Harvey v. Dow
11 A.3d 303
Me.2011Background
- Teresa Harvey sues Jeffrey Dow Sr. and Kathryn Dow over land on the Dow homestead where Teresa built a house.
- Trial court ruled against Teresa on real property claims; promissory estoppel issue was not resolved in her favor.
- Harvey I (2008 ME 192) vacated the judgment and remanded to consider whether the Dows’ actions plus generalized promises created a promissory estoppel.
- On remand, the Superior Court again ruled against Teresa, finding theDows’ conduct too indefinite to enforce a present conveyance.
- This appeal seeks reversal on promissory estoppel; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court revisits the promissory estoppel theory and remedy.
- The Court ultimately vacates the judgment, awards judgment to Teresa on promissory estoppel, and remands for remedy determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dows’ actions plus general promises can support promissory estoppel | Harvey argues present commitment via actions and promises | Dows contend lack of definite promise or timing defeats promissory estoppel | Yes; promissory estoppel supported by present commitment from actions |
| Whether the remedy for promissory estoppel should be specific performance or monetary damages | Teresa seeks specific performance or damages based on reliance | Remedy should reflect reliance or restitution, not speculative | Remanded for remedy determination; guidance provided on possible relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvey v. Dow (Harvey I), 2008 ME 192 (Me. 2008) (vacated judgment; remanded for promissory estoppel analysis)
- Daigle Commercial Grp., Inc. v. St. Laurent, 1999 ME 107 (Me. 1999) (Restatement § 90 promissory estoppel guiding remedy)
- Stone v. Waldoboro Bank, 559 A.2d 781 (Me. 1989) (endorses promissory estoppel doctrine in Maine)
- Down E. Energy Corp. v. RMR, Inc., 1997 ME 148 (Me. 1997) (damages/remedies proper questions for trial court)