Unjust Enrichment -
[1] Elements and Case Citations
(1) Plaintiff has conferred benefit on the defendant, who has knowledge thereof;
(2) Defendant voluntarily accepts and retains the benefit conferred; and
(3) The circumstances render the defendant’s
retention of the benefit inequitable unless the defendant pays to the plaintiff the value of the benefit.
____________________________________
Florida State Courts
First District: Golden v. Woodward, 15 So.3d 664, 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
Second District: Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
Third District: Extraordinary Title Services, LLC v. FPL, Co., 1 So.3d 400, 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
Fourth District: Della Ratta v. Della Ratta, 927 So. 2d 1055, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
Fifth District: American Safety Insurance Company, v. Griggs, 959 So.2d 322, 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
Florida Federal Courts
Eleventh Circuit: Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1271 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2009)
Northern District: Ardaman & Associates, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., No. 3:08cv144/MCR, 2009 WL 161203, *10 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2009)
Southern District: Intercoastal Realty, Inc. v. Tracy, 2010 WL 1510848, *4 (S.D. Fla. April 16, 2010).
Middle District: Duval Motor Co. v. Dell Financial, LLC, No. 8:08-CV-2476-T-30TGW, 2009 WL 1515698, *2 (M.D. Fla. June 1, 2009).
[2] Defenses to Claim
for Unjust Enrichment
(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other
standard defenses. See § 60.
(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(j), Fla. Stat. (four years);
Calder v. Uwanawich, 449 So. 2d 911, 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
(3) Plaintiff cannot recover money paid under a mistake of fact when the payee
``received it in good faith in satisfaction of an equitable claim, nor where it was due in honor and conscience’’. Pensacola and A. R. Co. v.
Braxton, 34 Fla. 471, 16 So. 317, 317 (1894).
(4) Plaintiff cannot obtain restitution through unjust enrichment when criminal
or other wrongful conduct was utilized to confer the benefit. Restatement of Restitution § 140 (1937).
(5) Unjust enrichment is unavailable when a change in circumstances renders
payment to plaintiff for the benefit conferred inequitable. Restatement of Restitution §§ 142, 143 (1937).
(6) Unjust enrichment is unavailable when it is proven that an express contract
exists. See, e.g., Williams v. Bear Stearns & Co., 725 So. 2d 397, 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
