DCB Construction Co. v. Central City Development Co.
965 P.2d 115, 1998 Colo. LEXIS 608, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 4748 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim for unjust enrichment against a landlord for improvements made by a contractor under a contract with a tenant, the contractor must demonstrate that the landlord engaged in some form of improper, deceitful, or misleading conduct.
Facts:
- Central City Development Company (CCDC) owned a commercial building and leased it to Santa Barbara Capital, Inc. (Tenant) for five years for use as a limited-stakes gambling casino.
- The lease required the Tenant to pay for all remodeling costs, provided that the improvements would revert to CCDC upon termination, and gave CCDC the right to approve all plans.
- The Tenant hired DCB Construction Co., Inc. (DCB) to perform significant interior remodeling, and CCDC approved the construction plans.
- Pursuant to the lease, the Tenant posted a notice on the property stating that CCDC would not be liable for any improvements or subject to any liens for the work, and DCB was aware of this notice.
- A CCDC representative was regularly present at the construction site to observe the work but did not communicate with or direct DCB.
- DCB performed $371,245 worth of construction work on the building.
- The Tenant defaulted on its payments to DCB after paying only $76,515.
- Shortly thereafter, the Tenant also defaulted on its lease agreement with CCDC and vacated the premises.
Procedural Posture:
- DCB Construction Co., Inc. sued Central City Development Company (CCDC) in the trial court on a theory of unjust enrichment.
- The trial court, after a bench trial, entered a judgment in favor of DCB.
- CCDC, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that DCB's claim for unjust enrichment could not lie as a matter of law under the facts.
- The Supreme Court of Colorado granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 landlord's retention of improvements made by a contractor under a contract with a defaulting tenant constitute unjust enrichment, absent some improper, deceitful, or misleading conduct by the landlord?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kourlis
No. A landlord's retention of improvements made by a tenant's contractor does not constitute unjust enrichment unless the landlord engaged in improper, deceitful, or misleading conduct. To recover for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must prove: (1) at the plaintiff's expense, (2) the defendant received a benefit, (3) under circumstances that would make it unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying. While the first two elements are met here, the third is not. The mere fact that a landlord benefits from a tenant's contract with a third party is insufficient to establish injustice, as per the Restatement of Restitution § 110. For the retention of the benefit to be unjust, there must be more than passive acquiescence or the normal exercise of a landlord's rights, such as approving plans or monitoring construction. In this case, CCDC did not mislead DCB; in fact, it explicitly disclaimed liability via a posted notice. To hold otherwise would make landlords insurers of the risks contractors assume when extending credit to tenants.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Mullarkey
Yes. The landlord's retention of the improvements constitutes unjust enrichment under the circumstances. The majority errs by creating a new requirement of 'improper, deceitful, or misleading conduct,' which is not supported by prior Colorado case law like Frank M. Hall & Co. v. Southwest Properties Venture. CCDC was not a mere passive beneficiary; it actively participated and encouraged the transaction. The lease required the remodeling for the building's sole permitted use, CCDC approved the plans, signed building permits, actively monitored the work, and failed to enforce a lease provision requiring the tenant to secure a completion bond. These actions go beyond mere ownership and constitute sufficient involvement to make it inequitable for CCDC to retain the substantial benefit of DCB's work without payment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'unjustness' element of an unjust enrichment claim in the common landlord-tenant-contractor scenario. By requiring proof of improper, deceitful, or misleading conduct, the court raises the bar for contractors and provides greater predictability and protection for landlords. The ruling effectively shifts the risk of a tenant's insolvency more firmly onto the contractor, who is in privity of contract with the tenant. This holding explicitly disapproves of prior appellate court precedent that allowed recovery based on a landlord's active involvement alone, thereby narrowing the scope of quasi-contractual liability for property owners in Colorado.
