An ex-husband sought to obtain half of the money paid to his ex-wife as a result of an arbitration she won against her former counsel for legal malpractice. The Ffith Court acknowledged the longstanding but seldom-applied cases about the cause of action for “money had and received,” and held:

“David essentially argues that appellees should have paid a portion of what they were court ordered to pay Jennifer to him instead. Had appellees done so, they would have done so in defiance of the trial court’s judgment. David cannot claim that half of the $111,272 belonged to him in equity and good conscience when appellees handled the money in accordance with a court order. Although David argues that appellees’ payment to Jennifer does not insulate appellees from liability to him, the money-had-and received cases he relies on are distinguishable as they involve money mistakenly given to the wrong recipient.“

Barnes v. Kinser, No. 22-30653 (Aug. 17, 2023) (mem. op.).