321 P.3d 780
Kan. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bouton sues father Byers for promissory estoppel to recover land valued over $1M she allegedly would inherit.
- Promised land was to be bequeathed to Bouton to induce resignation from Washburn Law School.
- Bouton left tenure-track position in 2005 and helped manage the ranch; Byers later sold land.
- Byers denied making the March 2005 promise and argued employment contracts and other actions.
- A prior related suit by Bouton against Byers settled in 2010; the current action filed December 8, 2011.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Byers; Bouton appeals seeking restitution for reliance on the promise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promissory estoppel elements satisfied? | Bouton relied on a definite promise. | No enforceable promise; indefiniteness. | No summary judgment; issues of material fact remain. |
| Reasonableness of reliance? | Reliance was reasonable given familial context. | Reliance unreasonable given lack of written terms. | Reasonableness is a fact question; dispute survives. |
| Statute of limitations applicable? | 3-year period governs promissory estoppel. | Should be 2-year fraud period. | 3-year period applies; limitations defense fails. |
| Statute of Frauds bar? | Policy favors equity; promissory estoppel may bypass writing. | S/F bars transfer of real property. | S/F does not bar restitutionary promissory estoppel here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohr v. State Bank of Stanley, 244 Kan. 555 (Kan. 1989) (promissory estoppel elements include reliance and injustice)
- Walker v. Ireton, 221 Kan. 314 (Kan. 1977) (reliance and equity-based relief considerations)
- Byers v. Snyder, 237 P.3d 1258 (Kan. App. 2010) (restatement-like promissory estoppel formulation; reliance required)
- Fahey v. Decatur County Feed Yard, 974 P.2d 569 (Kan. 1999) (distinguishable contract/estoppel context; parol evidence not dispositive)