Roznowski v. Bozyk

• Decision Date: 17 January 1977
• Docket Number: Docket No. 26840
• Citation: 251 N.W.2d 606,73 Mich.App. 405
• Parties: Viola ROZNOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard P. BOZYK, Defendant-Appellant. 73 Mich.App. 405, 251 N.W.2d 606
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 606

251 N.W.2d 606

Viola ROZNOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard P. BOZYK, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 26840.

73 Mich.App. 405, 251 N.W.2d 606

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Jan. 17, 1977.

Released for Publication March 21, 1977.

[73 MICHAPP 406] Jason, Kowalski, Pugh & Poch by Douglas A. Pugh, Alpena, for defendant-appellant.

Richard A. Collins, Alpena, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CAVANAGH, P. J., and MAHER and BEASLEY, JJ.

CAVANAGH, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff brought an action in circuit court, claiming wages due on an express contract of employment, or in the alternative, claiming the value of the services rendered. After a trial to the court, judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000 on December 1, 1975. Defendant appeals as of right.

The following facts are undisputed.

Plaintiff met the defendant in 1967. They continued a social relationship until February of 1968, when the plaintiff moved into defendant's home and the parties began living together as husband and wife. The parties never formalized their relationship through marriage.

Before and during the parties' social relationship,[73 MICHAPP 407] the defendant owned and managed a resort located on Hubbard Lake in Alcona County. The resort comprised four cabins and a bar named the West Shore Tavern. Plaintiff had previously worked as a cocktail waitress in other local establishments, and, upon taking up residence with the defendant, she helped him run his resort, including painting and cleaning the cabins and working in the bar. In addition to her work at defendant's resort, the plaintiff performed most of the domestic chores in their home. In return, the defendant paid all of their expenses, including upkeep of their home, the plaintiff's insurance premiums, car payments, clothing, food, and medical bills.

On November 14, 1971, the defendant sold his resort, and the couple moved to other premises. Somewhat later, the relationship between the parties deteriorated, and plaintiff left the defendant in January, 1974.

In November of 1974, plaintiff commenced suit, claiming wages under an alleged express contract of employment entered into at the time at which she had moved in with the defendant, in 1968. At trial, the plaintiff also asked for recovery of the value of services received by the defendant, on an alternative theory of implied contract.

In its opinion, the trial court stated:

"(It) is obvious that no express contract has been proved. The further fact that Plaintiff drew unemployment compensation during the time that she first commenced living with the Defendant convinces this Court that an employer-employee relationship did not exist.

"However, there is proof sufficient to establish a claim wherein Defendant received the benefit of Plaintiff's services at the time that he owned the West Shore Tavern. The testimony is undisputed that Plaintiff worked long hours in the Tavern and also assisted in [73 MICHAPP 408] the maintenance of the cabins, which were rented during the resort season. There is evidence that the parties were joint owners of checking accounts and subsequently owned a home as joint tenants.

"Excluding Plaintiff's claim for services rendered in the home as gratuitous, she nevertheless is entitled for services rendered the West Shore Tavern in connection with the Tavern and cabin business."

On appeal, the defendant argues that since the parties lived together as husband and wife during the period in which the services were rendered, the services must be deemed gratuitous, absent the showing of an express contract of employment. He reasons that since the trial court found that such an express contract had never existed, relief on an implied contract or quantum meruit was improper.

Defendant's argument misses the mark. Although some states apply such a rule to services performed between parties in a family relationship, Michigan courts have not required proof of an express contract. Cf., McClelland v. Gorrell, 334 Ill.App. 132, 78 N.E.2d 803 (1948), with In re Mazurkiewicz's Estate, 328 Mich. 120, 43 N.W.2d 86 (1950), and In re Park's Estate, 326 Mich. 169, 39 N.W.2d 925 (1949). The Michigan rule is well stated in In re Park's Estate, supra:

"Assuming the correctness of the trial court's holding that the relationship between the parties was such as to give rise to a presumption of a gratuity, it is undoubtedly the law that such presumption is rebutted, an implied contract to pay arises and plaintiff is entitled to recover, if it be established that when the services were rendered plaintiff expected to receive and (defendant) expected to pay wages therefor."...