How To Prove A Tennessee Equitable Estoppel Claim
In Tennessee, a claim of Equitable Estoppel is defined as:
Equitable estoppel prevents a person from adopting a new position that contradicts a previous position maintained by words, silence, or actions when allowing the new position to be adopted would unfairly harm another person who has relied on the previous position to his or her loss. A plaintiff would need to show that they lacked knowledge of the truth, relied on the defendant’s conduct, and suffered a prejudicial change in position as a result.
It simply means:
A court will not grant a judgment or other legal relief to a party who has not acted fairly.
There are 4 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant engaged in conduct amounting to a false representation or concealment of material facts, or conduct calculated to convey an impression inconsistent with the facts the party later attempted to assert. The defendant acted in a way that misled others by either lying about important facts or hiding the truth, creating a false impression that contradicted what they later tried to claim.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant knowingly provided misleading information about the quality of the product, which influenced the plaintiff’s decision to purchase it.
* The defendant failed to disclose significant defects in the property, despite being aware of them prior to the sale.
* The defendant made statements that implied a warranty of performance, which were later contradicted by the actual results.
* The defendant concealed prior legal disputes related to the property, which would have affected the plaintiff’s willingness to engage in the transaction.
* The defendant represented that the financial statements were accurate, while intentionally omitting critical liabilities that would impact the overall financial picture. - Element 2. The plaintiff lacked knowledge and the means of knowledge regarding the truth of the facts in question. The plaintiff didn’t know the true facts of the situation and had no way to find out, which is important for their claim of equitable estoppel, meaning they relied on someone else’s statements or actions without being able to verify them.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff was not present during the negotiations and therefore did not have firsthand knowledge of the discussions that took place.
* The plaintiff relied on representations made by the defendant, which were misleading and created a false sense of security.
* The plaintiff lacked access to relevant documents that would have clarified the true nature of the agreement.
* The plaintiff had no prior experience in similar transactions, limiting their ability to discern the truth of the facts presented.
* The plaintiff made reasonable inquiries but received incomplete or evasive responses from the defendant, hindering their understanding. - Element 3. The plaintiff relied upon the conduct of the party against whom estoppel was asserted. The plaintiff based their actions or decisions on how the other party behaved, believing that the other party’s conduct would not change, which is a key part of proving an equitable estoppel claim.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff consistently followed the defendant’s guidance regarding the terms of their agreement, believing it to be binding.
* The plaintiff made significant financial investments based on the defendant’s assurances about the project’s viability.
* The plaintiff refrained from pursuing alternative opportunities because of the defendant’s representations and conduct.
* The plaintiff communicated their reliance on the defendant’s statements in multiple correspondences, expressing trust in the defendant’s expertise.
* The plaintiff suffered losses directly attributable to their reliance on the defendant’s misleading conduct and assurances. - Element 4. The plaintiff took action based on that reliance, which changed their position prejudicially. The plaintiff acted on the belief that the other party would keep their promise, and this action negatively affected the plaintiff’s situation or rights.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff invested significant time and resources into a project based on the defendant’s assurances of support.
* The plaintiff declined a lucrative opportunity, believing the defendant would fulfill their promise of partnership.
* The plaintiff incurred expenses for materials and services, relying on the defendant’s commitment to reimburse them.
* The plaintiff made long-term commitments to clients, trusting the defendant’s representations about future collaboration.
* The plaintiff altered their business strategy, believing the defendant’s statements would lead to a favorable outcome.
(See Osborne v. Mountain Life Ins. Co., 130 SW 3d 769 – Tenn: Supreme Court 2004.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Equitable Estoppel, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to effectively present your Claim of Equitable Estoppel.
Prove Your TN Equitable Estoppel Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only