Cates v. Swain - 215 So. 3d 492 (Miss. 2013)

Rule:

Unjust enrichment applies to situations where there is no legal contract and the person sought to be charged is in possession of money or property which in good conscience and justice he should not retain but should deliver to another. In these circumstances, equity imposes a duty to refund the money or the use value of the property to the person to whom in good conscience it ought to belong. The amount of recovery for unjust enrichment is that to which the claimant is equitably entitled.

Facts:

Elizabeth Swain and Mona Cates cohabited from 2000 until 2006. After they severed the relationship, Swain filed an action seeking the repayment of funds she first had invested in property in Washington, which were then used to purchase a residence in Tate County. The chancellor rejected Swain's claim of a constructive trust or a resulting trust. The chancellor found that Cates had been unjustly enriched by Swain's contributions and awarded Swain a judgment in that amount. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor's rejection of the trust claim but reversed the decision of the chancellor, which was based on unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals held that, because cohabitation alone cannot form the basis of an equitable remedy between non-married cohabitants, the remedy of unjust enrichment was outside the bounds of the chancery court's equitable powers. Swain appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could Swain be awarded a refund on the basis of unjust enrichment? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court agreed with both lower courts that Swain could not prevail on her claims based on constructive or resulting trusts, but held that the trial court was empowered to grant relief to Swain based on the theory of unjust enrichment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Swain a refund, a form of restitution.