Reversal of judgment in favor of Lowe as to her claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received in light of an existing express contract for the payment of subject money.  Court observes that both of these claims are founded on equitable principles whereby the law implies a contract to prevent unjust enrichment.  As a result, "a plaintiff cannot recover under an equitable theory when she has entered into an express contract for the very subject matter for which she seeks to recover."

Court summary:

This is an appeal from the circuit court's judgment against Susan Hill and in favor of Mary Lowe on her claims for money had and received and unjust enrichment. Hill contends that the circuit court erred in entering judgment in Lowe's favor on her implied contract claims because an express contract covered the subject matter of the parties' dispute.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Division Two holds:

A plaintiff cannot recover under the equitable theories of money had and received and unjust enrichment when she has entered into an express contract for the very subject matter for which she seeks to recover. Here, Lowe's claims were based on an express oral loan agreement between the parties, the undisputed evidence could only support a breach of contract claim, and the circuit court found that a contract did in fact exist. Accordingly, the court erred in allowing Lowe to recover on the theories of money had and received and unjust enrichment. We reverse the circuit court's ruling in favor of Lowe, and enter judgment in favor of Hill.