law-money-had-and-received | quantum meruit theory of recovery | promissory estoppel theory
MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED - EQUITABLE THEORY OF RECOVERY
To recover on a claim for money had and received, a plaintiff must show that the defendant holds
money that in equity and good conscience belongs to him. Staats v. Miller, 243 S.W.2d 686, 687
(Tex. 1951); Edwards v. Mid-Continent Office Distribs., L.P., 252 S.W.3d 833, 837 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied). A cause of action for money had and received is not based on
wrongdoing, but, instead, "looks only to the justice of the case and inquires whether the
defendant has received money which rightfully belongs to another." Everett v. TK-Taito, L.L.C.,
178 S.W.3d 844, 860 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.); Amoco Prod. Co. v. Smith, 946
S.W.2d 162, 164 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, no writ). In short, it is an equitable doctrine applied to
prevent unjust enrichment. Hunt v. Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d 117, 132 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]
2001, no pet.); Phippen v. Deere & Co., 965 S.W.2d 713, 725 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, no
pet.). In defending against such a claim, a defendant may present any facts and raise any
defenses that would deny the claimant's right or show that the claimant should not recover. Best
Buy Co. v. Barrera, 248 S.W.3d 160, 162 (Tex. 2007).
Money Had and Received
Money had and received is an equitable action that may be maintained to prevent unjust
enrichment when one person obtains money, which in equity and good conscience
belongs to another. J.C. Penney Co., Inc. v. Pitts, 139 S.W.3d 455, 462 n. 4
(Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.) (citing Staats v. Miller, 150 Tex. 581, 584, 243
S.W.2d 686, 687 (1951)). A cause of action for money had and received is not based on
wrongdoing, but, instead, "looks only to the justice of the case and inquires whether the
defendant has received money which rightfully belongs to another." Amoco Prod. Co. v.
Smith, 946 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no writ). In short, it is an equitable
doctrine applied to prevent unjust enrichment. Hunt v. Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d 117, 132
(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Phippen v. Deere & Co., 965 S.W.2d 713,
725 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, no pet.).
"Money had and received is an equitable doctrine applied to prevent unjust enrichment." Bank of
Saipan v. CNG Fin. Corp, 380 F.3d 836, 840 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Miller-Rogaska, Inc. v.
Bank One, Texas, N.A., 931 S.W.2d 655, 662 (Tex. App. 1996, no writ) (ellipsis omitted)). "`[A]
cause of action for money had and received is less restricted and fettered by technical rules and
formalities than any other form of action. It aims at the abstract justice of the case, and looks
solely at the inquiry, whether the defendant holds money, which belongs to the plaintiff.'" Id.
(quoting Staats v. Miller, 243 S.W.2d 686, 687-88 (Tex. 1951)).
Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. v. Pitts, 236 S.W.3d 201, 207 (Tex.2007) (quoting Funliner of Ala.,
L.L.C. v. Pickard, 873 So.2d 198, 211 (Ala.2003)); see also Hunt v. Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d 117, 132
(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) ("[Money had and received] is an equitable
doctrine applied to prevent unjust enrichment.").
08-0450
W.R. EDWARDS, JR. v. MID-CONTINENT OFFICE DISTRIBUTORS, L.P. AND INWOOD OFFICE
FURNITURE, INC.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-06-01421-CV, 252 SW3d 833, 04-25-08,
pet. denied Aug 2008) (claim for money had and received)