Stepp v. Freeman

694 N.E.2d 792 (1997)

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

P and D were members of a group of Chrysler employees who jointly purchased lottery tickets and had been a group for over 5 years. D had taken over running the group for the last two years. There were no written rules, but rules of conduct prevailed. The group was restricted to twenty members, D kept that list. The members pooled their lottery monies whenever a jackpot reached $8 million or more. Each member was to contribute $2.20 to the pool. D kept track of who paid or had not yet paid. The group purchased 40 tickets and 4 kickers. The group purchased in two different locations to increase their chances of winning. P was in charge of making copies for all the members. D had to occasionally remind the members that their monies were due. Members were kind enough to cover other members’ shares if, for some reason, they missed seeing D. Many would pay in advance before they left for vacations and such. None of the members had failed to participate while D ran the pool. There was a waiting list for new members. No members were removed from the list unless they spoke to D first. P and D had a work-related dispute. P and D did not speak to each other, and the jackpot reached $8 million, and on that Monday, D collected the dues but D did not collect from P nor did he inform P and P claims he was not aware that the jackpot was in the zone or offer his $2.20. D gave Krueger the monies to buy his 20 tickets and did not inform him that P was not in the pool. D did tell others that P was out. D did not consult anyone on the waiting list. D only purchased 19 tickets. D asked another to make copies of the tickets telling him that P has not come around. The group won the lottery. It was won from the 20 tickets purchased by Krueger. P learned of the good news but that he was not included, but the group had let one of its members pay his $2.20 share after the ticket was won. P sued for his share. P claimed breach of an express contract, an implied contract, and equitable estoppel. A magistrate ruled in favor of P on equitable estoppel and breach of contract. The trial court reviewed objections by D and rendered for P. D appealed on four grounds: equitable estoppel is an affirmative defense and not a separate cause of action for the recovery of monies, equitable estoppel claims require proof of actual or constructive fraud and the trial court had granted summary judgment for D on P’s fraud claim, the holdings were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and P has not proven all of the essential contract elements and thus cannot recover under implied contract theories.