- 11 -
trust.13 We turn to Michigan law to determine whether
petitioner’s assertion of the doctrine of unjust enrichment gives
rise to a valid and enforceable claim against Ms. Thiellesen.
A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of
another is required to make restitution to the other. Estate of
McCallum v. First State Bank, 395 N.W.2d 258, 261 (Mich. Ct. App.
1986); Restatement, Restitution, sec. 1 (1937). The process of
imposing a “contract-in-law” to prevent unjust enrichment is an
activity which courts should approach with some caution.
Estate of McCallum v. First State Bank, supra. Under Michigan
law, the essential elements of a claim for unjust enrichment are:
(1) Receipt of a benefit by the defendant from the plaintiff, (2)
which benefit it is inequitable that the defendant retain. Id.
The plaintiff making a claim for unjust enrichment must establish
the nature of the transaction and the character of the liability
arising therefrom as a prerequisite to his right to recover.
Booker v. City of Detroit, 668 N.W.2d 623, 627 (Mich. 2003). The
mere fact that a person benefits another is not of itself
sufficient to require the other to make restitution on a theory
13 Generally, a constructive trust allows the court to
impose a trust for the benefit of one person over assets owned by
another. Kent v. Klein, 91 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Mich. 1958). For
purposes of the requirement of worthlessness, respondent focuses
on the truck. The record is unclear, however, as to who is the
registered owner of the truck. We note that Nicole currently
drives the truck.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011