About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0080 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations RESTITUTION Generally Nev.App.2023. Cit. generally in case cit. in sup. After trustee embezzled trust funds and used them to buy a residential property, and a bankruptcy court imposed an equitable lien on the property in favor of the trust's beneficiary, assignee of the beneficiary's right to recover the bankruptcy judgment sued trustee and trustee's now-former wife, who obtained sole ownership of the property during her divorce from trustee, seeking the imposition of a constructive trust on the property. Following a hearing, the trial court granted assignee a constructive trust. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by failing to enforce the equitable lien established under the bankruptcy judgment. The court noted that, while Nevada and the Restatement First of Restitution recognized constructive trusts as well as equitable liens as remedies to address unjust enrichment and restore property belonging to another, the availability of a particular equitable remedy was not absolute and was generally left to the discretion of the trial court. Holland v. Anthony L. Barney, Ltd., 540 P.3d 1074, 1083. PART I. THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (QUASI CONTRACTS AND KINDRED EQUITABLE RELIEF) CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES § 1. Unjust Enrichment Ohio App.2023. Com. (a) cit. in case quot. in sup. Limited partnership sued former limited partner, seeking to recover partnership funds that defendant retained after general partnership violated the partnership agreement by extending him improper preferential treatment that enabled him to avoid certain partnership losses. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiff s claim was for unjust enrichment and, because the matter was derivative of the agreement, it was governed by an express contract and could not support an unjust-enrichment claim. This court affirmed, holding that plaintiff s claim seeking restitution for unjust enrichment was barred by the COPYRIGHT 02025 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.