Birchwood Land Company, Inc. v. Krizan
2015 VT 37, 198 Vt. 420, 115 A.3d 1009 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner who, for their own benefit, voluntarily makes improvements that incidentally benefit a neighboring property cannot recover the costs of those improvements from the neighbor under a theory of unjust enrichment. A claim for restitution for unrequested benefits is generally not available unless the claimant's actions spared the recipient a necessary expense they were already obligated to incur.
Facts:
- In 1982, Judith Krizan purchased a vacant, landlocked parcel of land from the Town of Essex.
- Krizan's deed granted her an implied access easement over an adjacent parcel, which was her sole means of access, but the property remained undevelopable.
- In 2002, Birchwood Land Company purchased the surrounding land, including the property burdened by Krizan's easement.
- To facilitate its own development project, Birchwood constructed and extended a road (Tanglewood Drive) and installed municipal water, sewer, and electrical lines.
- These improvements, which Birchwood made at its own substantial expense, extended to Krizan's property, making it developable for the first time.
- After the improvements were completed in 2007, Krizan notified the Town of her intent to develop her now-valuable property.
- Krizan expressed interest in paying for the water and sewer connections but refused Birchwood's demand to contribute a proportionate share of the road and other infrastructure costs.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Birchwood Land Company filed a complaint against Defendant Judith Krizan in the Superior Court, Grand Isle Unit, alleging unjust enrichment.
- Birchwood also filed a motion for attachment of Krizan's real estate.
- Krizan filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial court denied Birchwood’s motion for attachment and granted Krizan’s motion to dismiss.
- Birchwood appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a developer have a claim for unjust enrichment against a neighboring landowner when the developer, for its own commercial purposes, voluntarily builds a road and installs infrastructure that provides access to and substantially increases the value of the neighbor's previously undevelopable property?
Opinions:
Majority - Dooley, J.
No. A developer does not have a claim for unjust enrichment against a neighboring landowner for voluntarily conferred benefits that were incidental to the developer's own project. The court adopted § 30 of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment, which states that restitution for unrequested benefits is rarely granted. An exception exists if the claimant spares the recipient a 'necessary expense,' but Krizan was under no obligation to develop her land or install infrastructure; she could have chosen to leave it undeveloped. Therefore, the expense was not necessary. The court rejected the argument that Krizan's status as a 'free rider' created injustice, noting that such incidental benefits are a tolerated consequence of private property rights. The court also rejected Birchwood's argument based on a shared easement, adopting Restatement § 26 to distinguish between a shared duty to pay for necessary 'repairs' and unrequested 'improvements,' for which a co-holder of an easement cannot be compelled to contribute.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts key provisions of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment into Vermont law, clarifying the narrow circumstances under which a claim for unrequested benefits can succeed. The case establishes a strong precedent protecting landowners from liability for incidental benefits conferred by a neighbor's self-interested improvements. It reinforces the principle that one cannot be made an involuntary debtor and directs parties seeking contribution for large-scale development costs toward express agreements or municipal regulations rather than post-hoc restitution claims. This holding limits the scope of unjust enrichment and affirms that a substantial benefit, without more, does not create a corresponding legal duty to pay.
Unlock the full brief for Birchwood Land Company, Inc. v. Krizan