A conclusion of law which is supported by the trial court's findings of fact and which reflects an application of the correct rule of law will not be overturned. The theory of equitable estoppel requires proof that one person wilfully caused another person to erroneously believe a certain state of things, and that person reasonably relied on this erroneous belief to his or her detriment. Under the theory of quasi-estoppel, a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right inconsistent with a position previously taken by him or her. A constructive trust will be imposed where the evidence is clear and convincing that one party will be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the entire property.
Marriage holds positive and negative legal consequences for each party.
A person who is not legally married does not qualify for the positive legal consequences of marriage. At trial, Maria claimed an equitable interest in property and business acquired and improved upon during the course of her cohabitation and family relationship with Freitas based upon theories of implied contract, estoppel, quasi-estoppel, and constructive trust. The trial court held that the undisputed facts did not support the theories advanced by Maria and entered judgment in favor of Freitas. On appeal, Maria asserts that the trial court erred in its application of the law. Contrary to Maria's assertions, the facts of this case indicate the existence of a cohabitating relation- ship between two intentionally unmarried parties with separate property rights and interests.