## Facts

- Beacon Homes, Inc. contracted with Mary Holt Richardson to construct a house on certain lots, based on Richardson’s warranty that she owned the land.
- Relying on that warranty, Beacon Homes in good faith built the house, increasing the land’s value by about $3,300.
- Shirley Holt was the true owner of the land and, after construction, claimed ownership of both the land and the house.
- Beacon Homes offered to remove the house and restore the lots, but Holt refused to permit removal.
- Holt took control of the house, rented it to a tenant, and collected rent.
- Beacon Homes was not paid for the construction and alleged Holt was unjustly enriched by the permanent improvement.

## Issues

1. Whether a contractor who, in good faith and under a mistaken belief about ownership, makes permanent improvements to land may bring an affirmative unjust-enrichment action against the true owner who retains the improvement, refuses removal, and profits from it.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina held the complaint stated a cause of action for unjust enrichment against Holt.
- The court overruled the defendant’s ore tenus demurrer for failure to state a claim.
- The court allowed the action to proceed on a restitutionary theory, distinct from statutory or common-law “betterments.”

## Legal Principles

- On demurrer, the complaint is construed as a whole, with allegations taken as true and reasonable inferences drawn in the plaintiff’s favor; if it states a claim on any view, the demurrer must be overruled.
- Unjust enrichment may support an affirmative, restitution-based claim where a defendant retains a benefit conferred at the plaintiff’s expense under circumstances making retention unjust.
- North Carolina’s betterments remedy is a defensive right tied to possession under color of title and typically asserted when the true owner sues for possession; it does not bar an independent unjust-enrichment claim on different facts.
- Allegations that (i) a good-faith improver conferred a substantial, permanent benefit, (ii) the landowner knowingly retained and used the improvement, and (iii) the improver was unpaid and offered restoration but was refused, are sufficient to plead unjust enrichment.

## Conclusion

A good-faith builder who improves land under a mistake induced by another’s warranty may sue the true owner in unjust enrichment when the owner refuses removal and retains and profits from the improvement, and such a claim is not limited or displaced by the betterments doctrine.


Beacon Homes, Inc. v. Holt, 266 N.C. 467, 146 S.E.2d 434 (1966)