unjust enrichment claim in North Carolina

2026Finally, an unjust enrichment claim “is not based on a promise.” Booe, 322 N.C. at 570 .

2026Finally, an unjust enrichment claim “is not based on a promise.” Booe, 322 N.C. at 570 .

2008App. at 126 , 401 S.E.2d at 398 (plaintiff who cohabitated with defendant did not have valid quasi-contract claim but holding did not bar an unjust enrichment claim); Collins, 68 N.C.

2002To invoke the unjust enrichment doctrine, however, more must be shown than that one party voluntarily benefited another or his property.” Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C.

2026Indeed, “if there is a contract between the parties the contract gov- erns the claim and the law will not imply a contract.” Id. (citation modified) (citing Vetco Concrete Co. v. Troy Lumber Co., 256 N.C. 709, 714 (1962)). 94.

2026Indeed, “if there is a contract between the parties the contract gov- erns the claim and the law will not imply a contract.” Id. (citation modified) (citing Vetco Concrete Co. v. Troy Lumber Co., 256 N.C. 709, 714 (1962)). 94.

1984“There must be some added ingredients to invoke the unjust enrichment doctrine.” Wright v. Wright, 305 N.C. 345, 351 , 289 S.E. 2d 347, 351 (1982).

1984“There must be some added ingredients to invoke the unjust enrichment doctrine.” Wright v. Wright, 305 N.C. 345, 351 , 289 S.E. 2d 347, 351 (1982).

2026See Kinesis Adver., Inc., 187 N.C.

2026See Kinesis Adver., Inc., 187 N.C.

2025See, e.g., Krawiec, 370 N.C. at 615 (affirming dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim based on implied-in-law contract where no allegations existed of a benefit conferred upon the defendants by the plaintiffs). 64.

2022Id. (“In order to establish a claim for unjust enrichment, a party must have conferred a benefit on the other party, and the benefit must not be gratuitous and it must be measurable.”) (cleaned up); BDM Invs. v. Lenhil, Inc., 2014 NCBC LEXIS 6 , at **40–41 (N.C.

2020See Christenbury Eye Center, P.A., v. Medflow, Inc., 370 N.C. 1, 7 , 802 S.E.2d 888 , 892 n. 4 (2017) (stating that the statute of limitations for an unjust enrichment claim is three (3) years according to N.C.

2020See Christenbury Eye Center, P.A., v. Medflow, Inc., 370 N.C. 1, 7 , 802 S.E.2d 888 , 892 n. 4 (2017) (stating that the statute of limitations for an unjust enrichment claim is three (3) years according to N.C.

2022CAMP 2022-NCCOA-836 Opinion of the Court out a claim for unjust enrichment, the claimant “must allege that property or benefits were conferred on a defendant under circumstances which give rise to a legal or equitable obligation on the part of the defendant to account for the benefits received, but that the defendant has failed to make restitution for the property or benefits.” Id. at 417 , 537 S.E.2d at 266 . ¶ 70 In Norman, this Court reversed the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss and revived an unjust enrichment claim where the plaintiff “allege[d] that the defendants breached thei

2022CAMP 2022-NCCOA-836 Opinion of the Court out a claim for unjust enrichment, the claimant “must allege that property or benefits were conferred on a defendant under circumstances which give rise to a legal or equitable obligation on the part of the defendant to account for the benefits received, but that the defendant has failed to make restitution for the property or benefits.” Id. at 417 , 537 S.E.2d at 266 . ¶ 70 In Norman, this Court reversed the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss and revived an unjust enrichment claim where the plaintiff “allege[d] that the defendants breached thei

2017Mrs. Constable contends that Plaintiffs have failed to state an unjust enrichment claim against her pursuant to the “direct benefit rule” set forth in Effler v. Pyles, 94 N.C.

2017The trial court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim against the new wife at summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding “[a]lthough [Richard] had previously acquired his interest in this property with plaintiff’s assistance, this does not satisfy plaintiff’s burden of showing that she conferred a benefit directly on [the new wife].” Id. at 353 , 380 S.E.2d at 152 (emphasis added). 26.

2016App. 731 , 733–34, 572 S.E.2d 871, 873 (2002) (holding unsolicited payment of a deed of trust does not, by itself, support an unjust enrichment claim); JP Morgan, 230 N.C.

2013App. 731 , 572 S.E.2d 871 (2002), this Court held the unsolicited payment of a deed of trust does not, by itself, support an unjust enrichment claim. 154 N.C.

2009Stat. § 1-52 (1), (4) (2007); see Dean v. Mattox, 250 N.C. 246, 251 , 108 S.E.2d 541, 546 (1959) ("an action to recover for money had and received, under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, is an action on implied contract").

2009Stat. § 1-52 (1), (4) (2007); see Dean v. Mattox, 250 N.C. 246, 251 , 108 S.E.2d 541, 546 (1959) ("an action to recover for money had and received, under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, is an action on implied contract").

1986Wells v. Foreman, 236 N.C. 351, 354 , 72 S.E. 2d 765, 767 (1952).

1986Wells v. Foreman, 236 N.C. 351, 354 , 72 S.E. 2d 765, 767 (1952).

2026Rightfully, I would remand to the Business Court to evaluate the unjust enrichment claim, consistent with the principle that “[w]here there is no express contract to pay, the law implies a promise to pay fair compensation for services rendered unless rendered as a gratuity or in discharge of some obligation.” See Cline v. Cline, 258 N.C. 295, 298 (1962).

2016App. at 544, 750 S.E.2d at 561 (dismissing unjust enrichment claim for lack of solicitation or inducement of benefit conferred).

2015Evans, Inc., 323 N.C. 559, 568-71 , 374 S.E.2d 385, 391-93 (1988) (noting that reasonable reliance must be shown to make a case for actionable fraud); Booe v. Shadrick, 322 N.C. 567, 570 , 369 S.E.2d 554, 555-56 (1988) (requiring a “measurable” benefit conferred upon and accepted by the defendant for an unjust enrichment claim); Reid v. Holden, 242 N.C. 408, 414-15 , 88 S.E.2d 125, 130 (1955) (implying that proximate cause is required for civil conspiracy claim seeking damages caused by acts done by one or more conspirators); Hoke v. E.F.

2015Evans, Inc., 323 N.C. 559, 568-71 , 374 S.E.2d 385, 391-93 (1988) (noting that reasonable reliance must be shown to make a case for actionable fraud); Booe v. Shadrick, 322 N.C. 567, 570 , 369 S.E.2d 554, 555-56 (1988) (requiring a “measurable” benefit conferred upon and accepted by the defendant for an unjust enrichment claim); Reid v. Holden, 242 N.C. 408, 414-15 , 88 S.E.2d 125, 130 (1955) (implying that proximate cause is required for civil conspiracy claim seeking damages caused by acts done by one or more conspirators); Hoke v. E.F.

2015Unjust Enrichment {87} The Sulie Estate’s unjust enrichment claim should be denied because the Estate’s claim arises from an express contract. {88} Plaintiff argues that, irrespective of the existence of express contracts that may govern the amount actually paid to the Sulie Estate, the Court may still award as unjust enrichment an amount equal to prejudgment interest on the retained capital credits, citing Raintree Corp. v. City of Charlotte, 49 N.C.

2015App. 391, 397 , 271 S.E.2d 524, 528 (1980). {89} A claim for unjust enrichment is a claim in quasi-contract, or contract implied in law.

2015Servs., Inc. v. Capitol Funds, Inc., 288 N.C. 122, 136 , 217 S.E.2d 551, 560 (1975). {68} The Court was unable to find any case that specifically applies the discovery rule to an unjust enrichment claim.

2015Servs., Inc. v. Capitol Funds, Inc., 288 N.C. 122, 136 , 217 S.E.2d 551, 560 (1975). {68} The Court was unable to find any case that specifically applies the discovery rule to an unjust enrichment claim.

2015Evans, Inc., 323 N.C. 559, 568-71 , 374 S.E.2d 385, 391-93 (1988) (noting that reasonable reliance must be shown to make a case for actionable fraud); Booe v. Shadrick, 322 N.C. 567, 570 , 369 S.E.2d 554, 555-56 (1988) (requiring a “measurable” benefit conferred upon and accepted by the defendant for an unjust enrichment claim); Reid v. Holden, 242 N.C. 408, 414-15 , 88 S.E.2d 125, 130 (1955) (implying that proximate cause is required for civil conspiracy claim seeking damages caused by acts done by one or more conspirators); Hoke v. E.F.

2015Evans, Inc., 323 N.C. 559, 568-71 , 374 S.E.2d 385, 391-93 (1988) (noting that reasonable reliance must be shown to make a case for actionable fraud); Booe v. Shadrick, 322 N.C. 567, 570 , 369 S.E.2d 554, 555-56 (1988) (requiring a “measurable” benefit conferred upon and accepted by the defendant for an unjust enrichment claim); Reid v. Holden, 242 N.C. 408, 414-15 , 88 S.E.2d 125, 130 (1955) (implying that proximate cause is required for civil conspiracy claim seeking damages caused by acts done by one or more conspirators); Hoke v. E.F.

2014See, e.g., WJ Global LLC, 941 F. Supp. 2d at 693 (finding preemption where “plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment stem[med] only from the claim that [defendant] improperly acquired copies of LookingGlass software as well as other intellectual property” and the “gist” of plaintiffs’ claim was that defendant “violated plaintiffs’ exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and display LookingGlass software”). {57} Furthermore, some courts have determined that an unjust enrichment claim is not preempted where the plaintiff has raised a breach of contract claim that is not preempted.

2010The Claim [73] Plaintiff also argues that the allegations of the Complaint and the forecast of evidentiary facts will support a Claim against RBC for unjust enrichment. [74] The equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment “was devised . . . to exact the return of, or payment for, benefits received under circumstances where it would be unfair for the recipient to retain them without the contributor being repaid or compensated." Perkins v. HealthMarkets, Inc., 2007 NCBC 25, 80 (N.C.

2008App. at 126 , 401 S.E.2d at 398 (plaintiff who cohabitated with defendant did not have valid quasi-contract claim but holding did not bar an unjust enrichment claim); Collins, 68 N.C.