## Facts

- Billy B. Britt purchased a horse farm; his brother Bobby Britt and Bobby’s wife Betsy Britt agreed to occupy and operate it.
- Billy orally promised to convey the farm to Bobby and Betsy if they achieved a specified Amway sales level and repaid Billy’s investment; Bobby and Betsy were to maintain the farm, run the stable, and pay the two mortgages from farm income.
- Betsy later sought written protection for her contributions; Billy refused, offered to make her an employee (which she declined), and then suggested she receive corporate stock for each mortgage payment.
- Betsy continued making mortgage payments, but no stock was issued to her; title ultimately was held by a corporation associated with defendants.
- After Bobby and Betsy separated, Billy demanded that Betsy leave the farm; she vacated and sued for a parol trust, unjust enrichment, and fraud.
- Evidence showed substantial mortgage payments, repairs, and labor contributions by Bobby and Betsy and a substantial increase in the farm’s value.
- The jury rejected the parol trust claim but awarded Betsy damages for unjust enrichment and fraud (including punitive damages).
- The Court of Appeals reversed for insufficient evidence on unjust enrichment and fraud; Betsy appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a jury to find defendants were unjustly enriched by Betsy’s expenditures and services, supporting restitution in quasi-contract.
2. Whether the evidence supported actionable fraud based on alleged promissory representations (including stock-for-payments), including proof of intent not to perform at the time the promise was made.

## Decision

- Reversed the Court of Appeals as to unjust enrichment: sufficient evidence supported submitting restitution to the jury.
- Affirmed the Court of Appeals as to fraud: insufficient evidence of a false representation meeting fraud elements, particularly promissory fraud intent.
- Remanded for further proceedings consistent with recognizing the unjust-enrichment claim and proper damages.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may obtain restitution when (i) a measurable benefit is conferred on the defendant, (ii) the benefit is not officious or gratuitous, and (iii) the defendant consciously accepts it; the obligation is imposed by law in quasi-contract, not by enforcing a promise.
- An unenforceable oral promise to convey land (barred by the statute of frauds) does not necessarily bar restitution for non-gratuitous improvements or services performed in reasonable expectation of compensation or conveyance.
- Fraud requires a false representation of past or existing fact (or, for promissory fraud, a promise made with no intent to perform at the time), intent to induce reliance, reasonable reliance, and resulting injury.
- Nonperformance of a promise, without evidence of contemporaneous intent not to perform, is insufficient to prove fraud or support punitive damages.

## Conclusion

The court held that substantial, knowingly accepted benefits from operating and improving property can support restitution for unjust enrichment even when an oral land-transfer promise is unenforceable, but it rejected fraud where the proof showed at most broken promises rather than misrepresentations or promises made with an original intent not to perform.


Britt v. Britt, 320 N.C. 573, 359 S.E.2d 467 (N.C. 1987)