Unjust enrichment claim related to an alleged stormwater overcharge; Wright v Genesee Cnty; Youmans v Charter Twp of Bloomfield; Retained benefit; Distinguishing Ganson v Detroit Pub Sch (Unpub) & Corey v Wayne Cnty (Unpub); Assumpsit; Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA)

In this case involving an alleged stormwater overcharge, the court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant-Drainage District summary disposition of plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim or in dismissing his assumpsit claim. Plaintiff, a property owner in defendant-Royal Oak, pays the city for water and sewer services. He alleged “that the Drainage District has overcharged the city for stormwater disposal since at least 2017, and the city has passed that overcharge on to its residents.” On appeal, the District argued it should have been granted summary disposition because the complaint did not allege that it “‘retained’ the benefit collected from the putative class, i.e., the alleged stormwater overcharge.” The court disagreed. It found the unpublished cases on which the District relied were distinguishable. Plaintiff here “alleged that the Drainage District received the funds from the alleged overpayments and used the funds to pay the charge that it was assessed by the GLWA. As the trial court noted, the complaint does sufficiently allege that the Drainage District received a benefit from plaintiff (the alleged overpayment), and then used that benefit by applying the funds to pay the Drainage District’s debt to GLWA. The fact that the Drainage District no longer has the specific funds at issue in its possession does not defeat plaintiff’s claim.” It concluded that the fact “the Drainage District already used the benefit to pay its own liabilities to the GLWA does not change the equities as between plaintiff and the Drainage District.” The trial court correctly ruled that the complaint stated a cause of action for unjust enrichment. As to plaintiff’s cross-appeal, the trial court also correctly dismissed his assumpsit claim because the Michigan Supreme Court has held that this cause of action was abolished. Affirmed and remanded.