Being sued for "companionship"

[romadison]

What is the name of your state? Tennessee
I posted earlier about a $40,000 debt my husband has now paid to his former girlfriend, he also will have paid 7% interest on the debt in full as of 1/1/06. The woman seems bent on getting him to pay for her help while he lived with her and is sending a certified letter with cancelled checks in it next week. She intends to sue him for things she paid for while they lived together. He helped with her kids, did housework, and basically was her partner in life for less than two years. There was no contract between them for things she bought for him or paid for. Basically, she is guilting him, although she is a very wealthy woman and could afford to be generous. He has made monthly payments absolutely consistently over the past 96 months to pay her off and thought it would be over by 1/1/06. All of this occurred in 1997 and 1998. Is there a statute of limitations in such cases? Also, does she have to sue him in Tennessee (they lived together in Wisconsin)? Thanks!

[Chien]

The SOLs in Wisconsin and Tennessee are not relevant. You husband has been paying regularly. At best/worst, the SOL started to run when there was a payment default, and you give no evidence that there's a payment agreement or a "due" date.

However, the length of time this has gone on may be relevant for a different reason. At the heart of things is your contention that "there was no contract between them". From the facts of your post, your husband's benefactor would have to prove that there was an agreement that she be re-paid and that the cancelled checks were not gifts of one sort or another. The fact that your spouse paid is not enough, if he contends that they were gifts and he was paying out of a sense of moral obligation. He can disavow that any time that he chooses. Then acquaint yourself with the Statute of Frauds. That's a rule that requires that some contracts must be written to be valid. Included are contracts that cannot be performed within one year, contracts to pay someone else's debts and contracts made in consideration of marriage. I believe that it's codified in your state and Wisconsin.

If she contends that an agreement was made to re-pay, Wisconsin would be the place to sue, but she could choose to do it in Tennessee, rather than domesticate a judgment she hopes to take. Or does she? 96 months is a long time to cooperate. Are you the only one upset?

[romadison]

No, my husband is in quite a dither over this. He dug through old letters and papers and has an informal contract he wrote up regarding the $40,000 debt and the 7% interest. According to that, it should have been paid off in 48 months beginning in 1997. He didn't start making payments until 1/98, but she did argue that fact and has accepted the payments for the past 95 months. It was only after he e-mailed her and told her to expect the last payment in January that she has decided to try to collect more. Fortunately, my husband's e-mails and letters to her have all been respectful and courteous, as he does appreciate the loan. However, she is a loose cannon and has the resources to sue, if she has a case.

[Chien]

Now reference to an "informal (written) contract" is coming out.

Aside from the comment on the fact that the SOL doesn't start until there's a payment default, I have limited confidence in any prior remarks. Let's leave it at that. We don't know the essential terms of the contract, whether it's an adequate written agreement, whether it was perfected, whether it was revised ("she did argue [a late start] and has accepted the payments for the past 95 months"), or any other things needed to respond to the question, under the circumstances.

[romadison]

I don't mean to be obtuse, I simply didn't know about the informal contract (yet formal enough that both signed it and agreed to the terms). There has been no change to the contract, nor has there been any other arrangements made since that time.

Perhaps I don't make myself clear, the loan (and contract) was for $40,000 at 7% interest for 48 months. He will have paid it off, including 7% interest by 1/1/06. What she is threatening is to sue him for use of her car, living in her home, paying for his glasses, etc. Perhaps that is what might be relevant to the Statute of Fraud you mentioned. If there was no contract between them for him to repay her for those items and any other living expenses while they were together, then the Statue of Fraud may give him some remedy. Am I understanding this correctly or am I still being unclear?

Thank you.

[Chien]

You weren't being obtuse. It wasn't a matter of what was not clear as much as what was omitted. The *contract* makes a difference because, "informal" or not, they seemingly both treated it as a binding agreement, and now it's about to become fully performed.

I read your original post. That too said "there was no written contract", so I believed there was no contract, and adopted seniorjudge's position that "we can guess, but a court will decide." I'd even make the same guess - i.e. no further obligation.

If it comes to litigation, the Statute of Frauds is just a hook to hang an argument on. Another and, in my opinion, better argument is that there was an agreement. I'd adopt that idea and elevate it. Refer to it as THE contract.

I'm simplifying the idea and, as seniorjudge implies, you should have your own attorney, if she has hers. But, on the facts that we now have, I think the SOL becomes relevant, and the time period for Tenn. and Wisconsin is 6 years. Wisconsin is particularly clear that paymemnts toll the statute, so your husband's payments must be seen as related to and only to THE contract. The argument would run along the lines that THE contract is complete unto itself. It says what it says. Your husband has performed and now "she" is trying to re-write it and bring other things in. The other things were gifts or quid pro quo for watching the kinds or whatever you want to call them, but there was no obligation to re-pay and, even if there was, it's time-barred. That's just my opinion. You can get others here and your attorney should make the final decision.