Somerville v. Jacobs

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · 1969 · Property

PropertyMistaken improverUnjust enrichmentEquitymistaken improvementgood faithreasonable mistake of factunjust enrichment

Facts

The Somervilles owned Lots 44, 45, and 46 and, relying on a surveyor's report and plat, mistakenly built a warehouse on adjacent Lot 47, which was owned by the Jacobses. The defendants did not know the building was on their lot until after construction was completed and were not guilty of fraud, acquiescence, or other inequitable conduct. The lot was worth $2,000 before construction and $19,500 after construction, reflecting $17,500 in value attributable to the building. The plaintiffs sought equitable relief requiring the defendants either to pay for the improvements or convey the lot for fair consideration.

Issue

Whether a court of equity may grant affirmative relief to a person who, acting in good faith and through a reasonable mistake of fact, erects improvements on another's land, even though the landowner was unaware of the construction and engaged in no fraud or inequitable conduct. Specifically, may the court require the owner either to pay for the value added by the improvements or convey the land for its unimproved value?

Rule

An improver of land owned by another who, through a reasonable mistake of fact and in good faith, erects a building entirely upon the owner's land with a reasonable belief that the land is his own is entitled in equity to recover the value of the improvements from the landowner and to a lien on the property enforceable by sale, or, in the alternative, to purchase the land upon payment to the owner of the value of the land without the improvements. To prevent unjust enrichment, the landowner who retains the improvements but refuses to pay for them must, within a reasonable time, either pay the improver the amount by which the land has been improved or convey the land to the improver upon payment of the land's value without the improvements.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Ohio, Nora Bennett owned Lot 12 in a small industrial subdivision. Relying on a surveyor's staking, she in good faith built a masonry storage building entirely on neighboring Lot 13, owned by Calvin Reed, reasonably believing Lot 13 was part of her parcel. Reed did not know of the construction until the building was finished and now insists on keeping it without paying anything.

If Nora sues in equity, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that when an improver, through a reasonable mistake of fact and in good faith, erects a permanent building entirely on another's land while reasonably believing the land is his own, equity may prevent unjust enrichment. The landowner's innocence does not bar relief. The owner who retains the improvement must, within a reasonable time, either pay the value added or convey the land for its unimproved value; the improver may also have a lien enforceable by sale.