Sparks v. Gustafson
1988 WL 11709, 1988 Alas. LEXIS 28, 750 P.2d 338 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining if a benefit was conferred gratuitously, courts look beyond the parties' personal relationship and failure to request payment to the nature of the services rendered; extensive, professional business services are generally not considered gratuitous even between friends.
Facts:
- Robert Sparks, Sr. and Ernie Gustafson were long-time personal friends and business associates.
- In 1980, Sparks, Sr. purchased an interest in the Nome Center Building, which Gustafson managed for him without charge.
- After Sparks, Sr. died on March 1, 1981, Gustafson continued to manage the building for the Estate with the knowledge and approval of the executor, Robert Sparks, Jr.
- Gustafson did not request any compensation for his management services after Sparks, Sr.'s death.
- The building operated at a loss, and Gustafson frequently used his own personal funds to pay for operating expenses, maintenance, and remodeling.
- In February 1982, the Estate and Gustafson signed a 'purchase agreement' for the building, but the sale was never finalized.
- The Estate sold the building to a third party in February 1983, at which point Gustafson's management role ceased.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernie Gustafson and his corporation sued the Estate of Robert Sparks, Sr., and its executor in superior court (the trial court of first instance).
- The initial complaint alleged a breach of an oral agreement to sell the Nome Center Building.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a claim for recovery for funds and services under an equitable theory.
- The Estate filed an answer and counterclaimed for an accounting of monies related to the building.
- Following a trial, the superior court found for Gustafson on an unjust enrichment theory and ordered the Estate to pay $65,706.07.
- The Estate, as appellant, appealed the superior court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an estate unjustly enriched when it retains the benefits of extensive management services and financial contributions provided by a close friend of the decedent, where the friend never formally requested compensation while rendering the services?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthews, Justice
Yes, an estate is unjustly enriched under these circumstances. Unjust enrichment occurs when a defendant receives a benefit from a plaintiff and it would be inequitable to allow the defendant to retain that benefit without compensation. While a benefit given gratuitously does not require compensation, the services Gustafson rendered were not a mere gratuity. Despite the close friendship and Gustafson's failure to bill the Estate, the services were extensive business services—including daily management, repairs, and covering expenses for two years—for which one would ordinarily expect to be paid. Therefore, the services were not gratuitous, and it would be unjust for the Estate to retain the value of Gustafson's labor and financial contributions without paying for them.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'gratuitous benefit' exception to the doctrine of unjust enrichment, particularly in cases involving pre-existing personal relationships. The court establishes that the nature and commercial character of the services provided can outweigh the presumption of gratuity that might otherwise arise from a friendship. This creates a precedent that prevents a party from unfairly profiting from another's substantial labor and expense under the guise of friendship. Future cases involving claims between friends or family will likely require a more detailed analysis of the type and extent of the benefit conferred, rather than relying solely on the relationship itself to infer gratuitous intent.
Unlock the full brief for Sparks v. Gustafson