Skip to main content

Does Statutes of Limitation not mean much when it comes to Unjust Enrichment?

Los Angeles, CA |
Filed under: Lawsuits and disputes

I'm being sued for a house that was completed 6 years ago.
We had had a dispute about quality and have not spoken for that time.
Because I paid only one third the cost, I am told that the statues of limitation for a written contract would not apply because of unjust enrichment.

I am not protected in that sense, is that correct?

Does that sound right?

Where does Unconscionability fit in? Will that trump the statute of limitation?

Attorney Answers 1


No that is not correct actually. There is a two-year statute of limitations for unjust enrichment.

Here is the statute for your records:

CCP § 339. Within two years: 1. An action upon a contract, obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing, except as provided in Section 2725 of the Commercial Code or subdivision 2 of Section 337 of this code; or an action founded upon a contract, obligation or liability, evidenced by a certificate, or abstract or guaranty of title of real property, or by a policy of title insurance; provided, that the cause of action upon a contract, obligation or liability evidenced by a certificate, or abstract or guaranty of title of real property or policy of title insurance shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the loss or damage suffered by the aggrieved party thereunder.

Also, is there a debt collector currently contacting you regarding this debt? If so, it is highly likely that they are violating your rights.

Mark as helpful

Lawsuits and disputes topics

Recommended articles about Lawsuits and disputes

What others are asking

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer

Browse all legal topics