About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through August 2019)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0069 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTITUTION Generally Hawaii App.2018. Cit. generally in cases cit. in disc. Niece of grantor of real property brought a lawsuit against grantee, alleging that defendant breached a fiduciary and confidential relationship between the parties and was unjustly enriched when defendant sold the property to a third party, because grantor had conveyed the property to defendant to hold for plaintiff s benefit. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiff s claim for unjust enrichment failed because she never conveyed a benefit upon defendant. This court vacated and remanded, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff had standing to bring suit against defendant. The court noted that it frequently relied on the Restatement of Restitution to define the law on unjust-enrichment claims, and, here, cited § 1 in defining unjust enrichment. Lumford v. Yoshio Ota, 434 P.3d 1215, 1221. PART I. THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (QUASI CONTRACTS AND KINDRED EQUITABLE RELIEF) CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES § 1. Unjust Enrichment D.Ariz.2018. Com. (b) cit. in case cit. in sup. After decedent was allegedly murdered by his wife and dispossessed of his assets, including a valuable classic car, decedent's heir sued auction company that later advertised the car for sale with a provenance for the car that contained multiple errors, alleging, among other things, trespass to chattels and unjust enrichment. This court denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that, while defendant had not received any benefit from the car, which had yet to be sold, defendant had a future financial interest from the sale of the car that was sufficient to support a claim for unjust enrichment. The court noted that, under Restatement of Restitution § 1, a benefit for purposes of an unjust-enrichment claim was defined broadly and denoted any form of advantage, including an interest in money, land, or chattels. Piper v. Gooding & Company Incorporated, 334 F.Supp.3d 1009, 1019. Hawaii App.2018. Quot. in case quot. in disc.; com. (a) cit. in case cit. in disc.; com. (b) quot. in case quot. in disc. Niece of grantor of real property brought a lawsuit against grantee, alleging that defendant breached a fiduciary and confidential relationship between the parties and was unjustly enriched when defendant sold the property to a third party, because grantor had conveyed the property to defendant to hold for plaintiff's benefit. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment failed because she never conveyed a benefit upon defendant. This court vacated and remanded, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff had standing to bring suit against defendant. The court cited Restatement of Restitution § 1 in defining unjust enrichment. Lumford v. Yoshio Ota, 434 P.3d 1215, 1221. COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most