## Facts

- Robert J. Sparks, Sr. and Ernie Gustafson were longtime friends and business associates.
- In 1980, Sparks, Sr. acquired a one-half interest in the Nome Center Building.
- Before Sparks, Sr.’s death in 1981, Gustafson managed the building for Sparks, Sr. without charge.
- After Sparks, Sr. died, Gustafson continued to manage the building on behalf of the estate, collecting rents, arranging maintenance, and making improvements with the executor’s knowledge and approval.
- The building operated at a loss; although the estate deposited $10,000 for expenses, Gustafson paid additional operating costs and performed maintenance and remodeling work, partly with his own funds.
- Gustafson sent monthly income-and-expense reports to the executor, but the reports did not include all of Gustafson’s out-of-pocket expenditures.
- In February 1982, the executor signed a document titled “purchase agreement” suggesting Gustafson would purchase the building once details were worked out, but no final purchase terms were agreed.
- In February 1983, the estate sold its interest to a third party, and Gustafson stopped managing the property.
- Gustafson and his corporation sued, alleging breach of an agreement to sell and seeking compensation for management services, expenses, and improvements.
- The trial court rejected contract and lien theories but awarded $65,706.07 in restitution for unjust enrichment based on post-death services and expenditures.

## Issues

1. Whether the estate was unjustly enriched by Gustafson’s post-death management services, improvements, and expenditures such that restitution was required.
2. Whether Gustafson’s post-death services and expenditures were gratuitous or undertaken without the estate’s knowledge or consent, defeating restitution.
3. Whether the trial court erred procedurally by denying a continuance and by awarding recovery on unjust enrichment despite alleged pleading deficiencies.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the restitution judgment for $65,706.07.
- The court upheld findings that Gustafson conferred substantial benefits on the estate by maintaining and improving estate property and paying expenses.
- The court upheld findings that the executor knew of, approved, and accepted the benefits of Gustafson’s work, defeating any claim that Gustafson acted as a volunteer.
- The court upheld the trial court’s distinction between pre-death gratuitous services to Sparks, Sr. and post-death services not intended as a gift to the estate.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in denying a continuance where the estate did not pursue discovery timely.
- The court held unjust enrichment was tried by implied consent, making reliance on that theory procedurally proper.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment restitution requires proof that (1) the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant, (2) the defendant appreciated or knew of the benefit, and (3) retention without payment would be inequitable.
- Services and expenditures may support restitution when they exceed what would ordinarily be provided gratuitously, even when the parties have a close personal relationship.
- A defendant’s knowledge, approval, and acceptance of benefits supports restitution and defeats a defense that the plaintiff was an officious intermeddler.
- Pre-death gratuitous assistance to a decedent does not compel a finding that post-death services to the decedent’s estate were intended as a gift; donative intent is a fact question.
- When an issue is litigated at trial through evidence and argument without objection, it may be treated as tried by implied consent despite imperfect pleading.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed restitution because Gustafson’s substantial post-death management and expenditures benefited the estate, were known and accepted by the executor, and were not shown to be intended as a gift, making retention of the benefits without payment inequitable.


Sparks v. Gustafson, 750 P.2d 338 (Alaska 1988)