Chapter 16-12 Estoppel

• Jurisdiction: United States

16-12 Estoppel

The defense of estoppel is composed of several different forms of estoppel. Each form of estoppel is an equitable defense which attempts to prevent unfairness because the opposing party has taken an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct. Additionally, a party asserting estoppel must not have "unclean hands."⁹⁹

16-12:1 Elements—Equitable Estoppel

(1) A false representation or concealment of material facts;¹⁰⁰

(2) Made with knowledge, actual or constructive, of those facts;¹⁰¹

(3) With the intention that it should be acted on;¹⁰²

(4) To a party without knowledge, or the means of knowledge of those facts;¹⁰³

(5) Who detrimentally relied upon the misrepresentation.¹⁰⁴

16-12:2 Elements—Promissory Estoppel

(1) The defendant promises to sign a writing that would satisfy the statute of frauds;¹⁰⁵

(2) The defendant should have expected that his promise would lead the plaintiff to experience a definite and substantial injury;¹⁰⁶

(3) Such an injury occurred;¹⁰⁷ and

(4) The court must enforce the promise to avoid injustice.¹⁰⁸

16-12:3 Elements—Judicial Estoppel

(1) A litigant successfully maintains one position in a judicial proceeding;¹⁰⁹ and
(2) Attempts to maintain a clearly inconsistent position in another proceeding to obtain an unfair advantage.¹¹⁰

Judicial estoppel is not applicable if the inconsistent statements were made either under duress, by mistake, or inadvertently.¹¹¹

The Texas Supreme Court has created the "acceptance of benefits doctrine" based on the principle of estoppel. This doctrine applies when a party accepts the benefits of a judgment while simultaneously complaining about the judgment on appeal. The Texas Supreme Court has applied the doctrine only twice in two divorce cases. In 1950, the court concluded that a husband could not prosecute an appeal of a divorce decree after having already accepted $7,700 that had been awarded to him under the judgment he appealed.¹¹² The Court's second application of the doctrine came in 2017 when the court narrowed the doctrine as it applies to appeals of divorce decrees, saying "merely using, holding, controlling, or securing possession of community property awarded in a divorce decree does not constitute clear intent to acquiesce in the judgment and will not preclude an appeal absent prejudice to the nonappealing party."¹¹³ The court also discussed its narrowing of the related voluntary payment rule—a doctrine that may prevent a judgment debtor from appealing a judgment he...