Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

MBS-Certified Public Accountants, LLC v. Wisconsin Bell Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 2012No. 2008AP1830Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDavid T. Prosser, J.

¶ 85. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). The voluntary payment of money by one person to another upon a demand of payment, with knowledge of the facts and without fraud or duress, generally bars the payor from recovering the money from the payee in subsequent litigation. This is the essence of the voluntary payment doctrine. See Putnam v. Time Warner Cable of Se. Wis., 2002 WI 108, ¶¶ 13-15, 255 Wis. 2d 447, 649 N.W.2d 626.

¶ 86. The voluntary payment doctrine is described in 66 Am. Jur. 2d Restitution and Implied Contracts § 92 (2011) as follows:

*682Unjust enrichment contemplates an…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Nelson J. Elliott v. Samuel SwartwoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1836
  2. Kranzush v. Badger State Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Frederick v. Douglas CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Spivey v. Adaptive Marketing LLCCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
  5. Putnam v. Time Warner Cable of Southeastern Wisconsin, Ltd. PartnershipWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API