Domestic Relations – Alimony Payments – Attorneys’ Fees

The trial court has the discretionary authority to order reimbursement for the overpayments of alimony and attorneys’ fees. Thus, this Court vacated and remanded for a new hearing to determine whether the overpayments of alimony and attorneys’ fees should be reimbursed.

We vacated the trial court’s order in part and remanded for a new hearing.

Plaintiff appealed from an order denying his motion for reimbursement of $36,010 in alimony overpayments and $3,600 in attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff argued the trial court erred by denying his reimbursement request for purportedly overpaid alimony to Defendant. In 2021, this Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding a substantial change in circumstances that warranted modification of the parties’ original alimony order. The trial court only had the power to modify the alimony order if a substantial change of financial circumstances had occurred since the order’s initial entrance—a condition precedent that the court acknowledged had not occurred. Given that this Court reversed the trial court’s alimony increase as an abuse of discretion, we held the trial court has the authority at equity to allow Plaintiff to recover the $36,010 he overpaid under that order.

Plaintiff’s overpayment reimbursement also prevents Defendant’s unjust enrichment. Plaintiff argued that an otherwise inequitable result here would irreparably harm him. Because the term of his alimony to Defendant has ended, he has no opportunity to credit any overpayment towards a future obligation. We agreed. Plaintiff meets all five elements of unjust enrichment. He conferred a benefit to Defendant by paying her alimony under the legal direction of the modified order, thus meeting the first, fourth, and fifth elements. He also meets the second and third elements because the alimony payments were specific dollar amounts that Defendant duly accepted by continually receiving them. Thus, all the elements to show a prima facie case of unjust enrichment have been met by Plaintiff’s overpayment of alimony to Defendant. Restitution made by the unjustly enriched party to the party that has conveyed the benefit is a proper remedy for unjust enrichment. We held that the trial court has the authority to allow reimbursement to be made to Plaintiff for his overpayment of alimony as a remedy for unjust enrichment.

Vacated in part and remanded.

Du Plessis v. Du Plessis (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-106-25, 9 pp.) (Tom Murry, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County District Court (Roy H. Wiggins, J.) Plumides, Romano & Johnson, PC, by Attorney Richard B. Johnson, for Plaintiff–Appellant; Conrad Trosch & Kemmy, PA, by Attorney Andrew C. Rheingrover, for Defendant–Appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals