AZ Common Law Causes of Action UNJUST ENRICHMENT (2011)

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Elements

“Unjust enrichment occurs when one party has and retains money or benefits that in justice and equity belong to another. To establish a claim for unjust enrichment, a party must show:

1. An enrichment;

2. An impoverishment;

3. A connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment;

4. The absence of justification for the enrichment and the impoverishment; and

5. The absence of a legal remedy.”

Loiselle v. Cosas Mgmt. Group, LLC, 224 Ariz. 207, 210, ¶ 9, 228 P.3d 943, 946 (App. Div. 1, 2010). See also Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Bank One, 202 Ariz. 535, 541, ¶ 31, 48 P.3d 485, 491 (App. Div. 1, 2002); City of Sierra Vista v. Cochise Enters., Inc., 144 Ariz. 375, 381, 697 P.2d 1125, 1131 (App. Div. 2, 1984).

Proof

“To bring a successful unjust enrichment claim, a party must show the absence of any remedy at law. The legal remedy, however, must be against the same person from whom relief in equity is sought.” Loiselle v. Cosas Mgmt. Group, LLC, 224 Ariz. 207, 211, ¶ 14, 228 P.3d 943, 947 (App. Div. 1, 2010).

Tax lien purchaser was not entitled, under unjust enrichment theory, to recover interest on its purchase price for period between sale and county’s rescission of sale; such obligation would render statutory provision specifying conditions under which county must pay interest superfluous. Suzico, Inc. v. Maricopa County, 187 Ariz. 269, 272, 928 P.2d 693, 696 (App. Div. 1, 1996).

“A contract implied in fact is a true...