Kathleen Hill v. Cross Country Settlements, LLC

Summary

The court held that summary judgment for Cross Country on its unjust-enrichment claim was inappropriate because the record did not establish as a matter of law that Cross Country was obligated to reimburse Stewart or that Cross Country was not an officious payor. The court also explained that payment of another's debt may confer a benefit and that whether restitution is equitable depends on fact-specific circumstances, including the reasonableness of the payor's asserted legal obligation. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.