dissenting.
I believe that Dade has stated a valid cause of action and that the majority’s reliance on Alexander is misplaced.
I agree with Justice Lacy’s analysis that the majority relies on mere dicta from Alexander. Further, the dicta derived from facts wholly dissimilar to those before us. The opinion in Alexander speaks of “performing the normal duties of a [spouse],” “presiding over the household,” “[l]abor in housekeeping,” “keeping [a] house,” and providing “the society and assistance of a [spouse].” 192 Va. at 10-12, 63 S.E.2d at 747-48. Here, however, Dade has alleged that she provided health care services “in lieu of provision of same by healthcare professionals,” services that had an alleged market value of $69,480. These allegations are sufficient to place Dade’s cause of action beyond the scope of the activities described in Alexander.
Instead, Dade’s allegations are similar to those described in Warren, in which this Court considered services alleged to be “of the type usually rendered only by trained attendants and beyond the scope of *13normal household duties.” 221 Va. at 1116, 277 S.E.2d at 493. Although the issue in Warren was whether such services could be “necessary medical attention” within the meaning of Code § 65.1-88 (now Code § 65.2-603), this Court’s decision was premised on the principle that care rendered by a spouse beyond the scope of “normal household duties” is not subject to the presumption that it has been rendered gratuitously. See 221 Va. at 1115-16, 277 S.E.2d at 493. The majority fails to acknowledge that Warren drew such a distinction between services within and services beyond the scope of “normal household duties.”
Moreover, the majority chooses to embrace the logic of the dicta in Alexander despite clear precedent to the contrary. In Browning v. Browning, 2 Va. Dec. 710, 36 S.E. 108 (1899), modified on reh'g, 2 Va. Dec. 714, 36 S.E. 525 (1900), a husband was allowed to recover for the value of work done on his wife’s farm, for which “the estate of Mrs. Browning received the benefit.” Id. at 711, 36 S.E. at 108. Although no express contract between the spouses was proved, the Court held that it “sufficiently appealed] that Browning expected to be remunerated in some way for the work done by him.” Id. at 712, 36 S.E. at 108. The majority inexplicably declines to follow this precedent.
The majority next dismisses Dade’s argument of unjust enrichment, citing the objection in Alexander that this would “place the marriage relation on too much of a commercial basis.” However, this justification is unpersuasive under the facts before us. Here, as in Browning, but in contrast to Alexander, the enrichment has been received not by the spouse, but by the spouse’s heirs. Thus, commercialization of the marital relationship is not implicated in this claim.
Dade’s allegations sufficiently show that her services have conferred a benefit on her husband’s heirs that would be unjust for them to retain. She has alleged that those services were provided “in lieu of” services procured from health care professionals, and that her services were factored into the amount of the malpractice settlement received by her husband’s estate. These allegations show that her services preserved and increased the amount of the estate, because the estate incurred no corresponding liability to discharge the decedent’s debts for professional health care. Thus, the estate purportedly has reaped the benefit of Dade’s labor, retaining a fund to be enjoyed by her husband’s heirs.
The equitable principle has long been established that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another. Rinehart v. Pirkey, 126 Va. 346, 351, 101 S.E. 353, 354 *14(1919). “It is a general rule of law that he who gains the labor or acquires the property of another must make reasonable compensation for the same.” Ricks v. Sumler, 179 Va. 571, 577, 19 S.E.2d 889, 891 (1942). The majority fails to acknowledge these principles in the decision it reaches today.
For these reasons, I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings on Dade’s amended motion for declaratory judgment.