The trial court entered a money judgment in favor of Ronald to compensate him for the campground debts that Ronald paid when he obtained title, and ordered Ronald to convey the campground to Underground. The Schlossers argue that the trial court erroneously denied admission of Exhibit 21. They argue that the exhibit was relevant to determine whether Underground would be unjustly enriched by receiving conveyance of the campground. We conclude that the record fails to support his claim. Evidentiary issues are addressed to trial court discretion.
Unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy also addressed to trial court discretion.
When reviewing a discretionary decision, we review the record to determine whether it provides a rational basis for the trial court's decision. Unjust enrichment may be found when a benefit is conferred that the defendant appreciated or retained under circumstances making it inequitable. A loss to the plaintiff without an actual benefit to the defendant is not recoverable as unjust enrichment. Also, if a plaintiff, by its own choice without compulsion or consent of the defendants, chooses to proceed with improvements, it may be said that the enrichment cannot be denominated as unjust. Here, the trial court observed that no testimony had been received regarding the campground's fair market value.