allowing unjust enrichment claim where a building owned by defendant was benefited by plaintiff’s financing of renovations, increasing the building’s value significantly
How later courts described this case
- allowing unjust enrichment claim where a building owned by defendant was benefited by plaintiff’s financing of renovations, increasing the building’s value significantly
- requiring proof of non-payment in an action for unjust enrichment
- a “contract implied in law” is imposed or created without regard to the promise of the party to be bound
- “The most significant requirement is that the enrichment to the defendant be unjust.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*268 CLARK, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the majority opinion to the extent that opinion holds appellant’s petition subject to dismissal for failure to allege the elements of a claim qualified for recovery under the doctrine of quantum meruit. I do not agree that appellant should be denied recovery in all circumstances merely because it had available but failed to perfect a mechanic’s lien.
As to the equitable ground for recovery ostensibly relied on by appellant in its petition below, the petition allegations, set out in the majority opinion, are fogged by uncertainty as to how it is claimed respondent property owners were unjustly enriched by such work and material as was supplied by the defaulting and now bankrupt contractor, Anchor Company. The petition lacks allegations negating the possibility that respondents, too, may have suffered loss at the hand of Anchor. Obviously, if respondents’ paid Anchor and on that account refused to pay a second time to appellant, they were not unjustly enriched.
Doubt on this aspect of the pleading was resolved at oral argument when counsel for appellant disclaimed any obligation to allege or prove non-payment by respondent to Anchor of the material bill which appellant now seeks to collect from respondents. The authorities cited in the majority opinion fully confirm that the equitable claim appellant asserts includes as an element for recovery the allegation and proof of nonpayment which appellant has expressly disavowed.
The case is susceptible of disposition on the failure of appellant to plead a cause of action, as the primary portion of the majority opinion rules. Consideration of whether, under any facts, a sub-contractor may proceed in equity against a property owner, is unnecessary to disposition of this case and, in my view, should be reserved for opinion in a case which adequately poses the problem of a lien opportunity lost and a property owner unjustly enriched at the expense of a laborer or materialman.