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

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

P issued a policy insuring the life of Keith J. Schreuder. That same year, Schreuder assigned the policy to D as collateral. Around April 17, 1982, Schreuder disappeared. Following the disappearance, D reinstated the policy and began paying the premiums. In October 1988, D inquired about making a claim under the policy. P informed D that the preferred method for establishing that the claim should be paid was through a court order of presumption of death. D filed a petition, and the court decreed that Schreuder was declared to be dead and established the date of death as April 17, 1982. P issued a check for $86,221, for the proceeds and a check for $11,721.71, which represented a refund of premiums plus interest paid on the policy after the date of death. In April 1992, P learned that Schreuder was alive. P demanded that D return the money which had been paid to it. D refused; P filed its petition in district court on August 21, 1992. The district court ruled in P's favor. It ordered D to pay $97,942.71 plus interest from June 12, 1992. The court reasoned there was a mutual mistake. The district court concluded that P's motion for summary judgment on the theory of unjust enrichment was moot. D appealed. D claimed there was no mistake and the transaction was a compromise and settlement and that P was bound by the settlement. The district court determined that D had not come forward with the evidence necessary to establish its claim, and the Court of Appeals agreed. The Court of Appeals also stated that payment by mistake, implied contract, and unjust enrichment 'are different names for what is essentially the same theory of recovery.' D appealed.

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

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