{ "id": 11709609, "name": "NARESH K. FARMAH and SURJEET K. FARMAH, Plaintiffs v. RAM L. FARMAH and SHEELA DEVI FARMAH, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Farmah v. Farmah", "decision_date": "1997-05-06", "docket_number": "No. COA96-467", "first_page": "210", "last_page": "213", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "126 N.C. App. 210" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "39 ALR4th 1068", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "423 S.E.2d 75", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 N.C. 544", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2503217 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "554" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/332/0544-01" ] }, { "cite": "454 S.E.2d 655", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 N.C. 739", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2558925, 2556401, 2557239, 2559480, 2556571 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/339/0739-05", "/nc/339/0739-04", "/nc/339/0739-01", "/nc/339/0739-03", "/nc/339/0739-02" ] }, { "cite": "312 S.E.2d 215", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "217" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 N.C. App. 641", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525808 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "645" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/66/0641-01" ] }, { "cite": "449 S.E.2d 202", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213", "parenthetical": "citing Ellis Jones, Inc. v. Western Waterproofing Co., 66 N.C. App. 641, 645, 312 S.E.2d 215, 217 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 N.C. App. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524741 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "508-09", "parenthetical": "citing Ellis Jones, Inc. v. Western Waterproofing Co., 66 N.C. App. 641, 645, 312 S.E.2d 215, 217 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/116/0493-01" ] }, { "cite": "328 S.E.2d 837", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "839", "parenthetical": "quoting 66 Am. Jur. 2d Restitution and Implied Contracts Sec. 3, at 945 (1973)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 N.C. App. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525253 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "534", "parenthetical": "quoting 66 Am. Jur. 2d Restitution and Implied Contracts Sec. 3, at 945 (1973)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/74/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-5", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 497, "char_count": 7886, "ocr_confidence": 0.738, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5916105598991863e-07, "percentile": 0.8181654606117963 }, "sha256": "d899b31295ccb26a100d2afd8d2b3573dd4878530b868f754010b199b884a841", "simhash": "1:837054eb4b25bb8a", "word_count": 1299 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:11:14.463583+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges COZORT and WYNN concur." ], "parties": [ "NARESH K. FARMAH and SURJEET K. FARMAH, Plaintiffs v. RAM L. FARMAH and SHEELA DEVI FARMAH, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Chief Judge.\nDefendants argue that the trial court erred by assessing interest on the judgment from the date of the exchange of the Lee County property rather than from the date the action was instituted. In actions for breach of contract, \u201cthe amount awarded on the contract bears interest from the date of breach.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-5(a) (1991). In actions other than contract, interest accrues on the judgment \u201cfrom the date the action is instituted.\u201d G.S. \u00a7 24-5(b). Defendants assert that because this case did not involve an action in contract, interest should have been awarded only from the date plaintiffs filed suit.\nThis argument is feckless. Plaintiffs\u2019 claims for damages and the trial judge\u2019s subsequent order were grounded in the equitable princi-pies of restitution or quasi-contract as opposed to the legal principles of contract law.\n\u201cUnjust enrichment\u201d is a legal term characterizing the result or effect of a failure to make restitution of, or for, property or benefits received under such circumstances as to give rise to a legal or equitable obligation to account therefor. It is a general principle underlying various legal doctrines and remedies, that one person should not be permitted unjustly to enrich himself [or herself] at the expense of another ....\nIvey v. Williams, 74 N.C. App. 532, 534, 328 S.E.2d 837, 839 (1985) (quoting 66 Am. Jur. 2d Restitution and Implied Contracts Sec. 3, at 945 (1973)). \u201cAccordingly, in the absence of any actual agreement between parties, the law will nonetheless impose a contract in order to prevent \u2018unjust enrichment.\u2019 \u201d Peace River Electric Cooperative v. Ward Transformer Co., 116 N.C. App. 493, 508-09, 449 S.E.2d 202, 213 (1994) (citing Ellis Jones, Inc. v. Western Waterproofing Co., 66 N.C. App. 641, 645, 312 S.E.2d 215, 217 (1984)) (emphasis added), disc. review denied, 339 N.C. 739, 454 S.E.2d 655 (1995).\nIn this case, the law imposed a contract between the parties where none existed. Therefore, the trial judge\u2019s award of interest from the date of the transfer of the Lee County property was in accord with the statutory requirement that interest is awarded from the date of the breach of contract. G.S. \u00a7 24-5(a).\nThis approach is also consistent with equitable principles of restitution as interpreted by the Restatement of the Law of Restitution.\n[A] person who has a duty to pay the value of a benefit which he has received, is also under a duty to pay interest upon such value from the time he committed a breach of duty in failing to make restitution, if, and only if:\n(a) the benefit consisted of a definite sum of money, or\n(b) the value of the benefit can be ascertained by mathemat-ic\u00e1l calculation from the terms of an agreement between the parties or by established market prices, or\n(c) payment of interest is required to avoid injustice.\nRestatement (First) of Restitution \u00a7 156 (1936).\nDefendants claim that the value of the benefit received by the transfer of the Lee County property is unascertainable. We disagree. The market value of the Lee County property was never seriously disputed by the parties. Both defendant Ram Farmah and plaintiff Nar\u00e9sh Farmah testified at trial that the property was worth approximately $37,000.00 to $38,000.00. We hold that the value of the Lee County property was clearly ascertainable, and the trial judge properly awarded interest from the date of the sale.\nDefendants next argue that the trial court\u2019s failure to allow them an offset for a discharged debt between Ram Farmah and Naresh Farmah constitutes reversible error. No assignment of error is set out in the record on appeal that corresponds to this issue; therefore the matter is not properly presented for our consideration. N.C.R. App. P. 10(a); State v. Thomas, 332 N.C. 544, 554, 423 S.E.2d 75, 80 (1992).\nDefendants make numerous arguments and assignments of error that are not supported by relevant reasoning or citations of authority in their brief. These issues are waived on appeal. N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(5).\nDefendants\u2019 remaining assignments of error challenge the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial judge. We have reviewed each of the questioned findings and hold that there is sufficient evidence to support each finding. We have also reviewed the trial judge\u2019s conclusions of law and hold that they are supported by the facts found in this case.\nAffirmed.\nJudges COZORT and WYNN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "E. Ray Briggs and Allen W. Powell for plaintiff appellees.", "Allen & Pinnix, P.A., by D. James Jones, Jr., for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "NARESH K. FARMAH and SURJEET K. FARMAH, Plaintiffs v. RAM L. FARMAH and SHEELA DEVI FARMAH, Defendants\nNo. COA96-467\n(Filed 6 May 1997)\nJudgments \u00a7 652 (NCI4th) \u2014 income and sales proceeds\u2014 jointly owned property \u2014 interest from date of conveyance \u2014 contract in law\nIn an action in which the trial court awarded plaintiffs one-half of the value of property which was jointly owned by the parties and conveyed to a third party, the trial court did not err in assessing interest from the date of the transfer of the property as in a contract action since the action was based on principles of restitution or quasi-contract, and the law imposed a contract between the parties where none existed. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-5(a).\nAm Jur 2d, Restitution and Implied Contracts \u00a7\u00a7 16, 20.\nContract of sale or granting of option to purchase, to third party, by both or all of joint tenants or tenants by entirety as severing or terminating tenancy. 39 ALR4th 1068.\nAppeal by defendants from judgment entered 15 December 1995 by Judge L. W. Payne in Wake County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 January 1997.\nOn 21 July 1982, plaintiffs and defendants took title to real property located at 305 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina (hereinafter \u201cWake County property\u201d). Beginning on or about September of 1989, defendants had possession, use and control of the Wake County property. During such time, defendants rented the Wake County property and applied the rental income towards the payment of mortgage, insurance, utility and general maintenance expenses related to the property.\nOn or about August 1993, Wake County began garnishing plaintiff Naresh Farmah\u2019s wages for payment of past due ad valorem taxes on the Wake County property The garnishment totaled $1610.00.\nIn May of 1987, defendant Ram Farmah took title to 8.2 acres of real property located in Lee County, North Carolina (hereinafter \u201cLee County property\u201d). Approximately one month later, defendants conveyed a one-half undivided interest in the Lee County property to plaintiff Naresh Farmah. On 9 March 1988, plaintiffs and defendants entered into a contract with L. C. Williams Oil Company to exchange the Lee County property for gas tanks, pumps, and other related materials needed for the construction of a gas station on property jointly owned by defendants and Mohinder Farmah. The value of the Lee County property at the time of the exchange was $37,500.00.\nOn 2 February 1993, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants seeking an accounting of the funds received as rental income on the Wake County property. On 14 November 1995, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint claiming that defendants had been unjustly enriched by conversion of funds that should have accrued to the benefit of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also sought an accounting of funds received pursuant to the sale of the Wake County property.\nThe case was tried without a jury on 15 November 1995 in Wake County District Court and plaintiffs and defendants were ordered to divide equally the funds held on deposit pursuant to the sale of the Wake County property. Defendants were also ordered to pay plaintiffs the sum of half the value of the Lee County property including interest, plus the amount garnished from plaintiff Naresh Farmah\u2019s wages.\nDefendants appeal.\nE. Ray Briggs and Allen W. Powell for plaintiff appellees.\nAllen & Pinnix, P.A., by D. James Jones, Jr., for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0210-01", "first_page_order": 248, "last_page_order": 251 }