Opinion ID: 891677
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Genuine Issues of Material Fact Exist with Respect to the City's Claim for Damages Against Amrep for Unjust Enrichment.

Text: {51} The City also seeks equitable relief in the form of a constructive trust to prevent Amrep's and Cloudview's unjust enrichment. The City argues that Amrep should be held accountable for selling Parcel F to a third party for residential development after promising the City, as well as VHWU1 lot purchasers, that Parcel F would remain open space in perpetuity. See Knight v. City of Albuquerque, 110 N.M. 265, 266, 794 P.2d 739, 740 (Ct.App.1990) ([A] developer will not be allowed to induce purchasers to buy property by purporting to include open space such as parks or golf courses in a subdivision plat, only to subsequently change the uses of those open space areas.). {52} Wrongful conduct, such as fraud, may in some instances warrant the imposition of a constructive trust. Gushwa v. Hunt (In re Estate of Gushwa), 2008-NMSC-064, ¶ 34, 145 N.M. 286, 197 P.3d 1. A court will impose a constructive trust to prevent the unjust enrichment that would result if the person having the property were permitted to retain it. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If a court imposes a constructive trust, the person holding legal title is subjected to an equitable duty to convey the property to a person to whom the court has determined that duty is owed. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {53} In light of our conclusion that Cloudview is a good faith purchaser for value without notice of the City's claimed but unrecorded interests in Parcel F, we find no grounds in the evidence presented by the City that would justify our imposition of a constructive trust upon Parcel F. In this context, Cloudview is entitled to retain the benefit of its bargain with the Mares group and its resulting fee ownership of Parcel F. {54} Nevertheless, we conclude that the City presented sufficient evidence, including affidavits and deposition testimony, to allow reasonable minds to differ on the elements of the City's unjust enrichment claim against Amrep. To prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment, one must show that: (1) another has been knowingly benefitted at one's expense (2) in a manner such that allowance of the other to retain the benefit would be unjust. Ontiveros Insulation Co. v. Sanchez, 2000-NMCA-051, ¶ 11, 129 N.M. 200, 3 P.3d 695. {55} Amrep has, at various times in this litigation, argued that it should not be considered a defendant of the City's unjust enrichment claim because the unjust enrichment count of the City's complaint sought specific relief in the form of a constructive trust on Parcel F, which Amrep no longer owns. We disagree. The City has always based its claim of entitlement to equitable relief on Amrep's alleged knowledge and conduct. Unjust enrichment is a claim based in equity, and once a court is rightfully possessed of a case it will not relinquish it short of doing complete justice. It weighs the equities between the parties and adopts various devices to protect against unjust enrichment. Id. ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our denial of the constructive trust relief initially requested by the City does not prevent the City's maintenance of its unjust enrichment claim against Amrep for damages for unjust enrichment. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Amrep on the City's claim for unjust enrichment and remand to the district court to consider this claim and the appropriate remedy.