Bouton v. Byers
50 Kan. App. 2d 34, 321 P.3d 780 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for promissory estoppel seeking a restitutionary remedy for financial detriment (such as lost wages) is not barred by the statute of frauds, even if the underlying oral promise involved a transfer of land. The reasonableness of reliance on such a promise is a question of fact for a jury and is not precluded as a matter of law simply because the promisee has legal training or because subsequent employment contracts do not mention the promise.
Facts:
- In 2003, Walter Byers, a ranch owner, asked his daughter, Ellen Byers Bouton, a law professor, to help with his business after discovering her brother had mismanaged it.
- Bouton began assisting her father with the ranch's financial and legal issues while still teaching full-time.
- In late 2003, Byers showed Bouton a revised will and trust that left the ranch operations to her, stating he wanted her to carry on the business.
- In March 2005, during a meeting where Bouton expressed concern about leaving her well-paying law school job, Byers allegedly promised to bequeath her land worth more than a million dollars, telling her not to worry about money.
- Relying on this promise, Bouton resigned from her tenure-track position at Washburn University School of Law after the spring 2005 semester.
- Bouton moved to the family ranch and, starting in 2006, worked under a series of hourly employment contracts that provided for rent-free housing but did not mention the inheritance promise.
- In December 2008, following an argument, Byers terminated Bouton's employment at the ranch.
- Years later, Byers sold the family ranch for $1.2 million and executed a new trust that disinherited Bouton entirely.
Procedural Posture:
- Ellen Byers Bouton filed a lawsuit against her father, Walter Byers, in Pottawatomie County District Court, seeking damages on a promissory estoppel theory.
- Byers answered, denying liability, and filed a counterclaim.
- After discovery, Byers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred on several grounds.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Byers, finding that as a matter of law, there was no definite promise and Bouton's reliance was not reasonable.
- Bouton, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas.
- Byers, as the appellee, cross-appealed, presenting alternative legal arguments he contended entitled him to summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a claim for promissory estoppel fail as a matter of law when an adult child, in reliance on her parent's oral promise to bequeath land, resigns from a lucrative professional position, thereby incurring substantial financial detriment?
Opinions:
Majority - Atcheson, J.
No. A promissory estoppel claim based on an oral promise to bequeath land does not fail as a matter of law, particularly when the plaintiff seeks restitution for financial losses rather than specific performance of the promise. The court reasoned that the reasonableness of Bouton's reliance on her father's promise is a quintessential question of fact for a jury to decide, not a matter of law for a judge to determine on summary judgment. Bouton's legal education does not automatically render her reliance unreasonable, especially within a familial context. The court also held that subsequent written employment contracts did not necessarily supersede the earlier oral promise, as the promise was made and relied upon (by Bouton's resignation) well before those contracts were formed. Finally, the court determined that while the statute of frauds may bar specific performance (the actual transfer of land), it does not prevent a restitutionary remedy designed to compensate Bouton for the financial detriment she suffered, as doing so would allow the statute to be used as a shield for injustice.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the role of promissory estoppel as an equitable remedy to prevent injustice, particularly in intra-familial disputes where formal contracts are uncommon. It clarifies that the reasonableness of reliance is a highly fact-specific inquiry that should typically be resolved by a jury, not dismissed on summary judgment. The court's most significant holding is its distinction between a remedy for specific performance versus one for restitution. By holding that the statute of frauds does not bar a restitutionary claim for lost wages, the decision provides a viable path for plaintiffs who suffer financial harm by relying on oral promises involving real estate, thereby limiting the statute of frauds' power to shield promisors from liability for the detrimental reliance they induce.
