The parties made various claims relating to a trust, including that one of the defendants had been unjustly enriched. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the unjust enrichment count on the ground that it was statutorily time-barred. The plaintiff appealed.
In Tunick v. Tunick, AC 45085 (Conn. App. 2022), the Connecticut Appellate Court held that the trial court improperly granted the defendant's motion to strike the unjust enrichment claim on the ground that it was time-barred and reversed the part of the trial court’s judgment dealing with the claim of unjust enrichment.
The Connecticut Appellate Court explained that unjust enrichment is not a legal claim sounding in either tort or contract—it is an equitable claim for relief. As an equitable claim, its timeliness is not subject to a statute of limitations but, rather, to the equitable doctrine of laches. Claims for unjust enrichment are not barred by the three-year limitation period set out in Conn. Gen. State § 52-577 or any other statute of limitations and therefore, the plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment is not subject to a statute of limitations. Because the unjust enrichment count was not a tort claim and was not time-barred by section 52-577, the court improperly granted the motion to strike on that basis (at 113).