## Facts

- Shari Thibeault and Steven A. Brackett, unmarried cohabitants, lived together for about six years in Temple, Maine.
- Brackett purchased the property for $24,000; title was solely in his name, and both parties understood the property would belong solely to him.
- At purchase, the property had a hunting shack; over the relationship, both parties contributed labor and money to convert it into a multi-bedroom home, estimated by Brackett to be worth about $150,000.
- Improvements included bedrooms and a bathroom intended in part to accommodate Thibeault’s daughters, and culminated with construction of a deck in 2004.
- After separation in June 2004, Thibeault obtained a small-claims judgment concerning certain items of personal property.
- Thibeault later sued in Superior Court for breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on her contributions to improving Brackett’s real property, seeking $100,000.
- After a one-day bench trial, the court rejected the contract claim, found unjust enrichment, awarded Thibeault $40,617 (offset by $1,000 awarded to Brackett on a loan counterclaim), and entered judgment accordingly.

## Issues

1. Whether claim preclusion barred the unjust-enrichment action because of the earlier small-claims judgment between the same parties.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to sanction Thibeault for failing to file/serve an exhibit list required by a pretrial scheduling order.
3. Whether the evidence supported a finding of unjust enrichment for contributions to improvements on property titled solely in Brackett’s name.
4. Whether the unjust-enrichment damages award was supported and used the proper measure of restitution.

## Decision

- The unjust-enrichment claim was not barred by claim preclusion because it could not reasonably have been litigated in small claims given the jurisdictional cap and the claim’s complexity.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose sanctions and in admitting challenged exhibits in a bench trial.
- The finding of unjust enrichment was supported by competent evidence and was not clearly erroneous.
- The unjust-enrichment damages award was vacated and remanded because the record and findings did not adequately show that the amount represented the value of the benefit conferred to Brackett.

## Legal Principles

- Claim preclusion applies only if the later claim was, or might have been, litigated in the prior action; a small-claims judgment does not bar a later claim that exceeds small-claims jurisdictional limits or is beyond the forum’s intended scope.
- Unjust enrichment requires: (1) a benefit conferred; (2) the defendant’s knowledge or appreciation of the benefit; and (3) retention of the benefit in circumstances making it inequitable to retain without payment.
- In restitution for improvements to another’s land, recovery is generally measured by the value of the benefit to the landowner (often the enhancement in value attributable to the plaintiff’s contributions), not necessarily the plaintiff’s total expenditures.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over sanctions for pretrial noncompliance; admission/exclusion decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, including consideration of surprise and the ability to test reliability through cross-examination.

## Conclusion

The court held that a prior small-claims judgment over personal property did not preclude a later, higher-value unjust-enrichment claim arising from improvements to separately titled real estate; it affirmed unjust-enrichment liability but vacated and remanded the restitution award for a proper determination of the benefit conferred.


Thibeault v. Brackett, 938 A.2d 27 (Me. 2007)