324 So.3d 286
Miss.2021Background
- Hughes paid $100,000 to Tom Shipp in July 2004 under a written agreement that Tom would convey two lake lots; Tom died in October 2004 and Hughes did not probate a claim against the estate.
- In May 2008 Hughes paid $33,000 (memo: “Investment Lot (total 3)”) to Rose Lake, LLC/ David Shipp seeking a third lot; he never received any conveyances.
- Hughes sued Sandra (Tom’s heir), David, and Rose Lake LLC in September 2017 for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and related relief.
- At the close of Hughes’s case the chancery court granted a Rule 41(b) involuntary dismissal: it found no enforceable contract/ratification and concluded Hughes’s unjust-enrichment claim was time-barred.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed on alternate grounds (Statute of Frauds barred the land contract; any claim on the $100,000 belonged to Tom’s estate; and Hughes failed to “identify a promise”), but held the unjust-enrichment statute of limitations issue favored timeliness.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that unjust-enrichment accrual is the relevant SOL trigger (not the payment dates), rejected the requirement that plaintiff identify an express promise for unjust enrichment, reversed dismissal of the unjust-enrichment claim, and remanded that claim for factual determination of accrual and sufficiency of evidence; all other dismissals were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the three-year statute of limitations for unjust enrichment run from the payments or from accrual (when the implied promise was broken)? | Hughes: SOL began when he knew defendants would not perform, not when he paid. | Shipps: SOL began on payment dates (2004 and 2008); too late. | Accrual governs; SOL begins when unjust-enrichment cause of action accrued (when unjust retention occurred). Remanded to determine accrual date. |
| Does unjust enrichment require proof of an express promise (i.e., must plaintiff "identify a promise")? | Hughes: No—unjust enrichment is based on a promise implied in law; express promise not required. | Shipps/COA: Plaintiff failed to identify a promise, so equitable claims fail. | Court: Express-promise requirement (as in promissory estoppel) is inapplicable; unjust enrichment requires an implied legal promise and proof that defendants retain money/property they should not. |
| Was Hughes’s $100,000 claim necessarily a claim against Tom Shipp’s estate that he failed to timely bring? | Hughes: Seeks rescission/unjust enrichment from defendants, not recovery from Tom’s estate; ratification by heirs was asserted. | Shipps: Payment to Tom created an estate claim; Hughes did not probate or timely file against estate. | Court: Whether the estate-procedure issue or estate-bar applies is fact-specific and better resolved by the chancellor on remand; appellate court should not decide de novo on Rule 41(b) record. |
| Did the chancery court correctly dismiss the breach-of-contract/ratification claim? | Hughes: March 2015 meeting ratified Tom’s agreement. | Shipps: No meeting of the minds; Statute of Frauds and lack of ratification defeat contract claim. | Affirmed: Contract/ratification claim fails under the Statute of Frauds and no meeting of the minds found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Magnolia Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Randal Craft Realty Co., 342 So. 2d 1308 (Miss. 1977) (unjust enrichment/quasi-contract arises from a promise implied in law)
- Hans v. Hans, 482 So. 2d 1117 (Miss. 1986) (unjust enrichment applies where one holds money/property that in equity should be returned)
- Anderson v. LaVere, 136 So. 3d 404 (Miss. 2014) (three-year limitations period applies to unjust enrichment; accrual when implied promise is broken)
- Leal v. Univ. of S. Miss., 296 So. 3d 660 (Miss. 2020) (promissory estoppel requires identification of a promise; distinguished from unjust enrichment)
- Young v. S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 592 So. 2d 103 (Miss. 1991) (contract claims accrue at breach, not formation)
- Estate of Johnson v. Adkins, 513 So. 2d 922 (Miss. 1987) (unjust enrichment/quasi-contract principles)
- Lagniappe Logistics, Inc. v. Buras, 199 So. 3d 675 (Miss. 2016) (statute-of-limitations application can turn on factual issues)