This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D entered into a five-year lease with Santa Barbara Capital, Inc. (Tenant). The lease permitted Tenant to use the premises only for limited-stakes gambling. D had the right to approve all plans and specifications for remodeling. Tenant originally hired a contractor in January of 1992, but by June of that year Tenant terminated the first contractor and entered into a contract with P. This contract called for significant work on the interior of the building, and D approved the plans. The lease provided that Tenant would pay all costs associated with remodeling regardless of the amount, and would indemnify D against any liens or claims arising out of the work. The Tenant was to post a notice on the premises informing architects, draftsmen, planners, contractors or subcontractors, and suppliers of labor or material and equipment that the property would not be subject to a lien for the improvements. The Tenant did post the notice, which stated in pertinent part: D shall not be liable for any erection, construction, alteration, removal, addition, repair, or other improvement, and the owner's interest in the above-described property shall not be subject to a lien for any erection, construction, alteration, removal, addition, repair, or other improvement to [the leased premises]. Under its contract with Tenant, P completed significant improvements to the interior of the building. A representative of D was present on the premises regularly during the construction. D did not communicate with or direct P regarding the work. Tenant failed to pay. D submitted bills to Tenant totaling $371,245, of which amount Tenant paid $76,515. Tenant also defaulted under its lease agreement and stopped paying rent in December of 1992. Tenant paid a total of $427,500 to D during the term of the lease. D placed a 'For Rent' sign on the building, but, as of the date of the trial, had received no inquiries about purchasing or leasing the building. P filed claims against Tenant and D. P obtained a judgment against Tenant for $332,026.35, but Tenant was insolvent. The various claims of the subcontractors were dismissed after a settlement was reached. The court ruled in favor of P on its claim of unjust enrichment. The court entered judgment against D for a total of $333,191. D appealed. The court of appeals held that under the facts of this case, where there was no mistake, fraud, duress, or other improper conduct by D, any enrichment of D by P was not unjust. P took this appeal.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.