Opinion ID: 1280596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Double Recovery Claim

Text: Finally, Azzon, Inc., and John P. See claim that the circuit court's summary judgment order is improper because it allows Sue Martin Politino a double recovery. In conjunction with this, Azzon, Inc., and John P. and Brenda See point out that the loan of Azzon, Inc., which Sue Martin Politino ultimately repaid, was personally guaranteed not only by John P. See, but also by both by the Sees and by Sue Martin Politino's husband, Rodney Politino. Azzon, Inc., and John P. and Brenda See argue that beginning in 1996 and through 1997-1998, Sue Martin Politino used the services and labor of her husband, the co-obligor, Rodney Politino, in conjunction with the operation of Sue's Reclamation & Construction, Inc., and that Rodney Politino received no compensation for his efforts. During the taking of her deposition, Sue Martin Politino was, in effect, asked why she had not joined her husband, Rodney Politino, as a party defendant in her action seeking subrogation. She responded: A. HisHim not receiving a salary, to me, is, he's paid in full, because he has worked so hard Q. Okay. A. (continuing) to keep everything going, and me keeping what belong to me and my first husband. Azzon, Inc. and John P. and Brenda See are apparently equating this statement to being an acknowledgment by Sue Martin Politino that the subrogation claim which she had had been fully satisfied. They proceed to state in their brief: Having elected and received payment on the debt from one guarantor, Ms. Politino cannot seek recovery on this debt from anyone else. They go on to argue that if the circuit court's judgment that they pay Sue Martin Politino, as subrogee, is allowed to stand great injustice will occur. Ms. Politino will be allowed to recover twice for the same obligation. This Court believes that the interpretation which Azzon, Inc., and John P. and Brenda See seek to impose on Sue Martin Politino's remarks takes those remarks out of context and is not correct. Sue Martin Politino did not state that she considered the subrogation debt fully paid and satisfied. She told why she had elected not to assert the claim against her husband. Additionally, the Court believes that the fact that Sue Martin Politino instituted the present action for definite monetary compensation shows that she considered her claims as subrogee unsatisfied. As a consequence, the Court believes that the unjust enrichment claim is without merit. In view of the foregoing, this Court believes that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in this case and that that judgment should be affirmed. Affirmed.