A. FRANCES ARMSTRONG D/B/A ARMSTRONG PROPERTIES Vs. GREGG HUSKEY AND COLDWELL BANKER GREGG HUSKEY, INC.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
A. FRANCES ARMSTRONG D/B/A ARMSTRONG PROPERTIES * NO. 2006-CA-0518 * COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS * FOURTH CIRCUIT GREGG HUSKEY AND COLDWELL BANKER GREGG HUSKEY, INC. * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* TOBIAS, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT AND ASSIGNS REASONS. I respectfully concur in the result. In the absence of a transcript, one is compelled to assume that the trial court applied the quasi-contractual theory of recovery of unjust enrichment in awarding a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. See La. C.C. art. 2298; Creeley v. Leisure Living, Inc., 437 So.2d 816 (La. 1983). From the record on appeal, one cannot tell whether another theory of law might be applicable, which would preclude plaintiff’s recovery under article 2298 and Creeley and its progeny. The trial court clearly rejected the testimony of the defendants’ witnesses as unworthy of belief. I am troubled by the fact that the plaintiff never reached an agreement with the defendants or vice-versa. Nevertheless, that the defendants apparently assumed the obligations of the plaintiff implies, absent a transcript, that article 2298 might apply to the facts of this case. The doctrine of unjust enrichment should rarely be invoked for, theoretically, every claim by a plaintiff could be said to establish a cause of action against a defendant by merely asserting that the defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff; in such circumstances, no need would exist for any other laws.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
