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

Case Citations [1] (April 2022 - August 2022)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0075 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE RESTITUTION PART I. THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION - (QUASI CONTRACTS AND KINDRED EQUITABLE RELIEF) CHAPTER 2. MISTAKE, INCLUDING FRAUD TOPIC 2. MISTAKE OF FACT TITLE A. MONEY PAID BY MISTAKE: IN GENERAL § 15. Mistaken Belief in Existence of Contract with Payee Or.App.2021. Quot. in case quot. in sup. Sister brought, among other things, a rescission claim against brother, sister-in-law, and niece, alleging that defendants were unjustly enriched when, after receiving plaintiff's monies pursuant to plaintiff and brother's joint agreement to purchase real property, brother removed plaintiff from the title of real property without her knowledge or consent. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. This court reversed and remanded, holding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were unjustly enriched when brother removed plaintiff from the title. Quoting Restatement of Restitution § 15, the court explained that a reasonable jury could find that an unwritten agreement existed between the parties to pool their resources to jointly purchase real property, and that plaintiff made a mistake of fact as to the existence of the agreement when she conveyed funds to brother with the expectation of joint ownership of property. Neel v. Lee, 504 P.3d 26, 40. CHAPTER 8. RULES GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS FOR RESTITUTION § 150. Value of the Benefit. Money Received Or.App.2021. Cit. in case cit. in sup. Sister brought, among other things, a claim for violation of financial elder-abuse statutes against brother, sister-in-law, and niece, alleging that defendants wrongfully took plaintiff's monies when, after receiving those funds pursuant to plaintiff and brother's joint agreement to purchase real property, brother removed plaintiff from the title of real property without her consent. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. This court reversed and remanded, holding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the parties had an oral agreement to pool resources to jointly purchase property. The court observed that plaintiff could be entitled to recovery in the absence of a formal contract, because, under Restatement of Restitution § 150, plaintiff could recover monies equaling the amount she paid to defendants if she made COPYRIGHT C2022 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