Jewett v. Boihem

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed a judgment awarding Lester Boihem restitution for money paid toward an aborted purchase of a 50% interest in Accu-Crete, LLC. The court held that William Jewett could be liable for restitution even though some payments were made to the company, because Jewett controlled the company and benefited indirectly from the payments.

Holdings

1. The restitution judgment was not palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust because the evidence authorized findings that Jewett was enriched by Boihem's payments, Boihem received none of the bargained-for consideration, and the consideration justly belonged to Boihem.
2. A defendant may be liable in restitution for money paid to a company rather than directly to the defendant when the payment was made at the defendant's direction and the defendant ultimately controlled the company and benefited from the payment.
3. Accu-Crete, LLC, was not required to be joined because Boihem's agreement was with Jewett and Boihem sought restitution from Jewett, not from the company.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's restitution judgment was palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust under the ore tenus standard.
2. Whether Jewett could be ordered to make restitution when some of Boihem's payments were made to Accu-Crete, LLC, rather than directly to Jewett.
3. Whether Accu-Crete, LLC, was a necessary or indispensable party under Ala. R. Civ. P. 19(a).

Disposition

affirmed