Erickson v. Brown, 813 N.W.2d 531

Dregseth sued Brown and related entities for equitable remedies, promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, and unjust enrichment over an alleged ownership interest in Capital Harvest.
Dregseth previously worked for Brown from 1999 to 2003, and later joined a dispute over compensation and ownership promised by Brown.
Prior proceedings dismissed many claims; a bench trial in June 2010 addressed promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, and unjust enrichment against Brown.
District court issued a memorandum decision in January 2011, dismissing the remaining claims; judgments entered March and July 2011; appeal timely filed.
On appeal, Dregseth challenges the sufficiency of findings under Rule 52(a)(1) and Brown’s creditability, and argues the district court erred in dismissing equitable and unjust enrichment theories.
This Court affirms, upholding the district court’s Rule 52(a)(1) findings, its treatment of Brown’s testimony, and the dismissal of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, and unjust enrichment claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the Rule 52(a)(1) findings adequate?	Dregseth argues findings are unclear and insufficient.	Brown contends findings are sufficient to review on appeal.	Findings adequate under Rule 52(a)(1).
Must Brown’s perjury be rejected totally when relied upon partly?	Brown committed perjury; his entire testimony should be rejected.	Credibility evaluated by the court; other evidence supports remaining findings.	Partial reliance allowed; not grounds to reverse all rulings.
Did the district court err in promissory estoppel by finding an unambiguous promise?	Brown promised an 8% ownership; enforceable under promissory estoppel.	Promise lacked completeness and essential terms; not enforceable.	First element not met; no enforceable promissory estoppel.
Did equitable estoppel create a valid enforceable claim here?	Equitable estoppel could create enforceable rights to an ownership interest.	Equitable estoppel cannot create rights; it only defends against misstatements.	Equitable estoppel does not create a cause of action; properly dismissed.
Was unjust enrichment proven?	Dregseth's contributions increased value and Brown benefited unjustly.	No proven link between enrichment and lack of compensation; lack of justification.	District court did not err in finding no unjust enrichment.

Erickson v. Brown, 747 N.W.2d 34 (N.D. 2008) (remanded for further proceedings on deceit and equitable claims; discussion of promises)
City of Fargo v. Salsman, 760 N.W.2d 123 (N.D. 2009) (Findings of fact adequate if they illuminate factual basis)
Urlaub v. Urlaub, 325 N.W.2d 234 (N.D. 1982) (trial judge credibility determinations; judge as trier of facts)
Lohse v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 389 N.W.2d 352 (N.D. 1986) (estoppel requires clear, definite terms to be enforceable)
Peterson Mechanical, Inc. v. Nereson, 466 N.W.2d 568 (N.D. 1991) (estoppel generally a question of fact; credibility and reliance considerations)
Cavalier County Memorial Hosp. Ass’n v. Kartes, 343 N.W.2d 781 (N.D. 1984) (elements of unjust enrichment and restitution principles)
Zuger v. N.D. Ins. Guar. Ass’n., 494 N.W.2d 135 (N.D. 1992) (unjust enrichment five element test)
State v. Bauer, 783 N.W.2d 21 (N.D. 2010) (caution about overreliance on pattern jury instructions)