Opinion ID: 2642601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constructive Trust and Unjust Enrichment

Text: ¶20. Ginger’s claim that Robert has been unjustly enriched and that the court should impose a constructive trust upon certain assets is based on the same set of facts that give rise to her other claims that she contends are “purely legal.” However, Ginger’s attorney conceded at the hearing on the motion to transfer that her claims for constructive trust and unjust enrichment are equitable claims. She, in fact, asserts that “equity should restore her to her former financial position together with an equitable share of the tobacco money. . . .” This Court has made it clear that the remedies of constructive trust and unjust enrichment are equitable. See McNeil v. Hester, 753 So. 2d 1057, 1064 (Miss. 2000) (“A constructive trust is a fiction of equity created for the purpose of preventing unjust enrichment . . . .”) 11 (emphasis added); Koval v. Koval, 576 So. 2d 134, 136 (Miss. 1991) (Unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy based on contract law) (emphasis added). ¶21. Ginger specifically requests an equitable portion of Robert’s assets. Ginger argues that she is not seeking a divorce or alimony, and the fact that her claims are based on the parties’ marriage and Robert leaving such marriage should not convert her claims to those of “divorce and alimony.” However, Ginger has asserted that she is entitled to separate maintenance and alleges the same set of facts for consideration in the chancery court matter. Equitable distribution, alimony, and separate maintenance would be considered in the divorce action. Our holding in Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, established the guidelines that chancellors are to consider when dividing marital property. And alimony is considered only after the marital property has been equitably divided and the chancellor determines that one spouse is at a deficit. Johnson, 650 So. 2d at 1287. Although Ginger has not requested alimony per se, her claims filed in the circuit court would have the same effect and serve the same purpose that equitable distribution or an award of alimony would serve in the divorce matter; therefore, to allow her to pursue a claim for unjust enrichment in circuit court based on the same facts alleged in the chancery court matter potentially would lead to double recovery.