unjust enrichment claim in Missouri

2021“To establish the elements of an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff must prove that (1) he conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant appreciated the benefit; and (3) the defendant accepted and retained the benefit under inequitable and/or unjust circumstances.” Howard v. Turnbull, 316 S.W.3d 431, 436 (Mo. App. 2010); see also Peel v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 408 S.W.3d 191, 216 (Mo. App. 2013) (an unjust enrichment theory of recovery requires proof that the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant); US Bank Nat.

2017“To establish the elements of an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff must prove that (1) he conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant appreciated the benefit; and (3) the defendant accepted and retained the benefit under inequitable and/or unjust circumstances.” Howard v. Turnbull, 316 S.W.3d 431, 436 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).

2021Ass’n v. Cox, 341 S.W.3d 846, 852 (Mo. App. 2011) (same holding); Bauer Dev.

2014Id. at 853 .

2010This is in contrast to Zipper v. Health Midwest, where Dr. Zipper, after losing staff privileges with a medical center corporation brought, inter alia, an unjust enrichment claim against the corporation. 978 S.W.2d 398 , 412-13 (Mo.App.

2003It is well settled in the law that “[u]njust enrichment occurs where a benefit [is] conferred upon a person in circumstances in which retention by him of that benefit without paying its reasonable value would be unjust.” Zipper v. Health Midwest, 978 S.W.2d 398, 412 (Mo.App.1998) (citations omitted).

2022See Bierman, 147 S.W.3d at 820 .

2010Jol-ley, 747 S.W.2d at 707 (holding that plaintiffs entering into an agreement with known risks precluded recovery under an unjust enrichment claim when an anticipated contingency occurred); Bierman, 147 S.W.3d at 820 (holding that, when the benefits to the defendant were created by the plaintiff in the expectation of receiving a profit, a cause of action for unjust enrichment did not lie).

2011Hertz Corp. v. RAKS Hospitality, Inc., 196 S.W.3d 536, 543 (Mo.App.

2010Hertz Corp. v. RAKS Hospitality, Inc., 196 S.W.3d 536, 543 (Mo.App.

2023See Smith, 644 S.W.3d at 10; see also Sparks, 400 S.W.3d at 460 ; S&J, 108 S.W.3d at 768 .

2021“To establish the elements of an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff must prove that (1) he conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant appreciated the benefit; and (3) the defendant accepted and retained the benefit under inequitable and/or unjust circumstances.” Howard v. Turnbull, 316 S.W.3d 431, 436 (Mo. App. 2010); see also Peel v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 408 S.W.3d 191, 216 (Mo. App. 2013) (an unjust enrichment theory of recovery requires proof that the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant); US Bank Nat.

2020See, e.g., McMurry, 849 S.W.2d at 621-23 (in personal injury action, trial court erred by refusing to allow the jury to consider in determining plaintiff’s damages whether care services rendered by plaintiff’s sister were gratuitous in nature); Brassfield v. Allwood, 557 S.W.2d 674, 681 (Mo. App. 1977) (applying the presumption where children brought equitable claim against step-mother, seeking specific performance of an oral contract father allegedly made before he died wherein he promised the children that they would receive the father’s real property if they helped him with his farming oper

2020See, e.g., McMurry, 849 S.W.2d at 621-23 (in personal injury action, trial court erred by refusing to allow the jury to consider in determining plaintiff’s damages whether care services rendered by plaintiff’s sister were gratuitous in nature); Brassfield v. Allwood, 557 S.W.2d 674, 681 (Mo. App. 1977) (applying the presumption where children brought equitable claim against step-mother, seeking specific performance of an oral contract father allegedly made before he died wherein he promised the children that they would receive the father’s real property if they helped him with his farming oper

2020See, e.g., McMurry, 849 S.W.2d at 621-23 (in personal injury action, trial court erred by refusing to allow the jury to consider in determining plaintiff’s damages whether care services rendered by plaintiff’s sister were gratuitous in nature); Brassfield v. Allwood, 557 S.W.2d 674, 681 (Mo. App. 1977) (applying the presumption where children brought equitable claim against step-mother, seeking specific performance of an oral contract father allegedly made before he died wherein he promised the children that they would receive the father’s real property if they helped him with his farming oper

2018See id.

2017See Steelvest, Inc., 908 S.W.2d at 107 -09 .

2011Mere receipt of benefits is not enough, absent a showing that it would be unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit.” Adams v. One Park Place Investors, LLC, *853 315 S.W.3d 742, 749 (Mo.App.

2010Jol-ley, 747 S.W.2d at 707 (holding that plaintiffs entering into an agreement with known risks precluded recovery under an unjust enrichment claim when an anticipated contingency occurred); Bierman, 147 S.W.3d at 820 (holding that, when the benefits to the defendant were created by the plaintiff in the expectation of receiving a profit, a cause of action for unjust enrichment did not lie).

2010Shrock, 447 S.W.2d at 811 (“The rule of law is well settled that where money has been voluntarily paid with full knowledge of the facts it cannot be recovered on the ground that the payment was made ... under a mistake of law.”).

2009We do not agree. “[S]ummary judgment as well as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may rest upon pleadings alone.” Pennell v. Polen, 611 S.W.2d 323, 323 (Mo.App.1980).

2007See Craft, 190 S.W.3d at 381-82 .

2003Post Hill Homeowners Ass’n v. Kennell, 39 S.W.3d 508, 514 (Mo.App.2000).