DAISY RICHARDS, AS PERSONAL ETC.
v.
JAMES E. RISH
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An unjust enrichment action must succeed when a party wrongfully retains funds or property of another in violation of good conscience and fundamental principles of justice or equity, as supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[1] An unjust enrichment action exists to prevent the wrongful retention of a benefit or the retention of money or property of another in violation of good conscience and fun…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the wrongful retention of a benefit, or the retention of money or property of another, in violation of good conscience and fundamental principles of justice or equity”
Definition of unjust enrichment action from Golden v. Woodward, cited by the court
Daisy Richards, as personal representative of the estate of James E. Hurd, Jr., sued James E. Rish on several claims including unjust enrichment arisi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Substantial Evidence Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals a Final Judgment entered in Appellee’s favor on several claims, including unjust enrichment, arising from an unenforceable oral contract for the sale of real property. We agree with Appellant that the trial court’s determination that equity did not compel repayment of funds paid to Appellee is unsupported by the evidence. See Golden v. Woodward, 15 So. 3d 664, 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting that an unjust enrichment action exists to prevent “‘the wrongful retention of a benefit, or the retention of money or property of another, in violation of good conscience and fundamental principles of justice or equity’” (citation omitted)); see also Cole Taylor Bank v. Shannon, 772 So.
2
2d 546, 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (applying the competent, substantial evidence standard of review in reviewing a trial court’s ruling in favor of a defendant in an unjust enrichment action). We, therefore, reverse the Final Judgment on the issue of unjust enrichment and remand with directions that the trial court enter judgment in Appellant’s favor on that claim.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and LEWIS and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cole Taylor Bank v. Shannon, 772 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Golden v. Davey L. Woodward, Jr., 15 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)