Therefore, we stipulate that a party who lives with another without a subsequent marriage has the right to be discharged if an express contract or viable theory of equity, such as an implied contract or unjust enrichment, is presented. Unjust enrichment. The most revealing part of Judge McKinney`s statement concerns Conseco`s unfair enrichment trial against Murray`s wife. According to Indiana law, “a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is obliged to make a refund in order to reimburse the other.” To succeed in an unfair action for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must “prove that the defendant was granted a measurable benefit in circumstances such that the defendant`s continued benefit would be unjustified without payment.” Here`s Conseco`s theory: The trial court ruled that CSCI was entitled to the unpaid amount plus its attorneys` fees (under the Indiana Mechanic`s Lien Act). Walsh appealed, arguing that since HICA had prevented an infringement action, SCC should also be prevented from recovering on the basis of an unjust enrichment theory or under mechanic`s privilege. The trial court based its decision on the concepts of implied contract, unjust enrichment and considerations of equity. The trial court held that the relationship could involve a contract based on Bright`s control over Kuehl and that his expenses outweighed his contribution to his own benefit and that Kuehl was therefore entitled to compensation. Decision: The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court`s decision. In the absence of a contract, a party can recover under a theory of unjust enrichment – a just doctrine that allows recovery when the circumstances are such that justice requires recovery, as if there had been a promise. A mechanic`s privilege is fair in nature and based on a theory of unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeal concluded that it would be unfair to Walsh to retain the benefits of CSCI`s services despite CSCI`s failure to comply with HICA. Other jurisdictions have also adopted this right of appeal, ruling that unmarried couples may, after the end of their relationship, assert equitable rights such as an implied contract and unjust enrichment if either party seeks to retain an unreasonable amount of assets acquired through the efforts of both. See, for example, the landmark decision Marvin v.
Marvin (1976), 18 Cal.3d 660, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106 (1976) and also; Boland v. Catalano (1987), 202 Conn. 333, 521 A.2d 142; Freemason v. Rostad (1984), D.C.App., 476 A.2d 662; Eriksen`s Estate (1983), Mn., 337 N.W.2d 671; U.S. v. Hay (1984), 100 Nev.
196, 678 p.2d 672; Collins v. Davis (1984), 68 N.C. App. 588, 315 S.E.2d 759, aff`d by 312 N.C. 324, 321 S.E.2d 892; Knauer v. Knauer (1983), 323 Pa.Super. 206, 470 A.2d 553; Watt v. Watts (1987), 137 Wis.2d 506, 405 N.W.2d 303, examination rejected. *316 Bright also submits that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment. To assert a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must prove that a measurable benefit was provided to the defendant in circumstances such that continued performance without payment by the defendant would be unjustified. [7] Bayh v. Sonnenburg (1991), Ind., 573 N.E.2d 398, 408, reh.
denied, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1094, 112 p. ct. 1170, 117 L. ed. 2D 415. The principles of equity prohibit unjust enrichment by a party that accepts the unclaimed benefits of another party even if it has the opportunity to deny those benefits. Olsson v. Moore (1992), Ind.
App., 590 N.E.2d 160, 163, deer. denied. Here, Bright and Kuehl moved in together and shared their costs. They mixed their funds and basically managed their finances together. Although Kuehl made a larger financial contribution, we cannot conclude that Bright was unfairly enriched by its shares, as Kuehl retained much of the assets acquired during their cohabitation. While we recognize that unjust enrichment is a remedy available to one party who has lived with another, we disagree with the trial court that Kuehl has demonstrated that Bright unjustly enriched himself. We therefore conclude that the trial court`s appeal for unjust enrichment to award Kuehl`s remedy was inappropriate. Conseco claims to be a creditor of Murray; that he has made a legitimate claim for fraudulent transfer against him; that Murray gave Margaret Murray a measurable advantage through her fraudulent transfers; and that Margaret Murray unjustly enriched herself at the expense of Conseco. Consequently, Conseco argues that it would be unfair to Margaret Murray to retain the assets fraudulently transferred by Murray without payment to Conseco. [7] We note that unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, implied contract, implied contract and quasi-contract are merely legal fictions invented by common law courts to allow recovery when in fact there is no contract, but where the circumstances are such that, under the law of natural and immutable justice, Recovery should be done as if there had been a promise.
Bayh, infra, p. 408 (citing Clark v. Peoples Sav. & Loan Ass`n (1943), 221 Ind. 168, 171, 46 N.E.2d 681, 682). With all due respect, I disagree. I do not disagree with the assertion of the majority in the legislation. Admittedly, the evidence is such that the court could not have concluded that there was an implied contract or unjust enrichment. However, the evidence also supports the court`s conclusion, and I believe the majority is guilty of reassessing the evidence and the reasonable conclusions to be drawn from it in deciding to overturn the decision.
That is not our job. It is therefore now necessary to consider whether the trial court validly granted Kuehl a remedy on the basis of implied contract and unjust enrichment and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment. [6] Third party? The tricky issue in this case concerned Murray`s assertion that Indiana law required that Conseco had been directly beneficial to her. Having received no (money) benefit directly from Conseco, Ms Murray argued that the action should have been dismissed. The legal question was whether a benefit granted by a third party (her husband) could support an unfair enrichment action in Indiana. The General Court, relying on similar case-law against Ms Murray, concluded that Conseco had validly asserted a right of appeal, even though Conseco argued that Mr Murray and not Conseco had granted the advantage. McKinney J.`s dismissal of the defendants` motion to dismiss in Murray v. Conseco, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 85500 (S.D. Ind. 2008) (pdf: Murray) discusses the relatively new approach of exploiting a common law claim for unjust enrichment in a fraudulent transfer case. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found that the plaintiff creditor had asserted a viable claim for unjust enrichment. As mentioned earlier, such causes of action can help safe executives struggling with the collection of default judgments. When analyzing various reorganization options where you, as a secured creditor, believe that a borrower or guarantor has transferred assets to avoid collection, you should consider the appropriateness of a claim against the purchaser based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. While I have not seen the theory in action, the theory of unjust enrichment seems to lend itself to the possibility of a lighter burden of proof than the UFTA`s claim. I would like to hear from those of you who have seen the benefits of this alternative theory. HICA generally requires a do-it-yourselfer to provide a consumer with a written home improvement contract with certain conditions. At trial, CSCI only pursued claims for the lien and unjust enrichment of its mechanic, knowing that it would not be able to assert its breach of contract claim due to its non-compliance with HICA.
Walsh filed a counterclaim based on CSCI`s breach of HICA. Kuehl then sued Bright for damages arising from Bright`s alleged unauthorized use and control of his credit cards and checkbook, Bright`s destruction of his personal property, medical expenses as a result of Bright`s physical assaults, and Bright`s excessive use of the phone. Kuehl sought $14,000 in damages, plus triple damages, punitive damages and attorneys` fees. Bright filed a counterclaim for damages and punitive damages based on Kuehl`s unjust enrichment due to the preservation of his personal property and the pain and suffering resulting from Kuehl`s abusive conduct. Remanded in custody with direction to the trial court to set aside judgments on damages and punitive damages in Kuehl`s favor. Catherine L. (Carpenter) Bright (“Bright”) appeals the judgment of the trial court for damages against her and in favor of Ronald E. Kuehl, Jr.
(“Kuehl”). In his appeal, Bright raises four points for our review, which we summarize in two and rephrase as follows: McKinney J. dismissed Murray`s request to dismiss the UFTA`s lawsuit. Conseco satisfied the conditions of the plea, in particular because Murray voluntarily transferred sums of money to his wife when he owed her substantial sums.