Cates v. Swain
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-01939-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01939-COA ; 2010-CA-01939-COA ; 2010-CT-01939-SCT ; 2010-CT-01939-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-02-2013 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part. The judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed in Part, Vacated in Part, and the case is Remanded |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-17-2012 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unjust enrichment - Refund of monetary contributions Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Randolph, P.J., Kitchens, Pierce, King and Coleman, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Lamar, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Dickinson, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-25-2010 Appealed from: Tate County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: DENIED APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTIVE AND/OR RESULTING TRUST; AWARDED APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT $44,995 IN PAYMENT FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT Case Number: 06-6-243(PL) |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court found that the chancellor was empowered to award relief on the basis of unjust enrichment, and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent that it affirmed the chancellor’s rejection of the Appellee's claim of a constructive trust or a resulting trust. It reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals with regard to the unjust-enrichment award. The Supreme Court further found the chancellor made a mathematical error in the calculation of the unjust-enrichment award, it vacated the chancellor’s judgment in part, and remand the case to the chancery court for entry of judgment in the correct amount of $41,495. The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO76017.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Mona Cates |
JONATHAN S. MASTERS
ROBERT M. STEPHENSON |
||
| Appellee: | Elizabeth Swain | JOHN THOMAS LAMAR, JR. DAVID MARK SLOCUM, JR. |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Unjust enrichment - Refund of monetary contributions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Elizabeth Swain and Mona Cates cohabited from 2000 until 2006. After they severed the relationship, Swain filed an action seeking the repayment of funds she first had invested in property in Washington, which were then used to purchase a residence in Tate County. The chancellor rejected Swain’s claim of a constructive trust or a resulting trust. The chancellor found that Cates had been unjustly enriched by Swain’s contributions and awarded Swain a judgment in that amount. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor’s rejection of the trust claim but reversed the decision of the chancellor, finding that the remedy of unjust enrichment was outside the bounds of the chancery court’s equitable powers. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Unjust enrichment applies to situations where there is no legal contract and the person sought to be charged is in possession of money or property which in good conscience and justice he should not retain but should deliver to another. In these circumstances, equity imposes a duty to refund the money or the use value of the property to the person to whom in good conscience it ought to belong. The chancellor found that Cates had been unjustly enriched by Swain’s contributions to the Mississippi home, which consisted of Swain’s proceeds gained from the sale of her Florida home, the $5,000 Swain contributed at closing, and the $4,495 Swain had paid to carpet the Mississippi home. The Court of Appeals concluded that the remedy of unjust enrichment was not available to Swain as an unmarried cohabitant. Swain made a claim for unjust enrichment based upon her monetary contributions to Cates’s purchase of the Washington home and the purchase and improvement of the Mississippi home, which Cates retained after Swain moved from the residence. Ultimately, the chancellor adjudicated the case on that theory of relief, and there is no error in the chancellor’s legal conclusion. The chancellor sought to restore the status quo and return the parties to the positions they had occupied before the transactions. An unjust-enrichment award may consist of a refund, if that is equitable. Thus, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in awarding Swain a refund, a form of restitution. Thus, the chancellor’s judgment is affirmed in part, but vacated in part, and remanded for entry of judgment in the correct amount of $41,495. The chancellor clearly erred in his findings regarding the amounts Swain paid to Cates. Swain testified that she had tendered a $34,000 cashier’s check to Cates from her equity in the Florida home, not a $38,000 check as found by the chancellor. Further, the record shows that Cates paid $2,000 in earnest money for the Florida home, not $2,500, as found by the chancellor. A receipt reflects that the amount Swain paid to carpet the Mississippi home was $4,495, and she tendered a $5,000 check to Cates for closing costs on that home. These amounts total $41,495. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
