## Facts

- Edwin L. Everhart owned a Maryland farm (about 101 acres) with a farmhouse and dairy operation.
- Bruce and Sharon Miles negotiated to purchase the farm for a contemplated price of about $279,000, with final terms to be reduced to a formal contract later.
- The Mileses made a down payment and, with Everhart’s knowledge and consent, took possession, lived on the farm, and operated the dairy business while negotiations continued.
- During their occupancy, the Mileses made substantial improvements and provided services, including repairing or replacing the barn roof, renovating the farmhouse, and installing or improving a septic system.
- No final written contract of sale was executed; negotiations later broke down after the Mileses lowered their offer and Everhart rejected it.
- The Mileses vacated the property and sued seeking restitution for the value of the improvements and services that benefitted Everhart and the farm.

## Issues

1. Whether, absent an enforceable contract for the sale of land, a purchaser-in-possession who made improvements and rendered services with the owner’s knowledge and acquiescence may recover restitution for unjust enrichment when the sale does not occur.
2. Whether the trial court used a proper measure of restitution and whether the evidence supported the amount awarded.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment for the Mileses.
- The court held that Everhart was unjustly enriched by improvements and services conferred with his knowledge and consent, even though no enforceable land-sale contract was consummated.
- The court upheld the amount of the restitution award as supported by evidence of the benefit conferred and the reasonable value of the work and materials.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment (quasi-contract/contract implied in law) permits restitution when: (1) a benefit is conferred on the defendant, (2) the defendant knows of or appreciates the benefit, and (3) retention of the benefit without payment would be inequitable.
- Restitution may be available despite the absence or unenforceability of an express contract, including in failed land-sale negotiations; the remedy focuses on preventing the owner’s uncompensated retention of benefits, not enforcing the contemplated sale.
- In unjust enrichment, the measure of recovery is the enrichment it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain, commonly reflected by the reasonable value of labor and materials or the value of the benefit retained.

## Conclusion

A landowner who knowingly permits prospective purchasers to take possession and make substantial, non-gratuitous improvements in anticipation of a sale may be required to pay restitution for unjust enrichment when the sale is not completed and the owner retains the benefits.


Everhart v. Miles, 422 A.2d 28 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1980)