Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / Contracts — unjust enrichment

Contracts — unjust enrichment

Wisconsin Court of Appeals


Contracts — unjust enrichment

Good to Go Quick Mart, Inc., appeals from a judgment and an order granting summary judgment in favor of Daniel K. Anderson, Ltd.

Certified Public Accountants (DKA) on DKA’s claim for unjust enrichment. Good to Go contends the circuit court improperly granted summary judgment because material facts remain in dispute or, in the alternative, it should be allowed to raise the defense that it is an innocent transferee for value. We conclude the court reasonably applied the theory of unjust enrichment and properly exercised its discretion in allowing recovery to DKA. We affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2011AP2154 Daniel K. Anderson Ltd. Certified Public Accountants v. Good to Go Quick Mart Inc., et al.

Dist II, Waukesha County, Hassin, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Colque, Erik Inti, Waukesha; For Respondent: Fiedler, Noah D., Milwaukee

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *