law-money-had-and-received | Hunt v. Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d 117, 132 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no
pet.)
EQUITABLE THEORY OF MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED
To recover on a claim for money had and received, a plaintiff must show that the defendant holds
money that in equity and good conscience belongs to him. Staats v. Miller, 243 S.W.2d 686, 687
(Tex. 1951); Edwards v. Mid-Continent Office Distribs., L.P., 252 S.W.3d 833, 837 (Tex. App.-
Dallas 2008, pet. denied). A cause of action for money had and received is not based on
wrongdoing, but, instead, "looks only to the justice of the case and inquires whether the defendant
has received money which rightfully belongs to another." Everett v. TK-Taito, L.L.C., 178 S.W.3d
844, 860 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.); Amoco Prod. Co. v. Smith, 946 S.W.2d 162, 164
(Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, no writ). In short, it is an equitable doctrine applied to prevent unjust
enrichment. Hunt v. Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d 117, 132 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.);
Phippen v. Deere & Co., 965 S.W.2d 713, 725 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, no pet.). In defending
against such a claim, a defendant may present any facts and raise any defenses that would deny the
claimant's right or show that the claimant should not recover. Best Buy Co. v. Barrera, 248 S.W.3d
160, 162 (Tex. 2007).
To recover on a claim for money had and received, a plaintiff must show that the defendant holds
money, which in equity and good conscience belongs to the plaintiff. Staats v. Miller, 243 S.W.2d
686, 687 (Tex. 1951); Edwards v. Mid-Continent Office Distribs., L.P., 252 S.W.3d 833, 837 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied). A cause of action for money had and received “inquires whether
the defendant has received money which rightfully belongs to another.” Everett v. TK-Taito, L.L.C.,
178 S.W.3d 844, 860 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Smith,
946 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no writ)). Essentially, it is an equitable doctrine
applied to prevent unjust enrichment. Hunt v. Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d 117, 132 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Phippen v. Deere & Co., 965 S.W.2d 713, 725 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
1998, no pet.).
When a valid, express contract covers the subject matter of the parties’ dispute, as a general rule,
there can be no recovery under a quasi-contract theory, such as money had and received. See
Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671, 684 (Tex. 2000) (involving claim for unjust
enrichment); DeClaire v. G & B McIntosh Family Ltd. P’ship, 260 S.W.3d 34, 49 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (same).
A claim for money had and received is an equitable action that may be maintained to prevent unjust
enrichment when the defendant obtains money, which in equity and good conscience belongs to the plaintiff.
Orgain v. Butler, 478 S.W.2d 610, 613 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1972, no writ)(citing Staats v. Miller, 243 S.W.
2d 686, 687 (Tex. 1951)).
A cause of action for money had and received is not based on wrongdoing but instead, "looks only to the
justice of the case and inquires whether the defendant has received money which rightfully belongs to
another." Amoco Prod. Co. v. Smith, 946 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, no writ) (citing Greer v.
White Oak State Bank, 673 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1984, no writ)). It is essentially an equitable
doctrine applied to prevent unjust enrichment. Hunt v. Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d 117, 132 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th
Dist.] 2001, no pet.).
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE