Kiernan v. Creech
268 P.3d 312
Alaska2012Background
- In 2001 Kiernan and Creech agreed to share a towing lot with title in one party’s name and to split all costs evenly.
- They used the lot jointly and paid half of earnest money, down payment, and closing costs, plus half of improvements and ongoing costs.
- The parties disputed whether the oral agreement created co-ownership or a lease/purchase arrangement, and no writing was produced.
- Creech held title to the lot and arranged the bank loan; Kiernan paid substantial costs and provided improvements.
- In 2007 Kiernan learned Creech had taken a second mortgage without informing him, and Kiernan sued.
- The superior court granted Creech summary judgment, ruling the statute of frauds barred oral co-ownership and rejecting exceptions at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promissory estoppel applies to the oral agreement? | Kiernan argues terms may be definite and estoppel applies | Creech argues terms are too ambiguous and estoppel should not apply | Remanded for trial; promissory estoppel may apply if terms are proven clear and convincing. |
| Part performance applies to enforce the oral contract? | Kiernan contends payment, possession, and improvements show performance | Creech contends terms are too indefinite and performance is not clear | Remanded for trial; part performance may apply if terms are sufficiently definite. |
| Whether other contract-based claims should be remanded? | Kiernan seeks breach and related claims | Creech argues no enforceable contract exists | Remanded for further proceedings on contract-based claims. |
| Whether unjust enrichment survives despite statute of frauds? | Kiernan asserts restitution is possible independent of contract | Creech argues no contract = no unjust enrichment | Remanded; unjust enrichment claim permissible and to be tried. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valdez Fisheries Dev. Ass'n v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 45 P.3d 657 (Alaska 2002) (real estate contracts; caution on ambiguous terms and promissory estoppel expansion criticized)
- Mitchell v. Land, 355 P.2d 682 (Alaska 1960) (part performance and specific enforcement standards for oral land contracts)
- Jackson v. White, 556 P.2d 530 (Alaska 1976) (part performance principles in Alaska)
- Prokopis v. Prokopis, 519 P.2d 814 (Alaska 1974) (considerations on oral agreements and part performance)