Appellate panel hears dispute over carve-out for daughters, unjust-enrichment language in Zaire divorce

An appellate panel heard argument in the divorce appeal of Joe Wade Zaire on Monday over whether the trial court properly allocated value from home improvements and whether part of its order effectively created an enforceable unjust-enrichment claim for the couple’s daughters.

John Mattson, attorney for appellant Joe Wade Zaire, told the panel the appeal turns on three points: vacating a portion of the divorce order that he said awarded $240,000 to the daughters, rejecting an unjust-enrichment theory the trial judge invoked in closing, and confirming the date from which interest should accrue. "There’s no evidence before the trial court on this amount of money," Mattson said, noting that one daughter testified an invoice showed $127,000 in remodel costs and arguing that figure, if accepted, should be the upper bound for any award.

The judge pressed Mattson about a separate, agreed-upon appraisal figure: counsel and the parties had stipulated the home’s value increased by $375,000 attributable to the daughters’ contributions. Mattson replied the $375,000 could reflect earlier work and that the house has not sold, so the realized value is uncertain.

Respondent counsel Valerie Villasen, for Mahir Zahir, said the trial court was doing what dissolution courts do when allocating community assets and liabilities. Villasen argued the mother testified the daughters’ payments were made with the expectation they would benefit (either by receiving the home later or proceeds if it were sold) and that the trial court adjusted the mother’s share of the estate to reflect that expectation. "If I sell a house, I’m going to give them $375,000," Villasen quoted the mother as saying, and she told the panel the obligation was assigned to the wife in the property division rather than creating an immediately enforceable lien by nonparties.

Judges and counsel debated whether the trial court actually adjudicated an unjust-enrichment claim or merely relied on the concept analogically to reach an equitable division between the spouses. One judge observed that because the daughters have not sued on an unjust-enrichment theory outside the dissolution, "a defendant who's never been sued owes 0," underscoring that any external claim remains unadjudicated until filed and litigated.

Mattson told the panel the practical consequence of the trial court’s language is unequal treatment: he said the husband could be left with substantially less from the only major asset in the estate while nonparty daughters would receive a fixed carve-out. He also raised a cross-appeal point about interest, arguing existing precedent shows interest often accrues when a home is sold or when refinancing obligations mature rather than automatically from the judgment date in the posture presented.

Villasen countered that even if the panel removed the label "unjust enrichment" the trial court would likely reach a similar result on remand—adjusting the mother’s share in equity because the record showed mutual expectations about the dispositions of the house—and therefore no remand was warranted.

The panel heard oral argument but did not announce a decision at the conclusion of the session.

The court’s record shows several factual points at issue in the appeal: an invoice referenced by a witness for $127,000; a stipulated increase in value of $375,000 attributed to the daughters’ contributions; and a contested award the appellant characterizes as $240,000 to the daughters. Counsel cited cases including Burns, Gormley, Young v. Young, Agwire and Herzog while disputing whether the trial court’s framing created an enforceable third-party obligation or only an internal, equitable allocation between spouses.