Associated Management Services, Inc. v. Ruff, Case Number DA 17-0102, Cit. 2018 MT 182

Unjust enrichment: Restitution: Constructive trust: Equitable disgorgement of resulting profits: Equitable remedy:

A constructive trust is an equitable remedy applicable when “a person holding title to property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another on the ground that the person holding title would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it.” Section 72-33-123, MCA. Thus, rather than a predicate claim for relief, a constructive trust is generally an equitable remedy available upon proof of an unjust enrichment claim. See § 72-33-123, MCA. Accord, Restatement (Third) of Restitution § 3 cmt. a (discussing equitable disgorgement of resulting profits as another remedy for an unjust enrichment claim involving “conscious wrongdoing”).

(…) But see Restatement (Third) of Restitution § 1 cmt. c (noting limitations and inflexibility of overly simplified elemental formulation of unjust enrichment). Compare N. Cheyenne Tribe, (unjust enrichment claim for constructive trust lies only where “no other remedy exists”), with Restatement (Third) of Restitution § 4(2) (unjust enrichment claims “need not demonstrate the inadequacy of available remedies at law”); Davis v. Westphal, 2017 MT 276, ¶ 18, 389 Mont. 251, 405 P.3d 73 (“modern merger of law and equity . . . equitable defenses, and even affirmative relief, may be available, as equitable, to counter or ameliorate a common law” claim).

(…) Unjust enrichment no longer requires proof of a wrongful act or conduct. N. Cheyenne Tribe, ¶¶ 30-35 and 39 (noting statutory abandonment of former requirement for proof of a wrongful act or conduct as a prerequisite for a constructive trust). Accord Volk, ¶¶ 45 and 50 (affirming imposition of constructive trust where defendant “has done nothing wrong”); Restatement (Third) of Restitution § 1 cmt. f.

(…) Nonetheless, “a valid contract defines the obligations of the parties as to matters within its scope, displacing to that extent any inquiry into unjust enrichment.” Restatement (Third) of Restitution § 2(2). Accord Welu v. Twin Hearts Smiling Horses, Inc., 2016 MT 347, ¶ 36, 386 Mont. 98, 386 P.3d 937 (unjust enrichment inapplicable where matter at issue governed by an enforceable contract); Pruyn, ¶ 63 (unjust enrichment “is an obligation created by law in the absence of an agreement between the parties”).

(Montana Supreme Court, July 24, 2018, Associated Management Services, Inc. v. Ruff, Case Number DA 17-0102, Cit. 2018 MT 182, J. Sandefur)

La présente affaire est jugée en application du droit de l’état du Montana.

En cas de détention illicite d’un bien par un tiers, la requête en restitution peut conclure au prononcé par le juge de la constitution d’un « constructive trust », qui met le bien sous protection en le séparant du patrimoine du possesseur illicite. Il s’agit d’un remède équitable, distinct de l’action en dommages-intérêts, et qui suppose la preuve de l’enrichissement illégitime. Par ailleurs, les profits acquis du fait de la possession illicite peuvent être récupérés par le biais de la conclusion en « disgorgement of resulting profits ». Il s’agit également d’une conclusion en équité, qui suppose la conscience de l’illicéité. Pour sa part, l’action en enrichissement illégitime et en constitution d’un « constructive trust » ne sont pas subordonnées à faute.

La jurisprudence a parfois considéré que la conclusion en « constructive trust » n’était recevable que si le demandeur ne disposait d’aucun autre type d’action (i.e. condamnatoire), contrairement à ce que prévoit le Restatement (Third) of Restitution.

En tous les cas, si une action contractuelle est possible, l’action en enrichissement illégitime est irrecevable.