Bakke v. D & A Landscaping Co.
2012 ND 170
| N.D. | 2012Background
- This is the North Dakota Supreme Court's 2012 decision affirming a district court judgment awarding Smestad $30,025 plus interest on an unjust enrichment theory.
- Smestad and Harris had a spring 2007–late 2008 personal/business relationship; Smestad lent money to Harris and Oasis Water Systems, Inc., and later sought repayment of more than $112,000.
- In Smestad I, the Court affirmed some findings, reversed others, and remanded for determination of equitable relief—noting the oral loan agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds due to the amount exceeding $25,000.
- On remand, a new district judge concluded Smestad was entitled to equitable relief under unjust enrichment, relying on the record and prior findings, and entered a judgment for $30,025 plus interest.
- Harris challenged (1) whether remand proceedings required a hearing/notice, (2) whether unjust enrichment could be considered since not explicitly pled, and (3) whether Smestad proved unjust enrichment; the district court denied Harris’s relief motions.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the remand procedure was permissible on the record, Smestad’s pleadings gave notice of equitable relief, and Smestad proved the elements of unjust enrichment; a dissenting view suggested more extensive remand procedures were warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand procedure adequacy | Harris argues remand required a hearing/notice; Smestad contends the record sufficed. | Remand should have included new evidence/hearing or explicit notice to Harris. | Discretion allowed; record supported result; hearing/noticing remand not required in this record. |
| Adequacy of pleading for equitable relief | Smestad pled for monetary relief and general equitable relief; unjust enrichment not explicitly required. | Equitable relief must be explicitly pled under Rule 8. | Complaint gave notice; Court can determine equitable matters incidental to complete justice. |
| Existence of unjust enrichment | Smestad performed loans; Harris benefited; enrichment without justification and without legal remedy. | Harris argues lack of proof or alternative remedies negate unjust enrichment. | Record supports enrichment, impoverishment, connection, and lack of justification; elements met. |
| Remedy at law issue | There was no adequate legal remedy due to statute of frauds. | Legal remedies were available or alternative approaches should have been pursued. | Statute of frauds issue controlled; restitution available under unjust enrichment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Livingood v. Balsdon, 2006 ND 215 (N.D. 2006) (remand procedure when not specifying how to proceed)
- Kautzman v. Kautzman, 2000 ND 116 (N.D. 2000) (standard for remand discretion)
- Thompson v. Schmitz, 2009 ND 183 (N.D. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Estate of Hill, 492 N.W.2d 288 (N.D. 1992) (notice pleading permits equitable relief and restitution)
- Smestad v. Harris, 2011 ND 91 (N.D. 2011) (statute of frauds rendered oral loan unenforceable; equitable restitution discussed)
- Midland Diesel Serv. & Engine Co. v. Sivertson, 307 N.W.2d 555 (N.D. 1981) (unjust enrichment framework and factual review)