Sevast v. Kakouras

OPINION

Chief Justice CAPPY.

This case presents the issue of whether the Superior Court erred in holding that the defaulting vendee’s claim for unjust *47enrichment under Section 374 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts was timely filed. Assuming such claim is cognizable; 1 we hold that the cause of action for unjust enrichment arose when the contract between the defaulting vendee and the vendors was terminated. As the claim for unjust enrichment was not filed within four years of such date, it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the…