Opinion ID: 1918814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Chancellor Erred in Denying Powell Restitutionary Relief.

Text: ¶ 14. Powell also asserts that the chancellor erred in failing to award him restitutionary damages. The theory of restitution is founded on the unjust enrichment of one at the expense of another. Fourth Davis Island Land Co. v. Parker, 469 So.2d 516, 524 (Miss.1985); Magnolia Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass'n v. Randal Craft Realty Co., 342 So.2d 1308, 1311 (Miss.1977). Unjust enrichment only applies to situations where there is no legal contract and the person sought to be charged is in possession of money or property which in good conscience and justice he should not retain but should deliver to another. Koval, 576 So.2d at 136 (quoting Hans v. Hans, 482 So.2d 1117, 1122 (Miss.1986)). Powell paid Campbell nothing, and he has failed to show that Campbell was unjustly enriched by retaining any money or property that should rightfully be his. Thus, the chancellor did not err in denying Powell's request for restitution damages.