Boyce v. Freeman
| Decision Date | 07 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-45.,01-45. |
| Citation | 2002 WY 20,39 P.3d 1062 |
| Parties | Christopher BOYCE, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Teresa D. FREEMAN, d/b/a T & R Trucking, Appellee (Defendant). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Joel M. Vincent of Vincent & Vincent, Riverton, WY, Representing Appellant.
Robert Anderson of Robert O. Anderson, P.C., Riverton, WY, Representing Appellee.
Before LEHMAN, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.
[¶ 1] Appellant Christopher Boyce (Boyce) conveyed a pickup truck to an employee of Appellee T & R Trucking. The employee told Boyce that T & R Trucking would pay for the vehicle. The employee used the truck for his personal use and also for use on the job. Boyce never received payment for the pickup truck. Boyce eventually sought payment from T & R Trucking, which refused payment claiming that the pickup truck was the personal vehicle of the employee. Boyce sued T & R Trucking claiming, among other things, that T & R Trucking was unjustly enriched through the use on the job of the pickup truck by its employee. Boyce hereby appeals from a judgment, issued after a bench trial, rejecting his claim of unjust enrichment. Finding that T & R Trucking was not unjustly enriched by the use of the pickup truck by its employee, we affirm.
[¶ 2] Appellant and Appellee agree that the issues to be decided are as follows:
[¶ 3] Teresa Freeman is the sole owner of T & R Trucking. T & R Trucking is a truck brokering business that leases owner-operated dump trucks and brokers them to contractors for work on construction projects. Boyce owned five dump trucks that he leased to T & R Trucking.
[¶ 4] Ronnie Kultgen (Kultgen) was the truck supervisor for T & R Trucking. As truck supervisor, Kultgen was the liaison between the dump trucks in the field, the contractors, and the business office. Kultgen was required to be in the field and travel between the various construction sites where the dump trucks were operating. Teresa Freeman testified that Kultgen used his personal vehicle for transportation while on the job, and the company reimbursed some of the expenses associated therewith.
[¶ 5] Kultgen and Boyce were introduced by Kultgen's sister. Boyce and Kultgen entered into several different business arrangements. Boyce paid Kultgen to help with a remodeling job at Boyce's house. Boyce also paid Kultgen to do repair work on his dump trucks. At issue in this appeal is an arrangement between Boyce and Kultgen whereby Boyce transferred ownership of two pickup trucks to Kultgen. With regard to the two pickup trucks, the trial court made the following finding of fact: The note was dated March 26, 1999.
[¶ 6] Boyce signed over the title to both vehicles, leaving the space for the new owner's name blank. Eventually, Kultgen titled both vehicles in his name. Kultgen sold the 1989 GMC to a third party. For several months, Kultgen used the 1990 Ford for his own personal use and also for use in his employment. Boyce was never paid for either vehicle by either Kultgen or T & R Trucking. Boyce contacted T & R Trucking sometime at the end of June regarding payment for the pickups. Teresa Freeman testified that this was the first time she had heard anything regarding the possibility of T & R Trucking being responsible for payment. She testified that Kultgen told her that the pickups were his personal vehicles. Because she believed the pickup trucks were Kultgen's personal property, she told Boyce that T & R Trucking would not pay for either pickup truck.
[¶ 7] Eventually, Boyce sued T & R Trucking for breach of contract with regard to both pickups and for unjust enrichment for the use of the 1990 Ford on the job. After a bench trial, the trial judge ruled against Boyce on all counts involving the pickups. The trial court specifically found that no contract existed between Boyce and T & R Trucking because no agency relationship existed between Kultgen and T & R Trucking whereby Kultgen could bind T & R Trucking for the purchase of the pickup trucks. The trial court further found that T & R Trucking did not ratify the actions of Kultgen regarding the pickup trucks. These findings have not been appealed. The trial court also denied Boyce's claim for unjust enrichment in regard to the use by Kultgen of the 1990 Ford on the job. Boyce filed this timely appeal on the issue of unjust enrichment only.
[¶ 8] This appeal challenges a judgment after a bench trial. "In our review of this decision, we assume that the evidence of the prevailing party below is true and give that party every reasonable inference that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from it." Kendrick v. Barker, 2001 WY 2, ¶ 12, 15 P.3d 734, ¶ 12 (Wyo.2001). The trial court made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
When the specific findings of fact are made by the trial court on evidentiary matters, they are presumed to be correct, and an appellate court will not disturb them unless they are clearly erroneous or against the great weight of the evidence. Whitefoot v. Hanover Ins. Co., Wyo., 561 P.2d 717, 720 (1977); and Willis v. Asbury Transportation Co., Wyo., 386 P.2d 934, 937 (1963). The review standard recognizes that deference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and that a reviewing court will not set aside the court's findings merely because it might have reached a different result. United States v. National Ass'n of Real Estate Bds., 339 U.S. 485, 495-496, 70 S.Ct. 711, 94 L.Ed. 1007 (1950); and United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 341-342, 70 S.Ct. 177, 94 L.Ed. 150 (1949). However, the presumption of correctness will be overcome if the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a finding is mistaken. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 123, 89 S.Ct. 1562, 23 L.Ed.2d 129 (1969); and United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).
Shores v. Lindsey, 591 P.2d 895, 899 (Wyo. 1979).
[¶ 9] As always, questions of law are reviewed by this Court de novo. Amoco Production Co. v. EM Nominee Partnership Co., 2 P.3d 534, 540 (Wyo.2000). The burden of proving the elements of unjust enrichment is on the party seeking that remedy. Zitterkopf v. Bradbury, 783 P.2d 1142, 1144 (Wyo. 1989) ()
[¶ 10] Boyce is appealing from the denial of his claim for unjust enrichment. In its judgment, the trial court rejected Boyce's claim for unjust enrichment giving the following reasoning:
[¶ 11] On appeal, Boyce protests that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that a "contract" existed between Boyce and Kultgen regarding the pickup truck. Based upon the language of his third issue, Boyce seems to reason that, once this one allegedly erroneous finding is reversed, "judgment in favor of Boyce for unjust enrichment should be entered." The ultimate issue, therefore, is whether or not Boyce is entitled to recover from T & R Trucking on a claim of unjust enrichment.
[¶ 12] Boyce bases his claim on the fact that he conveyed the pickup truck to Kultgen believing that T & R Trucking would pay for the pickup truck. While this may show that Boyce conveyed a benefit upon Kultgen and should receive payment therefore, it does not show that T & R Trucking should be responsible for that payment. The trial court specifically found that no contract was formed between T & R Trucking and Boyce and that T & R Trucking did not ratify Kultgen's actions in obtaining the pickup truck in any manner. A party who is seeking damages on the basis of unjust enrichment must prove four elements:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig.
...a trucking company not liable for, among other things, unjust enrichment. See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 175; see also Boyce v. Freeman, 39 P.3d 1062, 1065-66 (Wyo. 2002) ). In Boyce, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed judgment for the defendant trucking company, noting that none of the elem......
-
Jjf v. State
...is a question of law, so it is reviewed de novo by this court. Joyner v. State, 2002 WY 174, ¶ 7, 58 P.3d 331, 334 (Wyo.2002); Boyce v. Freeman, 2002 WY 20, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 1062, 1064 [¶ 9] We will first contrast the two standards of proof at issue. "A `preponderance of the evidence' is define......
-
Redland v. Redland
...where such action involves no violation or frustration of law or opposition to public policy, either directly or indirectly.” Boyce [ v. Freeman], 2002 WY 20, ¶ 15, 39 P.3d at 1065–66.Jacoby, ¶ 13, 100 P.3d at 856. [¶ 147] The district court's conclusion that Robert Redland could not reason......
-
McNeill Family Trust v. Centura Bank
...Trust has been unjustly enriched. "The burden of proving the elements of unjust enrichment is on the party seeking that remedy." Boyce v. Freeman, 2002 WY 20, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 1062, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2002). The elements that must be established "(1) Valuable services were rendered, or materials furnishe......