Opinion ID: 774014
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Offsetting benefits to Landmark

Text: 23 Because the purpose of restitution is to restore the plaintiff to its status quo ante, the award to the plaintiff must be reduced by the value of any benefits that it received from the defendant under the contract, so that only the actual, or net, loss is compensated. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 384, cmt. a (A party who seeks restitution of a benefit that he has conferred on the other party is expected to return what he has received from the other party.). The government argues that the trial court erred in refusing to offset Landmark's award by the $26.3 million in dividends that Landmark received from Dixie prior to the government's 1989 breach of the Agreement. The trial court denied offset based upon its factual finding that the government did not establish that any benefits that plaintiffs obtained in the form of dividends from Dixie Savings and Loan can be attributed to the government. Landmark, Order at 1 (April 5, 2000). We afford the trial court's findings of fact considerable deference, disturbing them only if they are shown to have been clearly erroneous. Hendler v. United States, 175 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). The government has not shown this finding to be clearly erroneous. The government's actions were simply not relevant to the dividends, which were generated as a result of Landmark's performance under the contract in managing Dixie. Thus, because the government was not responsible for the dividends paid by Dixie to Landmark, offset would not be proper. 24