unjust enrichment claim in Maine

2021Nonetheless, it highlights this distinction for the parties to keep in mind for any future legal briefing in the event the distinction is relevant. 9 experience. 4 (The Academy’s MTD 8.) It moves to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim on the basis that the relationship is governed by the Re-Enrollment Contract. 5 (The Academy’s MTD 9­ 10.) To establish a claim for unjust enrichment, three elements must be shown: “[One] a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; [two] an appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; and [three] the acceptance or retention by the defen

1994See, e.g., A.F.A.B., Inc. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 610 A.2d 747, 748-49 (Me.1992) (using terms “unjust enrichment” and "quantum meru-it" interchangeably); Estate of Boothby, 532 A.2d 1007, 1010 (Me.1987) (stating that quantum me-ruit rests on doctrine of unjust enrichment); Estate of White, 521 A.2d 1180, 1182-83 (Me 1987) (applying “unjust enrichment” label to quantum meruit case).

2019See Maloney , 2004 ME 51 , ¶ 10, 846 A.2d 336 (holding that any unjust enrichment injury occurred when a party first settled a claim or received a substantial portion of the settlement); United States Bank Nat'l Association v. Adams , 2014 ME 113 , ¶¶ 3, 5, 102 A.3d 774 (holding that an unjust enrichment claim against a borrower's brother accrued when the borrower used some of her mortgage proceeds to pay off a debt owed by her and her brother). [¶28] Here, York County paid for delivery of the database in December 2006-ten years before York County filed its complaint in December 2016.

2019See Maloney , 2004 ME 51 , ¶ 10, 846 A.2d 336 (holding that any unjust enrichment injury occurred when a party first settled a claim or received a substantial portion of the settlement); United States Bank Nat'l Association v. Adams , 2014 ME 113 , ¶¶ 3, 5, 102 A.3d 774 (holding that an unjust enrichment claim against a borrower's brother accrued when the borrower used some of her mortgage proceeds to pay off a debt owed by her and her brother). [¶28] Here, York County paid for delivery of the database in December 2006-ten years before York County filed its complaint in December 2016.

2024In comparing quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims, Paffhausen, 1998 ME 47, ¶¶ 7-9 , 708 A.2d 269 ; Aladdin Elec., 645 A.2d at 1145 , we have never stated that an unjust enrichment claim involving the rendition of services cannot be adjudicated until after the court has rejected a quantum meruit claim involving the same services.

2024In comparing quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims, Paffhausen, 1998 ME 47, ¶¶ 7-9 , 708 A.2d 269 ; Aladdin Elec., 645 A.2d at 1145 , we have never stated that an unjust enrichment claim involving the rendition of services cannot be adjudicated until after the court has rejected a quantum meruit claim involving the same services.

2021Nonetheless, it highlights this distinction for the parties to keep in mind for any future legal briefing in the event the distinction is relevant. 9 experience. 4 (The Academy’s MTD 8.) It moves to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim on the basis that the relationship is governed by the Re-Enrollment Contract. 5 (The Academy’s MTD 9­ 10.) To establish a claim for unjust enrichment, three elements must be shown: “[One] a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; [two] an appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; and [three] the acceptance or retention by the defen

1994See, e.g., A.F.A.B., Inc. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 610 A.2d 747, 748-49 (Me.1992) (using terms “unjust enrichment” and "quantum meru-it" interchangeably); Estate of Boothby, 532 A.2d 1007, 1010 (Me.1987) (stating that quantum me-ruit rests on doctrine of unjust enrichment); Estate of White, 521 A.2d 1180, 1182-83 (Me 1987) (applying “unjust enrichment” label to quantum meruit case).

2018In order for PNM to prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment, it must prove that (1) it 5 conferred a benefit on the other party, (2) the other party had "appreciation or knowledge of the benefit," and (3) that the "acceptance or retention of the benefit was under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for it to retain the benefit without payment of its value." Howard & Bowie, P.A . v. Collins, 2000 ME 148 , ~ 13, 759 A.2d 707 (citing June Roberts Agency v. Venture Properties, 676 A.2d 46, 49 (Me. 1996)).

2012The existence of a contractual relationship, "precludes recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment." June Roberts Agency, Inc. v. Venture Properties, Inc., 676 A.2d 46 , 49 n. l (Me. 1996).

2014Inc. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 639 A.2d 103, 104 (Me. 1994), and that finding is not clearly erroneous.

2011See Order of February 10,2011 (dismissing the SOC appeal by agreement of the parties). 9 See, e.g., AFAB, Inc. v. Old Orchard Beach, 639 A.2d 103, 105 (Me. 1994) (listing "cases ... consistent with the law protecting municipalities from liability under illegal, void, or unauthorized contracts," before deciding, "Although courts are reluctant to impose contractual liability on a municipality when the contract on which the liability is based has not been properly authorized, or is void or illegal, in other contexts we have moved away from complete immunization of municipalities under the common

2024Second, while “there may be a relationship between” the value of the plaintiff’s work for purposes of quantum meruit and the value of the benefit conferred for purposes of unjust enrichment, “they are not necessarily the same.” Bowden v. Grindle, 651 A.2d 347, 351 (Me. 1994). [¶24] Applied here, these principles confirm that the jury verdict on Core’s claim for breach of express contract did not end the case.

2002Unjust enrichment (count 1) After years of confusion by the bar, see Bowden v. Grindle, 651 A.2d 347, 350 (Me. 1994), and the Law Court’s acknowledgement that it had not been precise in its nomenclature, see Paffhausen v. Balano, 1998 ME 47 , J 6, 708 A.2d 269 , 271 n. 3 (Me. 1998), Danforth v. Ruotolo, 650 A.2d 1334 , 1335 n. 2 (Me. 1994), recent caselaw has carefully identified the elements of an unjust enrichment claim and distinguishes such a claim from one for quantum meruit, discussed below.

2024In comparing quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims, Paffhausen, 1998 ME 47, ¶¶ 7-9 , 708 A.2d 269 ; Aladdin Elec., 645 A.2d at 1145 , we have never stated that an unjust enrichment claim involving the rendition of services cannot be adjudicated until after the court has rejected a quantum meruit claim involving the same services.

2024See Aladdin Elec., 645 A.2d at 1145-46 (“The equitable concept of unjust enrichment would not justify an award to plaintiff in excess of what it was contractually entitled to . . . .” (emphasis omitted)).

2017See Concurring/Dissenting Opinion ¶¶ 41-42. 9 have some contractual relationship with one another, where their contract does not address the basis for the unjust enrichment claim. [¶15] The United States District Court addressed issues similar to the limiting principle in the Restatement in Federal Insurance Company v. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, 183 F. Supp. 2d 76, 85 (D.

2017Yankee, 183 F. Supp. 2d at 84 . [¶16] The Maine Yankee opinion looked to the terms of the parties’ existing contract to determine whether the contract addressed the obligation at issue in the unjust enrichment claim, concluding that it did not because the contract “simply [did] not speak to the benefit that would be conferred upon” Federal Insurance when Maine Yankee made payments on behalf of the third party for which Federal Insurance was secondarily responsible.

2017In this way, the doctrine of unjust enrichment allows “recovery for the value of the benefit retained when there is no contractual relationship, but when, on the grounds of fairness and justice, the law compels performance of a legal and moral duty to pay.” Paffhausen v. Balano, 1998 ME 47, ¶ 6 , 708 A.2d 269 . [¶13] The existence of a contractual relationship between the parties that addresses the sums in dispute “precludes recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment.” Nadeau v. Pitman, 1999 ME 104, ¶ 14 , 731 A.2d 863 ; Paffhausen, 1998 ME 47, ¶ 6 , 708 A.2d 269 .

2017In this way, the doctrine of unjust enrichment allows “recovery for the value of the benefit retained when there is no contractual relationship, but when, on the grounds of fairness and justice, the law compels performance of a legal and moral duty to pay.” Paffhausen v. Balano, 1998 ME 47, ¶ 6 , 708 A.2d 269 . [¶13] The existence of a contractual relationship between the parties that addresses the sums in dispute “precludes recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment.” Nadeau v. Pitman, 1999 ME 104, ¶ 14 , 731 A.2d 863 ; Paffhausen, 1998 ME 47, ¶ 6 , 708 A.2d 269 .

2015Diment, 462 A.2d 35,38 (Me. 1983).

2015"To bring a case within the scope of the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment, there must be some specific legal principle or situation which equity has established or recognized." Ocean Nat 'l Bank v. Diment, 462 A.2d 35, 38 (Me. 1983).

1987See, e.g., City of Auburn v. Mandarelli, 320 A.2d 22, 31-32 (Me.1974), appeal dismissed, 419 U.S. 810 , 95 S.Ct. 25 , 42 L.Ed.2d 37 (1974); Pendleton v. Sard, 297 A.2d 889, 894-895 (Me.1972).

1983The retention of the property must be in *39 violation of a duty that the law imposes.” City of Auburn v. Mandarelli, 320 A.2d 22, 31 (Me.1974).

2017While counsel for the Levesques points out that a claim for unjust enrichment under somewhat analogous circumstances was rejected in Howard & Bowie, P.A. v. Collins, 2000 ME 148 ~~ 14-15, 759 A.2d 707 , the unjust enrichment claim in that case was brought against the successor attorney.

2017While counsel for the Levesques points out that a claim for unjust enrichment under somewhat analogous circumstances was rejected in Howard & Bowie, P.A. v. Collins, 2000 ME 148 ~~ 14-15, 759 A.2d 707 , the unjust enrichment claim in that case was brought against the successor attorney.

2020The Court determined that the unjust enrichment claim accrued in December 2005 when the sister "signed the contested note and mortgage ... , using some of the proceeds to pay off the earlier mortgage on the property she and the brother [the defendant] own." 2014 ME 113 , ~ 5.

2019See Maloney , 2004 ME 51 , ¶ 10, 846 A.2d 336 (holding that any unjust enrichment injury occurred when a party first settled a claim or received a substantial portion of the settlement); United States Bank Nat'l Association v. Adams , 2014 ME 113 , ¶¶ 3, 5, 102 A.3d 774 (holding that an unjust enrichment claim against a borrower's brother accrued when the borrower used some of her mortgage proceeds to pay off a debt owed by her and her brother). [¶28] Here, York County paid for delivery of the database in December 2006-ten years before York County filed its complaint in December 2016.

2002The Law Court went on to discuss some factors that would make a subcontractor’s claim viable even in the absence of privity, in order “to prevent any ‘enrichment’ from being ‘unjust’... .” 297 A.2d at 895 .

1987See, e.g., City of Auburn v. Mandarelli, 320 A.2d 22, 31-32 (Me.1974), appeal dismissed, 419 U.S. 810 , 95 S.Ct. 25 , 42 L.Ed.2d 37 (1974); Pendleton v. Sard, 297 A.2d 889, 894-895 (Me.1972).

2024A. Quantum Meruit and Unjust Enrichment Compared and Contrasted [¶19] “Quantum meruit, also sometimes labelled a contract ‘implied in fact,’ involves recovery for services or materials provided under an implied contract.” Paffhausen v. Balano, 1998 ME 47, ¶ 6 , 708 A.2d 269 ; see Runnells v. Quinn, 2006 ME 7, ¶ 10 , 890 A.2d 713 .

2024A. Quantum Meruit and Unjust Enrichment Compared and Contrasted [¶19] “Quantum meruit, also sometimes labelled a contract ‘implied in fact,’ involves recovery for services or materials provided under an implied contract.” Paffhausen v. Balano, 1998 ME 47, ¶ 6 , 708 A.2d 269 ; see Runnells v. Quinn, 2006 ME 7, ¶ 10 , 890 A.2d 713 .

2017See Galanis v. Lyons & Truitt, 715 N.E. 2d 858,861 (Ind . 1999). 9 Since the motion for summary judgment is being denied on the unjust enrichment claim, the case will at least proceed on that count, and the court will reserve decision as to whether the quantum meruit claim can also proceed to trial. 7 The entry shall be: Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment dismissing count 1 of the amended counterclaim (contract claim) is granted.

2011To sustain a claim for unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs must prove "that [they] conferred a benefit on the other party .. ", that the other party had appreciation or knowledge of the benefit ... and ... that the acceptance or retention of the benefit was under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for it to retain the benefit without payment of its value." Forrest Assocs. v. Passamaquoddy Tribe, 2000 ME 195 , 9I 14, 760 A.2d 1041, 1046 (internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted).

2011To sustain a claim for unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs must prove "that [they] conferred a benefit on the other party .. ", that the other party had appreciation or knowledge of the benefit ... and ... that the acceptance or retention of the benefit was under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for it to retain the benefit without payment of its value." Forrest Assocs. v. Passamaquoddy Tribe, 2000 ME 195 , 9I 14, 760 A.2d 1041, 1046 (internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted).