872 N.W.2d 323
N.D.2015Background
- In 2004 Robert and Cheri Knorr built a Lake Audubon home intended as their retirement residence; Cheri had Parkinson’s disease.
- After financial strain the Knorrs sought family help; their daughter Alyssa and her husband bought an Arizona home from the Knorrs under a lease-with-option-to-repurchase arrangement.
- In late 2010 the Knorrs and their daughter Alonna and son-in-law Jon Norberg agreed similarly: the Norbergs would purchase the lake home and lease it back to the Knorrs with an option for the Knorrs to repurchase. A lease with an option was signed by the Knorrs and sent to the Norbergs; Alonna said she signed and witnessed Jon sign, but the Norbergs’ signed copy was never located.
- After transfer, the Knorrs continued living in the home and paid the mortgage, taxes, utilities, insurance, and other expenses; in December 2011 the Knorrs attempted to exercise the option but Jon Norberg refused to recognize it.
- On initial trial the district court enforced an oral option via partial performance; this court reversed and remanded to consider promissory estoppel and constructive trust. On remand the district court found promissory estoppel and entered judgment recognizing the Knorrs’ repurchase option; this appeal challenges those findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether promissory estoppel removes the oral buy-back agreement from the statute of frauds | Knorrs: Norbergs promised an option to repurchase; Knorrs relied, transferred title, and continued paying all expenses—enforcement necessary to avoid injustice | Norberg: No clear promise or signed agreement; no enforceable option existed | Affirmed: District court’s factual findings satisfied promissory estoppel elements and are not clearly erroneous; promise was clear, Knorrs changed position, reliance was justifiable, and injustice would result absent enforcement |
| Whether a constructive trust must be resolved | Knorrs asserted alternative claim for a constructive trust to remedy unjust retention of title | Norberg opposed equitable remedy, arguing lack of enforceable agreement and no inequity warranting trust | Not decided: Court found it unnecessary to resolve constructive trust because promissory estoppel disposition was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooke v. Blood Systems, Inc., 320 N.W.2d 124 (N.D. 1982) (promissory estoppel can bar statute of frauds defense for oral agreements)
- O’Connell v. Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., 317 N.W.2d 385 (N.D. 1982) (definition and application of detrimental reliance)
- Erickson v. Brown, 813 N.W.2d 531 (N.D. 2012) (elements of promissory estoppel articulated)
- Lohse v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 389 N.W.2d 352 (N.D. 1986) (promise must be clear, definite, and unambiguous)
- Syversen v. Hess, 665 N.W.2d 23 (N.D. 2003) (bench-trial factual findings reviewed for clear error)