275 P.3d 839
Idaho2012Background
- Stevensons entered a REPSA to purchase a condo from Jefferson and paid $38,000 earnest money to Windermere as broker.
- Jefferson deposited the Stevensons' funds and later paid Windermere a $9,500 commission under an Exclusive Seller Representation Agreement.
- Jefferson terminated the REPSA and did not refund the earnest money; settlement later refunded most of it minus Windermere's commission.
- Stevensons sued Jefferson and Windermere, asserting unjust enrichment against both and alleging REPSA unenforceable due to inadequate description.
- District court granted Windermere summary judgment on unjust enrichment, and awarded Windermere attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121; Windermere’s § 12-120(1) request was denied.
- On appeal, Windermere cross-appealed the denial of § 12-120(1) fees; Stevensons challenged the unjust enrichment dismissal and fee awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was unjust enrichment proper against Windermere? | Stevensons contend Windermere benefited from funds; unjust enrichment should apply. | Windermere did not receive a conferred benefit from Stevensons; no unjust enrichment liability. | No; Stevensons failed to confer a direct benefit on Windermere. |
| Did constructively impose a trust on Windermere's funds? | Stevensons argue constructive trust applies to Windermere. | Constructive trust not properly before court; asserted only unjust enrichment claim. | Not addressed on merits; not properly before the court. |
| Did the district court abuse discretion awarding § 12-121 attorney fees to Windermere? | Fees were improper because claim lacked foundation. | Case pursued unreasonably; fees appropriate under § 12-121. | No abuse; fees properly awarded under § 12-121. |
| Is Windermere's cross-appeal for § 12-120(1) moot? | – | – | Moot; not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beco Const. Co. v. City of Idaho Falls, 124 Idaho 859, 865 P.2d 950 (1993) (unjust enrichment requires plaintiff confer a benefit)
- Hausam v. Schnabl, 126 Idaho 569, 887 P.2d 1076 (Ct. App. 1994) (benefit to a recipient via conduit does not support enrichment claim)
- Harris, Inc. v. Foxhollow Const. & Trucking, Inc., 151 Idaho 761, 264 P.3d 400 (2011) (convoluted public works arrangements; conduit analysis)
- O'Connor v. Harger Const., Inc., 145 Idaho 904, 188 P.3d 846 (2008) (rescission and vendee rights as alternatives to unjust enrichment)
- Vanderford Co., Inc. v. Knudson, 144 Idaho 547, 165 P.3d 261 (2007) (elements of unjust enrichment require benefit, appreciation, and inequitable retention)