Unjust Enrichment

1643 WordsMay 3, 20127 Pages
[Caption] Now comes Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), and moves this Court for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Civil Rule 12(C). In light of this Court's January 22, 2009 Decision and Entry Granting Defendant Wells Fargo N.A.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss, the only remaining claim asserted against Wells Fargo by Plaintiff, Apex Restoration, LLC ("Apex"), is its second claim, alleging unjust enrichment. However, construing all material allegations in the Complaint as true, Wells Fargo is entitled to judgment against Apex as a matter of law because Apex did not confer the benefit by which Apex claims Wells Fargo was unjustly enriched. The grounds for this motion are more fully set forth in the attached Memorandum.…show more content…
Ethridge (Oct. 23, 2000), Warren App. No. CA2000-02-017, unreported (citing Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp. (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 179, 183 465 N.E.2d 1298.). In its Complaint, Apex states, "Defendants, in failing to return the $29,907.48 payment issued by the Nationwide Insurance Companies, have been unjustly enriched in the sum of $29,907.48." Complaint, ¶23. Therefore, Apex's theory of unjust enrichment is that Wells Fargo was unjustly enriched by the retention of the $29,907.48 paid by Nationwide. However, because Nationwide--not Apex--submitted the payment to Wells Fargo, Apex's unjust enrichment claim fails as a matter of law. In deciding a case analogous to the case at bar, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals has explained unjust enrichment as follows: "Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belongs to another." Recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment requires a trial court to impose a quasi-contractual relationship upon the parties. Quasi-contracts are not true contracts, but are merely a legal fiction, an "equitable legal vehicle for obtaining
Open Document