Blog

Factual Background:

Defendant was Personal Representative of the Estate of his mother, and among the assets of the Estate was a parcel of real property.  Broker entered into a contract with the Estate to purchase the property.  The contract gave Broker the option to purchase title insurance, and it required the seller to report any title defects within twenty-five days.  Broker entered into an agreement with Plaintiff to provide title insurance.  There was an outstanding second deed of trust on the property, on which Defendant had made several payments on behalf of the Estate.  Plaintiff’s title examiner conducted a title search but did not find the second deed of trust.  On the day of closing, Defendant executed an affidavit attesting that there were no loans or mortgages on the property.  Based on the representations in the affidavit, Plaintiff disbursed the purchase money to the Estate and did not withhold an amount to pay off the second deed of trust.

When Plaintiff was notified of the second deed of trust, it had to pay the Mortgage Company the outstanding balance to satisfy the debt owed.  Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a suit against Defendant, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate, and also against the devisees of the will.  After a bench trial, the case was submitted on theories of unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and money had and received.  Plaintiff moved to dismiss all defendants except the Personal Representative.

 St. Louis County Circuit Court, J. Clifford, Held:

The circuit court entered a judgment against the Personal Representative and dismissed the remaining defendants.  The trial court did not make findings of fact or conclusions of law, and neither party requested that the court do so.  Personal Representative appealed.

 Court of Appeals, J. Crane, Held:

Affirmed.  Defendant argues that the court’s judgment cannot stand on any of the three counts submitted.  The trial court did not specify the theory or count on which its judgment was based, and when multiple theories are available, the judgment can be affirmed on any reasonable theory pleaded and supported by the evidence.  When neither party requests findings of fact or conclusions of law, all fact issues upon which no specific findings are made shall be considered as having been found in accordance with the result reached.  The court addressed the theory of unjust enrichment first.

Defendant argues that he was not unjustly enriched by Plaintiff’s payment of the second deed of trust, in that the payment benefited a third party.  However, the Estate received a benefit because Plaintiff paid off the Estate’s obligation on the second deed of trust without charging the Estate at closing or otherwise receiving reimbursement from the Estate.  By virtue of receiving a distribution from the Estate, defendant also individually received this benefit and is liable for its restitution.  Defendant argues that Broker received the benefit of the repayment.  However, Broker was actually harmed when its funds were disbursed to the Estate without a deduction for the second mortgage.  It was merely made whole when Plaintiff paid off the second mortgage as its title insurer.  Defendant’s liability for unjust enrichment is not in any way affected by the fact that Broker was protected from its loss.  It would be unjust to allow Defendant to retain the portion of sale proceeds that should have been withheld to pay the second deed of trust, the amount Plaintiff had to pay with its own funds to satisfy that obligation.  Because the judgment can be affirmed on the theory of unjust enrichment, the court did not need to reach the other two challenged theories.