Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 552 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Date: 2021-08-23 14:03:56 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: 9.7.5 DIVISION II No. CV-19-798
Opinion Delivered: December 9, 2020 JOHN FRANKLIN TRICKETT
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE FRANKLIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT V. [NO. 24CCV-18-16]
JOHN SPANN AND SALLY SPANN HONORABLE DENNIS CHARLES SUTTERFIELD, JUDGE APPELLEES AFFIRMED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
The Franklin County Circuit Court granted judgment in the amount of $150,000 to
appellees John and Sally Spann on July 22, 2019, following a bench trial. The circuit court
found that appellant John Franklin Trickett had been unjustly enriched at the expense of
the Spanns. The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court’s finding of unjust enrichment
is clearly erroneous. We find that it is not and affirm.
Trickett was married to the Spanns’ daughter, Marvilla Spann Trickett, who died of
cancer on August 25, 2013. Prior to Marvilla’s death, in late 2007 or early 2008, the Spanns
moved from Texas to the Tricketts’ home in Charleston, Arkansas. From July 2008 to
March 2009, a home was constructed for the Spanns on the real property titled in John and
Marvilla Trickett’s name (as husband and wife) with funds contributed by the Spanns. The Spanns funded the construction of the house through the sale of the real property
they owned in Texas prior to moving to Arkansas. Those funds were deposited in an
account at First National Bank in Fort Smith, Arkansas, in the names of John Spann, Sally
Spann, John Trickett, and Marvilla Trickett. The purpose of depositing the funds into a
joint account was to enable any of the four people to write a check for materials or services
provided for the new home. However, most of the checks were written by Sally Spann.
Prior to the funds being deposited into the joint account, John Trickett had Sally
Spann write “gift” on the four checks she had already written. Two of those checks were
written to Marvilla Trickett for $12,000 each and two were written to John Trickett for
$12,000 each. The circuit court found that Sally Spann did not intend to “gift” the money
to the Tricketts, but she trusted her son-in-law and complied with his wishes. The circuit
court also found that the cost of the home’s construction was approximately $160,000.
Following Marvilla’s death in 2013, the Spanns left their home on June 30, 2016. As
alleged in their complaint, the Spanns have continuously and regularly paid the annual
property taxes on their home; maintained their home and the area immediately surrounding
it (i.e., their yard) as their private home; and paid for the upkeep, repairs, and improvements
to their home. After the Spanns moved in 2016, they believed Trickett was obligated to pay
them the value of their home or reimburse them the costs of the construction of the home.
When Trickett refused, the Spanns filed a lawsuit on March 21, 2018, claiming unjust
enrichment and a constructive trust. Trickett answered the complaint and filed a
counterclaim alleging cloud on title.
2 The circuit court held a bench trial on April 26, 2019. The court heard testimony
from the parties and Donald Burris, a real estate appraiser who determined the home to have
a contributory value of $150,000. In its July 22, 2019 order, the circuit court found the
Spanns had proved the four elements of unjust enrichment and entered a judgment in the
amount of $150,000. The circuit court denied Trickett’s counterclaim. On appeal, Trickett
argues that the circuit court erred because the Spanns had not proved the elements of unjust
enrichment.
The issue of unjust enrichment is a question of fact. Feagin v. Jackson, 2012 Ark. App.
306, at 7, 419 S.W.3d 29, 33. We review findings made at a bench trial to determine
whether they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
Sims v. Moser, 373 Ark. 491, 284 S.W.3d 505 (2008); Kapach v. Carroll, 2015 Ark. App. 466,
468 S.W.3d 801. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support
it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made
after a review of all the evidence. Sims, supra. Facts in dispute and credibility determinations
are within the province of the fact-finder. Id.
For a court to find unjust enrichment, a party must have received something of value
to which the party is not entitled and which the party must restore. Campbell v. Asbury
Auto., Inc., 2011 Ark. 157, 381 S.W.3d 21; Feagin, supra. There also must be some operative
act, intent, or situation to make the enrichment unjust and compensable. Id. One who is
free from fault cannot be held to be unjustly enriched merely because he or she has chosen
to exercise a legal or contractual right. Id. It is an equitable principle invoked to render a
3 situation fair under the circumstances. See Le v. Nguyen, 2010 Ark. App. 712, 379 S.W.3d
573.
Quasi-contracts, or contracts implied in law, are legal fictions, created by the law to
do justice. Dews v. Halliburton Indus., Inc., 288 Ark. 532, 708 S.W.2d 67 (1986). The
underlying principle is that one person should not unjustly enrich himself or herself at the
expense of another. Id. The basis for recovery under this theory is the benefit that the party
has received, and it is restitutionary in nature. Id. Recovery may be had under quasi-contract
where services have been performed, whether requested or not, which have benefited a
party. Id. Courts, however, will imply a promise to pay for services only when they were
rendered in such circumstances as authorized the party performing them to entertain a
reasonable expectation of their payment by the party beneficiary. Id.
To sustain an action for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff has the burden of proving the
following elements: (1) that the plaintiff provided the improvements to the property of the
defendant, who received the benefit of them; (2) that the circumstances were such that the
plaintiff reasonably expected to be paid the value of the improvements by the defendant; (3)
that the defendant was aware the plaintiff was providing such improvements with the
expectation of being paid and accepted the improvements; and (4) the reasonable value of
the improvements received by the defendant. Derrick v. Derrick, 2015 Ark. App. 696, 477
S.W.3d 577.
The circuit court did not err in finding that the Spanns reasonably expected to be
paid for the value of the house. The circuit court found that the Spanns provided the funds
to pay for the improvements on the property, which effectively satisfies the first element of
4 unjust enrichment. Both parties agree that the money originated from the Spanns, though
Trickett argues that the Spanns made gifts to his wife and him. Sally Spann testified they
were not intended to be gifts.
Arkansas law is clear that in order for an inter vivos gift to transpire, it must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the donor was of sound mind; (2) an actual
delivery of the property took place; (3) the donor clearly intended to make an immediate,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 552 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Date: 2021-08-23 14:03:56 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: 9.7.5 DIVISION II No. CV-19-798
Opinion Delivered: December 9, 2020 JOHN FRANKLIN TRICKETT
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE FRANKLIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT V. [NO. 24CCV-18-16]
JOHN SPANN AND SALLY SPANN HONORABLE DENNIS CHARLES SUTTERFIELD, JUDGE APPELLEES AFFIRMED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
The Franklin County Circuit Court granted judgment in the amount of $150,000 to
appellees John and Sally Spann on July 22, 2019, following a bench trial. The circuit court
found that appellant John Franklin Trickett had been unjustly enriched at the expense of
the Spanns. The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court’s finding of unjust enrichment
is clearly erroneous. We find that it is not and affirm.
Trickett was married to the Spanns’ daughter, Marvilla Spann Trickett, who died of
cancer on August 25, 2013. Prior to Marvilla’s death, in late 2007 or early 2008, the Spanns
moved from Texas to the Tricketts’ home in Charleston, Arkansas. From July 2008 to
March 2009, a home was constructed for the Spanns on the real property titled in John and
Marvilla Trickett’s name (as husband and wife) with funds contributed by the Spanns. The Spanns funded the construction of the house through the sale of the real property
they owned in Texas prior to moving to Arkansas. Those funds were deposited in an
account at First National Bank in Fort Smith, Arkansas, in the names of John Spann, Sally
Spann, John Trickett, and Marvilla Trickett. The purpose of depositing the funds into a
joint account was to enable any of the four people to write a check for materials or services
provided for the new home. However, most of the checks were written by Sally Spann.
Prior to the funds being deposited into the joint account, John Trickett had Sally
Spann write “gift” on the four checks she had already written. Two of those checks were
written to Marvilla Trickett for $12,000 each and two were written to John Trickett for
$12,000 each. The circuit court found that Sally Spann did not intend to “gift” the money
to the Tricketts, but she trusted her son-in-law and complied with his wishes. The circuit
court also found that the cost of the home’s construction was approximately $160,000.
Following Marvilla’s death in 2013, the Spanns left their home on June 30, 2016. As
alleged in their complaint, the Spanns have continuously and regularly paid the annual
property taxes on their home; maintained their home and the area immediately surrounding
it (i.e., their yard) as their private home; and paid for the upkeep, repairs, and improvements
to their home. After the Spanns moved in 2016, they believed Trickett was obligated to pay
them the value of their home or reimburse them the costs of the construction of the home.
When Trickett refused, the Spanns filed a lawsuit on March 21, 2018, claiming unjust
enrichment and a constructive trust. Trickett answered the complaint and filed a
counterclaim alleging cloud on title.
2 The circuit court held a bench trial on April 26, 2019. The court heard testimony
from the parties and Donald Burris, a real estate appraiser who determined the home to have
a contributory value of $150,000. In its July 22, 2019 order, the circuit court found the
Spanns had proved the four elements of unjust enrichment and entered a judgment in the
amount of $150,000. The circuit court denied Trickett’s counterclaim. On appeal, Trickett
argues that the circuit court erred because the Spanns had not proved the elements of unjust
enrichment.
The issue of unjust enrichment is a question of fact. Feagin v. Jackson, 2012 Ark. App.
306, at 7, 419 S.W.3d 29, 33. We review findings made at a bench trial to determine
whether they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
Sims v. Moser, 373 Ark. 491, 284 S.W.3d 505 (2008); Kapach v. Carroll, 2015 Ark. App. 466,
468 S.W.3d 801. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support
it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made
after a review of all the evidence. Sims, supra. Facts in dispute and credibility determinations
are within the province of the fact-finder. Id.
For a court to find unjust enrichment, a party must have received something of value
to which the party is not entitled and which the party must restore. Campbell v. Asbury
Auto., Inc., 2011 Ark. 157, 381 S.W.3d 21; Feagin, supra. There also must be some operative
act, intent, or situation to make the enrichment unjust and compensable. Id. One who is
free from fault cannot be held to be unjustly enriched merely because he or she has chosen
to exercise a legal or contractual right. Id. It is an equitable principle invoked to render a
3 situation fair under the circumstances. See Le v. Nguyen, 2010 Ark. App. 712, 379 S.W.3d
573.
Quasi-contracts, or contracts implied in law, are legal fictions, created by the law to
do justice. Dews v. Halliburton Indus., Inc., 288 Ark. 532, 708 S.W.2d 67 (1986). The
underlying principle is that one person should not unjustly enrich himself or herself at the
expense of another. Id. The basis for recovery under this theory is the benefit that the party
has received, and it is restitutionary in nature. Id. Recovery may be had under quasi-contract
where services have been performed, whether requested or not, which have benefited a
party. Id. Courts, however, will imply a promise to pay for services only when they were
rendered in such circumstances as authorized the party performing them to entertain a
reasonable expectation of their payment by the party beneficiary. Id.
To sustain an action for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff has the burden of proving the
following elements: (1) that the plaintiff provided the improvements to the property of the
defendant, who received the benefit of them; (2) that the circumstances were such that the
plaintiff reasonably expected to be paid the value of the improvements by the defendant; (3)
that the defendant was aware the plaintiff was providing such improvements with the
expectation of being paid and accepted the improvements; and (4) the reasonable value of
the improvements received by the defendant. Derrick v. Derrick, 2015 Ark. App. 696, 477
S.W.3d 577.
The circuit court did not err in finding that the Spanns reasonably expected to be
paid for the value of the house. The circuit court found that the Spanns provided the funds
to pay for the improvements on the property, which effectively satisfies the first element of
4 unjust enrichment. Both parties agree that the money originated from the Spanns, though
Trickett argues that the Spanns made gifts to his wife and him. Sally Spann testified they
were not intended to be gifts.
Arkansas law is clear that in order for an inter vivos gift to transpire, it must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the donor was of sound mind; (2) an actual
delivery of the property took place; (3) the donor clearly intended to make an immediate,
present, and final gift; (4) the donor unconditionally released all future dominion and control
over the property; and (5) the donee accepted the gift. See Phipps v. Wilson, 251 Ark. 377,
472 S.W.2d 929 (1971).
Here, all the parties knew the money was going to be used for the construction of
the new home. On June 3, 2008, Trickett took the first $48,000 from the Spanns and then
deposited the money on the same day into an account with the parties’ names on it to fund
the construction of the home. The circuit court found that the money was not a gift to
Trickett or his wife. On the basis of the record before us, we cannot say the circuit court
erred in that finding.
The circuit court also found that the Spanns met the second element of unjust
enrichment since they reasonably expected to be paid for the improvements. The Spanns
have four children, including Marvilla. The Spanns wanted to divide their estate equally
among their children, and Trickett understood that. Their entire estate was used to pay for
the construction of the new home in Charleston. The Spanns argued that since they wanted
their entire estate to be divided equally among their four children, they would not “have
given all their money (estate) to Trickett and their one daughter”; the circuit court agreed.
5 On January 24, 2008, Trickett sent Sally Spann an email setting out two ways the
Spanns could finance building the house on Tricketts’ property. He outlined his thoughts
concerning one of the options (for the Spanns to use the maximum federal gift limit):
“While I don’t want to get too much into your mind set as to your dispensation of your
assets, this would obviously mean that Marvilla and I would be ahead of your other 3
children when the time came to settle your estates. I don’t know how much you have or
what you plan to do with it-and I’m certainly not asking now–but it would not strike me
as fair that if you planned to divide things equally among your children that Marvilla and I
should certainly have a deduction from her 1/4 since we will obviously have a very tangible
asset that the others don’t.” At the end of Trickett’s email, he wrote: “As far as I’m
concerned we can go with only the first step, which would leave the loan in your estate, or
both.”
It is reasonable to conclude that the Spanns expected to be paid for the house that
was built on the Tricketts’ property. We hold that the circuit court correctly found that
Trickett was aware the Spanns were providing such improvements with the expectation of
being paid and accepted the improvements, which satisfy the second and third elements of
unjust enrichment.
The reasonable value of the improvements received by Trickett was $150,000 as
testified to by the Spanns’ expert, Donald Burris. The circuit court found that Burris’s
testimony satisfied the fourth and final element of unjust enrichment. Trickett did not
present any evidence to dispute the expert’s opinion. In appraising the house for its
contributory value of the property as a whole, Burris looked at the market sales then
6 extracted the value of the site which is known as the sales comparison approach. Three
comparables were used, making adjustments for variations such as age, size, and additional
accommodations, to determine a contributory value of $150,000. Burris believed the
reasonable value of the guest house to be $150,000 in relation to the value of the property
as a whole. The Spanns contend that considering these facts, the circuit court was not clearly
erroneous in finding that the fourth element of their unjust-enrichment claim had been met.
We agree.
The court found that the Spanns met their burden of proving all four elements of
unjust enrichment. Trickett did not present any evidence in his counterclaim alleging a
cloud on the title, and the circuit court denied the relief he requested.
As we have noted, in order to find unjust enrichment, a party must have received
something of value to which he or she is not entitled and which he or she must restore.
Hatchell v. Wren, 363 Ark. 107, 211 S.W.3d 516 (2005); Rigsby v. Rigsby, 356 Ark. 311, 149
S.W.3d 318 (2004). In general, recovery for unjust enrichment is based upon what the
person enriched has received rather than what the opposing party has lost. Sanders v. Bradley
Cty. Human Servs. Pub. Facilities Bd., 330 Ark. 675, 956 S.W.2d 187 (1997).
A tortious or fraudulent act is not required to create a basis for an unjust-enrichment
claim. Frigillana v. Frigillana, 266 Ark. 296, 584 S.W.2d 30 (1979). Unjust enrichment does
not require the commission of a wrongful act by the enriched party. Even an innocent
defendant is subject to an unjust-enrichment claim brought by a more deserving party.
Malone v. Hines, 36 Ark. App. 254, 822 S.W.2d 394 (1992).
7 Here, the Spanns’ testimony established that while building the house on the
Tricketts’ property, they did not intend to give the home to the Tricketts. Further, the
testimony and exhibits support the conclusion that following their daughter’s death and their
move from the house, Trickett had been unjustly enriched by the property’s assessed value
of $150,000.
Given our standard of review, we cannot say that the circuit court clearly erred in
finding that the Spanns had proved the elements of unjust enrichment; accordingly, we
affirm.
Affirmed.
GRUBER, C.J., and HIXSON, J., agree.
Ledbetter, Cogbill, Arnold & Harrison, LLP, by: Victor L. Crowell and Laura J. Pearn, for
appellant.
Gean, Gean & Gean, by: David Charles Gean, for appellees.