Texas Equusearch (TES), the fine folks who volunteer to go on horseback and by other means to search for missing persons, have sued Casey Anthony for unjust enrichment, because they say she lied to them and made them believe that she still thought her daughter was still alive when they volunteered to search for her. TES has posted on its website a copy of the complaint filed in state court in Florida. http://texasequusearch.org/. But is it really a case of unjust enrichment?
Under Florida law, “[t]he essential elements that must be proven under a theory of unjust enrichment are a benefit conferred upon a defendant by the plaintiff, the defendant’s appreciation of the benefit, and the defendant’s acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances that make it inequitable for him to retain it without paying the value thereof.” Swindell v. Crowson, 712 S.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The question I now pose is whether or not a benefit was conferred on Casey Anthony by the search undertaken by TES.
Section 838.014(1), Florida Statutes (2003), the unlawful compensation statute, defines “benefit” as “gain or advantage, or anything regarded by the person to be benefited as a gain or advantage.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines “benefit” as an advantage or privilege. Black’s Law Dictionary 150 (7th ed. 1999). Webster’s defines “benefit” as “something that promotes well-being” or a “useful aid.” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary 106 (10th ed. 1998).
Crist v. Jaber, Nos. SC04-9, SC04-10, SC04-946 (FLSC). If, as TES alleges, Casey Anthony knew that the toddler was dead, however, how could a search for her be a “gain or advantage” to Casey? How was the search either “something that promotes well-being” or a “useful aid?”
Ms. Anthony could not have thought it to her advantage that the body be found, and TES does not allege in its complaint that such was the benefit to Ms. Anthony. Instead, what TES alleges is that the search was to Casey Anthony’s benefit, because TES unwittingly served as part of her public-relations scheme to make it appear that she was cooperating with the search, that “she was a victim of law enforcement’s unjust investigation and that she was a concerned mother seeking her missing child’s return.” TES also alleges that its search meant that Ms. Anthony and her lawyer “would not have to dedicate any funds to hiring private investigators to conduct a search.”
The latter alleged benefit might not carry weight, because the parent of a missing child does not have to hire private investigators to conduct a search. The public-relations benefit theory is more interesting, but the problem is that TES does not describe itself as a provider of PR services. At least that is not part of the TES mission statement. http://texasequusearch.org/mission-statement/. The fact that one has been deceived and used does not entitle him to compensation on the theory that he voluntarily and without expectation of pay provided a service unwittingly, while believing that he was providing an altogether different service.
And what is the monetary value of a service for which, as the TES says in its complaint, it never has charged?
Pingback: CASEY ANTHONY, TEXAS EQUUSEARCH, AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT