Summary Judgment – Unjust Enrichment

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: Eric L. Kelly v. Phillip Cole, Jr., et al.

Case No.: 2016AP2245

Officials: Kessler, Brash and Dugan, JJ.

Focus: Summary Judgment – Unjust Enrichment

Eric L. Kelly appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel claims against Phillip Cole, Jr. and Gloria Cole (collectively the “Coles”). Kelly and Phillip were coworkers and friends. The Coles owned a duplex with an outstanding note and mortgage, but no longer wanted to own the property. In contemplation of selling the duplex, the Coles refinanced the note and mortgage on the duplex in the amount of approximately $29,000, which included $6000 for necessary repairs.

Phillip and Kelly discussed Kelly buying the duplex for the outstanding balance on the note and mortgage. They agreed that if Kelly was able to assume the note and mortgage or obtain other financing to pay off the note and mortgage, the Coles would sell him the duplex. Kelly began repairing the duplex using the $6000. He also applied for a loan with the Coles’ lender, Brewery Credit Union (“Brewery”). After the repairs were completed, Brewery informed Kelly that his loan application was denied and that, based on the duplex’s post-repair appraisal, additional monies would be required to purchase it. Kelly did not obtain other financing. Kelly was not able to purchase the Coles’ duplex. Kelly then filed this civil action against the Coles and Brewery claiming unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel, seeking damages of $20,000 as compensation for the value of the labor and materials used to repair the duplex. The Coles filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing Kelly’s claims. The trial court granted Coles’ motion.

On appeal, Kelly maintains that there were “questions of [f]act that precluded summary judgment” and the case should be remanded to the trial court for a trial on the merits. Kelly has not identified any genuine issues of material fact. We affirm the trial court’s order. The following background facts are essential to understanding this case and are undisputed for the purposes of the summary judgment motion. In setting forth these facts, “‘[w]e view the summary judgment materials in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.’” See Rainbow Country Rentals and Retail, Inc. v. Ameritech Publ’g, Inc., 2005 WI 153, ¶13, 286 Wis. 2d 170, 706 N.W.2d 95. We refer to additional facts in our discussion as needed.

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.