Coppolillo v. Cort
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 725
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Coppolillo sues Cort for unjust enrichment arising from payments for Cort's Zuncor share and subsequent sale of the 45th Street Property.
- Coppolillo paid Cort $50,000 upfront and $2,000 per month from Oct 2005 to Jan 2007 for Cort's 25% Zuncor stake; agreement includes an integration clause.
- Zuni's Restaurant, the 45th Street Property, and RZK are interrelated corporate entities with intertwined family control; Cort and Zunica had guarantees on the mortgage.
- RZK sold the 45th Street Property to Macuga, with proceeds to cover the first mortgage and a debt of about $180,000 incurred by Zunica and Cort.
- After the sale, Zuncor ceased operations at the 45th Street Property; Coppolillo alleges this diminished his investment and value in Zuncor.
- Trial court granted Cort's summary judgment; Coppolillo appeals arguing genuine issues of material fact exist regarding unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred granting summary judgment on unjust enrichment. | Coppolillo asserts material facts show Cort was unjustly enriched. | Cort contends express contract governs remedy; no basis for equity. | Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. 1991) (unjust enrichment framework; recovery when justice requires)
- Zoeller v. E. Chicago Second Century, Inc., 904 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2009) (unjust enrichment requires benefit and unjust retention)
- Huff v. Biomet, Inc., 654 N.E.2d 830 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (contract not fully addressing relationship; equitable relief potential)
- Kern v. City of Lawrenceburg, 625 N.E.2d 1326 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (change-order-like limits on recovery under contract; equity not precluded when contract incomplete)
- Rent-A-PC, Inc. v. Rental Mgmt., Inc., 96 Conn.App. 600, 901 A.2d 720 (2006) (equitable restitution when contract does not fully address injustice)
- Town of New Hartford v. Conn. Res. Recovery Auth., 291 Conn. 433, 970 A.2d 592 (2009) (equitable relief where express contract insufficient)
- Porter v. Hu, 116 Hawai`i 42, 169 P.3d 994 (Haw.Ct.App.2007) (equitable relief appropriate when contract does not fully address)
- Cmty. Care Ctrs., Inc. v. Sullivan, 701 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (unclear; discusses unjust enrichment context and damages)
- Ruder v. Ohio Valley Wholesale, Inc., 736 N.E.2d 776 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (unclean hands analysis; limited application)
- St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Steele, 766 N.E.2d 699 (Ind.2002) (abrogated aspects; cited in Huff context)