A North Dakota woman who spent more than $110,000 on building materials and other items for a home on land owned by her longtime partner’s family trust cannot get her money back through an unjust enrichment claim, the North Dakota Supreme Court has ruled. The decision, issued on Friday, 6 November 2026, upheld a Grant County District Court ruling that rejected a financial claim filed by Mary Roth. She had sought repayment after her relationship with rancher Gary Meyer ended. The case involved a 10-acre residential property in rural Grant County, North Dakota, where the couple lived and ran a cattle business together. Gary Meyer had lived on the property for decades and believed he owned it. However, the legal ownership belonged to the Jean L. Ehrmantrout Residuary Trust, which was managed by his three sons as co-trustees. After the relationship ended, Roth asked to be repaid for the large number of items and materials she bought to build and improve the home. She also filed an unjust enrichment claim against the trust’s beneficiaries, arguing that they had unfairly benefited from her spending.
Proof of spending is not proof of added value
Writing for the unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Jon J. Jensen explained that showing how much money someone spent is not enough to win an unjust enrichment claim under North Dakota law. The court said these claims must focus on the actual financial benefit received by the property owner. They cannot be based only on the money spent by the person who bought the materials or paid for the work. “Receipts and a compilation of purchases show what Mary Roth spent; they do not show the value those purchases added to the property,” Justice Jensen wrote in the opinion. Roth provided many receipts and financial records showing that she had spent more than $110,000. However, she did not provide expert evidence or property appraisals showing how much those purchases had actually increased the market value of the land owned by the family trust.
Legal principle of unjust enrichment
Under North Dakota law, a person making an unjust enrichment claim must prove five main things. First, the defendant received a benefit. Second, the person making the claim suffered a financial loss. Third, there must be a clear connection between that benefit and the financial loss. Fourth, there must be no valid reason for the benefit and loss to have occurred. Finally, there must be no other legal remedy available. The Supreme Court noted that the district court had accepted that Roth suffered a financial loss by paying for building materials and supplies for the home. However, there was not enough evidence to work out how much financial benefit the trust had received. The justices rejected the idea that purchase receipts or property listing prices could automatically be used to prove how much a property had gained in value. They said trial judges cannot simply estimate an increase in market value without proper evidence from property valuation experts. The court also referred to its 2018 decision in Tornabeni v. Wold. It repeated the legal principle that a person cannot receive compensation through an equity claim based only on money spent. They must also prove that the property owner received a clear and measurable financial benefit.
End of lengthy multi-year litigation
The ruling on 6 November, issued under docket number 20260153, marks the third time the dispute between Roth and the Meyer estate has reached the North Dakota Supreme Court. The earlier appeals took place in 2024 and 2025. Chief Justice Lisa Fair McEvers, Justice Jerod E. Tufte, Justice Douglas A. Bahr and Justice Mark A. Friese all agreed with Justice Jensen’s opinion. Their decision brings the long-running property dispute to an end. The Supreme Court upheld the Grant County District Court’s third amended judgment. This means the property will remain with the family trust, and Roth will not receive the money she sought to recover.
About The Author
