North Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms Unjust Enrichment Claim Between Former Spouses After Property Transfer

Becerra v. Flores: A Cautionary Tale About Informal Post-Divorce Property Agreements

by Sara Bolasny

Divorcing spouses often reach informal agreements regarding the division of property after their divorce is finalized. A recent North Carolina Court of Appeals decision, Becerra v. Flores (July 15, 2026), highlights the significant risks associated with relying on unsigned agreements and verbal promises when transferring valuable assets such as the marital home.

Although the opinion is unpublished and therefore not binding precedent, it offers important guidance for family law practitioners and former spouses navigating unresolved property issues after divorce.

 

The Facts

Juan La Torre Becerra and Esther Betty Ortiz Flores divorced in 2019. Despite their divorce, they never pursued equitable distribution of their marital property.

The parties jointly owned a home in Cary, North Carolina. After the divorce, they agreed that Defendant would remain in the home with the parties’ children. According to Plaintiff, the parties later agreed that he would transfer his ownership interest in the property in exchange for a $120,000 buyout.

A promissory note reflecting that arrangement was drafted and circulated by email. However, neither party ever signed the note.

Despite the lack of a signed agreement, Plaintiff executed a deed transferring his interest in the property to Defendant in March 2021. Defendant subsequently made a series of payments totaling $68,400 but then stopped paying altogether.

In 2024, Plaintiff filed suit asserting multiple claims, including breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that Defendant had been unjustly enriched by receiving Plaintiff’s ownership interest in the home without fully compensating him and awarded Plaintiff the unpaid balance of $51,600.

Defendant appealed.

 

The Court of Appeals’ Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

 

No Enforceable Contract? Unjust Enrichment May Still Apply

One of Defendant’s primary arguments was that the alleged agreement could not be enforced because the promissory note was unsigned and therefore failed to satisfy North Carolina’s Statute of Frauds.

The Court agreed that there was no enforceable written contract. However, that did not end the analysis.

Instead, the Court relied on the doctrine of unjust enrichment as a basis for relief. Plaintiff had transferred his ownership interest in the home, Defendant accepted and retained the benefit of that transfer, and the evidence demonstrated that she had not fully compensated him for the value he conveyed.

The Court emphasized that unjust enrichment is not a contract claim. Rather, it is an equitable remedy designed to prevent one party from unfairly retaining a benefit at another person’s expense.

 

Evidence of Value Need Not Be Perfect

Defendant also argued that Plaintiff failed to prove the value of the benefit he conferred because no formal appraisal was introduced.

The Court rejected that argument.

The evidence included:

 

• • A Bank of America valuation estimate placing the home’s value at approximately $338,099;
  • Testimony regarding the value of comparable homes in the neighborhood;
  • The parties’ own discussions regarding the value of Plaintiff’s ownership interest; and
  • Defendant’s partial payments toward the agreed-upon amount.

 

Taken together, the Court found this evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s interest in the property was worth at least $120,000.

 

Partial Payments Can Be Powerful Evidence

An important aspect of the decision was the Court’s reliance on Defendant’s conduct after the transfer.

Defendant made multiple payments to Plaintiff over a period of months. Those payments strongly supported Plaintiff’s position that compensation was expected in exchange for the transfer of the property.

For family law practitioners, this serves as a reminder that a party’s actions after an agreement is reached can become critical evidence in later litigation.

 

Family Law Implications

Although this case arose as a civil action rather than a traditional equitable distribution proceeding, it carries several lessons for divorcing and divorced spouses.

 

1. Resolve Property Issues During the Divorce

The parties divorced in 2019 but never completed equitable distribution. Years later, they found themselves litigating ownership interests in the marital home through a separate civil lawsuit.

Property issues that remain unresolved after divorce frequently create uncertainty, expense, and avoidable litigation.

 

2. Put Agreements in Writing—and Sign Them

The entire dispute may have been avoided had the parties executed a properly drafted and signed settlement agreement.

When real estate interests are involved, informal emails, draft promissory notes, and verbal understandings can create significant legal risks.

 

3. Equity Can Fill the Gap

Even when a contract fails, North Carolina courts retain equitable authority to prevent unfair results.

This case demonstrates that a spouse who transfers valuable property in reliance on an agreement may still have a viable unjust enrichment claim if the other party accepts the benefit without providing the promised compensation.

 

4. Documentation Matters

The Court relied heavily on emails, testimony, payment history, and other circumstantial evidence to determine what occurred between the parties.

Maintaining records of communications and payments can prove critical when disputes arise years later.

 

Takeaway

Becerra v. Flores illustrates a common post-divorce problem: former spouses attempt to resolve property issues informally, only to discover later that their agreement was never properly documented.

While the Court ultimately provided relief through the doctrine of unjust enrichment, litigation could likely have been avoided through a comprehensive equitable distribution agreement or properly executed settlement documents.

For North Carolina families, the lesson is clear: when transferring interests in real property after separation or divorce, formal documentation and legal guidance are far less expensive than years of litigation over what the parties intended.

 

At New Direction Family Law, we provide fierce representation in the courtroom to protect your rights. If your case is contested, let our team fight for you. Schedule a consultation at (919)719-3470 or fill out our online form here.