AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff and the Defendant's late husband had an informal arrangement to develop and sell properties, sharing net profits equally. After the Defendant's husband passed away, the Plaintiff continued to work on the properties, completing construction and not receiving any share of the rental income or compensation for his services. In March 2020, the Defendant attempted to sell the properties without compensating the Plaintiff, prompting him to file a complaint (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant was unjustly enriched by the Plaintiff's services and that the Plaintiff was entitled to compensation for his work and the gross receipts taxes (GRT) he was assessed (para 6).
• Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellant: Contended that the Plaintiff’s claim was time-barred, the claim for unjust enrichment was not supported by substantial evidence, and that her counterclaims should have been granted (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Whether substantial evidence supported the district court’s conclusion that the Defendant was unjustly enriched.
• Whether the district court erred in rejecting the Defendant’s counterclaims (para 1).

Disposition

• The district court’s judgment granting the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment was affirmed (para 29).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Kristina Bogardus writing, concurred by Judges Megan P. Duffy and Michael D. Bustamante, held that the Plaintiff’s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations as the cause of action accrued in 2020 when the Defendant attempted to sell the properties without compensating the Plaintiff. The court found substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the Defendant was unjustly enriched at the Plaintiff’s expense, noting the Defendant benefited from the Plaintiff’s work without compensation. The court also found that the Defendant’s counterclaims were either granted, unpreserved, or unsupported by evidence. The court emphasized the presumption of correctness in favor of the district court’s rulings and the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error. The court rejected the Defendant’s arguments regarding the statute of limitations, unjust enrichment, and counterclaims based on the evidence and legal standards applicable (paras 7-28).