Background
Jeffrey Eisenberg brought a putative class action against the George W. Kuhn Drainage District—which manages stormwater and drainage infrastructure in Oakland County—alleging that the district overcharged him and similarly situated property owners for water usage. Eisenberg pleaded two causes of action: unjust enrichment and assumpsit (an equitable action for money had and received). The Drainage District moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing that neither claim was legally cognizable. The trial court denied the motion as to unjust enrichment but granted it as to assumpsit. Both parties appealed.
The Drainage District argued the unjust enrichment claim was defective because it had already spent the alleged overpayments—passing them on to the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) to pay the district’s own downstream liabilities. Eisenberg cross-appealed on assumpsit, arguing Michigan courts should allow a separate claim for money had and received.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on both issues. On unjust enrichment, the court held that the claim survived the Drainage District’s motion to dismiss. The central question in unjust enrichment is whether the defendant received a benefit it was not entitled to receive, and whether it would be unjust for the defendant to retain that benefit. The fact that the Drainage District already spent the alleged overpayments to pay its own liabilities to GLWA does not change the equities as between plaintiff and the Drainage District; the district may raise a “change of circumstances” defense later in the proceedings, but that is an affirmative defense that does not defeat the claim at the pleading stage.
On assumpsit, the court affirmed dismissal, confirming that the standalone action of assumpsit was abolished in Michigan by Fisher Sand & Gravel Co v Neal A Sweebe, Inc, 494 Mich 543 (2013). Assumpsit claims are simply a subset of unjust-enrichment claims and cannot be maintained as a separate cause of action. Because Eisenberg’s unjust enrichment claim remained pending, he was not prejudiced by dismissal of his assumpsit count as a duplicative pleading. The court remanded for further proceedings on the surviving unjust enrichment class action.
Key Takeaways
- An unjust enrichment claim against a Michigan governmental entity survives a pleading-stage motion to dismiss when the plaintiff adequately alleges that the government received a benefit it was not entitled to retain. The fact that the government has already spent the money does not defeat the claim at the pleading stage; it may be relevant as a “change of circumstances” affirmative defense at a later stage.
- The Michigan Supreme Court’s 2013 Fisher Sand & Gravel decision abolished assumpsit as a standalone cause of action. Assumpsit claims are a subset of unjust enrichment and must be pleaded as such; a separate count for assumpsit is subject to dismissal as duplicative.
- Class action plaintiffs challenging municipal overcharges (utilities, drainage assessments, fees) should plead unjust enrichment rather than assumpsit. The surviving unjust enrichment count sets up a change-of-circumstances defense by the defendant on remand.
- Municipal defendants in such cases should anticipate the change-of-circumstances defense as their primary line of defense after the pleading stage: showing that the money has been spent and full restitution would be inequitable given current fiscal realities.
Why It Matters
Eisenberg v. Kuhn Drainage District is relevant to the growing category of class actions challenging municipal and quasi-municipal entities for alleged fee overcharges. It confirms that Michigan’s elimination of standalone assumpsit does not leave property owners without a remedy—unjust enrichment covers the same ground—and that the pleading stage is not the appropriate place to resolve a government’s change-of-circumstances defense. For Oakland County and similar drainage districts across Michigan, the decision signals that class-action exposure from systematic overcharging is real and that the “we already spent it” argument is a factual affirmative defense, not a legal bar to suit.
For plaintiff class action counsel, the case clarifies pleading strategy: drop the assumpsit count and focus on unjust enrichment. For defense counsel representing drainage districts or other Michigan governmental bodies, the decision is a prompt to evaluate whether systematic overcharges exist in assessment records and to prepare a change-of-circumstances record for the merits phase.