unjust enrichment claim in Georgia

2014The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies “when as a matter of fact there is no legal contract, but when the party sought to be charged has been conferred a benefit by the party contending an unjust enrichment which the benefitted party equitably ought to return or compensate for.” Tuvim v. United Jewish Communities, 285 Ga. 632, 635 (2) ( 680 SE2d 827 ) (2009) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2014The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies “when as a matter of fact there is no legal contract, but when the party sought to be charged has been conferred a benefit by the party contending an unjust enrichment which the benefitted party equitably ought to return or compensate for.” Tuvim v. United Jewish Communities, 285 Ga. 632, 635 (2) ( 680 SE2d 827 ) (2009) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2017Commc’ns. & Research, LLC, 274 Ga. App. 807, 811 (2) ( 619 SE2d 481 ) (2005) (holding that an unjust-enrichment claim failed as a matter of law when any benefit conferred on the defendants was triggered by a contract provision, the validity of which was not challenged); Bonem v. Golf Club of Ga., 264 Ga. App. 573, 578-79 (3) ( 591 SE2d 462 ) (2003) (holding that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim for unjust enrichment where the dispute governed by legal contract); Eastside Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Dodd, 144 Ga. App. 580, 581 ( 241 SE2d 466 ) (1978) (“Logica

2017Commc’ns. & Research, LLC, 274 Ga. App. 807, 811 (2) ( 619 SE2d 481 ) (2005) (holding that an unjust-enrichment claim failed as a matter of law when any benefit conferred on the defendants was triggered by a contract provision, the validity of which was not challenged); Bonem v. Golf Club of Ga., 264 Ga. App. 573, 578-79 (3) ( 591 SE2d 462 ) (2003) (holding that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim for unjust enrichment where the dispute governed by legal contract); Eastside Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Dodd, 144 Ga. App. 580, 581 ( 241 SE2d 466 ) (1978) (“Logica

2020The problem started in Tidikis v. Network for Medical Communications & Research, LLC, 274 Ga. App. 807 ( 619 SE2d 481 ) (2005), where we affirmed the grant of the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim because it was undisputed that the parties had a contract.

2020The problem started in Tidikis v. Network for Medical Communications & Research, LLC, 274 Ga. App. 807 ( 619 SE2d 481 ) (2005), where we affirmed the grant of the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim because it was undisputed that the parties had a contract.

2017(Emphasis supplied.) (Emphasis supplied.) See Newell Recycling of Atlanta, Inc. v. Jordan Jones & Goulding, Inc., 288 Ga. 236, 237 ( 703 SE2d 323 ) (2010) (“The statute of limitations on all simple contracts in writing is six years . . . .” (punctuation omitted)); Evans v. Evans, 237 Ga. 549, 553 ( 228 SE2d 857 ) (1976) (noting that an unjust-enrichment claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitation); Macomber v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Ga., 212 Ga.App. 57, 58 (1) ( 441 SE2d 276 ) (1994) (“The statute of limitation in an action for money had and received is four years.”).

2017(Emphasis supplied.) (Emphasis supplied.) See Newell Recycling of Atlanta, Inc. v. Jordan Jones & Goulding, Inc., 288 Ga. 236, 237 ( 703 SE2d 323 ) (2010) (“The statute of limitations on all simple contracts in writing is six years . . . .” (punctuation omitted)); Evans v. Evans, 237 Ga. 549, 553 ( 228 SE2d 857 ) (1976) (noting that an unjust-enrichment claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitation); Macomber v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Ga., 212 Ga.App. 57, 58 (1) ( 441 SE2d 276 ) (1994) (“The statute of limitation in an action for money had and received is four years.”).

2020See Tidikis, 274 Ga. App. at 810-811 (2); Bogard v. Inter–State Assurance Co., 263 Ga. App. 767 ( 589 SE2d 317 ) (2003) (affirming grant of motion for judgment on the pleadings because plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim was precluded by the existence of a legally valid contract).

2020See Tidikis, 274 Ga. App. at 810-811 (2); Bogard v. Inter–State Assurance Co., 263 Ga. App. 767 ( 589 SE2d 317 ) (2003) (affirming grant of motion for judgment on the pleadings because plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim was precluded by the existence of a legally valid contract).

2025Where money is paid on the debt of another by a person who is under no legal or moral obligation to pay the debt, and he does not do so at the instance, request, or consent of the debtor, and the debtor does not ratify his act 15 Hollifield v. Monte Vista Biblical Gardens, Inc., 251 Ga. App. 124, 130 (2) (c) ( 553 SE2d 662 ) (2001). 16 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 131 (2) (c), quoting Reidling v. Holcomb, 225 Ga. App. 229, 232 (2) ( 483 SE2d 624 ) (1997).

2025Where money is paid on the debt of another by a person who is under no legal or moral obligation to pay the debt, and he does not do so at the instance, request, or consent of the debtor, and the debtor does not ratify his act 15 Hollifield v. Monte Vista Biblical Gardens, Inc., 251 Ga. App. 124, 130 (2) (c) ( 553 SE2d 662 ) (2001). 16 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 131 (2) (c), quoting Reidling v. Holcomb, 225 Ga. App. 229, 232 (2) ( 483 SE2d 624 ) (1997).

2017(Emphasis supplied.) (Emphasis supplied.) See Newell Recycling of Atlanta, Inc. v. Jordan Jones & Goulding, Inc., 288 Ga. 236, 237 ( 703 SE2d 323 ) (2010) (“The statute of limitations on all simple contracts in writing is six years . . . .” (punctuation omitted)); Evans v. Evans, 237 Ga. 549, 553 ( 228 SE2d 857 ) (1976) (noting that an unjust-enrichment claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitation); Macomber v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Ga., 212 Ga.App. 57, 58 (1) ( 441 SE2d 276 ) (1994) (“The statute of limitation in an action for money had and received is four years.”).

2017(Emphasis supplied.) (Emphasis supplied.) See Newell Recycling of Atlanta, Inc. v. Jordan Jones & Goulding, Inc., 288 Ga. 236, 237 ( 703 SE2d 323 ) (2010) (“The statute of limitations on all simple contracts in writing is six years . . . .” (punctuation omitted)); Evans v. Evans, 237 Ga. 549, 553 ( 228 SE2d 857 ) (1976) (noting that an unjust-enrichment claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitation); Macomber v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Ga., 212 Ga.App. 57, 58 (1) ( 441 SE2d 276 ) (1994) (“The statute of limitation in an action for money had and received is four years.”).

2017Commc’ns. & Research, LLC, 274 Ga. App. 807, 811 (2) ( 619 SE2d 481 ) (2005) (holding that an unjust-enrichment claim failed as a matter of law when any benefit conferred on the defendants was triggered by a contract provision, the validity of which was not challenged); Bonem v. Golf Club of Ga., 264 Ga. App. 573, 578-79 (3) ( 591 SE2d 462 ) (2003) (holding that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim for unjust enrichment where the dispute governed by legal contract); Eastside Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Dodd, 144 Ga. App. 580, 581 ( 241 SE2d 466 ) (1978) (“Logica

2017Commc’ns. & Research, LLC, 274 Ga. App. 807, 811 (2) ( 619 SE2d 481 ) (2005) (holding that an unjust-enrichment claim failed as a matter of law when any benefit conferred on the defendants was triggered by a contract provision, the validity of which was not challenged); Bonem v. Golf Club of Ga., 264 Ga. App. 573, 578-79 (3) ( 591 SE2d 462 ) (2003) (holding that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim for unjust enrichment where the dispute governed by legal contract); Eastside Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Dodd, 144 Ga. App. 580, 581 ( 241 SE2d 466 ) (1978) (“Logica

2017(Emphasis supplied.) (Emphasis supplied.) See Newell Recycling of Atlanta, Inc. v. Jordan Jones & Goulding, Inc., 288 Ga. 236, 237 ( 703 SE2d 323 ) (2010) (“The statute of limitations on all simple contracts in writing is six years . . . .” (punctuation omitted)); Evans v. Evans, 237 Ga. 549, 553 ( 228 SE2d 857 ) (1976) (noting that an unjust-enrichment claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitation); Macomber v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Ga., 212 Ga.App. 57, 58 (1) ( 441 SE2d 276 ) (1994) (“The statute of limitation in an action for money had and received is four years.”).

2017(Emphasis supplied.) (Emphasis supplied.) See Newell Recycling of Atlanta, Inc. v. Jordan Jones & Goulding, Inc., 288 Ga. 236, 237 ( 703 SE2d 323 ) (2010) (“The statute of limitations on all simple contracts in writing is six years . . . .” (punctuation omitted)); Evans v. Evans, 237 Ga. 549, 553 ( 228 SE2d 857 ) (1976) (noting that an unjust-enrichment claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitation); Macomber v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Ga., 212 Ga.App. 57, 58 (1) ( 441 SE2d 276 ) (1994) (“The statute of limitation in an action for money had and received is four years.”).

2014See Tuvim v. United Jewish Communities, 285 Ga. 632, 635 (2) ( 680 SE2d 827 ) (2009); Marvin Hewatt Enterprises v. Butler Capital Corp., 328 Ga. App. 317, 322 (4) ( 761 SE2d 857 ) (2014).

2014See Tuvim v. United Jewish Communities, 285 Ga. 632, 635 (2) ( 680 SE2d 827 ) (2009); Marvin Hewatt Enterprises v. Butler Capital Corp., 328 Ga. App. 317, 322 (4) ( 761 SE2d 857 ) (2014).

2025Where money is paid on the debt of another by a person who is under no legal or moral obligation to pay the debt, and he does not do so at the instance, request, or consent of the debtor, and the debtor does not ratify his act 15 Hollifield v. Monte Vista Biblical Gardens, Inc., 251 Ga. App. 124, 130 (2) (c) ( 553 SE2d 662 ) (2001). 16 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 131 (2) (c), quoting Reidling v. Holcomb, 225 Ga. App. 229, 232 (2) ( 483 SE2d 624 ) (1997).

2025Where money is paid on the debt of another by a person who is under no legal or moral obligation to pay the debt, and he does not do so at the instance, request, or consent of the debtor, and the debtor does not ratify his act 15 Hollifield v. Monte Vista Biblical Gardens, Inc., 251 Ga. App. 124, 130 (2) (c) ( 553 SE2d 662 ) (2001). 16 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 131 (2) (c), quoting Reidling v. Holcomb, 225 Ga. App. 229, 232 (2) ( 483 SE2d 624 ) (1997).

1998(Citations omitted.) Id.; see White, supra, 219 Ga. App. at 124 (1) (“The unjust enrichment doctrine provides that a party shall not be allowed to profit or enrich itself inequitably at another’s expense.”). 165 Ga. App. at 782-783 (2).

1998(Citations omitted.) Id.; see White, supra, 219 Ga. App. at 124 (1) (“The unjust enrichment doctrine provides that a party shall not be allowed to profit or enrich itself inequitably at another’s expense.”). 165 Ga. App. at 782-783 (2).

2025See also Seagraves, 167 Ga. App. at 142 . 13 Compare Southern Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Health Care Capital Consolidated, Inc., 273 Ga. 834, 836 (6) ( 545 SE2d 882 ) (2001) (inadequate legal remedy aside from equitable enforcement of contract provision requiring role in approval of management selection); Sherrer v. Hale, 248 Ga. 793, 797-798 (2) ( 285 SE2d 714 ) (1982) (no legal remedy for plaintiff’s loss of role as director and secretary of a corporation). 14 See Calhoun, 368 Ga. App. at 390 (3) (applying this concept to an unjust enrichment claim). 13 basically an equitable doctrine that

2025Co. v. Westside Supply Co., 264 Ga. App. 240, 248 (8) ( 590 SE2d 224 ) (2003) (an unjust enrichment claim will be moot if a plaintiff succeeds on a breach of contract claim, but if the breach of contract claim fails a jury question may remain as to unjust enrichment); Ades v. Werther, 256 Ga. App. 8, 10 (1) ( 567 SE2d 340 ) (2002) (where a jury question existed as to the existence or terms of a contract, summary judgment was not appropriate on a claim for unjust enrichment).

2025Co. v. Westside Supply Co., 264 Ga. App. 240, 248 (8) ( 590 SE2d 224 ) (2003) (an unjust enrichment claim will be moot if a plaintiff succeeds on a breach of contract claim, but if the breach of contract claim fails a jury question may remain as to unjust enrichment); Ades v. Werther, 256 Ga. App. 8, 10 (1) ( 567 SE2d 340 ) (2002) (where a jury question existed as to the existence or terms of a contract, summary judgment was not appropriate on a claim for unjust enrichment).

2025See also Seagraves, 167 Ga. App. at 142 . 13 Compare Southern Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Health Care Capital Consolidated, Inc., 273 Ga. 834, 836 (6) ( 545 SE2d 882 ) (2001) (inadequate legal remedy aside from equitable enforcement of contract provision requiring role in approval of management selection); Sherrer v. Hale, 248 Ga. 793, 797-798 (2) ( 285 SE2d 714 ) (1982) (no legal remedy for plaintiff’s loss of role as director and secretary of a corporation). 14 See Calhoun, 368 Ga. App. at 390 (3) (applying this concept to an unjust enrichment claim). 13 basically an equitable doctrine that

2025See also Seagraves, 167 Ga. App. at 142 . 13 Compare Southern Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Health Care Capital Consolidated, Inc., 273 Ga. 834, 836 (6) ( 545 SE2d 882 ) (2001) (inadequate legal remedy aside from equitable enforcement of contract provision requiring role in approval of management selection); Sherrer v. Hale, 248 Ga. 793, 797-798 (2) ( 285 SE2d 714 ) (1982) (no legal remedy for plaintiff’s loss of role as director and secretary of a corporation). 14 See Calhoun, 368 Ga. App. at 390 (3) (applying this concept to an unjust enrichment claim). 13 basically an equitable doctrine that

2025Co. v. Westside Supply Co., 264 Ga. App. 240, 248 (8) ( 590 SE2d 224 ) (2003) (an unjust enrichment claim will be moot if a plaintiff succeeds on a breach of contract claim, but if the breach of contract claim fails a jury question may remain as to unjust enrichment); Ades v. Werther, 256 Ga. App. 8, 10 (1) ( 567 SE2d 340 ) (2002) (where a jury question existed as to the existence or terms of a contract, summary judgment was not appropriate on a claim for unjust enrichment).

2025Co. v. Westside Supply Co., 264 Ga. App. 240, 248 (8) ( 590 SE2d 224 ) (2003) (an unjust enrichment claim will be moot if a plaintiff succeeds on a breach of contract claim, but if the breach of contract claim fails a jury question may remain as to unjust enrichment); Ades v. Werther, 256 Ga. App. 8, 10 (1) ( 567 SE2d 340 ) (2002) (where a jury question existed as to the existence or terms of a contract, summary judgment was not appropriate on a claim for unjust enrichment).

2025Moreover, SSA had contract claims and received a judgment against GPTS and Hughes for the full value 18 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Ginsberg v. Termotto, 175 Ga. App. 265, 267 (1) ( 333 SE2d 120 ) (1985). 19 To the extent that Brice believed that Sowaya was completing the renovations herself and SSA seeks to transfer this knowledge into support for its unjust enrichment claim, the implied promise to pay the reasonable value of services or property transferred and accepted “does not usually arise in cases between very near relatives.” OCGA § 9-2-7. 15 of the improvements to Brice’s hom

2025Moreover, SSA had contract claims and received a judgment against GPTS and Hughes for the full value 18 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Ginsberg v. Termotto, 175 Ga. App. 265, 267 (1) ( 333 SE2d 120 ) (1985). 19 To the extent that Brice believed that Sowaya was completing the renovations herself and SSA seeks to transfer this knowledge into support for its unjust enrichment claim, the implied promise to pay the reasonable value of services or property transferred and accepted “does not usually arise in cases between very near relatives.” OCGA § 9-2-7. 15 of the improvements to Brice’s hom

2025See also Seagraves, 167 Ga. App. at 142 . 13 Compare Southern Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Health Care Capital Consolidated, Inc., 273 Ga. 834, 836 (6) ( 545 SE2d 882 ) (2001) (inadequate legal remedy aside from equitable enforcement of contract provision requiring role in approval of management selection); Sherrer v. Hale, 248 Ga. 793, 797-798 (2) ( 285 SE2d 714 ) (1982) (no legal remedy for plaintiff’s loss of role as director and secretary of a corporation). 14 See Calhoun, 368 Ga. App. at 390 (3) (applying this concept to an unjust enrichment claim). 13 basically an equitable doctrine that

2025See also Seagraves, 167 Ga. App. at 142 . 13 Compare Southern Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Health Care Capital Consolidated, Inc., 273 Ga. 834, 836 (6) ( 545 SE2d 882 ) (2001) (inadequate legal remedy aside from equitable enforcement of contract provision requiring role in approval of management selection); Sherrer v. Hale, 248 Ga. 793, 797-798 (2) ( 285 SE2d 714 ) (1982) (no legal remedy for plaintiff’s loss of role as director and secretary of a corporation). 14 See Calhoun, 368 Ga. App. at 390 (3) (applying this concept to an unjust enrichment claim). 13 basically an equitable doctrine that

2020Specifically, he contends that the trial court should have included the following 14 Abrams, 262 Ga. App. at 767 (5) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Boot v. Beelen, 224 Ga. App. 384, 386 (1) ( 480 SE2d 267 ) (1997). 15 See Abrams, 262 Ga. App. at 767 (5) (holding that the trial court erred in determining a jury issue remained as to whether the contract was unenforceable under OCGA § 13-8-1, because the contract at issue did not describe the parties’ relationship as romantic or sexual, require that they share a bedroom, or require that they live together as husband and wife). 16 Se

2020Specifically, he contends that the trial court should have included the following 14 Abrams, 262 Ga. App. at 767 (5) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Boot v. Beelen, 224 Ga. App. 384, 386 (1) ( 480 SE2d 267 ) (1997). 15 See Abrams, 262 Ga. App. at 767 (5) (holding that the trial court erred in determining a jury issue remained as to whether the contract was unenforceable under OCGA § 13-8-1, because the contract at issue did not describe the parties’ relationship as romantic or sexual, require that they share a bedroom, or require that they live together as husband and wife). 16 Se

2020See OCGA § 9-11-8 (e) (2) (“A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as he 6 has, regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or on equitable grounds or on both.”); Campbell v. Ailion, 338 Ga. App. at 388 (2).

2020Specifically, he contends that the trial court should have included the following 14 Abrams, 262 Ga. App. at 767 (5) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Boot v. Beelen, 224 Ga. App. 384, 386 (1) ( 480 SE2d 267 ) (1997). 15 See Abrams, 262 Ga. App. at 767 (5) (holding that the trial court erred in determining a jury issue remained as to whether the contract was unenforceable under OCGA § 13-8-1, because the contract at issue did not describe the parties’ relationship as romantic or sexual, require that they share a bedroom, or require that they live together as husband and wife). 16 Se

2020Specifically, he contends that the trial court should have included the following 14 Abrams, 262 Ga. App. at 767 (5) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Boot v. Beelen, 224 Ga. App. 384, 386 (1) ( 480 SE2d 267 ) (1997). 15 See Abrams, 262 Ga. App. at 767 (5) (holding that the trial court erred in determining a jury issue remained as to whether the contract was unenforceable under OCGA § 13-8-1, because the contract at issue did not describe the parties’ relationship as romantic or sexual, require that they share a bedroom, or require that they live together as husband and wife). 16 Se

2018"The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies in the absence of a written contract between parties; where such a contract exists, however, it is the contract that governs the dispute and neither party can rely on the doctrine of unjust enrichment." S-D RIRA, LLC , 330 Ga. App. at 452 (3) (b), 765 S.E.2d 498 .

2018"The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies in the absence of a written contract between parties; where such a contract exists, however, it is the contract that governs the dispute and neither party can rely on the doctrine of unjust enrichment." S-D RIRA, LLC , 330 Ga. App. at 452 (3) (b), 765 S.E.2d 498 .

2017As such, it is not an independent cause of action, but a device by which property might be recovered if an unjust enrichment claim were to prevail.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Reeves v. Newman, 287 Ga. 317 , 319 n. 2 ( 695 SE2d 626 ) (2010); see also Ansley v. Raczka-Long, 293 Ga. 138, 141 (3) ( 744 SE2d 55 ) (2013).

2017As such, it is not an independent cause of action, but a device by which property might be recovered if an unjust enrichment claim were to prevail.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Reeves v. Newman, 287 Ga. 317 , 319 n. 2 ( 695 SE2d 626 ) (2010); see also Ansley v. Raczka-Long, 293 Ga. 138, 141 (3) ( 744 SE2d 55 ) (2013).

2017But they have abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of their claim for injunctive relief by failing to cite to any legal authority to support it.109 As to their claim for declaratory relief, Georgia’s Declaratory Judgment Act is to be construed forgivingly, and “all that is required to state a claim for declaratory judgment is the presence in the declaratory action of a summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim for unjust enrichment where the dispute governed by legal contract); Eastside Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Dodd, 144 Ga. App. 580, 580 ( 241 SE2d 466 ) (1978) (“Logically, . . . when one

2017But they have abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of their claim for injunctive relief by failing to cite to any legal authority to support it.109 As to their claim for declaratory relief, Georgia’s Declaratory Judgment Act is to be construed forgivingly, and “all that is required to state a claim for declaratory judgment is the presence in the declaratory action of a summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim for unjust enrichment where the dispute governed by legal contract); Eastside Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Dodd, 144 Ga. App. 580, 580 ( 241 SE2d 466 ) (1978) (“Logically, . . . when one