Opinion ID: 901890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Issue IV: Unjust Enrichment

Text: [¶ 29.] An action for unjust enrichment is an action in equity. Himrich v. Carpenter, 1997 SD 116, ¶ 21, 569 N.W.2d 568, 573. This Court's standard of review ... is abuse of discretion. Action Mech., Inc. v. Deadwood Historic Pres. Comm'n, 2002 SD 121, ¶ 14, 652 N.W.2d 742, 748. The term `abuse of discretion' refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. Edinger v. Edinger, 2006 SD 103, ¶ 8, 724 N.W.2d 852, 855 (citation omitted). [¶ 30.] The circuit court entered judgment against Wal-Mart Trust on the unjust enrichment claim in the amount of $44,370.78, which was the portion of Par Golf's total outstanding bill that had not been allowed as a mechanic's lien. The award included: $12,025.78 in retainages; $3,072 relating to the change order for sod; and $29,210.00 for additional watering charges that Par Golf contended were extras not included in its original bid and subcontract. [¶ 31.] On appeal Defendants note that Bodell was paid in full under the Wal-Mart Stores-Bodell contract. Therefore, Defendants argue that Wal-Mart Trust fully paid for all improvements and Wal-Mart Trust could not have been unjustly enriched as a matter of law. Defendants note that several states have held that an owner cannot be unjustly enriched by retaining the benefits of work performed by subcontractors where the owner has paid the general contractor in full. See e.g., County Asphalt Paving Co., Inc. v. Mosley Const., Inc., 239 S.W.3d 704 (Mo.Ct.App. 2007); SLR Plumbing and Sewer, Inc. v. Turk, 757 N.E.2d 193 (Ind.Ct.App.2001); Joest Vibratech, Inc. v. N. Star Steel Co., 109 F.Supp.2d 746 (N.D.Ohio 2000); Moore v. Henley, 969 S.W.2d 266 (Mo.Ct. App.1998); Breckenridge Mat. Co. v. Allied Home Corp., 950 S.W.2d 340 (Mo.Ct. App.1997); Columbia Wholesale Co., Inc. v. Scudder May N.V., 312 S.C. 259, 440 S.E.2d 129 (S.C.1994); Sundance Mech. & Util. Corp. v. Atlas, 118 N.M. 250, 880 P.2d 861 (1994); Seegers v. Sprague, 70 Wis.2d 997, 236 N.W.2d 227 (1975); Rogers v. Whitson, 228 Cal.Ct.App.2d 662, 39 Cal. Rptr. 849 (Dist.1 1964); Cohen v. Delmar Drive-In Theatre, 46 Del. 427, 84 A.2d 597 (Del.Super.Ct.1951). [¶ 32.] We need not consider Defendants' request to apply that rule in this case, however, because even though Wal-Mart Stores may have paid Bodell under their agreement, Wal-Mart Trust is the owner of this property and there is no evidence that Wal-Mart Trust paid anything for the additional improvements to its property. [8] Because there is no evidence that Wal-Mart Trust paid Bodell anything, we decline to consider Defendants' proposed unjust enrichment rule from cases involving a property owner's payment for the subcontractor's improvements through payment of the general contractor. [9] [¶ 33.] We do, however, address Defendants' factual argument that the most significant extra sought (watering) was actually included in Par Golf's subcontract. In response to this argument, Par Golf testified that watering was an extra expressly excluded by its bid. Although Par Golf did not introduce that written bid into evidence, Par Golf's June 24, 2005 letter confirmed that it had told Bodell that Par Golf did not have watering in our bid. The letter then inquired of Bodell if Par Golf would be paid extra for the watering and for the water truck. Bodell's project manager wrote OK behind the request and added his initials. [10] Thus, while Defendants argue that the watering was expressly required under the general specifications that were incorporated in the subcontract, there was contrary evidence of a writing confirming a post-subcontract agreement that Bodell would pay for these items as extras. In light of this dispute in the evidence, we find no clear error in the circuit court's finding that Par Golf's unjust enrichment claims were for extra work not contemplated by the original subcontract. [¶ 34.] In sum, we find no clear error in the circuit court's finding that Wal-Mart Stores' payment to Bodell did not include the extras for which unjust enrichment was awarded. We conclude that, because the circuit court found that Wal-Mart Trust had not paid the general contractor for the items at issue, Defendants' cases are inapplicable. We affirm the circuit court's unjust enrichment award.