How To Prove A Tennessee Equitable Estoppel Defense

 

 

In Tennessee, a defense 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. The defendant is claiming that the plaintiff’s prior conduct prevents the plaintiff from asserting a particular claim or position.

It simply means:

A court will not grant a judgment or other legal relief to a party who has not acted fairly.

There are 3 elements of the defense:

• Element 1. The plaintiff 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 plaintiff acted in a way that misled others by either lying about important facts or hiding them, creating a false impression that contradicted the truth they later tried to claim.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff knowingly provided misleading information about the condition of the property, which influenced the defendant’s decision to enter into the contract.
  * The plaintiff failed to disclose significant defects in the property, despite being aware of their existence prior to the sale.
  * The plaintiff made affirmative statements about the property’s value that were later proven to be exaggerated and unfounded.
  * The plaintiff concealed prior legal disputes related to the property, which would have affected the defendant’s willingness to proceed with the transaction.
  * The plaintiff’s actions created a false impression of the property’s marketability, leading the defendant to rely on those misrepresentations.

• Element 2. The plaintiff acted with intention, or at least expectation, that the conduct would be acted upon by the other party. The plaintiff must have intended or reasonably expected that their actions or statements would lead the other party to rely on them, influencing the other party’s decisions or behavior.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff explicitly communicated their expectations regarding the conduct in question, indicating a clear intention for the other party to act accordingly.
  * The plaintiff provided detailed instructions to the other party, demonstrating an expectation that those instructions would be followed.
  * The plaintiff engaged in repeated discussions about the conduct, reinforcing their intention for the other party to rely on their representations.
  * The plaintiff knowingly created a situation where the other party would reasonably believe that their actions were warranted based on the plaintiff’s conduct.
  * The plaintiff’s prior behavior established a pattern of reliance, suggesting they anticipated the other party would act in accordance with their expectations.

• Element 3. The plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the real facts. The plaintiff knew or should have known the true situation or facts involved in the case, which is important for the defense of equitable estoppel, as it suggests they cannot claim ignorance to avoid the consequences of their actions.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff was present during discussions where the relevant facts were disclosed, indicating actual knowledge of the circumstances.
  * The plaintiff received written communications detailing the facts, which they did not contest, demonstrating constructive knowledge.
  * The plaintiff had access to public records that contained the pertinent information, suggesting they should have been aware of the facts.
  * The plaintiff previously acknowledged the facts in a separate legal proceeding, establishing their actual knowledge.
  * The plaintiff failed to investigate the situation despite having a reasonable opportunity to do so, indicating constructive knowledge.

^{(See Osborne v. Mountain Life Ins. Co., 130 SW 3d 769 – Tenn: Supreme Court 2004.)}
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Defense 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 Defense of Equitable Estoppel.

Prove Your TN Equitable Estoppel Defense

U.S. Civil Cases Only