Nguyen v. Nguyen
1 CA-CV 16-0158
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Chi Nguyen) lived with Cathy Nguyen; Cathy allegedly paid for a house but placed the deed in her sister-in-law Loananh Nguyen’s name to preserve disability benefits.
- Plaintiff paid roughly $40,000–$50,000 for improvements to the house; Loananh did not know of or consent to the improvements until after they were completed.
- Plaintiff sued Cathy and Loananh for breach of contract (oral promise to repay) and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the superior court granted summary judgment for both defendants, concluding no enforceable contract and no unjust enrichment liability.
- On appeal, the court examined whether (1) an oral contract existed between Plaintiff and Cathy, and (2) unjust enrichment liability attached to either Cathy or Loananh.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of an oral contract with Cathy | Cathy agreed to repay Plaintiff for the improvements | Plaintiff’s testimonial motive (planned marriage) undermines repayment claim; defendants argued lack of sworn affidavit too | Reversed as to Cathy — verified complaint and deposition create genuine factual dispute; credibility is for trial |
| Existence of an oral contract with Loananh | Loananh was the ostensible owner; Cathy had authority to bind her | Loananh never agreed or authorized Cathy; apparent authority cannot be created by agent’s acts alone | Affirmed for Loananh — Plaintiff admitted Loananh did not consent; no conduct by Loananh created apparent authority |
| Unjust enrichment against Cathy | Cathy (allegedly actual owner) was enriched by the improvements | Deed shows Loananh is owner; Plaintiff gave no competent evidence Cathy owned or retained proceeds | Affirmed — Plaintiff failed to prove Cathy’s ownership or that enrichment was unjust as to Cathy |
| Unjust enrichment against Loananh | Owner benefited from improvements; should compensate Plaintiff | Plaintiff voluntarily improved property without owner’s knowledge or consent; generally no recovery for unrequested work | Affirmed — as a matter of law no unjust enrichment where plaintiff voluntarily performed work without owner’s request or consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. of S. Cal., 153 Ariz. 585 (1987) (defines apparent authority elements)
- Reed v. Gershweir, 160 Ariz. 203 (1989) (apparent authority cannot be based solely on agent’s acts)
- AROK Constr. Co. v. Indian Constr. Servs., 174 Ariz. 291 (App. 1993) (summary-judgment evidence viewed in favor of nonmoving party)
- Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301 (1990) (standard for granting summary judgment)
- Cullison v. City of Peoria, 120 Ariz. 165 (1978) (courts may consider verified pleadings and depositions, not only affidavits, in opposing summary judgment)
- Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, L.L.C., 230 Ariz. 314 (App. 2012) (elements and framework for unjust enrichment/quantum meruit)
- Blue Ridge Sewer Improvement Dist. v. Lowry & Assoc., Inc., 149 Ariz. 373 (App. 1986) (generally no quantum meruit recovery for unrequested work)
- Braillard v. Maricopa County, 224 Ariz. 481 (App. 2010) (credibility determinations are inappropriate on summary judgment)