doctrine of partition

Sue Ann Evans Watts commenced this action in 1982 against James Watts in the circuit court for Dane County. The amended complaint alleged that the parties met in 1967 when she was 19, living with her parents, and working full time as a nurse’s aide. Shortly after they met, the defendant persuaded her to move into an apartment he paid for and to quit her job, indicating he would provide for her. Early in 1969 the parties began living together in a marriage-like relationship, holding themselves out to the public as husband and wife. The plaintiff assumed the defendant’s surname. She gave birth to two children who also received his surname. The parties filed joint income tax returns and maintained joint bank accounts asserting that they were husband and wife. The defendant insured the plaintiff as his wife on his medical insurance policy. He also took out a life insurance policy on her as his wife, naming himself as the beneficiary. The parties purchased real and personal property as husband and wife. The plaintiff executed documents and obligated herself on promissory notes to lending institutions as the defendant’s wife. During their relationship, the plaintiff contributed childcare and homemaking services, including cleaning, cooking, laundering, shopping, running errands, and maintaining the grounds surrounding the parties’ home. She served as hostess for the defendant for social and business-related events. The amended complaint further asserts that periodically, between 1969 and 1975, the plaintiff cooked and cleaned for the defendant and his employees while his business, a landscaping service, was building and landscaping a golf course. From 1973 to 1976, the plaintiff worked 20-25 hours per week at the defendant’s office, performing duties as a receptionist, typist, and assistant bookkeeper. From 1976 to 1981, the plaintiff worked 40-60 hours per week at a business she started with the defendant’s sister-in-law, then continued and managed herself after the dissolution of that partnership. The plaintiff further alleges that in 1981 the defendant made their relationship so intolerable that she was forced to move from their home and their relationship was irretrievably broken. Subsequently, the defendant barred the plaintiff from returning to her business. The plaintiff alleges that during the parties’ relationship, and because of her domestic and business contributions, the business and personal wealth of the couple increased. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleges that she never received any compensation for these contributions to the relationship. The defendant indicated to the plaintiff both orally and through his conduct that he considered her to be his wife and that she would share equally in the increased wealth. The plaintiff asserts that since the breakdown of the relationship, the defendant has refused to share equally with her the wealth accumulated through their joint efforts. He has also refused to compensate her in any way for her contributions to the relationship. The circuit court dismissed the amended complaint, pursuant to sec. 802.06(2)(f), Stats. 1985-86, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This court took jurisdiction of the appeal upon certification by the court of appeals under sec. (Rule) 809.61, Stats. 1985-86.