Harvey v. Dow

962 A.2d 322 (2008)

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

Ds are the parents of P. Ds own 125 acres of land. Ds, their daughter, P, and their son, Jr. each had homes on the property. Ds saw the land as their children's heritage that would be left to them or given to them when they were older. D testified that when the children were teenagers, he believed that his wife had promised them some land in the future, and the subject of the children living on the homestead was commonly discussed within the family. D expressed an intention to enter into an agreement to convey property sometime in the future,' and 'Kathryn had made it clear that eventually, both P and Jr. would end up with all or part of the two parcels.' Ps installed a mobile home on the land with permission. Ps did not pay rent and did not ask Ds for a deed. Ps built a garage with permission. Ps decided to build a house on the lot where their mobile home then stood. Ds agreed to use their home equity line of credit to initially finance the house. P testified that part of the plan for repaying Ds included having them convey the building site to her by deed once the house was completed. D denied any discussion of a deed at that time. P's husband died in a motorcycle accident. Following his death, P decided to finance the house with life insurance proceeds rather than use D's home equity line. It cost P about $200,000 to build the house. D did a substantial amount of the construction himself, including much of the foundation work, and the carpentry, and helped to get underground electrical lines installed. P lent $25,000 to her brother, Jr. Around the time the house was completed, the relationship between P, D, and brother began to deteriorate over when and how the $25,000 loan was to be repaid, and over the D's dissatisfaction with P's partner, who lived with her. P sued Jr. for the money, and Ds filed a grandparents' rights action to see P's children. P asked for a deed, and it became clear that Ds were not going to execute one. At the time of trial, P was paying the taxes on the house itself, but she was not paying the property taxes or any rent. P sued seeking a judgment compelling Ds to convey unspecified real property to her, or for damages on her claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. Ds counterclaimed, seeking a judgment declaring that P had no rights in their property. The court ruled for Ds but failed to address whether D was entitled to a judgment on a theory of promissory estoppel. The court eventually rejected promissory estoppel, finding that 'Ds' statements were not promises that could be enforced even if they were the subject of detrimental reliance,' and concluding that 'Ps have not established that P received an offer or promise that can be enforced in this action.' P appealed.