Wisconsin Court of Appeals rules man can recover neighbor's taxes.

• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

A property owner who mistakenly paid his neighbor's property taxes may be able to recover them under an unjust enrichment theory. Judge Richard Brown wrote for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on Mar. 4, [W]hen a party mistakenly confers a monetary benefit, or other easily returnable benefit, on another, that party is entitled to restitution from the benefited party who, upon learning of the mistaken payment, refuses to repay the money.

Daniel Buckett owned property on the south side of Highway A in Racine County. Glenn and Elsie Jante owned the property on the north side.

In the late 1960s the highway was relocated slightly north, leaving about two acres of the Jantes' land south of the highway adjacent to Buckett's land.

The county has mistakenly billed Buckett for the property taxes on those two acres all these years, and Buckett has paid them.

When the error was discovered, and the Jantes refused to reimburse him, Buckett brought suit against them, alleging unjust enrichment and seeking restitution.

Circuit Court Judge Stephen A. Simanek granted summary judgment in favor of the Jantes, concluding that none of the three elements of unjust enrichment were met.

Those elements are: (1) the plaintiff conferred a benefit upon the defendant; (2) the defendant had an appreciation or knowledge of the benefit; and (3) the defendant accepted or retained the benefit under circumstances making it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without payment of its value.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that elements one and three were clearly met, and although element two was not, the case fit into an exception to the rule.

The court acknowledged that Buckett cannot prove that the Jantes had knowledge or appreciation of the benefit when Buckett paid their taxes, but held that Buckett stated an unjust enrichment claim anyway.

The court began with a review of Wisconsin case law.

Originally, element two was not even required. Dunnebacke Co. v. Pittman, 216 Wis. 305, 257 N.W. 30 (1934), listed only the first and third elements.

The second element originated, without explanation, in Nelson v. Preston, 262 Wis. 547, 55 N.W.2d 918 (1955).

Explaining the nature of the second element adopted in Nelson, the Court of Appeals concluded, [T]he essence of the knowledge or appreciation requirement is to provide the defendant an opportunity to protest or reject the benefit.

The court further found it unnecessary that the conferral of...