613 S.W.3d 773
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background:
- John and Sally Spann sold Texas property and supplied funds to build a house (2008–2009) on real property titled in John and Marvilla Trickett’s names; most construction checks were written by Sally Spann from a joint account created for that purpose.
- Several checks were annotated “gift” at Trickett’s request, but the circuit court found Sally did not intend to make gifts and that the Spanns intended the funds for construction, not to transfer their estate to Trickett.
- Construction cost was about $160,000; appraiser Donald Burris testified the house’s contributory value was $150,000.
- Marvilla died in 2013; the Spanns moved out in 2016, continued to maintain and pay taxes on the property, and sued Trickett in 2018 for unjust enrichment and a constructive trust after he refused to reimburse them.
- Bench trial was held April 26, 2019; the Franklin County Circuit Court entered judgment for the Spanns for $150,000 (unjust enrichment) and denied Trickett’s counterclaim alleging a cloud on title; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court’s finding of unjust enrichment was clearly erroneous | Spanns: They furnished the funds to build the house on the Tricketts’ titled property, did not intend gifts, reasonably expected repayment, and Burris’s appraisal establishes $150,000 value | Trickett: The funds were gifts to him and Marvilla; no unjust enrichment and no obligation to repay | Affirmed — court found all four elements of unjust enrichment proven and awarded $150,000; counterclaim denied |
Key Cases Cited:
- Sims v. Moser, 373 Ark. 491, 284 S.W.3d 505 (2008) (standard of review for bench-trial findings: clearly erroneous)
- Campbell v. Asbury Auto., Inc., 2011 Ark. 157, 381 S.W.3d 21 (2011) (definition and elements of unjust enrichment)
- Dews v. Halliburton Indus., Inc., 288 Ark. 532, 708 S.W.2d 67 (1986) (quasi-contracts are restitutionary legal fictions to prevent unjust enrichment)
- Phipps v. Wilson, 251 Ark. 377, 472 S.W.2d 929 (1971) (elements required to establish an inter vivos gift)
- Hatchell v. Wren, 363 Ark. 107, 211 S.W.3d 516 (2005) (restitution required where a party has received value to which it is not entitled)
- Rigsby v. Rigsby, 356 Ark. 311, 149 S.W.3d 318 (2004) (unjust-enrichment principles and relief)
- Sanders v. Bradley Cty. Human Servs. Pub. Facilities Bd., 330 Ark. 675, 956 S.W.2d 187 (1997) (recovery focuses on benefit received by the enriched party)
- Frigillana v. Frigillana, 266 Ark. 296, 584 S.W.2d 30 (1979) (tort or fraud is not required for unjust-enrichment relief)
- Malone v. Hines, 36 Ark. App. 254, 822 S.W.2d 394 (1992) (innocent defendants may still be required to disgorge unjust enrichment)