Otten v. Otten
632 S.W.2d 45, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 2800 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To enforce a promise based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the promisee's detrimental reliance on the promise must have been reasonably foreseeable to the promisor at the time the promise was made.
Facts:
- A 1976 divorce decree ordered a husband to pay his wife $200 per month for the support of their two minor children.
- The husband subsequently fell behind on payments, accruing an undisputed debt of $7,800 in unpaid child support.
- On January 14, 1981, the wife initiated garnishment proceedings against the husband's bank account at Third National Bank to collect the $7,800.
- The husband alleged that on January 26, 1981, the wife orally agreed to a settlement, offering to accept $1,000 in cash and a $3,500 note to satisfy the entire $7,800 debt and to reduce future child support.
- The husband claimed that in reliance on this alleged settlement agreement, he borrowed a substantial sum of money for his business obligations.
- The husband then deposited these borrowed funds into his business account at Third National Bank, the same account subject to the wife's pre-existing garnishment order.
Procedural Posture:
- The husband filed a petition in the trial court seeking specific performance of an alleged oral settlement agreement with his ex-wife.
- The wife filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the wife's motion to dismiss, ruling that the petition failed to show an accord and satisfaction or any valid consideration for the agreement.
- The husband (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, where the wife was the respondent.
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 promisee's detrimental reliance constitute valid consideration under the doctrine of promissory estoppel when the promisor could not have reasonably foreseen the specific actions taken in reliance on the promise?
Opinions:
Majority - Wasserstrom, J.
No. A promisee's detrimental reliance does not create an enforceable contract under the doctrine of promissory estoppel unless the specific action taken in reliance was reasonably foreseeable to the promisor. The court first analyzed traditional consideration, finding none existed. The husband's promise to pay $4,500 was merely a partial payment of a larger, undisputed debt of $7,800, which is not valid consideration under the pre-existing duty rule. Furthermore, the agreement to reduce future child support is invalid, as parents cannot contractually modify a court-ordered support obligation. The court then turned to the husband's argument for promissory estoppel, which can substitute for consideration if a promise induces detrimental reliance. However, a crucial element of promissory estoppel is that the promisor must have reasonably foreseen the promisee's reliance. Here, the wife's alleged promise to settle a child support debt would not lead a reasonable person to expect that the husband would then borrow money for his unrelated business and deposit it into the very bank account that was already subject to her garnishment. Because this specific act of reliance was not foreseeable, the requirements for promissory estoppel are not met, and the alleged agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration.
Analysis:
This case clarifies a key limitation on the doctrine of promissory estoppel in Missouri by emphasizing the requirement of foreseeability. The holding prevents the doctrine from being applied too broadly, ensuring that a promisor is only bound by reliance that they could have reasonably anticipated. It reinforces the principle that the connection between the promise and the detrimental reliance must be direct and predictable, not remote or unusual. This decision serves as a guidepost for future contract cases, distinguishing between foreseeable reliance that can make a promise enforceable and unforeseeable actions that cannot.
