Court Opinion

ID: 9797027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:11:23.572183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:04.703107
License: Public Domain

KITE, Justice,
dissenting, in which HILL, C.J., joins.
[¶ 18] I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court abused its discretion in holding Ms. Jacoby proved the elements of an unjust enrichment claim. Applying the abuse of discretion standard to this equitable ruling as we are required to do, the district court “could reasonably conclude as it did” from the evidence and argument presented. Jordan v. Brackin, 992 P.2d 1096, 1098-99 (Wyo.1999). The ruling was “one based on sound judgment with regard to what is right under the circumstances,” and no showing was made that any facet of the ruling was arbitrary or capricious. Id.
[¶ 19] The doctrine of unjust enrichment provides for recovery on a contract implied in equity. Johnson v. Anderson, 768 P.2d 18, 25 (Wyo.1989). It invites judgments about what is right between two particular people, considering equity and good conscience. Dan B. Dobbs, Law of Remedies, § 4.1(2) at 558 (2nd ed.1993). To establish a claim for unjust enrichment, the claimant must show:
1) Valuable services were rendered, or materials furnished, 2) to the party to be charged, 3) which services or materials were accepted, used and enjoyed by the party, and 4) under such circumstances which reasonably notified the party to be charged that the [party] in rendering such services or furnishing such materials, expected to be paid by the party to be charged. Without such payment, the party would be unjustly enriched.
Metz Beverage Co. v. Wyoming Beverages, Inc., 2002 WY 21, ¶ 36, 39 P.3d 1051, ¶ 36 (Wyo.2002) (citations omitted). Imposition of an equitable lien, the remedy awarded here, is one possible remedy for unjust enrichment.1
[¶ 20] Unjust enrichment occurs where a party receives something of value without *858payment, which is accepted and used so as to unjustly enrich the recipient of the goods or services. McNeill Family Trust v. Centura Bank, 2003 WY 2, ¶ 26, 60 P.3d 1277, ¶ 26 (Wyo.2003). Unjust enrichment is an equitable claim that is appropriate only when the party to be charged has received a benefit that in good conscience the party ought not retain without compensation to the party providing the benefit. Boyce v. Freeman, 2002 WY 20, ¶ 15, 39 P.3d 1062, ¶ 15 (Wyo.2002). The majority cites with approval the following language from Boyce:
The phrase “unjust enrichment” is used in law to characterize the result or effect of a failure to make restitution of, or for, property or benefits received under such circumstances as to give rise to a legal or equitable obligation to account therefor. It is a general principle, underlying various legal doctrines and remedies, that one person should not be permitted unjustly to enrich himself at the expense of another, but should be required to make restitution of or for property or benefits received, retained, or appropriated, where it is just and equitable that such restitution be made, and where such action involves no violation or frustration of law or opposition to public policy, either directly or indirectly.
Id. (emphasis added). Although the majority cites these principles, in my view it fails to apply them when it reverses the district court’s order.
[¶ 21] Ms. Jacoby presented evidence that the home she helped construct on her in-laws’ property was intended originally for her, her then husband and their children.2 [Vol. II 71] She testified that she and her husband had been looking for a home to buy near his parents’ home when Mr. Jacoby suggested the site on the lot next to their home. [Vol. II 69-71] When Ms. Jacoby and her husband attempted to obtain a loan to start construction of the home, they discovered they could not because the Jacobys owned the land on which the home was to be built. [Vol. II 72] Ms. Jacoby testified it was her understanding that the Jacobys looked into partitioning the land so that she and her husband could obtain a loan, but upon learning it could not be partitioned, refinanced their home, obtained a loan of $31,000 and loaned $26,000 of that amount to Ms. Jacoby and their son to start construction of the home. [Vol. II 73]
[¶ 22] Ms. Jacoby testified that she and her husband had joint income of approximately $8,000 per month and put much of that toward building the home. [Vol. II 77] From their joint income, Ms. Jacoby and her husband also paid half ($400 per month) of the Jacobys’ payment on the $31,000 loan until her husband left in May of 2001. [Vol. II 78,127] Before his departure, she testified they also put money toward the concrete work and framing of the home [Vol. II 80] and performed much of the work on the home, including breaking ground, digging out and pouring the footers, pouring the foundation and erecting the walls. [Vol. II 81] Ms. Jacoby testified that members of her family and friends also contributed time and effort to help build the home. [Vol. II 83] Additionally, Ms. Jacoby testified that she and her husband bartered services in order to get the home built.
[¶23] Ms. Jacoby testified the Jacobys did not help with construction of the home. [Vol. II 84] She also testified that her in-laws did not expend money beyond the $26,000 loan or purchase construction materials. [Vol. II 125] After her husband disappeared in May 2001, Ms. Jacoby continued to work on the home. [Vol. II 131] She testified she had a conversation with her father-in-law during this time in which he intimated the house was her home and she would be able to continue to live there despite her husband’s disappearance. [Vol. II 132] Then, in October of 2001, it became clear to her during a conversation with the Jacobys that they did not intend for her and her children to live in the home. [Vol. II134]
*859[¶ 24] Ms. Jacoby’s testimony that the home was intended for her family was confirmed by her former husband, the Jacobys’ son, who also testified that he planned to live in the home with his wife and children upon its completion and intended to use his earnings to construct the home. [Vol. II 283] He testified that he and Ms. Jacoby paid for the supplies, services and labor required for construction of the home. [Vol. II, 316] Ms. Jacoby’s father-in-law, Mr. Jacoby, also testified that he made an agreement with his son that he would loan him money to get started building the home. [Vol. II, 327] He testified that the initial plan was for Ms. Jacoby to move into the home, but that he and his wife changed them minds when their son left and told her in October 2001 that she could not live in the home. [Vol. II 400, 402]
[¶ 25] Thus, the evidence presented, taken as true, showed: (1) Ms. Jacoby and her then husband rendered substantial supplies, services and labor; (2) on the home constructed on the Jacobys’ lot and now inhabited by the Jacobys; (3) by moving into the house the Jacobys accepted, used and enjoyed the supplies, services and labor rendered by Ms. Jacoby and their son; and (4) the circumstances were such that both the Jacobys and Ms. Jacoby knew that she expected to live in the home that she helped construct. Evidence of the fourth element was presented in the form of witness testimony to the effect that from the inception the parties involved intended the home to be occupied by Ms. Jacoby and her family. The majority acknowledges that the fourth element of an unjust enrichment claim does not necessarily require proof of an expectation of payment in money. Ms. Jacoby “expected to be paid” for her efforts in building the home by being allowed to live in the home.
[¶26] In Robinson v. Robinson, 100 Ill.App.3d 437, 57 Ill.Dec. 532, 429 N.E.2d 183 (1981), the court affirmed imposition of an equitable lien in a case brought by a woman against her former parents-in-law to establish her interest in property belonging to them to which she voluntarily and without their consent made substantial improvements. Addressing first the issue of unjust enrichment, the court said:
The improvements were made with the knowledge, cooperation and approval of [the parents]. They were the major investment a young couple would ever be expected to make. The relationship of the parties and their dealings would lead one to believe that the home that was constructed would be a permanent home for [the son and daughter-in-law]. The court did not err in granting [the daughter-in-law] an interest in the property.
Id. In considering the appropriateness of the equitable lien, the court said:
“The trend of modern decisions is to hold that in the absence of an express contract, a lien based upon the fundamental maxims of equity may be applied and declared by a court of equity out of general considerations of right and justice as applied to the relationship of the parties and the circumstances of their dealing. An equitable lien is the right to have property subjected in a court of equity to payment of a claim. It is neither a debt nor a right of property, but a remedy for a debt.”
Id. at 446, 57 Ill.Dec. 532, 429 N.E.2d 183 (citation omitted).
[¶ 27] For similar reasons and under similar circumstances, the district court concluded that Ms. Jacoby proved the elements of unjust enrichment and imposed an equitable lien giving her a security interest in the home. From the evidence presented, the district court could reasonably conclude as it did. To allow the Jacobys to change their minds and occupy the home after Ms. Jacoby contributed substantial time, money, labor and supplies in constructing the home results in the Jacobys being unjustly enriched. From the evidence presented, the district court’s ruling was one based on sound judgment with regard to what was right under the circumstances, and no showing was made that any facet of the ruling was arbitrary or capricious. The Jacobys should not be permitted unjustly to enrich themselves at the expense of Ms. Jacoby and her children, but should be required to make restitution for the benefit received from her substantial contributions to the home. It is just and equitable that such restitution be made and requir*860ing it involves no direct or indirect violation or frustration of law or opposition to public policy. Applying the appropriate standard of review, the district court’s exercise of discretion should be affirmed.

. Equitable liens are imposed where unjust enrichment results from the receipt of particular property. Rolfe v. Varley, 860 P.2d 1152, 1156 (Wyo.1993). An equitable lien is said to be a special and limited form of the constructive trust and closely related to subrogation because each is a remedy used to prevent unjust enrichment or fraud, and to allow restitution. Id.

. As the majority opinion indicates, the district court in the divorce action awarded to Ms. Jaco-by as child support her ex-husband's share of all proceeds she recovered in this action. Therefore, the $64,600 equitable lien represents the value of their combined contribution to the home.