that Barone knew of, and consented to, these improvements. In April 2018, the property was sold for $181, 000. Corbeille alleges that Barone "recovered over $85, 884.70 from the sale of the property." Barone has rejected Corbeille's demands for a share of these proceeds.

¶5 Corbeille filed a civil action against Barone, seeking to recover more than $40, 000. Barone filed a motion to dismiss asking the circuit court to take judicial notice of various documents from the parties' divorce and from a previous lawsuit that Corbeille had filed against Barone's parents claiming that he was entitled to a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the home. After Barone filed her motion to dismiss, Corbeille filed an amended complaint: Count one alleged "Fraud: Negligent and/or Intentional Misrepresentation;" Count two alleged unjust enrichment and Count three alleged breach of contract.^[3]

¶6 Barone filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, again asking the circuit court to take judicial notice of documents from the parties' divorce and Corbeille's earlier lawsuit against Barone's parents. These documents included the quitclaim deed described in Corbeille's amended complaint, in which Barone and Corbeille both quitclaimed their respective interests in the property to Barone's parents prior to their divorce proceedings.

¶7 In his brief in opposition to Barone's motion to dismiss, Corbeille argued that Barone had "provided zero justification or case law to support dismissal of" his unjust enrichment claim. Corbeille conceded that his remaining claims "may not be as straightforward," but he asserted "they too must prevail at this early stage of the proceeding."

¶8 In a written decision and order, the circuit court concluded that Corbeille had failed to state any claim on which relief could be granted, and it dismissed his complaint. Corbeille appeals the dismissal of his claims for unjust enrichment, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation.

DISCUSSION

¶9 "A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC, 2014 WI 86, ¶19 356 Wis.2d 665, 849 N.W.2d 693 (citation omitted). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, "we accept as true all facts well-pleaded in the complaint and the reasonable inferences therefrom." Id. (citing Kaloti Enters., Inc. v. Kellogg Sale Co., 2005 WI 111, ¶11, 283 Wis.2d 555, 699 N.W.2d 205). "However, a court cannot add facts in the process of construing a complaint." Id. (citation omitted). "Furthermore, legal conclusions stated in the complaint are not accepted as true, and they are insufficient to enable a complaint to withstand a motion to dismiss." Id. (citations omitted). "Whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted is a question of law for our independent review; however, we benefit from discussions of the … circuit court." Id., ¶17 (citation omitted).

I. Unjust Enrichment

¶10 An unjust enrichment claim has three elements. Sands v. Menard, 2017 WI 110, ¶30, 379 Wis.2d 1, 904 N.W.2d 789. The plaintiff must prove that: (1) the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant had "appreciation or knowledge … of the benefit"; and (3) the defendant accepted or retained the benefit "under circumstances making it inequitable to do so." Id.; see also Wis JI-Civil 3028 (2022). In his amended complaint, Corbeille alleges that he conferred a benefit on Barone by making improvements to the home that increased its value by $70, 000 to $80, 000, that Barone "was aware and consented to the improvements," and that it would be inequitable to allow Barone to keep the proceeds from the sale of the home without reimbursing Corbeille.

¶11 The circuit court determined that Corbeille had failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment because at the time he made these improvements, the home was titled to Barone's parents and not Barone. The court reasoned that Corbeille's improvements may have benefitted Barone's parents when the home was sold, but Corbeille had not conferred a benefit on Barone herself.

¶12 In this appeal, Corbeille argues that the circuit court made a "critical error" when it "determin[ed] that Barone did not receive a benefit from Corbeille's work and contributions because she was not on the title of the property." Corbeille argues that instead of focusing on the title to the property, the court should have focused on his allegation that Barone received the proceeds from the sale. To support this argument, Corbeille points out that an unjust enrichment claim sounds in equity, citing General Split Corp. v. P & V Atlas Corp., 91 Wis.2d 119, 124, 280 N.W.2d 765 (1979). Accordingly, Corbeille argues that "[t]he principles of fairness and equity are not concerned if Barone was actually on the title of property when it was sold[, ] simply that she was the party who received an inequitable benefit."

¶13 Corbeille does not offer any authority to suggest that the circuit court had discretion to overlook the facts relating to legal title. To the contrary, Corbeille's argument relies on cases that involve unjust enrichment claims against the owners of property.^[4] For example, Corbeille relies on Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis.2d 506, 405 N.W.2d 303 (1987), in which the plaintiff sought a share of "property accumulated during [a] nonmarital cohabitation relationship." Id. at 510. As part of the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff asked that "a constructive trust be imposed on the assets that the defendant acquired during their relationship." Id. at 533. In contrast, Corbeille's claim centers on an asset to which both parties had quitclaimed their interests during the course of their marriage. Watts is inapposite.

¶14 The remaining unjust enrichment cases that Corbeille cites are similarly unhelpful, because they each involve a defendant who owned real property. In Puttkammer v Minth, 83 Wis.2d 686, 266 N.W.2d 361 (1978), an asphalt company provided resurfacing services to a supper club that was leasing property from the defendant. Id. at 687. The proprietor of the supper club filed for bankruptcy, leaving the asphalt company unpaid. Id. at 688. The asphalt company then sued the property owner, alleging "that a benefit ha[d] been conferred on the defendant in that the value of his property ha[d] been enhanced." Id. at 689. The circuit court dismissed the complaint "because there had been no showing that the owner needed or wanted the resurfacing." Id. at 695. Our supreme court took issue with this reasoning because the dismissal "may [have been] based on a misconception that lack of privity precludes the existence of a cause of action for unjust enrichment." Id. The court explained that a claim for unjust enrichment "may be asserted by a subcontractor or contractor against an owner without any contractual relation between the parties." Id. Thus, Puttkammer relieves a plaintiff from having to demonstrate a contractual relationship with a defendant. However, nothing in Puttkammer...