## Facts

- William Edwin Van Brunt III alleged a continuous personal and professional relationship with artist Robert Rauschenberg from 1968 to July 1990.
- Van Brunt claimed he performed extensive creative and business services connected to the creation, production, and promotion of artworks (including assisting with artwork production, exhibitions, and related media work).
- Van Brunt alleged he was not adequately compensated for these services.
- Van Brunt alleged Rauschenberg made express promises to (1) provide him examples from various production phases of works created, (2) pay his living expenses, (3) reimburse business expenses, and (4) pay his income taxes.
- After the relationship ended in 1990, Van Brunt sued seeking compensation and return of certain artworks or production materials he claimed were promised to him.
- The original complaint was dismissed with leave to replead; Van Brunt filed an amended complaint asserting breach of contract, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, constructive trust, conversion, and replevin.
- Rauschenberg moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged enforceable express contracts under New York law, despite the parties’ long-term personal relationship and the breadth of the alleged support promises.
2. Whether Van Brunt stated a claim for unjust enrichment based on alleged uncompensated services that benefited Rauschenberg.
3. Whether promissory estoppel and constructive trust were legally sufficient given the alleged facts and the availability of contract or quasi-contract remedies.
4. Whether conversion and replevin were adequately pleaded through allegations of a specific ownership or possessory interest in identifiable property.

## Decision

- The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
- The breach of contract claim survived only to the extent it alleged sufficiently definite express agreements not barred by past-consideration rules, the Statute of Frauds, or statutes of limitation.
- The unjust enrichment claim was sufficiently pleaded and survived.
- The promissory estoppel claim was dismissed.
- The constructive trust claim was dismissed.
- The conversion and replevin claims were limited or dismissed to the extent they were duplicative of contract theories or failed to allege a concrete, independent property interest in specific items.
- The court ordered Van Brunt to provide a more definite statement of his contract claims within fifteen days.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true, draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, and dismisses only when no set of facts would entitle the plaintiff to relief.
- Under New York law, express agreements between parties in a close personal relationship may be enforceable if supported by consideration and stated with sufficient definiteness.
- Contract allegations may be narrowed at the pleading stage where portions are based on past consideration, barred by the Statute of Frauds, or time-barred by statutes of limitation.
- Unjust enrichment requires allegations that (1) the defendant was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff’s expense, and (3) equity and good conscience require restitution; pleading substantial benefit from uncompensated services can satisfy this standard.
- Promissory estoppel may be unavailable or redundant where contract or quasi-contract remedies address the alleged wrong in a service-based relationship.
- Constructive trust generally requires a confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance on that promise, and unjust enrichment; failure to allege a qualifying transfer of property and a specific trust res defeats the claim.
- Conversion and replevin require allegations of a specific ownership or superior possessory right in identifiable property; claims lacking such specificity or duplicating contract claims are subject to dismissal or limitation.

## Conclusion

The court permitted Van Brunt to proceed on a narrowed set of contract theories and on unjust enrichment based on alleged uncompensated services, but rejected promissory estoppel and constructive trust and curtailed property-based claims absent specific, independent possessory allegations, while requiring a more definite statement clarifying the contract claims.


Van Brunt v. Rauschenberg, 799 F. Supp. 1467 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)