Title: BOYCE v. FREEMAN

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

BOYCE v. FREEMAN2002 WY 2039 P.3d 1062Case Number: 01-45Decided: 02/07/2002

OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2001

 

                                                                                                            

 

CHRISTOPHER 
BOYCE, 

Appellant(Plaintiff) 
,

 

v.

 

TERESA 
D. FREEMAN, d/b/a

T & 
R TRUCKING, 

Appellee(Defendant) 
.

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Fremont County

The 
Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge 

 

Representing 
Appellant:

            
Joel M. Vincent of Vincent & Vincent, Riverton, Wyoming.

 Representing 
Appellee:

            
Robert Anderson of Robert O. Anderson, P.C., Riverton, 
Wyoming.

 

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

  

GOLDEN, 
Justice. 

[¶1]           
Appellant 
Christopher Boyce (Boyce) conveyed a pickup truck to an employee of Appellee T 
& R Trucking.  The employee told 
Boyce that T & R Trucking would pay for the vehicle.  The employee used the truck for his 
personal use and also for use on the job.  
Boyce never received payment for the pickup truck.  Boyce eventually sought payment from T 
& R Trucking, which refused payment claiming that the pickup truck was the 
personal vehicle of the employee.  
Boyce sued T & R Trucking claiming, among other things, that T & 
R Trucking was unjustly enriched through the use on the job of the pickup truck 
by its employee.  Boyce hereby 
appeals from a judgment, issued after a bench trial, rejecting his claim of 
unjust enrichment.  Finding that T 
& R Trucking was not unjustly enriched by the use of the pickup truck by its 
employee, we affirm.

 

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]           
Appellant and 
Appellee agree that the issues to be decided are as 
follows:

 

            
A.        
Whether the trial court's finding that a contract existed between Boyce 
and Kultgen is clearly erroneous.

 

            
B.        
Whether the trial court's finding that a contract existed between Boyce 
and Kultgen is against the great weight of the evidence.

 

            
C.        
Whether the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff's claim for unjust 
enrichment failed in light of the existence of a contract between Boyce and 
Kultgen was erroneous, and given such error, judgment in favor of Boyce for 
unjust enrichment should be entered.

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]           
Teresa Freeman 
is the sole owner of T & R Trucking.  
T & R Trucking is a truck brokering business that leases 
owner-operated dump trucks and brokers them to contractors for work on 
construction projects.  Boyce owned 
five dump trucks that he leased to T & R Trucking. 

 

[¶4]           
Ronnie Kultgen 
(Kultgen) was the truck supervisor for T & R Trucking.  As truck supervisor, Kultgen was the 
liaison between the dump trucks in the field, the contractors, and the business 
office.  Kultgen was required to be 
in the field and travel between the various construction sites where the dump 
trucks were operating. Teresa Freeman testified that Kultgen used his personal 
vehicle for transportation while on the job, and the company reimbursed some of 
the expenses associated therewith.  

[¶5]           
Kultgen and 
Boyce were introduced by Kultgen's sister.  
Boyce and Kultgen entered into several different business 
arrangements.  Boyce paid Kultgen to 
help with a remodeling job at Boyce's house.  Boyce also paid Kultgen to do repair 
work on his dump trucks.  At issue 
in this appeal is an arrangement between Boyce and Kultgen whereby Boyce 
transferred ownership of two pickup trucks to Kultgen.  With regard to the two pickup trucks, 
the trial court made the following finding of fact: "Kultgen represented to 
[Boyce] that T & R [Trucking] wanted to purchase a 1989 GMC pickup from 
[Boyce] for a price of $2,500.00, and a 1990 Ford pickup from [Boyce] for a 
price of $4,500.00.  Both vehicles 
were delivered to Kultgen.  The 
agreement concerning the Ford was memorialized in a handwritten note signed by 
[Boyce] and Kultgen on behalf of T & R Trucking."  The note was dated March 26, 1999. 

 

[¶6]           
Boyce signed 
over the title to both vehicles, leaving the space for the new owner's name 
blank.  Eventually, Kultgen titled 
both vehicles in his name.  Kultgen 
sold the 1989 GMC to a third party.  
For several months, Kultgen used the 1990 Ford for his own personal use 
and also for use in his employment.  
Boyce was never paid for either vehicle by either Kultgen or T & R 
Trucking.  Boyce contacted T & R 
Trucking sometime at the end of June regarding payment for the pickups.  Teresa Freeman testified that this was 
the first time she had heard anything regarding the possibility of T & R 
Trucking being responsible for payment.  
She testified that Kultgen told her that the pickups were his personal 
vehicles.  Because she believed the 
pickup trucks were Kultgen's personal property, she told Boyce that T & R 
Trucking would not pay for either pickup truck.  

 

[¶7]           
Eventually, 
Boyce sued T & R Trucking for breach of contract with regard to both pickups 
and for unjust enrichment for the use of the 1990 Ford on the job.  After a bench trial, the trial judge 
ruled against Boyce on all counts involving the pickups.  The trial court specifically found that 
no contract existed between Boyce and T & R Trucking because no agency 
relationship existed between Kultgen and T & R Trucking whereby Kultgen 
could bind T & R Trucking for the purchase of the pickup trucks.  The trial court further found that T 
& R Trucking did not ratify the actions of Kultgen regarding the pickup 
trucks.  These findings have not 
been appealed.  The trial court also 
denied Boyce's claim for unjust enrichment in regard to the use by Kultgen of 
the 1990 Ford on the job.  Boyce 
filed this timely appeal on the issue of unjust enrichment 
only.

 

 

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 

[¶8]           
This appeal 
challenges a judgment after a bench trial.  
"In our review of this decision, we assume that the evidence of the 
prevailing party below is true and give that party every reasonable inference 
that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from it."  Kendrick v. Barker, 2001 WY 2, ¶12, 15 P.3d 734, ¶12 
(Wyo. 2001).  The trial court made 
specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

 

When the specific findings of fact 
are made by the trial court on evidentiary matters, they are presumed to be 
correct, and an appellate court will not disturb them unless they are clearly 
erroneous or against the great weight of the evidence.  Whitefoot v. Hanover Ins. 
Co., Wyo., 561 P.2d 717, 720 (1977); and Willis v. Asbury Transportation 
Co., Wyo., 386 P.2d 934, 937 (1963).  The review 
standard recognizes that deference must be given to the opportunity of the trial 
court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and that a reviewing court will 
not set aside the court's findings merely because it might have reached a 
different result.  United States v. National Ass'n of 
Real Estate Bds., 
339 U.S. 485, 495-496, 70 S. Ct. 711, 94 L. Ed. 1007 (1950); and United States v. Yellow Cab 
Co., 338 U.S. 338, 
341-342, 70 S. Ct. 177, 94 L. Ed. 150 (1949).  However, the presumption of correctness 
will be overcome if the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a 
definite and firm conviction that a finding is mistaken.  Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 
Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 123, 89 S. Ct. 1562, 23 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1969); and United States v. United States 
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 92 L. Ed. 746 (1948).

 

Shores 
v. Lindsey, 591 P.2d 895, 899 (Wyo. 1979).  

 

[¶9]           
As 
always, questions of law are reviewed by this Court de novo.  Amoco Production Co. v. EM Nominee 
Partnership Co., 2 P.3d 534, 540 (Wyo. 2000).  The burden of proving the elements of 
unjust enrichment is on the party seeking that remedy.  Zitterkopf v. Bradbury, 783 P.2d 1142, 1144 (Wyo. 1989) ("the party asserting the claim must show that any 
enrichment was unjust.")

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶10]       
Boyce is 
appealing from the denial of his claim for unjust enrichment.  In its judgment, the trial court 
rejected Boyce's claim for unjust enrichment giving the following reasoning: 
"[u]njust enrichment is not applicable when a contract can be found.  There was an agreement between [Boyce] 
and Kultgen.  Simply because [T 
& R Trucking] benefited from this agreement does not give rise to an unjust 
enrichment claim.  In this 
situation, an unjust enrichment claim cannot be had against a third party not a 
party to the agreement."  

 

[¶11]       
On appeal, Boyce 
protests that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's 
finding that a "contract" existed between Boyce and Kultgen regarding the pickup 
truck.  Based upon the language of 
his third issue, Boyce seems to reason that, once this one allegedly erroneous 
finding is reversed, "judgment 
in favor of Boyce for unjust enrichment should be entered."  The ultimate issue, therefore, is 
whether or not Boyce is entitled to recover from T & R Trucking on a claim 
of unjust enrichment.

 

[¶12]       
Boyce bases his 
claim on the fact that he conveyed the pickup truck to Kultgen believing that T 
& R Trucking would pay for the pickup truck.  While this may show that Boyce conveyed 
a benefit upon Kultgen and should receive payment therefore, it does not show 
that T & R Trucking should be responsible for that payment.  The trial court specifically found that 
no contract was formed between T & R Trucking and Boyce and that T & R 
Trucking did not ratify Kultgen's actions in obtaining the pickup truck in any 
manner.  A party who is seeking 
damages on the basis of unjust enrichment must prove four 
elements:

 

(1) 
Valuable services were rendered, or materials furnished,

(2) to 
the party to be charged,

(3) 
which services or materials were accepted, used and enjoyed by the party, 
and,

(4) 
under such circumstances which reasonably notified the party to be charged that 
the plaintiff, in rendering such services or furnishing such materials, expected 
to be paid by the party to be charged.  
Without such payment, the party would be unjustly 
enriched.

 

Coones 
v. F.D.I.C., 894 P.2d 613, 617 (Wyo. 1995) (citing Zitterkopf, 783 P.2d  at 1144 
(quoting Johnson v. Anderson, 768 P.2d 18, 25 (Wyo. 1989)).  See also Bowles v. Sunrise Home 
Center, Inc., 847 P.2d 1002, 1004 (Wyo. 1993).

 

[¶13]       
A review of the 
record before this Court reveals that none of the elements of a claim for unjust 
enrichment are met in this case.  As 
to the first two elements, T & R Trucking did not receive anything it did 
not expect to receive or to which it was not already entitled.  Teresa Freeman testified that she 
expected the company's truck supervisor to furnish personal transportation.  Thus, there was no true benefit bestowed 
upon T & R Trucking by Boyce.  
Any benefit accrued solely to Kultgen.  Neither element one or two is met in 
this case.

 

[¶14]       
As to 
element three, there was no benefit conferred upon T & R Trucking for T 
& R Trucking to accept.  Boyce 
argues that Teresa Freeman knew Kultgen had acquired the pickup truck from Boyce 
and she knew that Kultgen was using that pickup truck on the job.  Boyce presents no argument, however, and 
the record provides no indication that Teresa Freeman knew that this was some 
special benefit from Boyce to T & R Trucking.  

 

[¶15]       
Element 
four is the heart of an unjust enrichment claim.  The receipt of a benefit must be unjust 
as to the party to be charged.  
Unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy that is appropriate only when 
the party to be charged has received a benefit that in good conscience the party 
ought not retain without compensation to the party providing the benefit.  "The words unjust enrichment' concisely 
state the necessary elements of an equitable action to recover money, property, 
etc., which good conscience' demands should be set over to the appellee by 
appellants pursuant to an implied contract between them."  Landeis v. Nelson, 808 P.2d 216, 
218 (Wyo. 1991).  As stated at 66 
Am.Jur.2d Restitution and Implied Contracts § 8 
(2001):

The phrase "unjust enrichment" is 
used in law to characterize the result or effect of a failure to make 
restitution of, or for, property or benefits received under such circumstances 
as to give rise to a legal or equitable obligation to account therefor.  It is a general principle, underlying 
various legal doctrines and remedies, that one person should not be permitted 
unjustly to enrich himself at the expense of another, but should be required to 
make restitution of or for property or benefits received, retained, or 
appropriated, where it is just and equitable that such restitution be made, and 
where such action involves no violation or frustration of law or opposition to 
public policy, either directly or indirectly.

 

See 
also 
Roberts v. Roberts, 64 Wyo. 433, 196 P.2d 361 (1948), reh. denied, 
64 Wyo. 433, 197 P.2d 697 (1948).  

 

[¶16]       
There is nothing 
in the record reflecting that T & R Trucking had any knowledge that Boyce 
expected it to pay for the pickup truck.  
Teresa Freeman testified that she believed the pickup truck to be the 
personal property of Kultgen, partly based upon representations made to her by 
Kultgen.  T & R Trucking played 
no role in the negotiations for the acquisition of the pickup truck nor did it 
induce Boyce in any way to deliver the pickup truck and its title to Kultgen or 
allow Kultgen to retain the pickup truck.  
Further, Boyce does not argue that T & R Trucking engaged in any 
misconduct and we find no evidence in the record that T & R Trucking engaged 
in any conduct towards Boyce that was improper, deceitful or misleading.1  We see no evidence leading us to 
conclude that, under these circumstances, good conscience requires T & R 
Trucking to pay Boyce for Kultgen's use of the pickup 
truck.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶17]       
Unjust 
enrichment is an equitable remedy available to prevent one party from being 
unjustly enriched at the expense of another party.  Thus, actions on the part of both 
parties must be analyzed.  One party 
must actually supply a benefit to the party to be charged with the expectation 
of compensation therefore.  The 
party to be charged must accept the benefit and know that the supplying party 
expects compensation therefore.  In 
this case, Boyce supplied a pickup truck to Kultgen.  T & R Trucking received no direct 
benefit from this action, had no knowledge that Boyce expected it to provide 
compensation for the pickup truck, and engaged in no conduct inducing Boyce to 
supply the pickup to Kultgen.  
Simply put, the record is completely devoid of any evidence that T & 
R Trucking was unjustly enriched at Boyce's expense.  We affirm the district court. 

FOOTNOTES

  1Affirmative 
misconduct by the party to be charged is not a prerequisite of a finding of 
unjust enrichment, but the presence of such misconduct would be indicative that 
any enrichment might be unjust.  
Landeis, 808 P.2d  at 
217 ("We have also recognized that an element of fraud or tortious conduct on 
the part of the defendant is not necessary in an action for unjust 
enrichment.'")