Cluster 2587952

That statute also includes an iteration of the discovery rule, 18 pursuant to which claims accrue either when the transfer was made, or “within one year after 19 the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant.” Id.; 20 see, e.g., Estate of Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 205 P.3d 698, 714 (Kan. 2009) (“[W]e 21 agree . . . that this action did not accrue until the earliest time the plaintiff had a right to 22 maintain a legal action.”). 2…

See Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, N.A., 288 Kan. 510, 528 , 205 P.3d 698 (2009) ("While good faith . . . [is] usually [a question] of fact, summary judgment may be appropriate if the facts are uncontroverted and establish that a defined standard has not been met.").

(Doc. 218 at 7.) Under Kansas law, “unjust enrichment arises when (1) a benefit has been conferred upon the defendant, (2) the defendant retains the benefit, and (3) under the circumstances, the defendant’s retention of the benefit is unjust.” Est. of Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 205 P.3d 698, 706 (Kan. 2009) (citing In re Est. of Sauder, 156 P.3d 1204, 1220 (Kan. 2007)).

July 19, 2018) (citing Estate of Draper v. Bank of Am., 288 Kan. 510 , 205 P.3d 698, 710 (Kan. 2009)). 31 Id. at *56–57. 32 H&C Animal Health v. Ceva Animal Health, 499 F. Supp. 3d 920 , 940 (D.

Farms, Inc., 871 F.3d 1137 , 1150 (10th Cir. 2017)). 110 See Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, N.A., 205 P.3d 698, 706 (Kan. 2009). exists.”111 “As between parties to a contract, Kansas courts will not invoke unjust enrichment for the benefit of either party, since their rights and obligations should be controlled by the agreement they have made.”112 The question here is whether a claim for unjust enrichment may be invoked against nonparties to an enforceable contract on …

Est. of Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 205 P.3d 698, 710 (Kan. 2009).

To establish their claim of unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs must show, “(1) a benefit has been conferred upon the defendant, (2) the defendant retains the benefit, and (3) under the circumstances, the defendant's retention of the benefit is unjust.” Estate of Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 288 Kan. 510, 518 , 205 P.3d 698, 706 (Kan. 2009).

Bank of Omaha v. Centennial Park, LLC, 303 P.3d 705, 716 (2013) (“Under Kansas law, ‘[t]he duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract, with the exception of employment- at-will contracts.’”) (citing Estate of Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 205 P.3d 698, 710 (2009)).

Estate of Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 288 Kan. 510, 534 , 205 P.3d 698, 715 (2009) (citing Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond, 239 Kan. 83, 87 , 716 P.2d 575, 579 (1986)).

Good faith and reasonableness are “usually questions of fact,” Estate of Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 288 Kan. 510 , 205 P.3d 698, 712 (2009), but “may be decided as a matter of law under proper circumstances,” Gillenwater, 870 P.2d at 704 ; see Draper, 205 P.3d at 712 (same).

See Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, 288 Kan. 510, 523-29 , 205 P.3d 698 (2009); In re Estate of Jones, 189 Kan. 34 , 366 P.2d 792 (1961).

See Estate of Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 205 P.3d 698, 715 (Kan. 2009) (citing Kan.

See Estate of Draper v. Bank of America , 288 Kan. 510 , 519, 205 P.3d 698 (2009) (" 'confidential relationship' " may arise from "blood relationship" when trust reposed, but parent-child relationship alone not presumptively confidential); Brown , 232 Kan. at 432 , 657 P.2d 501 (real estate transfers between family members may create fiduciary or confidential relationships).

See Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, N.A., 288 Kan. 510 , Syl. ¶ 13, 205 P.3d 698 (2009).

See Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, 288 Kan. 510, 532 , 205 P.3d 698 (2009) (in such cases the nonclaim statute does not apply); Nickel v. Vogel, 76 Kan. 625 , 92 P. 1105 (1907) (holding that the jurisdiction of the probate courts of this state to appoint administrators does not depend upon the existence of either assets or creditors).

See Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, 288 Kan. 510, 525 , 205 P.3d 698 (2009); see also Nungesser, 283 Kan. at 560 (action alleging breach of duty of good faith sounds in contract) (citing Glenn v. Fleming, 247 Kan. 296, 311-13 , 799 P.2d 79 [1990]; Spencer v. Aetna Life & Casualty Ins.

See Draper v. Bank of America, 288 Kan. 510 , 205 P.3d 698, 706 (2009) (stating that a constructive trust is an appropriate remedy when a third-party holds title to property that must be conveyed to another party to avoid unjust enrichment).

See Draper v. Bank of America, 288 Kan. 510 , 205 P.3d 698, 706 (2009) (stating that a constructive trust is an appropriate remedy when a third-party holds title to property that must be conveyed to another party to avoid unjust enrichment).

See Estate of Draper v. Bank of Am., 288 Kan. 510 , 205 P.3d 698, 715 (2009); see also Jones, 828 P.2d at 224 .

See Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, 288 Kan. 510 , 205 P.3d 698 (2009).

Id. at 622 (“Debtor’s settlement agreement established a trust fund for the benefit of medical providers.”) Here, no trust was established, and the settlement was of the legal malpractice claim, not a worker’s compensation claim. 75 Nelson v. Nelson, 205 P.3d 715, 724 (Kan. 2009); see also Est. of Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 205 P.3d 698, 706 (Kan. 2009) (“[A] constructive trust is an appropriate remedy where a person holding stating the constructive trust should be imposed…

Generally, “[i]n determining whether a prima facie showing has been made, the district court is not acting as a factfinder.” Boit v. Gar-Tec Products, Inc., 967 F.2d 671, 675 (1st Cir. 1992); see also Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, 288 Kan. 510, 517 , 205 P.3d 698 (2009) (recognizing general rule that appellate court construes written documents de novo and without regard to district court’s ruling); Cranford v. State, 39 Kan.