Summary
discussing "equitable recovery on the claim of unjust enrichment"
Summary of this case from Wright v. Genesee Cnty.Opinion
No. 67776.
June 25, 1982.
Jaffe, Snider, Raitt Heuer, P.C., for plaintiff-appellant.
Gropman, Kaplan, Sims Gibbons, P.C., for defendant-appellee.
Leave to appeal considered June 25, 1982 and, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the Court of Appeals judgment in part and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(3), with respect to all of plaintiffs claims, including plaintiff's claim to recovery on the theory of unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The record indicates that the monies transferred from plaintiff to defendants were used to an undetermined extent for the benefit of defendants. Summary judgment is therefore inappropriate to bar equitable recovery on the claim of unjust enrichment. See Restatement Restitution, § 15, p 66, and Restatement Agency, 2d, §§ 98 and 99. In all other respects leave to appeal is denied because the Court is not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court. We retain no jurisdiction.