Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Contracts — unjust enrichment

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 29, 2013//

Contracts — unjust enrichment

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 29, 2013//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Contracts — unjust enrichment

We affirm the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a guarantor of business debt who was sued by investors in the business after the business went under. The investors claimed unjust enrichment because they had provided a cash infusion to the business that incidentally conferred a benefit on the guarantor by relieving him of his duty to pay off debt when the business failed. Even liberally construing the concept of a benefit conferred so as to include the alleged benefit here, there are no facts to show that the result was unjust. Due to their respective interests, the cash investors paid first on the debt load. This alone does not allow the cash investors to look to the guarantor to recoup their losses under an unjust enrichment theory. We affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2012AP1336 Fischer v. Renner, et al.

Dist II, Waukesha County, Mac Davis, J., Neubauer, P.J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Towers, Lawrence A., Wauwatosa; For Respondent: Corris, Robert B., Hartland

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests