Opinion ID: 1548799
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unjust Enrichment/Restitution and Quantum Meruit Claims

Text: The petitioner next asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing its alternative claims for unjust enrichment/restitution and quantum meruit. The petitioner contends that, contrary to the trial court's decision, its petitions alleged sufficient facts to establish these claims against the moving respondents. In reviewing a motion to dismiss, our standard of review is whether the allegations in the petitioner['s] pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery. McNamara v. Hersh, 157 N.H. 72, 73, 945 A.2d 18 (2008) (quotation and brackets omitted). We assume the petitioner's pleadings to be true and construe all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to it. Id. We need not assume the truth of statements in the petitioner's pleadings, however, that are merely conclusions of law. In the Matter of Kenick & Bailey, 156 N.H. 356, 358, 934 A.2d 573 (2007). We then engage in a threshold inquiry that tests the facts in the petition against the applicable law, and if the allegations constitute a basis for legal relief, we must hold that it was improper to grant the motion to dismiss. McNamara, 157 N.H. at 73, 945 A.2d 18. The petitioner's petitions failed to allege facts sufficient to state either a claim for restitution or for quantum meruit recovery against the moving respondents. Restitution and quantum meruit recovery based upon unjust enrichment are allowed by the courts as alternative remedies to an action for damages for breach of contract. 26 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 68:1, at 5 (4th ed.2003); see Kondrat v. Freedom School Board, 138 N.H. 683, 686, 650 A.2d 316 (1994). We first address the petitioner's restitution claim. A plaintiff is entitled to restitution for unjust enrichment if the defendant received a benefit and it would be unconscionable for the defendant to retain that benefit. Nat'l Employment Serv. Corp. v. Olsten Staffing Serv., 145 N.H. 158, 163, 761 A.2d 401 (2000). The party seeking restitution must establish not only unjust enrichment, but that the person sought to be charged had wrongfully secured a benefit or passively received one which it would be unconscionable to retain, and unjust enrichment generally does not form an independent basis for a cause of action. 42 C.J.S. Implied Contracts § 10, at 17 (2007); see Kowalski v. Cedars of Portsmouth Condo. Assoc., 146 N.H. 130, 133, 769 A.2d 344 (2001). The petitioner's petitions alleged only that the respondents received a substantial benefit without compensating Petitioner for same, which it would be unconscionable for them to retain. These are legal conclusions, however, which we are not obliged to accept as true. See In the Matter of Kenick & Bailey, 156 N.H. at 358, 934 A.2d 573. The petitions alleged no predicate facts to support these legal conclusions, and, therefore, failed to state a claim for restitution. See Cray, 105 N.H. at 137, 194 A.2d 763 (concluding, even assuming that surety received benefit from materials furnished by respondent, this is not sufficient in itself to impose a duty of restitution). We next turn to the petitioner's claim for quantum meruit recovery. While [d]amages in unjust enrichment are measured by the value of what was inequitably retained[,][i]n quantum meruit, by contrast, the damages ... are based on the value of the services provided by the plaintiff. Paffhausen v. Balano, 708 A.2d 269, 271 (Me.1998) (citation omitted). A valid claim in quantum meruit requires [that]: ... (1) services were rendered to the defendant by the plaintiff; (2) with the knowledge and consent of the defendant; and (3) under circumstances that make it reasonable for the plaintiff to expect payment. Id. (quotation omitted). The petitioner's petitions did not allege any of these requisite facts, and, thus, failed to state a claim for quantum meruit recovery against the moving respondents. For all of the above reasons, therefore, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's petitions against the moving respondents. Affirmed and remanded.