Opinion ID: 2085191
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Acceptance or Retention of the Benefit Would Be Inequitable

Text: [¶31] Again, Platz's statement of material facts does not establish that Finley accepted or retained architectural plans prepared by Platz. Even if Finley were to possess these plans, such possession is not inequitable. Pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement Finley entered into with Soule, Finley is entitled to these drawings. Finley's negotiations with Soule included Soule's forfeiture of any plans produced during the feasibility period in the event that Soule failed to proceed to closing, and thus, according to the terms of the contract, Finley has a right to these plans. Finley's retention of something to which he is entitled is not inequitable under any scenario. [¶32] Finley has denied all of Platz's stated material facts concerning the unjust enrichment claim, and adequately supported these denials with his own affidavit in which he states that he has never been provided with any actual architectural plans, specifications or other work product of Platz Associates; Solo properties, LLC has never provided [him] with any copies of the architectural plans, specifications or other work product of Platz Associates; and he has never received any value whatsoever from Platz Associates either personal or with respect to anything that could be considered a valuable improvement upon the 3 Mill Street, Lewiston, Maine property. These statements are all within Finley's personal knowledge and comply with the summary judgment rules. M.R. Civ. P. 56(e); 56(h)(4). [¶33] Finley has sufficiently generated an issue of material fact as to whether all the elements of unjust enrichment have been met. Therefore, the summary judgment order as it pertains to this claim is vacated. The entry is: Judgment vacated as to count four, unjust enrichment. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.