## Facts

- A public alley in Hillsboro, Ohio, known as “North Glenn Street,” abutted property owned by Hi-Land Apartments, Inc. and related owners.
- The City had accepted the alley and therefore had a duty to maintain it.
- The City allegedly failed to maintain the alley reasonably, including stone/surfacing material, grading, pothole repair, and snow removal.
- Hi-Land voluntarily paid $7,353.01 for alley-related work and materials, including snow removal, grading, gravel surfacing, and pothole repair.
- Hi-Land undertook the work knowing maintenance was the City’s duty and without obtaining the City’s request, consent, or agreement to reimburse.

## Issues

1. Whether a private landowner who voluntarily performs and funds maintenance that a municipality is obligated to provide, without the municipality’s request or consent and with knowledge of the municipality’s duty, may recover the expenditures under unjust enrichment/restitution.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment awarding Hi-Land $7,353.01.
- The court held the City was not required to reimburse Hi-Land for the voluntarily incurred maintenance expenses.
- The court concluded that unjust enrichment did not apply because Hi-Land acted as a volunteer and the City did not request or agree to pay for the work.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment requires: (1) a benefit conferred on the defendant, (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the benefit, and (3) retention of the benefit under circumstances making it unjust to retain without payment.
- A party who voluntarily confers a benefit, with knowledge of the circumstances and without request, consent, or compulsion, generally cannot compel restitution as a “volunteer.”
- A municipality’s preexisting legal duty to maintain public ways does not, by itself, make it “unjust” for the municipality to retain benefits of unauthorized private maintenance.
- Courts are reluctant to impose quasi-contract liability on municipalities for unauthorized public-works expenditures that would bypass public approval and fiscal controls.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that private parties who knowingly and without municipal authorization pay for maintenance of a public alley cannot shift those costs to the municipality through unjust enrichment, even if the municipality had a duty to perform the maintenance and benefited from the work.


Hi-Land Apartments, Inc. v. City of Hillsboro, 95 Ohio App. 3d 305, 642 N.E.2d 421 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)