WILLIAM SWAFFORD AND SANDY SWAFFORD, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
HAROLD SCHWEITZER, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of the Swaffords' unjust enrichment counterclaim against Harold Schweitzer. The court held that the counterclaim adequately stated a cause of action for unjust enrichment and that the statute of limitations defense did not appear on the face of the pleading to justify dismissal.
The Swaffords' counterclaim stated a valid cause of action for unjust enrichment meeting all three required elements. The statute of limitations defense did not appear on the face of the counterclaim to justify dismissal on that basis, since improvements made after February 1999 would not be time-barred.
[1] A claim for unjust enrichment requires allegations that the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant, who had knowledge of it, voluntarily accepted and retained the…
[2] A statute of limitations is generally an affirmative defense, but may be raised in a motion to dismiss if the defense appears on the face of the complaint.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To state a cause of action for unjust enrichment, the complaint must allege: (1) plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant, who has knowledge thereof; (2) defendant voluntarily accepts and retains the benefit conferred; and (3) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof to the plaintiff.”
Establishes the three-element test required to state a valid unjust enrichment claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Swaffords made valuable improvements to property owned by Schweitzer in contemplation of purchasing the property. Schweitzer accepted and retained…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unjust Enrichment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon Harold Schweitzer’s Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Counterclaim, the trial court dismissed with prejudice William and Sandy Swafford’s claim for unjust enrichment. Schweitzer argued that the claim failed to state a cause of action and was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court did not state its grounds for dismissal. We reverse.
To state a cause of action for unjust enrichment, the complaint must allege:
(1) plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant, who has knowledge thereof; (2) defendant voluntarily accepts and retains the benefit conferred; and (3) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof to the plaintiff.
Hillman Constr. Corp. v. Wainer, 636 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The Swaffords allege in their claim for unjust enrichment that they made valuable improvements to Schweitzer’s property that Schweitzer accepted and has retained. The Swaffords made the improvements in contemplation of purchasing the property and since that transaction will not take place, it would be inequitable for Schweitzer to retain the benefits conferred without paying for them.
We find that the Swaffords’ counterclaim for unjust enrichment states a claim for unjust enrichment and the trial court erred in dismissing it.
The statute of limitations on a claim for unjust enrichment is four years. § 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (1999). Generally, the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(d). However, “the rule also provides that if an affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint, the complaint may be challenged by a motion to dismiss.” Ermine v. Gamble, Pownal & Gilroy, Architects and Engineers, 343 So. 2d 859, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
The counterclaim in this case was filed in February 2003 and the Swaffords allege that they made improvements to the property until their dispute with Schweitzer began in November 2001. Therefore, any improvements made after February 1999 would not be barred by the statute of limitations.
We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and Remanded.
STEVENSON, C.J., TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hillman Constr. Corp. v. Wainer, 636 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- McGOVERN v. Amira, 343 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Erwine v. Gamble, 343 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)