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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2017 through August 2018)

handle is hein.ali/retrdrue1197 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 3D Generally Or.2017. Cit. generally in sup., cit. generally in cases cit. in sup. Owner and operator of an adult foster home brought an unjust-enrichment claim against personal representative of patient's estate, alleging that patient's son, acting under a power of attorney, made misrepresentations on patient's application that allowed patient to receive services from plaintiff at a lower rate. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of plaintiff. The court of appeals reversed. Reversing and remanding, this court held that plaintiff was entitled to restitution from patient's estate, even though patient had not made the misrepresentations herself. The court reasoned, in part, that a recipient's awareness of a benefit was not required for the recipient to be liable for unjust enrichment under the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment. Larisa's Home Care, LLC v. Nichols-Shields, 404 P.3d 912, 917, 919-921. PART I. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES Or.2017. Cit. in sup. §§ 1-4, which constitutes all of Ch. 1. Owner and operator of an adult foster home brought an unjust-enrichment claim against personal representative of patient's estate, alleging that patient's son, acting under a power of attorney, made misrepresentations on patient's application that allowed patient to receive services from plaintiff at a lower rate. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of plaintiff. The court of appeals reversed. Reversing and remanding, this court held that plaintiff was entitled to restitution from patient's estate, even though patient had not made the misrepresentations herself. The court reasoned, in part, that a recipient's awareness of a benefit was not required for the recipient to be liable for unjust enrichment under the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, which addressed the types of circumstances in which liability in restitution was recognized. Larisa's Home Care, LLC v. Nichols-Shields, 404 P.3d 912, 919. § 1. Restitution and Unjust Enrichment Colo.App.2016. Com. (b) quot. in sup. (erron. cit. as com. (d)). Successor of subdivision developer sued water district, seeking, among other things, a declaration that it was the owner of the water rights to the subdivision. The trial court imposed a constructive trust on plaintiff's water rights for the benefit of defendant based on a theory of unjust enrichment. Reversing as to the imposition of the constructive trust and remanding, this court held that plaintiff was the legal title holder to the water rights and that defendant failed to prove the elements of unjust enrichment. The court cited Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1 in support of its conclusion that plaintiff was not unjustly enriched, because it did not receive a benefit at defendant's expense. Indian Mountain Corporation v. Indian Mountain Metropolitan District, 412 P.3d 881, 888. Ill.App.2017. Cit. in sup. Seller of food products brought a breach-of-contract claim against bankrupt entities and entities' successors, which owned and operated several nursing homes, seeking to collect mA L I For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.