Facts: Wendell Lund was a dutiful son to his parents, Orville and Betty. For most of his life, he lived and worked on the family farm. As an adult, he did not pay rent, and his parents provided him means and general assistance with the work of the farm. Although Wendell’s siblings also helped around the house, Wendell claimed that he went above and beyond his duties as a son: He paid half of the real estate taxes and cleared the farm’s grassland, which resulted in a 22-adre organic farm.

When Orville and Betty divorced, Orville bought out her half and stayed on the farm; Betty moved to Arizona; and Wendell got nothing. But Wendell thought he deserved morel. He sued both his parents under a theory of quasi-contract. He argued that over a 20-year period he expended a significant amount of labor and money on the property, that his parents knew he expected an ownership interest in the farm, and that it would be unfair for them to retain the benefits of his work. Wendell asked the court to order his mother to pay him over $500,000 and his father to give him ownership of the land.

The lower court disagreed and Wendell appealed, but only against his mother. 

Questions:

1. Was it unfair for Wendell’s mother to reap the benefits of her son’s work on the family farm?

2. Why did Wendell believe he deserved money from his mother?

3. Did the court find any unjust enrichment on the part of Betty Lunch?