Betsy & Robert (Bobby)
brought action, seeking to impose a parol trust (this
is an oral trust that is created verbally by a settlor) on
certain real property or for restitution for benefits
bestowed by her on the defendants and for damages,
including punitive damages, for fraud.
Britt was made a party plaintiff after the action was filed.
In 1977 the
two Pl - were working as Amway distributors for Billy Britt.
Bobby Britt and Billy Britt are brothers.
1977, Billy Britt purchased a farm in Orange County known as
Magnolia Hill Farm which had been operated as a horse farm since
Betsy Britt would occupy the farm.
promised Betsy and Bobby that when they "hit the diamond level"
of Amway sales, he would convey the farm to them if
they would repay to him his investment in the farm.
agreed that Bobby and Betsy would "repair and maintain the farm
. . . and operate the stable business to carry the farm."
They were to
live on the farm and retain any surplus income as compensation.
delivered to Betsy Britt a payment book for monthly payments of
this debt were to be paid from the income from the farm.
He also told
her that she was to pay from the farm income $1,033.63 per month
on a purchase money note secured by a second deed of trust on
Agreement in Writing
He said it
He was a man
of his word
"I'm putting so much money in the farm and all and I'd like some
kind of protection."
offered her to be an employee and Betsy said no.
how would you feel about having accruing stock in the
corporation each time you made a mortgage payment, then you
would be accruing more stock?"
making mortgage payments.
fell apart, Kicked Out
her off the frame.
Oddity Notes (Not Part Of Case)
It is me, or
does Betsy where the pants in the relationship?
Its odd that
Betsy does all the paying.
Its odd that
Betsys bother-in-law kicks of off of the farm.
Response Reliance & Unjust Enrichment
She Was Paid
sufficient evidence that the plaintiff Betsy Britt was injured
by relying on the representation.
recover in unjust enrichment for the value of her
services in managing the farm because she was
paid for those
services pursuant to an express contract.
say she was injured by relying on a promise to her which
caused her to continue working on the farm when she received
Contends Relied on Billys Stock Representation
that she was injured by making the payments on the farm
indebtedness and for the repairs and maintenance when she relied
on Billy Britt's representation.
The funds to
make these payments were generated by farm operations.
If Betsy had
not stayed on the farm she would not have had these funds.
She has not
shown a loss to her by staying on the farm after her
conversation with Billy Britt.
Contends Injured by not receiving stock in corporation.
Response Question of First Impression
plaintiff has not sued for breach of contract which she could
have done for the failure of Billy Britt to have the stock
issued to her.
[basis for a grievance] of a claim for fraud is the damage to a
person for a change in position based on the reliance on a false
damage is caused by this change of position and
the lost bargain.
There is a
split among the jurisdictions which have decided this question.
allows damages for the lost bargain as well as for the change in
A minority limits damages to that caused by a change in
Do No Have to Choose
jurisdictions which have passed on the question hold that loss
of bargain damages must be
proved with reasonable certainty before they are allowed.
In this case
no evidence that Betsy Britt was
damaged by not receiving stock.
evidence does not show for what
purpose the corporation was to be organized or that it
ever was organized.
There is no
evidence as to the value of the stock.
has not shown she was damaged by the failure to receive stock.