Phillips v. Blankenship

Since the jury found against plaintiff on his clam that defendant improperly withdrew money from their joint checking account, plaintiff was not entitled to a set-off against the damages awarded to defendant on her counterclaim for breach of promise to marry.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Michael Phillips sued his ex-fiancee, Tracy Blankenship, in magistrate’s court for $2,458.34 he alleged she improperly withdrew from the parties’ joint checking account. Blankenship transferred the action to state court, answered the complaint, and counterclaimed for breach of promise to marry, breach of an oral employment contract, conversion of a bed and computer, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unjust enrichment. She also demanded a jury trial.

After trial, the jury returned a verdict against Phillips on his claim for money from their joint checking account, against Blankenship on her employment contract and conversion claims, and for Blankenship on both her breach of promise to marry claim $2,525.14 and her unjust enrichment claim $21,627.97. Phillips appeals, arguing in his first enumeration that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment nothwithstanding the verdict or for new trial regarding the breach of promise to marry claim, because the jury should have set off the amount awarded to Blankenship against the money she withdrew from the joint checking account and the money Phillips previously paid her for wedding debts she incurred. He further enumerates as error the trial court’s denial of his motions for directed verdict, for judgment nothwithstanding the verdict or for new trial on Blankenship’s unjust enrichment count. He argues that her claim was barred because she lived with Phillips, and because no evidence supported her unjust enrichment claim. Finding no merit to these arguments, we affirm the judgment on the verdict.

Phillips v. Blankenship

Since the jury found against plaintiff on his clam that defendant improperly withdrew money from their joint checking account, plaintiff was not entitled to a set-off against the damages awarded to defendant on her counterclaim for breach of promise to marry.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report