Opinion ID: 2523834
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gloria's Unjust Enrichment Claim Is Materially Indistinguishable From a Claim for Equitable Restitution

Text: ¶ 11 Gloria argues that Dallen has been unjustly enriched by her efforts to support him during medical school and that she is, therefore, entitled to be compensated for the value of the benefit she conferred on him. Gloria asserts that her case is distinguishable from Martinez because she, in contrast to the plaintiff in Martinez, alleges the existence of an actual contract. Although the presence of an actual contract casts Gloria's case in a somewhat different light from Martinez, Gloria's claim for unjust enrichment is nonetheless materially indistinguishable from the claim for equitable restitution we rejected in Martinez. ¶ 12 Martinez, like the present case, arose out of a divorce that occurred shortly after one spouse graduated from medical school. [9] The plaintiff in Martinez sought a share in the future increased earnings from her spouse's medical degree. [10] While the court of appeals declined the plaintiff's invitation to treat the medical degree as property subject to division, it nevertheless allowed the plaintiff to recover under a theory of equitable restitution based on contributions made to the family during the spouse's educational period. [11] ¶ 13 We reversed the court of appeals, declining to recognize the remedy of equitable restitution because (1) it treated marriage as a venture akin to a commercial partnership, (2) recovery under the remedy would be extraordinarily speculative, and (3) equitable restitution was essentially indistinguishable from treating an advanced degree as marital property. [12] Although we recognized the equities involved in student support situations, we reasoned that the concept of alimony was broad enough to take the equitable concerns presented in Martinez into account. We stated that if one spouse's earning capacity has been greatly enhanced through the efforts of both spouses during the marriage, it may be appropriate for the trial court to make a compensating adjustment in dividing the marital property and awarding alimony. [13] ¶ 14 Unjust enrichment is an action initiated by a plaintiff to recover payment for labor performed in a variety of circumstances in which that plaintiff, for some reason, would not be able to sue on an express contract. [14] A claim for unjust enrichment is an action brought in restitution, [15] and a prerequisite for recovery on an unjust enrichment theory is the absence of an enforceable contract governing the rights and obligations of the parties relating to the conduct at issue. If there were a contract, it, rather than the law of restitution, would govern the parties' rights and determine their recovery. [16] Recovery under [unjust enrichment] presupposes that no enforceable written or oral contract exists. [17] ¶ 15 Accordingly, by the very nature of the cause of action, Gloria's claim for unjust enrichment is predicated on the assumption that there is no enforceable contract between her and Dallen. It is, then, essentially an alternative basis for recovery in the event her contract claim fails. And because Gloria's unjust enrichment claim is premised on the nonexistence of an enforceable contract between her and Dallen, it is, in reality, nothing more than a rewording of the equitable restitution claim we rejected in Martinez. Our rationale for rejecting the equitable restitution claim in Martinez did not hinge on the fact that the plaintiff had not alleged the existence of an express contract. Accordingly, our reasoning regarding the equitable restitution claim in Martinez is equally applicable to Gloria's claim for unjust enrichment in this case. We therefore reverse the court of appeals and uphold the district court's dismissal of Gloria's unjust enrichment claim.