Goldstick v. Icm Realt

788 F.2d 456 (7th Cir. 1986)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

ICM (D) purchased an apartment building, leased the land, and sold the improvements. D's venture was not going well because the original lease failed. Real estate taxes were due just about the time that D released the land. Goldstick (P) was engaged by D to reduce the taxes on the property. P reduced them by $870,000. D refused to pay P's legal bill of $290,000. D obtained a buyer for the building, but that transaction was contingent on P's release from the legal bill. Several payment plans were offered to P to satisfy the legal bill. All those plans were disapproved because they involved payments over time or payments on contingency of profitability. Kusmursky (D1), the owner of improvements on the land, then assured P that the problem would be worked out if P would release his claim. P released his claim, but no agreement was reached to satisfy the bill. P was never paid. P sued, claiming that he detrimentally relied on D's promise. The court granted a summary judgment for D and P appealed; the trial court held that the promise on which P relied was too ambiguous to invoke promissory estoppel.