Chancery Rules on Claims of Unjust Enrichment, Equitable Estoppel and Equitable Subrogation
In Reserves Development LLC v. Severn Savings Bank FSB, (Del. Ch., Nov. 9, 2007), read opinion here, the Chancery Court addresses a veritable panoply of claims, in connection with a real estate development joint venture "gone bad". The court ultimately granted a minority of the claims but dismissed the majority of claims made, some of which are noteworthy in light of the infrequency of their treatment. The opinion includes an instructive discussion of the elements needed to be proved in order to successfully allege the following causes of action;
1) unjust enrichment;
2) equitable estoppel;
3) equitable subrogation;
4) third-party beneficiary;
5) unclean hands (applied here to bar remedies sought); and
6) removal of the trustee of a trust.
UPDATE: Here is the court's denial of a Motion for Reargument under Chancery Rule 59(f) in which the court thoroughly explains why the motion should be denied and in the process touches on the key legal issues decided in the original opinion.
