S. Ct. Civ. No. 2010-0040

In an action apparently seeking restitution under a quantum meruit theory for work done on a parcel of real property, and alleging a fraudulent conveyance, summary judgment rulings for the defendant are affirmed. Plaintiff made judicial admissions that no actual agreement existed between the parties. A claim for unjust enrichment requires the plaintiff to prove (1) that the defendant was enriched, (2) that such enrichment was at the plaintiff's expense, (3) that the defendant had appreciation or knowledge of the benefit, and (4) that the circumstances were such that in equity or good conscience the defendant should return the money or property to the plaintiff. Here the plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show that the defendant ever requested that plaintiff perform the services, or that he had ever even broached the question of compensation or reimbursement. The Superior Court correctly denied summary judgment on the unjust enrichment or quantum meruit claim. It also correctly denied a motion for summary judgment on the fraudulent conveyance claim, since the record contains no evidence that plaintiff was the defendant's creditor, and the fact that the property was transferred by defendant without consideration does not, without more, establish intent to defraud. Two motions for recusal of the trial judge, governed by 4 V.I.C. § 284(4), were wholly without merit. Thus it was not error for the judge to preside over the trial of this action or to issue the May 7, 2010 Order dismissing this complaint with prejudice. That Order is affirmed.