## Facts

- The Knauses owned lakefront property on a privately owned lake.
- An earthen dam retained the lake, and the Knauses’ lot included more than one-half of that dam; the remainder lay on an adjoining lakefront lot.
- After purchasing the property, the Knauses noticed holes and leakage in the portion of the dam on their land and sought advice from public agencies and private contractors.
- The Knauses contacted a contractor to begin the process of repairing the dam.
- The Knauses called a meeting of the lake’s abutting owners to discuss the dam’s condition and possible repairs; the evidence about what was agreed to at the meeting was disputed.
- The Knauses later attempted to obtain signatures on a written agreement that would require the Dennlers and other abutting owners to pay a proportionate share of repair costs.
- The defendants refused to sign and stated they did not believe they were responsible for paying for the repairs.
- The Knauses proceeded with the repairs anyway, authorized the work, and paid the contractor in full.
- The Knauses then sued the defendants seeking restitution (and related equitable relief) based on the claim that the repairs benefited all owners by preserving the lake.
- The trial court dismissed the Knauses’ claims, and the Knauses appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether abutting lakefront owners can be required to reimburse a neighboring owner for a proportionate share of dam-repair costs when they did not agree to pay and did not request the repairs.
2. Whether defendants’ receipt of a benefit from completed repairs (continued retention of the lake) supports recovery under implied contract, quasi-contract, or unjust enrichment where plaintiffs proceeded after defendants expressly refused to participate.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held the defendants were not obligated to share in the repair costs because there was no express contract and the record did not establish an implied-in-fact agreement.
- The court rejected restitution/quasi-contract theories because the Knauses voluntarily undertook and paid for the repairs with notice that defendants disclaimed responsibility, and a benefit alone did not make nonpayment legally unjust.
- The court found no statutory or common-law rule that required neighboring lakefront owners, as such, to contribute to repair of a dam located in part on plaintiffs’ property.

## Legal Principles

- An implied-in-fact contract requires mutual assent shown by conduct; refusal to sign a proposed cost-sharing agreement and statements denying responsibility negate assent.
- Restitution/unjust enrichment generally is not available to shift the cost of voluntary repairs to another property owner who neither requested the work nor had a legal duty to pay.
- A defendant’s passive receipt of an incidental benefit from another’s expenditure does not, by itself, create a duty to reimburse.
- When a landowner undertakes repairs to protect or improve their own property and proceeds despite others’ objection or nonparticipation, the landowner bears the financial risk absent a contract, covenant, or statute allocating costs.

## Conclusion

Because the defendants did not agree to share the expense, did not request the work, and had no legal duty requiring contribution, the Knauses could not recover dam-repair costs through implied contract or restitution, and the appellate court affirmed dismissal of their suit.


Knaus v. Dennler, 525 N.E.2d 207 (1988)