CBS Surgical Group, Inc. v. Holt, 851

• Decision Date: 06 February 1981
• Docket Number: No. 851,851
• Citation: 426 A.2d 819,37 Conn.Supp. 555
• Parties: CBS SURGICAL GROUP, INC. v. Marion HOLT et al.
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court

Page 819

426 A.2d 819

37 Conn.Supp. 555

CBS SURGICAL GROUP, INC. v. Marion HOLT et al.

No. 851.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Appellate Session.

Argued Oct. 14, 1980.

Decided Feb. 6, 1981.

John R. Whelan, Meriden, for appellant (defendant).

Richard Gee, Yalesville, for appellee (plaintiff).

DALY, Judge.

The defendant Alfred Maringola has appealed from a judgment rendered against him in the amount of $2000 for medical services performed by the plaintiff's surgeon for the named defendant, Marion Holt. ¹

The trial court found the following facts: The plaintiff's surgeon amputated Holt's leg, which necessitated her confinement in a nursing home until her death. The defendant was a friend of Holt for many years and during her hospital stay and confinement, cashed her checks, handled her financial affairs, ran errands and otherwise befriended her. Although a special confidential relationship developed between the defendant and Holt, there was no legal fiduciary relationship.

The plaintiff received no payment for its medical services at the time they were rendered, but subsequently discovered that a $2000 check, drawn by Medicare and made payable to Holt, had been sent to her in response to a claim based on the services provided by the plaintiff's surgeon. The defendant was contacted, and he admitted that Holt gave him the check to cash with instructions to return the proceeds to her. The court found that the defendant never returned the proceeds but, instead, was unjustly enriched when he wrongfully converted the proceeds to his own use. ² The defendant's unjust enrichment was the basis of the court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendant's first claimed error is that the plaintiff should not have prevailed in this action on the ground of unjust enrichment. Because we agree with the defendant, it is not necessary to consider his other two claimed errors.

The cases cited by the parties demonstrate that unjust enrichment is a component of two distinct methods of recovery. Compare Providence Electric Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc., 161 Conn. 242, 246, 287 A.2d 379 (1971); Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Greenwich, 156 Conn. 561, 564, 244 A.2d 404 (1968); Franks v. Lockwood, 146 Conn. 273, 277-78, 150 A.2d 215 (1959) with Zack v. Guzauskas, 171 Conn. 98, 103-104, 368 A.2d 193 (1976); Hieble v. Hieble, 164 Conn. 56, 60-61, 316 A.2d 777 (1972); Worobey v. Sibieth, 136 Conn. 352, 359, 71 A.2d 80 (1949). The first method of recovery is based on a theory of quasi-contract or quantum meruit. It applies " 'whenever justice requires compensation to be given for property or services rendered under a contract, and no remedy is available by an action on the contract.' 5 Williston, Contracts (Rev.Ed.) § 1479. 'A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another.' " (Citations omitted.) Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Greenwich, supra, 564; Kane v. Kane, 4 Conn.Sup. 262, 263 (1936).

"Three essential elements must be established in order that a plaintiff may establish a claim based on unjust enrichment. These elements are: 1. A benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; 2. An appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; and 3. The acceptance or retention by the defendant of the benefit under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without payment of its value." 12 Williston, Contracts (3d Ed. Jaeger) § 1479, p. 276; see Providence Electric Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc., supra; Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Greenwich, supra.

There is neither a finding nor evidence to support a finding that the first element has been met in this case. The surgery on Holt's leg performed by the plaintiff's surgeon did not confer any benefit upon the defendant. The only person who benefited from the surgery was Holt. The plaintiff's performance of its contractual obligation to provide medical services to Holt did not work any advantage to the defendant sufficient for equity to demand that he pay for those services.

It is true that the defendant was unjustly enriched by the proceeds from the check earmarked to compensate the plaintiff for its services. The defendant, however, was obligated to return the proceeds to Holt, not the plaintiff. It appears that Holt's estate, and not the plaintiff, is the proper party to bring an action based on unjust enrichment. See Prudential Ins. Co. v. Somers, 20 Conn.Sup. 351, 355-56, 135 A.2d 365 (1957); 1 Corbin, Contracts § 19, p. 47.

A second method of recovery on the theory of unjust enrichment is...