Law & Justice
North Dakota Supreme Court Rejects Unjust Enrichment Claim Over Home Improvements
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 recover her money through an unjust enrichment claim, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled on Friday, 6 November 2026. The decision upheld a Grant County District Court ruling that rejected a financial claim filed by Mary Roth after her relationship with rancher Gary Meyer ended.
The case involved a 10‑acre residential property in rural Grant County where the couple lived and operated a cattle business. Meyer had lived on the property for decades and believed he owned it, but legal ownership belonged to the Jean L. Ehrmantrout Residuary Trust, 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, and she filed an unjust enrichment claim against the trust’s beneficiaries.
Justice Jon J. Jensen, writing for a unanimous court, explained that showing how much money was 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 and cannot be based solely on the money spent by the claimant. "Receipts and a compilation of purchases show what Mary Roth spent; they do not show the value those purchases added to the property," Jensen wrote.
Roth provided many receipts and financial records showing she spent more than $110,000, but she did not provide expert evidence or property appraisals indicating how much those purchases increased the market value of the land owned by the family trust.
Under North Dakota law, an unjust enrichment claim requires proof that the defendant received a benefit, the claimant suffered a financial loss, there is a clear connection between benefit and loss, no valid reason exists for the benefit and loss, and no other legal remedy is available. The district court accepted that Roth suffered a financial loss by paying for building materials and supplies, but there was insufficient evidence to determine the financial benefit the trust received.
The court rejected the idea that purchase receipts or property listing prices could automatically prove a property’s value increase, stating that trial judges cannot estimate market value without proper evidence from property valuation experts. The decision also cited the court’s 2018 ruling in Tornabeni v. Wold, reaffirming that compensation cannot be based solely on money spent.
The ruling, docket number 20260153, marks the third time the dispute between Roth and the Meyer estate has reached the North Dakota Supreme Court, following appeals in 2024 and 2025. Chief Justice Lisa Fair McEvers, Justice Jerod E. Tufte, Justice Douglas A. Bahr and Justice Mark A. Friese joined Justice Jensen in affirming the district court’s third amended judgment. The property will remain with the family trust, and Roth will not receive the money she sought to recover.
Frequently asked questions
How much did Mary Roth spend on building materials and improvements?
Mary Roth spent more than $110,000 on building materials and other items for the home.
Who owned the 10-acre property where the improvements were made?
The property was owned by the Jean L. Ehrmantrout Residuary Trust, managed by Gary Meyer's three sons as co-trustees.
What was the outcome of the North Dakota Supreme Court's ruling?
The court rejected Mary Roth's unjust enrichment claim, upholding the district court's decision that she cannot recover her money.