ILNews

COA rules on unjust enrichment issue for first time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
ADVERTISEMENT