Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 16.004, 38.001(b)(1); Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1990)
Quantum meruit in Texas — with unjust enrichment and money had and received
A claim in Texas district and county courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
These three claims do the same job from different directions: they recover value that changed hands where no enforceable contract governs it. They are pleaded in the alternative to breach of contract, and one of them — quantum meruit — carries attorney's fees.
Texas law here is unsettled in two places, and any honest page has to say so. Whether unjust enrichment is an independent cause of action depends on your court of appeals. And the limitations period for money had and received is contested.
What the claims are
You did work, supplied materials, or paid money that benefited someone else, and there is no contract that makes them pay for it — but letting them keep it for nothing would be unfair.
Where the rights come from
Equity and common law. Quantum meruit's elements come from Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1990), restated in Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP, 544 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. 2018). Unjust enrichment is described in Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39 (Tex. 1992). Money had and received runs back to Staats v. Miller, 243 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1951).
What a plaintiff has to prove
Quantum meruit — PJC 101.42
- Valuable services were rendered or materials furnished.
- For the person sought to be charged.
- Which were accepted, used and enjoyed by that person.
- Under circumstances that reasonably notified the recipient that the plaintiff expected to be paid.
Vortt, 787 S.W.2d at 944.
Money had and received
The defendant holds money that in equity and good conscience belongs to the plaintiff. That is the whole claim. It does not depend on wrongdoing, a contract, or a relationship — it asks a single question about where the money should end up.
Unjust enrichment
A party is unjustly enriched when it obtains a benefit by fraud, duress, or the taking of undue advantage (Heldenfels, 832 S.W.2d at 41), or passively receives a benefit that would be unconscionable to retain.
How long you have to file
Quantum meruit: four years, under CPRC § 16.004, running from completion of the services.
Money had and received and unjust enrichment: contested. The Texas Supreme Court applied a two-year period to an unjust enrichment claim in Elledge v. Friberg-Cooper Water Supply Corp., 240 S.W.3d 869 (Tex. 2007). Other courts have treated money had and received as an action for debt governed by the four-year period in § 16.004(a)(3) — the El Paso court did so in Amoco Production Co. v. Smith, 946 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no writ).
The safe course is to file within two years and argue for four.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing for the claims themselves. To recover fees on a quantum meruit claim, the presentment requirements in CPRC § 38.002 apply: an attorney, a presented claim, and 30 days.
What the claims pay
Quantum meruit pays the reasonable value of the work performed or materials furnished — not the contract price, because there is no contract, and not the benefit conferred.
Money had and received returns the specific funds.
Unjust enrichment restores the benefit.
Attorney's fees are available for quantum meruit through CPRC § 38.001(b)(1) and (b)(2), which list rendered services and performed labor. They are not available for money had and received or unjust enrichment.
The express contract bar
This is the defense that ends most quasi-contract claims. A party may not recover in quantum meruit where a valid express contract covers the same subject matter. The rule protects the bargain: if the parties set a price, that price governs, and equity does not supply a better one.
The bar is why these claims are pleaded in the alternative under TRCP 47 — the plaintiff says there was a contract and, if there was not, asks for the reasonable value instead. There are narrow exceptions, including a contractor who partially performs and is prevented from finishing, and a claim for work outside the contract's scope.
Is unjust enrichment its own claim?
Texas courts of appeals disagree, and the Texas Supreme Court has not resolved it.
Some courts treat it as an independent cause of action and let it go to a jury on its own. Others hold it is not a claim at all but a theory of recovery — a label for restitution available when some other ground for restitution is proved.
The practical effect is that a petition pleading unjust enrichment alone can be dismissed in one district and survive in another. Pleading money had and received or quantum meruit alongside it avoids the problem.
Common defenses
- The express contract bar.
- Limitations, on whichever period the court applies.
- The voluntary payment rule. Money paid with full knowledge of the facts, without fraud or duress, generally cannot be recovered.
- Unjust enrichment is not an independent claim, in the districts that so hold.
- The plaintiff was a volunteer who did the work as a gift or without expecting payment.
- Change of position by the recipient.
What people get wrong
A signed contract usually ends the claim. If a written agreement covers the work, quantum meruit is unavailable for that work.
Reasonable value is not the contract price. It is what the services were worth, proved with evidence about customary rates and the work done.
Fees come with quantum meruit, not with the others. That distinction alone is often why a plaintiff pleads quantum meruit rather than unjust enrichment.
The limitations answer is contested for money had and received. Treat two years as the operating deadline.
Where it came from
These are the descendants of the old common counts — assumpsit for work and labor done, and for money had and received — which let a plaintiff recover a sum of money without pleading a formal contract. Texas carried them forward when it abolished the forms of action, and they now live as equitable theories rather than pleading forms.
Heldenfels in 1992 gave unjust enrichment its Texas formulation. Vortt in 1990 fixed the quantum meruit elements. The doctrinal disagreement that remains — whether unjust enrichment names a claim or a remedy — is a direct inheritance from that history, because the common counts were never claims in the modern sense at all.
Common questions
How long do I have to file?
Four years for quantum meruit. For money had and received and unjust enrichment the answer is contested between two and four years, so two is the safe assumption.
Can I recover attorney's fees?
Yes for quantum meruit, under the "rendered services" and "performed labor" items in CPRC § 38.001(b). No for unjust enrichment or money had and received.
What if we had a contract?
Then quantum meruit is generally barred for the work the contract covers. Plead breach of contract, with quantum meruit in the alternative.
Is unjust enrichment a real claim in Texas?
It depends on the court of appeals. Some recognise it as independent; others treat it as a theory of recovery only. The Supreme Court has not settled it.
What does quantum meruit pay?
The reasonable value of the services or materials — what the work was worth, not what you hoped to be paid.
Can I get back money I paid by mistake?
Money had and received is the claim for that, subject to the voluntary payment rule where you paid knowing the facts.