Collins v. Davis, 8325SC282
Decision Date | 05 June 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 8325SC282,8325SC282 |
Citation | 68 N.C.App. 588,315 S.E.2d 759 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Donald S. COLLINS v. Beverly Ann DAVIS (Williams). |
Tate, Young, Morphis, Bogle & Bach by Thomas C. Morphis, Hickory, for plaintiff-appellant.
Randy D. Duncan, Hickory, for defendant-appellee.
Though the sole question presented for review is whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict against plaintiff and dismissing his case, answering it is a two step process. So far as the record reveals, the dismissal was on the grounds of public policy and the sufficiency of the evidence was not a factor; nevertheless, if the evidence in fact was insufficient to support any of the claims asserted, plaintiff had no right to a jury trial and the directed verdict was proper. Thus, before discussing the grounds upon which the case was apparently dismissed, we will first determine whether it was dismissable in any event because plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to raise a jury question on either of the alternative claims alleged--resulting trust, unjust enrichment, and a loan of money and furnishing of labor upon a promise to pay therefor. In doing so, of course, we are obliged to view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Hawks v. Brindle, 51 N.C.App. 19, 275 S.E.2d 277 (1981).
Equity devised the theory of resulting trust to effectuate the intent of the parties in certain situations where one party pays for property, or part of it, that for different reasons is titled in the name of another. In Mims v. Mims, 305 N.C. 41, 46-47, 286 S.E.2d 779, 783-784 (1982), our Supreme Court said:
A resulting trust arises (Citation omitted). The trust is created in order to effectuate what the law presumes to have been the intention of the parties in these circumstances--that the person to whom the land was conveyed hold it as trustee for the person who supplied the purchase money. (Citations omitted). (Citation omitted).
As to this claim, plaintiff testified that: At least $4,500 of plaintiff's money, placed in defendant's checking account, was used with his consent in purchasing or paying for the property that was titled in her name; the money was not a gift, but was given to her because of their agreement that if they got married title would be put in both their names, and if they did not marry the property would be sold and he would be paid from the proceeds. This evidence, in our view, was sufficient to support the claim that a resulting trust in plaintiff's favor existed with respect to the property involved.
The doctrine of unjust enrichment was devised by equity to exact the return of, or payment for, benefits received under circumstances where it would be unfair for the recipient to retain them without the contributor being repaid or compensated. To invoke the unjust enrichment doctrine, however, more must be shown than that one party voluntarily benefited another or his property. Wright v. Wright, 305 N.C. 345, 289 S.E.2d 347 (1982). One situation where the doctrine does arise, though, is where one's property is improved or paid for in reliance upon the owner's unenforceable promise to convey the land or some interest in it to the contributor. Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Cordon, 208 N.C. 723, 182 S.E. 496 (1935). Quite clearly, we think, plaintiff's evidence falls under the authority of this case and was sufficient to support plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim. And, of course, that the evidence referred to also supports the other claim that the money was loaned and labor was done in reliance upon defendant's promise to pay therefor is too plain to require discussion.
Since plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to support the claims alleged, was the case dismissable on the grounds of public policy, as the trial court ruled? In directing a verdict against plaintiff, the court stated:
"[I]t is undisputed that the parties knew plaintiff was married at the time of the purchase of the house, and that plaintiff was married during the time the parties lived together and actually remained married until August 1982, and that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief under the totality of the evidence, in that the arrangement violates the public policy of North Carolina and is in derogation of the sanctity of marriage and other laws...."
Though the evidence does show, as the court stated, that during the period the parties lived together and the house was bought, plaintiff was married to another woman, as defendant well knew, we nevertheless are of the opinion that that did not authorize the court to dismiss plaintiff's case. The court's judgment, in effect, stands for the proposition that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Augustson v. Bank of Am., N.A.
...or compensated.” Rhue v. Rhue, 189 N.C.App. 299, 303–04, 658 S.E.2d 52, 57 (2008) (quotation omitted); see also Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C.App. 588, 591, 315 S.E.2d 759, 761,aff'd,312 N.C. 324, 321 S.E.2d 892 (1984) (per curiam). A claim of unjust enrichment requires a plaintiff to show that ......
-
Watts v. Watts
...95 Wis.2d at 497 & n. 4, 290 N.W.2d 697.21 See, e.g., Harman v. Rogers, 147 Vt. 11, 510 A.2d 161, 164-65 (1986); Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C.App. 588, 315 S.E.2d 759, 761-62 (1984), aff'd, 312 N.C. 324, 321 S.E.2d 892; Mason v. Rostad, 476 A.2d 662 (D.C.1984); Coney v. Coney, 207 N.J.Super. 63......
-
Mountain Land Props., Inc. v. Lovell
...repaid or compensated. More must be shown than that one party voluntarily benefited another or his property.” Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C.App. 588, 591, 315 S.E.2d 759, 761 (1984). “In order to properly set out a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must allege that property or benefits we......
-
In re Southeastern Eye Center-Pending Matters
... ... a claim against defendants based upon letters sent by ... defendants' counsel); Davis Lake Cmty. Ass'n v ... Feldmann , 138 N.C. App. 292, 297, 530 S.E.2d 865, 869 ... (2000) ... Gibson , 2017 NCBC ... LEXIS 66, at *9 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 26, 2017) (quoting ... Collins v. Davis , 68 N.C.App. 588, 591, 315 S.E.2d ... 759, 761 (1984)). A claim for unjust enrichment ... ...
-
§ 1.02 Disputes Between Cohabitants
...205 N.W.2d 595 (1973).[15] See In re Estate of Steffes, 95 Wis.2d 490, 290 N.W.2d 697 (1980).[16] See: North Carolina: Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C. App. 588, 315 S.E.2d 759, aff'd per curiam 312 N.C. 324, 321 S.E.2d 892 (1984). Minnesota: In re Estate of Eriksen, 337 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1983). C......
-
Nonmarital Contracts.
...Id. (212.) Id. at *8. (213.) Id. at *7. (214.) Id. at *7-9. (215.) Id. at *7. (216.) Id. (217.) Id. (218.) Id. (quoting Collins v. Davis, 315 S.E.2d 759, 762 (N.C. Ct. App.), aff'd, 321 S.E.2d 892 (N.C. (219.) Id. at *8 (quoting the defendant's answer). (220.) 623 N.Y.S.2d 965,966-67 (App. ......