Tuvim v. United Jewish Communities, 285 Ga. 632, 635(2), 680 S.E.2d 827 (2009) (citation and punctuation omitted). Relying on Reidling v. Holcomb, 225 Ga.App. 229, 483 S.E.2d 624 (1997), Pharis argues that, as a matter of law, GMAC cannot pursue its claim for unjust enrichment because its failure to conduct a title search was negligent. But see OCGA ยง 23โ2โ32(b) (โRelief may be granted even in cases of negligence by the complainant if it appears that the other party has not been prejudiced thereby.โ) Reidling is distinguishable on its facts.
Stone Mountain Pool Supply Co. v. Imperial Pool Co., 170 Ga. App. 283 (1) ( 316 SE2d 769) (1984); and see Multi-Media Holdings v. Piedmont Center, 15 LLC, 262 Ga. App. 283, 287 (3) ( 583 SE2d 262) (2003) (re: claim of piercing the corporate veil). See generally Regal Textile Co. v. Fell, 189 Ga. 581, 584-585 ( 6 SE2d 908) (1940) (with regard to superior court jurisdiction, "the question whether it is a suit in equity is determined by the allegations and prayers"; "an ordinary cause of action for money had and received, or for money paid by mistake or (as it is now often called) for unjust enrichment, is one now cognizable at law . . ."); Reidling v. Holcomb, 225 Ga. App. 229, 232 (2) ( 483 SE2d 624) (1997) ("The theory of recovery for unjust enrichment arises both at law and equity. [Cits.]").
Unjust enrichment is "premised upon the principle that a party cannot induce, accept, or encourage another to furnish or render something of value to such party and avoid payment for the value received. . . ." Reidling v. Holcomb, 225 Ga. App. 229, 232 (1997). "Inherent in unjust enrichment is the requirement that the receiving party knew of the value being bestowed upon them by another and failed to stop the act or to reject the benefit."
In terms of the equities herein, as noted in Bell, supra, it is the grantee's responsibility to record its documents and the Respondent could have taken steps to protect its interest. 355 Ga.App. at 99 n. 4, 842 S.E.2d at 569 n. 4, citing Reidling v. Holcomb, 225 Ga.App. 229, 230-32 (1), 483 S.E.2d 624 (1997). This conclusion is not altered by the contention that the Petitioner is somehow "acting on [the Debtors'] behalf" as argued by the Respondent, such that it should not be allowed to adopt a different position regarding the maturity date of the Debt herein resulting from application of state law from that acknowledged by the Debtors in their confirmed Plan.
here a plaintiff asserts that the defendant induced or encouraged the plaintiff to provide something of value to the defendant, that the plaintiff provided a benefit to the defendant with the expectation that the defendant would be responsible for the cost thereof, and that the defendant knew of the benefit being bestowed upon it by the plaintiff and either affirmatively chose to accept the benefit or failed to reject it.โ Campbell, 338 Ga.App. at 387, 790 S.E.2d 68 (citing Crook v. Foster, 333 Ga.App. 36, 39, 775 S.E.2d 286 (2015) ). โThe concept of unjust enrichment in law is premised upon the principle that a party cannot induce, accept, or encourage another to furnish or render something of value to such party and avoid payment for the value received; otherwise the party has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another and, in fairness and good conscience, must reimburse the other to the extent of the value conferred.โ Crook v. Foster, 333 Ga.App. at 39, 775 S.E.2d 286 (citing Reidling v. Holcomb, 225 Ga.App. 229, 232 (2), 483 S.E.2d 624 (1997) ). In addressing Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim in the previous summary judgment order (Docket No. 66), the Court did not have the benefit of the evidence and briefing on the nature of the interests transferred or the value provided by Shechem for them.
Finally, there is authority that at least arguably supports the contention that Mathis's failure to disclose the easement when it sold the property to Athens Terraces violated a duty it owed to Alpha Rho. The trial court concluded that Alpha Rho was responsible for the loss of the easement by failing to record it, citing Reidling v. Holcomb , 225 Ga. App. 229, 230-231 (1), 483 S.E.2d 624 (1997) (a deed's grantee has a duty to record the deed to supply notice of the grantee's rights under it to a future purchaser of the property). But we find that Alpha Rho's assertion that Mathis's actions also contributed to that loss "was not unreasonable."
Finally, there is authority that at least arguably supports the contention that Mathis's failure to disclose the easement when it sold the property to Athens Terraces violated a duty it owed to Alpha Rho. The trial court concluded that Alpha Rho was responsible for the loss of the easement by failing to record it, citing Reidling v. Holcomb, 225 Ga.App. 229, 230-231 (1) (483 S.E.2d 624) (1997) (a deed's grantee has a duty to record the deed to supply notice of the grantee's rights under it to a future purchaser of the property). But we find that Alpha Rho's assertion that Mathis's actions also contributed to that loss "was not unreasonable."
The concept of unjust enrichment in law is premised upon the principle that a party cannot induce, accept, or encourage another to furnish or render something of value to such party and avoid payment for the value received; otherwise the party has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another and, in fairness and good conscience, must reimburse the other to the extent of the value conferred. Reidling v. Holcomb , 225 Ga. App. 229, 232 (2), 483 S.E.2d 624 (1997). Again, there has been no showing that Moon or Majors Management has been unjustly enriched or provided with anything requiring repayment to Price.
"It is ... the plain duty of a grantee to record his deed[.]" (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Reidling v. Holcomb , 225 Ga. App. 229, 230-231 (1), 483 S.E.2d 624 (1997). (b) The appellants further contend that the extensions raise a genuine factual issue as to whether Sly and FGCB intended to create a perpetual or indefinite security interest in the property such that the 20-year reversion period under OCGA ยง 44-14-80 (a) (1) may apply.
Ignorance of a fact due to negligence shall be equivalent to knowledge in fixing the rights of parties." See also Reidling v. Holcomb , 225 Ga. App. 229, 231 (1), 483 S.E.2d 624 (1997). "For more than a century, it has been recognized that a purchaser of land in this state is charged with notice of every fact shown by the records, and is presumed to know every other fact which an examination suggested by the records would have disclosed.