Opinion ID: 1725011
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: There must be an absence of justification or cause for the enrichment and the impoverishment.

Text: Cause is not in this instance assigned the meaning commonly associated with contracts, but, rather, it means that the enrichment is justified if it is the result of, or finds its explanation in, the terms of a valid juridical act between the impoverishee (Mrs. Edmonston) and the enrichee (A-Second) or between a third party (Standard) and the enrichee. A valid juridical act with the enrichee is essential to a finding of cause. Nicholas, Unjustified Enrichment in the Civil Law and Louisiana Law, Part I, 36 Tul.L.Rev. 622 (1962). The issue, then, is whether there is a contract, express or implied, between Mrs. Edmonston and A-Second or Standard and A-Second which would justify the enrichment of A-Second. If there is such, the contract is the law between them and it serves as a legal cause or justification for the enrichment. If cause is found, the enrichment is not unjustified and the attempt to invoke the actio de in rem verso must fail. For it is not every unjust enrichment which warrants the resort to equity; only the unjust enrichment for which there is no justification in law or contract allows equity a role in the adjudication. A-Second argues that justification or cause does appear on the face of the policy assignment from the Edmonstons to Standard. But this does not suffice to satisfy the requirement. The French law requires an act between the impoverishee and the enrichee or the third party and the enrichee. This is the better test. See Nicholas, Id., at 625, 628, 631. The contract of assignment relied upon by A-Second is an agreement between the Edmonstons and Standard, not with A-Second the enrichee. A-Second is neither mentioned nor contemplated in this contract. And the dation was the only juridical act between Mrs. Edmonston and A-Second even remotely associated with the facts at issue. The dation concerned the giving in payment of the Edmonston house and lot in satisfaction of A-Second's mortgage and the assumption by A-Second of the obligation to discharge the Standard mortgage and pay the policy premiums. No element of this agreement entitles A-Second to the policy proceeds utilized by Mrs. Edmonston to satisfy the Standard mortgage. Moreover, the assignment by Mrs. Edmonston to Standard has no real bearing on the issues, for its validity is extremely questionable. Mrs. Edmonston is not permitted under this Court's jurisprudence to assign her beneficiary rights before they actually accrue, for at the time of the assignment Mr. Edmonston had the right, by the terms of the policy on his life, to change the beneficiary at any time. Dorset v. Thomas, 152 La. 60, 92 So. 734 (1922); Douglass v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 150 La. 519, 90 So. 834 (1922); 2A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, ¶¶ 1257, 1282 (1966).