ILNews

COA rules on unjust enrichment issue for first time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed an issue involving express contracts and equitable remedies and decided that the existence of a contract, in and of itself, doesn’t preclude equitable relief which isn’t inconsistent with the contract.

In Steven A. Coppolillo v. Anthony Cort, No. 45A05-1007-PL-433, Steven A. Coppolillo, a chef at Zuni’s Restaurant, negotiated to purchase Anthony Cort’s ownership in Zuncor, which owned the restaurant. While making monthly payments to Cort, the restaurant property was sold and the restaurant closed shortly after because Zuncor didn’t establish a new location for the restaurant after the lease ended. Coppolillo lost his investment in Zuncor and sued Cort for unjust enrichment.

Cort argued that the claim is barred because Cort sold his share in Zuncor to Coppolillo pursuant to a written agreement, so any remedy must be sought under the contract rather than in equity. Senior Judge Betty Barteau noted that other jurisdictions have determined that when an express contract doesn’t fully address a subject, a court of equity may impose a remedy to further the ends of justice.

The evidence shows that the parties’ payment arrangements for Cort’s share of Zuncor aren’t fully controlled by their agreement, so the contract doesn’t preclude the claim in equity against Cort of unjust enrichment.

Regarding Coppolillo’s claim, the judges found there to be a material dispute of fact as to whether Cort was unjustly enriched, so he isn’t entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as the trial court had ruled. They also rejected Cort’s claim that Coppolillo isn’t entitled to equitable relief because Coppolillo has unclean hands.

Judge Barteau wrote there is at best a dispute of fact as to whether Coppolillo engaged in wrongdoing when he ended his relationship with Zuncor and took a job in Chicago, even though Zuncor continued to operate two other restaurants.

The judges reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Cort and remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • good opinion
    Excellent reasoning by appellate judge and a decent article summary by this paper. Well done.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT