unjust enrichment claim in Massachusetts

2025See Santagate v. Tower, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 324, 329 (2005) (basis of right of recovery under doctrine of unjust enrichment is "that in a given situation it decide the claim as promised, but rather violated Mass. R.

2016See Santagate v. Tower, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 324, 329 (2005).

2025See Lopes v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 170, 179 (2004) ("the plaintiffs' claim of unjust enrichment does not state a separate cause of action, but a theory of recovery"); Salamon, supra ("The underlying basis for awarding quantum meruit damages in a quasi-contract case is unjust enrichment . . .").

2025Salamon, 394 Mass. at 861 . [6] Because the unjust enrichment claim fails, we need not decide whether recovery is limited to the vehicle's fair market value.

2026Massachusetts Housing Opportunities Corp. v. Whitman & Bingham Assocs., P.C., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 325, 330 (2013), quoting Anthony’s Pier Four, Inc. v. Crandall Dry Dock Engrs., Inc., 396 Mass. 818, 823 (1986); accord Sacks v. Dissinger, 488 Mass. 780 , 791 n.14 (2021) (indicating in dictum that § 2A applies to “an unjust enrichment claim predicated on tortious conduct); Monteferrante v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 241 F.Supp.3d 264 , 270 n.1 (D.Mass. 2017) (Wolf, J.) (applying three-year limitations period to unjust enrichment claim that sounded in tort); Cambridge Literary Properties, Ltd. v. W.

2026Massachusetts Housing Opportunities Corp. v. Whitman & Bingham Assocs., P.C., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 325, 330 (2013), quoting Anthony’s Pier Four, Inc. v. Crandall Dry Dock Engrs., Inc., 396 Mass. 818, 823 (1986); accord Sacks v. Dissinger, 488 Mass. 780 , 791 n.14 (2021) (indicating in dictum that § 2A applies to “an unjust enrichment claim predicated on tortious conduct); Monteferrante v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 241 F.Supp.3d 264 , 270 n.1 (D.Mass. 2017) (Wolf, J.) (applying three-year limitations period to unjust enrichment claim that sounded in tort); Cambridge Literary Properties, Ltd. v. W.

2026See Zimmerman, 402 Mass. at 661 (remedy for breach of fiduciary duty is to restore party "as nearly as possible [to] the position he would have been in had there been no wrongdoing"). 14 judge's analysis on their claims for usurping a corporate opportunity, fraud, and a violation of G.

2025Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations To prevail on a claim for tortious inference with contractual relations, a plaintiff must prove that: "(1) [it] had a contract_ with a third party; (2) the defendant knowingly induced the third party to break that contract; (3) the defendant's interference, in addition to being intentional, was improper in motive or means; and (4) the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant's actions." Psy- Ed Corp . v. Klein, 459 Mass. 697, 715-716 (2011), quoting G.S.

2025See Lopes v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 170, 179 (2004) ("the plaintiffs' claim of unjust enrichment does not state a separate cause of action, but a theory of recovery"); Salamon, supra ("The underlying basis for awarding quantum meruit damages in a quasi-contract case is unjust enrichment . . .").

2025Corp. v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Health & Human Servs., 463 Mass. 447, 467 (2012) ("A plaintiff is not entitled to recovery on a theory of quantum meruit where there is a valid contract that defines the obligations of the parties"); Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925, 931 (1st Cir. 2014) ("Under Massachusetts law, the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties typically precludes an unjust enrichment claim arising out of that contract" [emphasis added]).

2025We also agree with Cunningham that count II fails to plausibly state a claim for unjust enrichment because Thomas agreed in the stipulation to "waive[] any further interest in the [marital home]" and in exchange Cunningham agreed to refinance the existing mortgage loan so as to "relieve [Thomas] of any liability with respect to the said mortgage note." An unjust enrichment claim does not lie "where an express contract covering the matter exists." York v. Zurich Scudder Invs., Inc., 66 Mass. App. Ct. 610, 620 (2006).

2025The trial judge adopted the 1 City of Worcester. jury's findings of fact and their special verdict on the unjust enrichment claim. 2 See Delaney v. Chief of Police of Wareham, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 398, 401 (1989).

2025See Dines, 28 Mass. App. Ct. at 199 (limiting quasi contract recovery for involuntarily towed vehicle to its fair market value).

2025See Cavadi, 458 Mass. at 627 5 We need not reach the issue of the Statute of Frauds, G.

2025Corp. v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Health & Human Servs., 463 Mass. 447, 467 (2012) ("A plaintiff is not entitled to recovery on a theory of quantum meruit where there is a valid contract that defines the obligations of the parties"); Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925, 931 (1st Cir. 2014) ("Under Massachusetts law, the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties typically precludes an unjust enrichment claim arising out of that contract" [emphasis added]).

2024See Sturgis, supra ("This case differs widely from those in which the defendant is in the rightful 5 possession of money, making no claim to it as his own, but ready to pay it over to the rightful owner; in which it is held that no right of action arises, and that the statute does not begin to run until after a demand upon him by the party entitled to the money, and a refusal to pay it over to the rightful claimant").

2017See Sutton v. Valois, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 265 (2006) (determination on unjust enrichment "hinges on the reasonable expectations of the parties" [quotation omitted]).

2017See also Cooper v. Charter Communications Entertainments I, LLC, 760 F.3d 103 , 112–113 (1st Cir. 2014).

2017See Lass v. Bank of America, N.A., 695 F.3d 129, 140-141 (1st Cir. 2012) (although damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment are mutually exclusive, "it is accepted practice to pursue both theories at the pleading stage," and trial judge "will be in a better position once the record is more developed to determine whether the unjust enrichment claim should survive").

2015For the doctrine of unjust enrichment to apply, “(t]he benefit must be unjust, a quality that turns on the reasonable expectations of the parties.” Community Builders, Inc. v. Indian Motorcycle Assocs., Inc., 44 Mass.App.Ct. 537, 560 (1998).

2015The fact that a person benefits from another “is not of itself sufficient to require the other to make restitution.” Cox v. Cox, 56 Mass.App.Ct. 864, 873 (2002).

2011See, e.g., Salamon v. Terra, 394 Mass. 857, 859 (1985); Wendt v. Barnum, 2007 Mass. App. Div. 93, 96 , citing Home Carpet Cleaning Co. v. Baker, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 879, 880 (1974).