Curtis F. Symons v. Wayne R. Heaton and Timothy S. Tarver, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Gary L. Plachek, 316 P.3d 1171

After Gary Plachek died intestate with an estate around $300,000, Symons claimed $259,200 for care provided over nine years.
Symons moved in with Plachek in 2001 and cared for him, while continuing his own employment; no rent was paid.
Administrators denied Symons’ claim on August 9, 2010; Symons sued the co-administrators alleging implied-in-fact contract and implied-in-law theories (promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment).
The district court granted summary judgment for the estate on all claims; Symons appealed.
The court reviews summary-judgment standards de novo and applies the ordinary evidentiary burden for opposing parties.
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding no genuine issues of material fact and that Symons’ claims failed as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an implied-in-fact contract existed	Symons asserts mutual intent to compensate via implied contract.	Estate contends no bargained-for exchange or intent existed.	No implied-in-fact contract existed.
Whether an implied-in-law contract (promissory estoppel/unjust enrichment) exists	Symons relies on promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment due to care provided.	Estate argues no clear promise and unjust enrichment not justified.	No promissory estoppel or unjust enrichment; no implied-in-law contract.

Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 75 P.3d 640 (Wy. 2003) (implied-in-fact contract framework and elements)
McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., 820 P.2d 986 (Wy. 1991) (Restatement guidance for implied contracts)
Givens v. Fowler, 984 P.2d 1092 (Wy. 1999) (outward manifestations of assent standard)
Worley v. Wyoming Bottling Co., Inc., 1 P.3d 615 (Wy. 2000) (formation of implied contracts via conduct)
Garcia v. UniWyo Federal Credit Union, 920 P.2d 642 (Wy. 1996) (interpretation of implied contracts; law vs fact distinction)
Redland v. Redland, 288 P.3d 1173 (Wy. 2012) (promissory estoppel elements and deficiency of promise)
Jacoby v. Jacoby, 100 P.3d 852 (Wy. 2004) (unjust enrichment elements and equitable recovery)
Landeis v. Nelson, 808 P.2d 216 (Wy. 1991) (unjust enrichment recovery principles)
Amoco Prod. Co. v. EM Nominee Pshp. Co., 2 P.3d 534 (Wy. 2000) (Restatement-based guidance on implied-contract theories)