unjust enrichment is essentially equitable doctrine in Connecticut

2002"A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another." Franks v. Lockwood , 146 Conn. 273 , 278 , 150 A.2d 215 [1959]; Schleicher v. Schleicher , 120 Conn. 528 , 534 , 182 A. 162 [1935].

2002"A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another." Franks v. Lockwood , 146 Conn. 273 , 278 , 150 A.2d 215 [1959]; Schleicher v. Schleicher , 120 Conn. 528 , 534 , 182 A. 162 [1935].

2002"A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another." Franks v. Lockwood , 146 Conn. 273 , 278 , 150 A.2d 215 [1959]; Schleicher v. Schleicher , 120 Conn. 528 , 534 , 182 A. 162 [1935].

2002"A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another." Franks v. Lockwood , 146 Conn. 273 , 278 , 150 A.2d 215 [1959]; Schleicher v. Schleicher , 120 Conn. 528 , 534 , 182 A. 162 [1935].

2002Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman , CT Page 6580 153 Conn. 393 , 399 , 216 A.2d 814 [1966]; Meaney v. Connecticut Hospital Assn., Inc ., 250 Conn. 500 , 511 (1999).

2002Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman , CT Page 6580 153 Conn. 393 , 399 , 216 A.2d 814 [1966]; Meaney v. Connecticut Hospital Assn., Inc ., 250 Conn. 500 , 511 (1999).

2009Meaney acknowledged the general principle that a “right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 511 .

2001In Meaney v. Connecticut Hospital Assn., Inc ., 250 Conn. 500 (1999), the court gave guidance to trial courts which are presented with unjust enrichment claims, as follows: A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and CT Page 3193 good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another.

1998"A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit, which has come to him at the expense of another." Providence Electric Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc. 161 Conn. 242 , 246 .

1997The unjust enrichment decisions contain broad language — i.e., "[a] right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another." Barbara Weisman, Trustee, supra, 233 Conn. at 550 ; Hartford Whalers CT Page 6457 Hockey Club, supra, 231 Conn. at 282 ; Providence Electric Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc., 161 Conn. 242 , 246 (1971).

1983Ed.) § 1479. ‘A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another.’ ” Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Greenwich, 156 Conn. 561, 564 , 244 A.2d 404 (1968); CBS Surgical Group, Inc. v. Holt, 37 Conn. Sup. 555, 557-58 , 426 A.2d 819 (1981).

1983Ed.) § 1479. ‘A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another.’ ” Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Greenwich, 156 Conn. 561, 564 , 244 A.2d 404 (1968); CBS Surgical Group, Inc. v. Holt, 37 Conn. Sup. 555, 557-58 , 426 A.2d 819 (1981).

2024C The third and final cause of action at issue is unjust enrichment. ‘‘[R]ecovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390, 408 , 766 A.2d 416 (2001).

2024C The third and final cause of action at issue is unjust enrichment. ‘‘[R]ecovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390, 408 , 766 A.2d 416 (2001).

1994Polverari v. Peatt , 29 Conn. App. 191 , 200-01 , 614 A.2d 484 (1992); see also CBS Surgical Group, Inc. v. Holt , 37 Conn. Sup. 555 , 557-58 , 426 A.2d 819 (App. Sess. 1981) ("`[a] right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another'").

1994Polverari v. Peatt , 29 Conn. App. 191 , 200-01 , 614 A.2d 484 (1992); see also CBS Surgical Group, Inc. v. Holt , 37 Conn. Sup. 555 , 557-58 , 426 A.2d 819 (App. Sess. 1981) ("`[a] right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another'").

1999Courts treat unjust enrichment as a "broad and flexible remedy"; Polverari v. Peatt, 29 Conn. App. 191 , 200 , 614 A.2d 484 , cert. denied, 224 Conn. 913 , 617 A.2d 166 (1992); "to be applied when no remedy is available pursuant to contract." Ayotte Bros.

1998Courts treat unjust enrichment as "a broad and flexible remedy"; Polverari v. Peatt , 29 Conn. App. 191 , 200 , 614 A.2d 484 , cert. denied, 224 Conn. 913 , 617 A.2d 166 (1992); "to be applied when no remedy is available pursuant to contract." Ayotte Bros.

1999Courts treat unjust enrichment as a "broad and flexible remedy"; Polverari v. Peatt, 29 Conn. App. 191 , 200 , 614 A.2d 484 , cert. denied, 224 Conn. 913 , 617 A.2d 166 (1992); "to be applied when no remedy is available pursuant to contract." Ayotte Bros.

1998Courts treat unjust enrichment as "a broad and flexible remedy"; Polverari v. Peatt , 29 Conn. App. 191 , 200 , 614 A.2d 484 , cert. denied, 224 Conn. 913 , 617 A.2d 166 (1992); "to be applied when no remedy is available pursuant to contract." Ayotte Bros.

1996See Foley v. Estate of Coggins, 121 Conn. 97 , 100 , 183 A. 25 (1936); Downey v. Guilfoile, 96 Conn. 383 , 385 , 114 A. 73 (1921). 9 The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.

1996See Foley v. Estate of Coggins, 121 Conn. 97 , 100 , 183 A. 25 (1936); Downey v. Guilfoile, 96 Conn. 383 , 385 , 114 A. 73 (1921). 9 The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.

2022The doctrine of unjust enrichment ‘‘is based upon the principle that one should not be permitted unjustly to enrich himself at the expense of another but should be required to make restitution of or for property received, retained or appropriated.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gibson v. Jefferson Woods Commu- nity, Inc., 206 Conn. App. 303, 314 , 260 A.3d 1244 , cert. denied, 339 Conn. 911 , 261 A.3d 747 (2021). ‘‘A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situa- tion it is contrary to equity and good conscience

2009Although courts in equitable proceedings often look by analogy to the statute of limitations to determine whether, in the interests of justice, a particular action should be heard, they are by no means obliged to adhere to those time limitations.” (Citations omitted.) Dunham v. Dunham, 204 Conn. 303, 326-27 , 528 A.2d 1123 (1987), overruled in part on other grounds by Santopietro v. New Haven, *257 239 Conn. 207 , 213 n.8, 682 A.2d 106 (1996).

2009Although courts in equitable proceedings often look by analogy to the statute of limitations to determine whether, in the interests of justice, a particular action should be heard, they are by no means obliged to adhere to those time limitations.” (Citations omitted.) Dunham v. Dunham, 204 Conn. 303, 326-27 , 528 A.2d 1123 (1987), overruled in part on other grounds by Santopietro v. New Haven, *257 239 Conn. 207 , 213 n.8, 682 A.2d 106 (1996).

2009Although courts in equitable proceedings often look by analogy to the statute of limitations to determine whether, in the interests of justice, a particular action should be heard, they are by no means obliged to adhere to those time limitations.” (Citations omitted.) Dunham v. Dunham, 204 Conn. 303, 326-27 , 528 A.2d 1123 (1987), overruled in part on other grounds by Santopietro v. New Haven, *257 239 Conn. 207 , 213 n.8, 682 A.2d 106 (1996).

2009Although courts in equitable proceedings often look by analogy to the statute of limitations to determine whether, in the interests of justice, a particular action should be heard, they are by no means obliged to adhere to those time limitations.” (Citations omitted.) Dunham v. Dunham, 204 Conn. 303, 326-27 , 528 A.2d 1123 (1987), overruled in part on other grounds by Santopietro v. New Haven, *257 239 Conn. 207 , 213 n.8, 682 A.2d 106 (1996).

2000"Its three basic requirements are (1) that the defendant was benefitted [benefited], (2) that the defendant unjustly did not pay the plaintiff for the benefits, and (3) that the failure of payment was to the plaintiff's detriment." Zanoni v. Hudon , 48 Conn. App. 32 , 39 (1998).

1999A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bent v. Green , 39 Conn. Sup. 416 , 425 , 466 A.2d 322 (1983).

1999A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bent v. Green , 39 Conn. Sup. 416 , 425 , 466 A.2d 322 (1983).

1997As our Appellate Court noted in Cross v. Hudon, 42 Conn. App. 59 , 67-68 (1996): "`A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another. . . .

1994Franks v. Lockwood, 146 Conn. 273, 278 , 150 A.2d 215 [1959]; Schleicher v. Schleicher, 120 Conn. 528, 534 , 182 A. 162 [1935].’ Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman, 153 Conn. 393, 399 , 216 A.2d 814 [1965].” Providence Electric Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc., 161 Conn. 242, 246 , 287 A.2d 379 (1971); Burns v. Koellmer, 11 Conn. App. 375, 383 , 527 A.2d 1210 (1987).

1994Franks v. Lockwood, 146 Conn. 273, 278 , 150 A.2d 215 [1959]; Schleicher v. Schleicher, 120 Conn. 528, 534 , 182 A. 162 [1935].’ Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman, 153 Conn. 393, 399 , 216 A.2d 814 [1965].” Providence Electric Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc., 161 Conn. 242, 246 , 287 A.2d 379 (1971); Burns v. Koellmer, 11 Conn. App. 375, 383 , 527 A.2d 1210 (1987).