George Prignano Unjust Enrichment Case

Unjust enrichment is a legal concept which refers to the concept in which one person is enriched at the expense of another where one person is determined by law to have been treated unjustly. When an enrichment is deemed unjust, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution, subject to defenses such as change of position. Liability for an unjust (or unjustified) enrichment can only come when the recipient is benefiting from the enricher’s detriment. The concept of unjust enrichment can be traced back to Roman law, saying "no one should be benefited at another's expense.” The law of unjust enrichment often is closely related to, while not coexistent with the law of restitution. The law of restitution is the law of gain-based

Prignano v. L. Prignano, 2001 IL App (2001) 2-09-0439. This case concerns the will of George Prignano's business and personal interests after his death in July 2000. George owned several businesses with his brother, Louis Prignano, the defendant. George's second wife, Nancy, alleged that George and Louis agreed that, upon the death of either of them, the survivor would buy out the other's share of the businesses from his heirs, using the proceeds from life insurance policies purchased for that purpose. Nancy also alleged that she and Louis had an oral agreement to the same effect, which stated that Louis would purchase George's share of the No. 2--09--0439 -2- companies from her in exchange for the insurance proceeds. However, she alleges that, upon George's death, Louis (who was the executor of George's estate) kept both George's share of the businesses and the insurance proceeds, without telling her. She brought suit against Louis on behalf of herself and her children, asserting the same claim under a variety of legal theories, including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. After a bench trial, the circuit court of Du Page County found in the plaintiffs' favor on the breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims, and entered judgment in their favor in the amount of $615,324.50 ($450,000 as a unitary recovery on all of those claims, and $165,324.50 in prejudgment interest on that recovery). Louis appealed, arguing that Nancy had not proved her claims for a variety of reasons. This case was Affirmed by the court as well as vacated on the terms of Unjust Enrichment. This was affirmed due to the trial court's findings that an oral agreement existed between Nancy and Louis, and through its judgment in Nancy's favor breach of contract claim against Louis, the court decided to vacate the judgment in Nancy's favor on her unjust