Wilson v. Gutierrez
261 Or. App. 410
| Or. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- This is a FED action where plaintiffs obtained possession of the Albany house but defendant recovered $30,000 on an unjust enrichment counterclaim.
- Defendant, Aurora Gutierrez’s son, paid bills and taxes for the Albany and Sweet Home properties, sometimes using loan proceeds; plaintiffs contest the amounts and timing.
- Mother owned two houses; Albany house was targeted for potential deed to defendant in exchange for payments; there was no clear tenancy agreement or deed in favor of defendant.
- Wilson, acting under power of attorney, helped prepare and serve a notice terminating defendant’s tenancy, leading to the FED filing on July 18, 2007.
- At trial, the court rejected specific performance and constructive trust but awarded $30,000 to defendant on the unjust enrichment claim and returned $2,100 in rent payments made to the court.
- The appellate court affirmed, ruling that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s unjust enrichment conclusions and the damages award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there legally sufficient evidence of a benefit and unjust enrichment? | Gutierrez argues no enforceable deed or offsetting gifts; payments were gifts or gratuitous family support. | Gutierrez contends defendant conferred benefits intended to be reimbursed, with mother aware of and expected to repay. | Evidence supported a benefit and awareness, and it would be unjust to retain without compensation. |
| Was the $30,000 unjust enrichment damages award properly supported by the record? | Gutierrez contends there is no basis for $30,000 and that amounts were not proven or offset by rent value. | Gutierrez argues the award reflects proportional compensation for the benefits conferred and is adequately supported. | Record legally sufficient to support $30,000 as just and reasonable. |
| Should an offset for rent (free residence) have reduced the unjust enrichment award? | Gutierrez asserts a $25,200 rent offset was due for three years of occupancy. | Gutierrez asserts no offset was properly proven or applicable in determining the award. | Trial court’s award upheld; no offset applied in the affirmed amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cron v. Zimmer, 255 Or App 114 (2013) (elements of unjust enrichment; fixes sufficiency and law)
- Tum-A-Lum Lumber v. Patrick, 95 Or App 719 (1989) (benefit must be unjust; mere benefit not enough)
- Jagua v. Nike, Inc., 125 Or App 294 (1993) (unjust enrichment requires unjust retention of benefits)
- Farmer v. Groves, 276 Or 563 (1976) (restatement of benefit definition and unjust enrichment concept)
- Emerson v. Kusano, 260 Or App 577 (2014) (standard for reviewing factual findings in equitable cases)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. R, 257 Or App 633 (2013) (standard for reviewing factual-inference-based results)
- Hughes v. Bembry, 256 Or 172 (1970) (restitution principles favor injured party when doubt exists)