{1} In 1985, at the behest of the City of Rio Rancho, Amrep Southwest Inc. recorded a plat for the Vista Hills West Unit 1 (VHWU1) subdivision, granting the City a drainage easement over ten acres identified as Parcel F. In 2004, Amrep sold Parcel F to the Mares group in fee simple, subject to the drainage easement. Mares in turn sold it to Cloudview Estates in fee simple, subject to the same recorded drainage easement. Cloudview asked the City to vacate the drainage easement and subdivide the parcel into thirty lots. The City declined because it found that the City and Amrep had originally intended to perpetually dedicate Parcel F as open space.
{2} Even if the City and Amrep intended Parcel F to be open space, what effect does the recorded plat designating Parcel F as a drainage easement have on Cloudview’s subsequent purchase of Parcel F? Cloudview contends that the recorded plat controls because it was not aware of any unrecorded interests the City had in Parcel F, making Cloudview a good faith purchaser whose ownership is subject only to the City’s drainage easement. In addition, Cloudview contends that the City’s decision not to vacate the easement and approve Cloudview’s subdivision plan was arbitrary and contrary to law, ultimately entitling Cloudview to reasonable compensation because the City deprived Cloudview of any economically beneficial use of the land.
{3} The City responds that Cloudview is not a good faith purchaser because (1) the drainage easement over the entirety of the ten-acre parcel grants fee title to the City because such an easement is a dedication of land for public use under NMSA 1978, Section 3-20-11 (1973); (2) the City has fee title by adverse possession because the City openly possessed the land and had color of title by virtue of the plat; and (3) a drainage easement on the entirety of a ten-acre parcel is the type of ambiguity that should have put Cloudview on notice that it had to diligently investigate whether the City had a claim to title to the land greater than a drainage easement. Finally, the City seeks equitable relief against Amrep for having sold Parcel F in fee simple, despite Amrep’s promises to the City and VHWU1 lot purchasers that Parcel F would remain open space in perpetuity.
{4} We conclude that Cloudview is a good faith purchaser whose fee-title ownership interest is subject only to the City’s drainage easement for three reasons. First, the plat does not specifically designate Parcel F for public use, and therefore fee title was not conveyed to the City under Section 3-20-11. Second, the City does not have color of title for purposes of adverse possession because the grant of an easement is not the equivalent of granting fee title. Third, the recorded plat unambiguously grants to the City an easement for the specific purpose of drainage, thereby extinguishing any unrecorded interests and relieving Cloudview, which was a subsequent purchaser without knowledge of the unrecorded interests, from its duty to diligently investigate whether the City had other adverse claims to the property title.
{5} We also agree that the City’s decision declining to vacate the drainage easement was arbitrary and contrary to law because the City relied on an unrecorded open space easement in declining Cloudview’s application. However, because we remand to the
{6} Finally, we hold that genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to the City’s unjust enrichment claim against Amrep, making summary judgment on that count inappropriate.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
{7} After purchasing Parcel F, Cloudview submitted a preliminary plat to the City’s Planning and Zoning Board, seeking to subdivide the parcel into thirty lots. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the plat and subdivision. However, after receiving citizen objections, the City Council remanded the approval back to the Planning and Zoning Board for its reconsideration. Cloudview filed another application with the Planning and Zoning Board that included a request for the City to vacate the drainage easement on Parcel F. This time the Planning and Zoning Board did not grant the application because it concluded that the drainage easement implicitly granted the City the right to use Parcel F as open space. The City’s Governing Body affirmed the Planning and Zoning Board, adopting verbatim the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision and declining to vacate the easement. The Governing Body stated that “the protection of Parcel F as open space provides a valued public use originally made a condition of the development of [VHWU1] that should be continued.”
{8} Cloudview timely sued the City in federal district court, alleging due process and equal protection violations and seeking judicial review of the City’s decision to decline to vacate the easement. On October 6, 2006, the federal district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, concluding that the case was not ripe for decision.
{9} Four days before the dismissal, on October 2, 2006, the City sued Amrep and Cloudview in state district court. The City sought to quiet title to Parcel F, contending that fee title to Parcel F was vested in the City. In the alternative, the City sought a declaratory judgment that the City owns a permanent open space easement over the entirety of Parcel F that cannot be vacated and with which no form of development is compatible. The City also sought equitable relief to prevent the unjust enrichment of Amrep and Cloudview that would arise from the development of Parcel F, despite Am-rep’s promises to the City that Parcel F would be maintained as open space. Cloud-view filed a counterclaim seeking reversal of the City’s decision not to vacate the drainage easement and for reasonable compensation, alleging in a claim of inverse condemnation that the City’s decision deprived Cloudview of any economically beneficial use of Parcel F.
{10} Amrep and Cloudview subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the City’s quiet title claim and the City’s request for a declaration that it had a perpetual open space easement. The district court found that the City’s only property interest in Parcel F was a drainage easement and that Cloudview was a good faith purchaser for value of Parcel F without knowledge or constructive notice of any adverse interest of the City that is greater than the City’s drainage easement. The district court therefore granted partial summary judgment to Amrep and Cloudview, dismissing with prejudice the City’s quiet title and declaratory judgment claims.
{11} The district court also granted Cloud-view’s motions for partial summary judgment on Cloudview’s counterclaims. The district court reversed the City’s administrative decision not to vacate the drainage easement as “contrary to law and not supported by substantial evidence.” The district court granted summary judgment to Cloudview on its inverse condemnation claim based on the City’s refusal to vacate a portion of the easement.
{12} On appeal from the district court, the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment on the City’s quiet title and declaratory judgment claims, concluding that the district court erred by relying solely on the recorded final plat and refusing to consider extrinsic evidence of “what the City and Amrep actually intended by the designation of a drainage easement over the entirety of Parcel F.”
{13} Amrep and Cloudview petitioned this Court for certiorari, and the City filed a conditional cross-petition challenging Cloud-view’s good faith purchaser status and the timeliness of Cloud-view’s request for judicial review of the City’s administrative decision. We granted each party’s petition for writ of certiorari and affirm the Court of Appeals in part and reverse in part.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Cloudview Is a Good Faith Purchaser of Parcel F and Owns Parcel F Subject to the City’s Recorded Drainage Easement.
1. Summary Judgment Standard of Review
{14} In Romero v. Philip Morris Inc. (Philip Morris),
2. Fee Title to Parcel F Did Not Vest in the City.
{15} The City contends that evidence before the district court created genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment because such evidence supports a reasonable inference that the City acquired fee title to Parcel F by either statutory dedication or adverse possession. The evidence before the district court was that in 1985, Amrep submitted to the City a preliminary plat for the proposed VHWU1 subdivision. The VHWU1 preliminary plat is part of the record on appeal, but it contains no markings to indicate that it was ever recorded in Sandoval County. The preliminary plat describes Parcel F as land that “WILL BE OPEN SPACE.”
{16} In contrast, the final plat for the VHWU1 subdivision, which was recorded in the public property records of Sandoval County on October 18, 1985, labels Parcel F with the abbreviation “D.E.,” which, according to the plat, stands for “Drainage Easement.” The recorded final plat also states that “the Owners of the Property do hereby dedicate all public thoroughfares which are shown hereon to the City of Rio Rancho, New Mexico, and do hereby grant easements shown on the plat.” The VHWU1 recorded
{17} The record on appeal reflects the City’s consistent admission that it instructed Amrep to apply the drainage easement designation to Parcel F on the VHWU1 recorded plat. The City maintains, however, that “drainage easement” was used as a surrogate term for “open space,” and that it relied on Amrep’s representations that Amrep would nonetheless set Parcel F “aside as open space in perpetuity when the City approved the plat.” Thus, argues the City, having acquired fee title by virtue of dedication or adverse possession prior to Amrep’s sale of Parcel F, Amrep had no interest in Parcel F to convey, thus depriving Cloudview of good faith purchaser status.
a. Statutory Dedication Under Section 3-20-11
{18} Because the City relies on Section 3-20-11 for its argument that fee title to Parcel F vested in the City before Amrep sold Parcel F, we will rely on this section to determine which facts are material for purposes of summary judgment. Under Section 3-20-11, a municipality automatically acquires fee title to land within its territory once a plat that designates the land “for public use” is endorsed and filed. The City contends that the drainage easement designated on the final recorded plat constitutes a dedication for public use under Section 3-20-11. We disagree. “Although drainage undoubtedly can be a public use of property, ... [m]erely because land can be dedicated to public use[ ] does not mean it has been.” Smith v. Beesley,
{19} The practical effect of allowing the City to prevail on this claim would be the transformation of a lesser, nonpossessory property interest — an easement — into a greater, possessory interest — fee title — without an indication on the recorded plat of the parties’ intent to do so. Section 3-20-11 only operates to vest fee title to a specific property in a municipality where a plat expressly dedicates the property “for public use.” Although the preliminary plat submitted by Amrep did identify Parcel F as land that will be open space, that preliminary plat was not recorded as required by NMSA 1978, Section 14-9-1 (1991). Moreover, the only “dedication” in the recorded plat was of the public thoroughfares. The language in the plat abundantly clarifies the grant of a drainage easement for Parcel F, not a more general open space easement. Had the City wanted Parcel F to be dedicated for public use, it could have insisted that Parcel F be dedicated “for public use” as open space. It did not.
{20} There is no genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the VHWU1 recorded plat designates Parcel F “for public use.” The plat designates Parcel F as a drainage easement and nothing more. Because the VHWU1 recorded plat did not meet this statutory requirement, the City’s claim for acquisition of fee title by operation of Section 3-20-11 fails as a matter of law. The district court’s grant of summary judgment against the City on this claim was appropriate.
b. Adverse Possession
{21} The City also claims that it has fee title to Parcel F under adverse possession. Adverse possession is defined as “an actual and visible appropriation of land, commenced and continued under a color of title and claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to the claim of another.” NMSA 1978, § 37-1-22 (1973). “A party claiming ownership of land by adverse possession must prove by clear and convincing evidence continuous adverse possession for ten years under color of title, in good faith, and payment of taxes on the property during these years.” Williams v. Howell,
{22} The City relies on the VHWU1 recorded plat for color of title. “To possess color of title, the claimant must have a writing or a conveyance of some kind that purports to convey the land title to which is claimed.” Madrid v. Rodriguez (In re Estate of Duran),
{23} The VHWU1 recorded plat grants a drainage easement to the City over the entirety of Parcel F. Is the grant of this drainage easement a writing or conveyance that purports to convey fee title to the City? The answer is no; “an easement is distinguished from a fee, and constitutes a liberty, privilege, right, or advantage which one has in the land of another ... measured by the nature and purpose of the easement.” Kennedy v. Bond,
3. Cloudview Bought Parcel F Without Notice of the City’s Claimed Open Space Easement.
{24} The City next argues that even if the City does not hold fee title to Parcel F, Cloudview is not a good faith purchaser without notice of the City’s claim to an open space easement. In district court, the City sought a declaratory judgment that the drainage easement designated on the final recorded plat actually granted the City a permanent open space easement over the entirety of Parcel F that cannot be vacated because the City and Amrep intended to create open space as part of the VHWU1 subdivision approval process. In the alternative, the City sought a declaratory judgment that Amrep impliedly dedicated Parcel F to the City when Amrep represented that Parcel F would be maintained as open space in perpetuity. See Santa Fe Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Town of Edgewood,
{25} The City does not assert that Cloud-view had actual knowledge of the City’s alleged open space easement. Instead the City argues that Cloudview was on “inquiry notice” of the City’s claim to an open space easement. Therefore, argues the City, because “Cloudview had knowledge of facts that would have led a prudent person to investigate the history and reasons for designating a drainage easement over the entirety of Parcel F,” Cloudview should be charged with knowledge of all facts that a reasonably diligent investigation would have revealed. The City contends that such an investigation would have revealed to Cloudview that Am-rep and the City intended Parcel F to be open space in perpetuity.
{26} A good faith purchaser of real property who has invested money in the property without notice of a third party’s unrecorded interest in that property is protected under New Mexico law. See NMSA 1978, § 14r-9-3 (1990); Angle v. Slayton,
{27} The City presents two distinct theories to support its claim that Cloudview had a duty to inquire: (1) that the City was in “open possession” of Parcel F when Cloud-view made its purchase, and (2) that before purchasing Parcel F, Cloudview knew of an “inherent ambiguity” in the VHWU1 recorded plat. We analyze each theory in turn.
a. The City Failed to Present Evidence upon Which Reasonable Minds Could Differ as to the City’s Open Possession of Parcel F.
{28} The City argues that Cloud-view had a duty to inquire about the nature and scope of the drainage easement on Parcel F because Cloudview’s agent, Mr. Garcia, knew that the City had an easement over Parcel F, and Parcel F had remained open space despite having been surrounded by development for more than twenty years. In light of these facts, the City contends that Cloudview had a duty to investigate why the City was in open possession of Parcel F when Cloudview purchased the property. Cloud-view argues that the City was not in open possession, citing Teofan v. Cools (In re Spring Creek Invs. of Dallas, N.V., Inc.),
{29} Possession of land by one other than the owner of record can be sufficient to trigger a purchaser’s duty to inquire further. See Hunt,
{30} However, open possession of property creates no duty to investigate where all signs of possession can be attributed to and are consistent with ownership by the owner of record. See id. at 403,
{31} Is the fact that Parcel F is undeveloped and surrounded by subdivided parcels inconsistent with ownership by Amrep? No. The lack of development on Parcel F, even when viewed in contrast to the surrounding development, fails to raise a reasonable inference that anyone other than Amrep, and subsequently the-Mares group, made the decisión
b. Cloudview Had No Duty to Investigate the Nature or Scope of the Easement over Parcel F Because the Recorded Plat Unambiguously Granted a Drainage Easement to the City.
{32} The City also argues that Cloudview owed a duty to inquire further because Mr. Garcia “readily admits that pri- or to purchase he was aware of the inherent ambiguity in the Final Plat.” More specifically, the City contends that there is an inherent ambiguity in the language granting the drainage easement because (1) the recorded drainage easement covered the entirety of Parcel F; (2) the topography of Parcel F precluded its use as a drainage easement; (3) the easement had to be vacated before the City would permit the subdivision to proceed; (4) Cloudview’s inquiry with the City resulted in an indefinite answer because the City employees with whom Cloudview spoke did not know the history of Parcel F’s designation as a drainage easement; and (5) the City would require Cloudview to cite all previous drainage studies and reports in its new drainage report for the area.
{33} The VHWU1 recorded plat expressly grants the City a drainage easement over Parcel F. “An easement creates a nonpossessory right to enter and use land in the possession of another and obligates the possessor not to interfere with the uses authorized by the easement.” Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 1.2(1), at 12 (2000). The easement holder’s right to use the property is limited to the particular purpose for which the easement was created. See Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 1.2 cmt. d, at 15 (“The holder of the easement ... is entitled to make only the uses reasonably necessary for the specified purpose.”). The owner of the fee title retains the right to make “any reasonable use desired of the land in which the easement exists,” as long as that use is consistent with the rights of the easement holder. Kennedy,
For example, the transferor of an easement for an underground pipeline retains the right to enter and make any use of the area covered by the easement that is not specifically prohibited by the easement and that does not unreasonably interfere with use of the easement for pipeline purposes. The holder of the easement may only use the area for purposes reasonably related to the pipeline.
Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 1.2 cmt. d, at 15.
{34} The purpose of the City’s easement, according to the unambiguous language on the VHWU1 recorded plat, is drainage. “The ordinary connotation of the word ‘drainage’ means the carrying away of water and other liquids either in closed or open conduits.” Peterson v. Barron,
c. The District Court Properly Excluded Extrinsic Evidence of Amrep’s and the City’s Intent Because Cloudview’s Good Faith Purchaser Status Extinguished the City’s Claimed but Unrecorded Interests.
{35} As the Court of Appeals correctly noted, “ ‘[a]n easement should be construed
{36} Based on these general principles, the Court of Appeals relied upon contract law to conclude that the district court erred when it “failed to consider all of the extrinsic evidence presented by the City to show that the Plat was ambiguous as to the true intent of the parties regarding the designation and future use of Parcel F.” AMREP,
{37} However, the legal treatment of language in a recorded plat is different than the legal treatment of language in a contract. An easement described in a recorded instrument must be in writing and duly recorded in the office of the county clerk of the county where the easement is situated. Section 14-9-1. More importantly, when interpreting the nature and extent of an easement, we place “heavy emphasis ... on the written expressions of the parties’ intent.” Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 4.1 cmt. d, at 499. Easements “are intended to bind successors to interests in the land, as well as the contracting parties, and are generally intended to last for an indefinite period of time.” Id. The recorded instrument “is often the primary source of information available to a prospective purchaser of the land.” Id. Therefore, the language in a granting instrument “should be interpreted to accord with the meaning an ordinary purchaser would ascribe to it in the context of the parcels of land involved.” Id. Consideration of extrinsic evidence that may illuminate “a particular meaning adopted by the creating parties is generally inappropriate because the creating parties intended to bind and benefit successors for whom the written record will provide the primary evidence of the [easement]’s meaning.” Id. at 499-500. “An easement should be construed according to its express and specific terms as a manifestation of the intent of the parties.” Sanders v. Lutz,
{38} To allow extrinsic evidence to establish an ambiguity in the meaning of language in a plat, when the language itself is unambiguous, would frustrate the purpose of our law that governs the recording of instruments affecting real estate. To ensure that subsequent purchasers of property have notice of prior claims of interest, New Mexico law provides that all “writings affecting the title to real estate shall be recorded in the office of the county clerk of the county or counties in which the real estate affected thereby is situated.” Section 14-9-1. The inevitable consequence of this requirement is the constructive knowledge that flows from it because “[s]uch records shall be notice to all the world of the existence and contents of the instruments so recorded from the time of recording.” NMSA 1953, § 14-9-2 (1886-87).
{40} Thus, Section 14-9-3 provides that unrecorded instruments asserting interests in real estate shall not affect the title or rights of purchasers to real estate if the purchaser did not have knowledge of the existence of such unrecorded instruments. See Jeffers v. Doel,
{41} Municipalities are not exempt from the recording requirements. Municipalities are “entitled to have instruments affecting real estate [conveyed] to them ... to be duly recorded in ... the various counties in which the real estate is situated.” NMSA 1978, § 14-9-7(A) (1987). When a municipality records an instrument affecting real estate, that instrument “shall have the full legal effect of recording and be legal notice of the rights of the public entities [to the] interests conveyed or granted.” Section 14-9-7(B).
{42} The final recorded plat is what governs in this case, and the recorded plat unambiguously grants a drainage easement to the City. Because the drainage easement is unambiguous, Cloudview did not have a duty to investigate any additional adverse claims the City might have had to the title of Parcel F. Even if the City and Amrep intended “drainage easement” to mean “open space,” their intent is now irrelevant in light of Cloudview’s good faith purchaser status. When a good faith purchaser takes real property without notice of an unrecorded easement, the unrecorded easement is extinguished under Section 14-9-3. See Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 7.14 cmt. a, at 440 (“The basic rule is that all unrecorded servitude benefits, regardless of the manner of their creation, are subject to extinguishment under the recording act.”). We agree with the Restatement that the “benefits produced by subjecting [easements] to extinguishment under the recording act will outweigh the social costs” because prospective purchasers will be able to rely on the property records. Id.
{43} Cloudview is a good faith purchaser who took Parcel F subject only to the City’s recorded drainage easement. See § 14-9-2 (charging subsequent purchasers with constructive notice of all recorded documents within the purchaser’s chain of title). We hold that each of the City’s claimed but unrecorded interests in Parcel F have been extinguished by Cloudview’s good faith purchaser status. Further, under the circumstances of this case, neither the scope nor the purpose of the easement may vary from drainage as expressed on the VHWU1 recorded plat.
B. The City’s Administrative Decision Was Arbitrary and Contrary to Law.
{44} As a threshold matter, the City contends that Cloudview failed to appeal the City’s administrative decision within the applicable limitation period because Cloudview failed to file a complaint in state district court within two days of when the federal court dismissed Cloudview’s complaint without prejudice. A person aggrieved by a decision of a zoning authority has thirty days to appeal to the district court. See NMSA 1978, § 3-21-9 (1999) (“A person aggrieved by a decision of the zoning authority ... may appeal the decision pursuant to the provisions of Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.”); NMSA 1978, § 39-3-1.1(0 (1999) (“[A] person
{45} In this case, the City’s Governing Body issued its final decision on November 10, 2005. Cloudview sought review in federal district court on December 8, 2005, twenty-eight days later. See Cloudview Estates, LLC v. City of Rio Rancho, Civ. No. 05-01283 MV/WPL (D.N.M. Dec. 8, 2005). The filing of the federal action tolled the limitations period. See Gathmam-Matotan Architects & Planners, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Fin. & Admin., Prop. Control Div.,
{46} While Cloudview’s federal action was still pending, the City initiated its suit in state district court. Cloudview had thirty days to file its answer to the complaint and any counterclaims it had against the City. Rules 1-012(A), 1-013 NMRA. Once the federal action was dismissed, Cloudview counterclaimed in state district court for review of the City’s administrative decision. A counterclaim is not barred by a statute of limitations if it was not barred at the time the complaint was filed. See, e.g., NMSA 1953, § 37-1-15 (1880); see generally M.A.L., Annotation, Commencement of Action as Suspending Running of Limitation Against Claim Which Is Subject of Setoff, Counterclaim, or Recoupment,
{47} Having found that the state district court properly reviewed the City’s administrative decision, “we will conduct the same review of an administrative order as the district court sitting in its appellate capacity, while at the same time determining whether the district court erred in the first appeal.” Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club v. N.M. Mining Comm’n,
{48} In this ease, the City declined to vacate the drainage easement in part because the “protection of Parcel F as open space provides a valued public use originally made a condition of the development of [VHWU1]
C. Cloudview’s Claim for Inverse Condemnation Is Not Ripe for Consideration.
{49} Cloudview argues that the City’s decision to retain Parcel F for public use as open space was in effect a taking of its property. See NMSA 1978, § 42A-1-29(A) (1983) (“A person authorized to exercise the right of eminent domain who has taken ... any property for public use without making just compensation ... is liable to the condemnee, or any subsequent grantee thereof, for the value thereof.”). Specifically, Cloud-view argues that the City deprived Cloud-view of any economically beneficial use of its property. See Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council,
{50} Because the City’s administrative decision has been vacated and remanded, Cloudview’s inverse condemnation claim is not yet ripe for our consideration. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cloudview on this claim and remand the claim to the district court where it shall be stayed pending the outcome of the City’s administrative decision.
D. Genuine Issues of Material Fact Exist with Respect to the City’s Claim for Damages Against Amrep for Unjust Enrichment.
{51} The City also seeks equitable relief in the form of a constructive trust to prevent Amrep’s and Cloudview’s unjust enrichment. The City argues that “Amrep should be held accountable for selling Parcel F to a third party for residential development after promising the City, as well as VHWU1 lot purchasers, that Parcel F would remain open space in perpetuity.” See Knight v. City of Albuquerque,
{52} Wrongful conduct, such as fraud, may in some instances “warrant the imposition of a constructive trust.” Guslvwa v. Hunt (In re Estate of Gushwa),
{53} In light of our conclusion that Cloudview is a good faith purchaser for value without notice of the City’s claimed but unrecorded interests in Parcel F, we find no grounds in the evidence presented by the City that would justify our imposition of a constructive trust upon Parcel F. In this context, Cloudview is entitled to retain the benefit of its bargain with the Mares group and its resulting fee ownership of Parcel F.
{54} Nevertheless, we conclude that the City presented sufficient evidence, including affidavits and deposition testimony, to allow reasonable minds to differ on the elements of the City’s unjust enrichment claim against Amrep. To prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment, “one must show that: (1) another has been knowingly benefitted at one’s expense (2) in a manner such that
{55} Amrep has, at various times in this litigation, argued that it should not be considered a defendant of the City’s unjust enrichment claim because the unjust enrichment count of the City’s complaint sought specific relief in the form of a constructive trust on Parcel F, which Amrep no longer owns. We disagree. The City has always based its claim of entitlement to equitable relief on Amrep’s alleged knowledge and conduct. Unjust enrichment is a claim based in equity, and once a court is “rightfully possessed of a case it will not relinquish it short of doing complete justice. It weighs the equities between the parties and adopts various devices to protect against unjust enrichment.” Id. ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our denial of the constructive trust relief initially requested by the City does not prevent the City’s maintenance of its unjust enrichment claim against Amrep for damages for unjust enrichment. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Amrep on the City’s claim for unjust enrichment and remand to the district court to consider this claim and the appropriate remedy.
III. CONCLUSION
{56} Cloudview is a good faith purchaser for value of Parcel F subject only to the City’s recorded drainage easement. We uphold the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Amrep and Cloudview on the City’s fee ownership and open space easement claims. We vacate the City’s administrative decision and remand to the City’s Governing Body for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cloudview on Cloud-view’s inverse condemnation counterclaim and remand that claim to the district court where it shall be stayed pending the outcome of the City’s administrative decision. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Amrep on the City’s unjust enrichment claim, but we uphold summary judgment on that claim as to Cloud-view.
{57} IT IS SO ORDERED.