## Facts

- Jim Ansley sold a backhoe loader on credit to Charles Edwards and retained a security interest, but failed to record it.
- Edwards brought the backhoe to Tom Growney Equipment, Inc., an equipment repair shop, for repairs.
- Growney performed the repairs while believing Edwards owned the backhoe free of any other claim.
- Growney released the backhoe back to Edwards in exchange for a promissory note, rather than keeping possession to secure payment.
- Ansley did not know the repairs were performed and did not know Edwards owed Growney money for them.
- Edwards defaulted on his obligation to Ansley and did not pay Growney for the repairs.
- After Edwards’s default, Ansley repossessed the backhoe from Edwards.
- Growney sued Edwards and Ansley for the unpaid balance; Growney did not pursue the claim against Edwards.
- In the district court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court rejected Growney’s open-account and lien theories (finding no contract with Ansley and that any possessory lien was waived by release of the backhoe), but awarded Growney $7,002.53 against Ansley on a quantum meruit/unjust enrichment theory.
- Ansley appealed from the restitution-based judgment.

## Issues

1. May an equipment repair shop recover in restitution (quantum meruit/unjust enrichment) from an owner who neither authorized nor encouraged, and had no knowledge of, repairs performed at a possessor’s request, when the owner later repossesses the repaired equipment?

## Decision

- No. The court held the repair shop could not recover in restitution from Ansley because he did not authorize, encourage, or know of the repairs.
- The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment awarding quantum meruit damages to Growney.
- The court treated the matter as an issue of first impression in New Mexico and aligned with the general rule that unsolicited services do not create restitution liability absent special circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment requires more than receipt of a benefit; restitution is available only when retention of the benefit without payment would be unjust in the circumstances.
- A property owner is generally not liable in restitution for services or improvements arranged by another person without the owner’s knowledge, authorization, or conduct inviting the work.
- Quantum meruit is not a substitute for contract where the defendant neither requested the services nor induced the claimant to provide them.
- A service provider who voluntarily extends credit to the requesting party generally bears the risk of that party’s nonpayment, including the risk created by releasing possession of the repaired property and thereby giving up a possessory lien.
- An owner’s later repossession of collateral, standing alone and without misleading conduct toward the service provider, does not make the owner liable for the debtor’s repair debts.

## Conclusion

The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the restitution award because Ansley did nothing to request, approve, or knowingly accept Growney’s repair services; Growney chose to rely on Edwards’s promise to pay and released the backhoe, and Ansley’s later repossession of the backhoe did not make it unjust for him to retain any incidental increase in value from repairs arranged solely by Edwards.


Tom Growney Equipment v. Ansley, 888 P.2d 992 (1994)