461 P.3d 127
Mont.2020Background
- SCL Health instituted a Patient Refund Card Program (prepaid MasterCard cards issued via Bank of America) to refund patient overpayments, to save costs and speed refunds.
- Under the Program SCL debited refunds from its own account; Bank of America created and mailed prepaid cards; SCL could reverse the card load within 14 days but not after; patients could instead request a free check at any time.
- Cheryl Bratton received two small refunds via the Program (total $27.75); one card was activated but unused, the other was never activated; she later requested and received checks.
- Bratton sued SCL asserting (among other claims) violation of § 28-1-1002, constructive trust/unjust enrichment, Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) violation, and money had and received; the district court granted summary judgment for SCL.
- On appeal the Montana Supreme Court reviewed summary judgment de novo and considered whether SCL transferred its obligation to pay, whether Bratton suffered an ascertainable loss, and whether SCL retained any unjust benefit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCL violated § 28-1-1002 by transferring the burden to Bank of America | Bratton: use of the prepaid card program transferred SCL’s obligation to pay refunds to Bank of America in violation of the statute | SCL: the Program merely delegated performance; SCL’s obligation remained because funds were debited from SCL’s account and SCL never disclaimed liability | Held: No violation — SCL paid from its account and only delegated performance; statute prohibits transfer of the obligation itself, not customary means of payment |
| Whether unjust enrichment / constructive trust is warranted | Bratton: SCL saved money under the Program and thus was unjustly enriched and should be subject to constructive trust | SCL: Bratton received the refund value and SCL did not retain the benefit; checks were ultimately issued | Held: No unjust enrichment — SCL returned the benefit (refunds); no inequitable retention and no constructive trust remedy |
| Whether SCL’s conduct violated the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) | Bratton: the Program was deceptive and she suffered an ascertainable loss because she could not obtain her money from SCL directly | SCL: Bratton suffered no ascertainable loss; she received the refunds and could have requested checks; no deception shown | Held: No MCPA claim — plaintiff failed to show ascertainable loss or deception on this record |
| Whether SCL is liable for "money had and received" | Bratton: SCL received money that should have been paid to her but ceded control to Bank of America and disclaimed liability | SCL: Bratton was paid via the prepaid cards and later checks; SCL did not withhold payment | Held: Claim fails — Bratton received the funds and SCL did not fail to pay her |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Scholes, 229 N.W. 114 (N.D. 1930) (distinguished — involved transfer of contractual burdens affecting property interests)
- AICCO, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 90 Cal. App. 4th 579 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (distinguishable — involved insurer disclaiming liability after transferring obligations)
- Volk v. Goeser, 367 P.3d 378 (Mont. 2016) (describes elements for unjust enrichment and constructive trust remedy)
- North Cheyenne Tribe v. Roman Catholic Church, 296 P.3d 450 (Mont. 2013) (equitable scope for imposing constructive trust)
- Puryer v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 419 P.3d 105 (Mont. 2018) (explains that MCPA plaintiffs need not show actual damages but must show ascertainable loss)
- Morrow v. Bank of Am., N.A., 324 P.3d 1167 (Mont. 2014) (MCPA requires ascertainable loss to bring individual claim)