## Facts

- In 1982, Judith J. Krizan bought a vacant, undeveloped residential lot for $3,000 from the Town of Essex; the lot was landlocked and had no road frontage.
- Because Krizan’s deed referenced a recorded plat, she acquired by law an implied access easement across a strip of neighboring land, which was the only means of access to her parcel.
- For roughly thirty years, Krizan left the parcel undeveloped because it lacked road access and utilities.
- In 2002, Birchwood Land Company, Inc. purchased land surrounding Krizan’s lot on three sides, including fee ownership of the strip burdened by Krizan’s access easement.
- In 2005, Birchwood obtained town approval to develop its land as a subdivision, including construction/extension of Tanglewood Drive and installation of water, sewer, electrical lines, and related infrastructure; Krizan’s lot was not included in Birchwood’s approved development.
- As part of its own project, Birchwood constructed the road and installed utility lines such that road access and water/sewer line connections reached Krizan’s property, completing the work in 2007 at substantial expense.
- After the work was finished, Krizan notified the town that she intended to develop her lot; the town concluded the lot was now developable and increased its listed taxable value by about $80,000.
- Birchwood claimed Krizan received significant benefits from the new road and infrastructure without paying and sought restitution for a “share” of the costs, estimated at about $50,000.
- Birchwood sued for unjust enrichment and also moved to attach Krizan’s property; Krizan moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The superior court denied attachment and dismissed the complaint; Birchwood appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a developer states a claim for unjust enrichment by alleging that a neighbor’s land became developable and more valuable after the developer, for its own project and without request, built a road and utility infrastructure reaching the neighbor’s parcel.
2. Whether the neighbor’s implied access easement over the developer’s land creates a duty to contribute to the cost of the developer’s road and utility construction beyond what would be required for necessary maintenance or repair.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of attachment and dismissal under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).
- The court held the complaint did not state an unjust enrichment claim because Birchwood’s improvements were voluntarily made for its own development and any benefit to Krizan was not a type that supports restitution.
- The court rejected Birchwood’s argument that Krizan’s easement interest (or alleged “co-ownership” of the easement area) required her to pay a proportionate share of the road and utility costs.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment requires more than a benefit; retention must be unjust in a restitutionary sense, not merely advantageous to the recipient.
- Vermont adopted Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 30 for claims based on unrequested benefits: restitution is generally limited to situations where the plaintiff’s performance (a) discharges an existing duty of the defendant (often a monetary duty) or (b) spares the defendant an expense the defendant would otherwise have to incur in recognized necessity-type situations.
- A party that improves its own property for its own purposes ordinarily cannot shift costs to a neighbor simply because the neighbor’s property value rises as a result.
- An access easement gives a right of access, but it does not by itself impose a duty on the easement holder to pay for the servient owner’s elective construction; cost-sharing rules, where they exist, are tied to necessary upkeep or repair rather than voluntary project work.
- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court assumes well-pleaded factual allegations are true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, but dismissal is proper when those facts still do not fit a recognized legal basis for relief.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court held that Birchwood could not recover in unjust enrichment from Krizan for unrequested road and utility work performed as part of Birchwood’s subdivision development, even though the work made Krizan’s land developable and raised its taxable value, because the law of restitution does not allow a party to impose payment for voluntarily conferred benefits absent a duty, request, or other circumstances that make nonpayment legally unjust.


Birchwood Land Co., Inc. v. Krizan, 115 A.3d 1009 (2015)