820 N.W.2d 363
N.D.2012Background
- Harris appeals district court judgment awarding Smestad $30,025 plus interest under unjust enrichment theory.
- This case follows Smestad I, where the court remanded to determine equitable relief despite the oral loan being unenforceable under the statute of frauds.
- On remand, a new judge relied on the record and found unjust enrichment entitles Smestad to restitution.
- Harris argued remand proceedings lacked notice/hearing and the district court erred by addressing unjust enrichment without a specific unjust enrichment claim in Smestad’s complaint.
- Smestad’s complaint sought “such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable,” sufficiently signaling equitable relief, though not expressly alleging unjust enrichment.
- The district court ultimately concluded Smestad proved the required elements of unjust enrichment and ordered judgment for Smestad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand proceedings required a hearing | Smestad | Harris | Discretion allowed; no abuse of discretion by relying on the record |
| Whether Smestad's complaint adequately raised unjust enrichment | Smestad | Harris | Complaint provided notice; unjust enrichment considered |
| Whether the district court erred in applying unjust enrichment where the contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds | Smestad | Harris | Restitution permitted under unjust enrichment even when contract unenforceable |
| Whether the district court erred in its factual findings supporting unjust enrichment | Smestad | Harris | Findings not clearly erroneous; supported by record |
| Whether Smestad had an available remedy at law | Smestad | Harris | Remains governed by statute of frauds ruling; no legal remedy at law |
Key Cases Cited
- Livinggood v. Balsdon, 2006 ND 215 (ND) (remand procedure governs use of evidence on remand when not specified by appellate remand order)
- Kautzman v. Kautzman, 2000 ND 116 (ND) (discretionary remand procedures; abuse if arbitrary or misapplied law)
- Thompson v. Schmitz, 2009 ND 183 (ND) (abuse of discretion standard in remand context)
- Estate of Hill, 492 N.W.2d 288 (ND) (notice pleading allows equitable relief if pleadings give notice of right and demand judgment)
- Smestad v. Harris (Smestad I), 2011 ND 91 (ND) (remand for equitable relief and statute of frauds issues; credibility determinations on appeal)
- Williston on Contracts, 10 Lord, Williston on Contracts § 27:22 () (restoration when contract unenforceable but partly performed)