estoppel

[Andyorch]

Promises dont wash well in courts of law...only facts/ written contracts and agreements by documentation.

[tiger7861]

Promises dont wash well in courts of law...only facts/ written contracts and agreements by documentation.

but this promissery estoppel is an argument is it not? meaning she can argue her case if she succeeds then she wins?

[steampowered]

To avoid confusion, remember that promisorry estoppel is different to proprietary estoppel. This is a proprietary estoppel case and promissory estoppel is not relevant. There is information here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel.

[tiger7861]

To avoid confusion, remember that promisorry estoppel is different to proprietary estoppel. This is a proprietary estoppel case and promissory estoppel is not relevant. There is information here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel.

but this propietry estoppel is an argument is it not? meaning she can argue her case if she succeeds then she wins?

[Andyorch]

Also here :- http://www.sleeblackwell.co.uk/blogs/modern-law-proprietary-estoppel.html

[tiger7861]

Also here :- http://www.sleeblackwell.co.uk/blogs/modern-law-proprietary-estoppel.html

thnxs so is hard to prove this estoppel proprietry stuff she lived there rent free what detriment has she suffered

[steampowered]

Proprietary estoppel is one of those things that is a point of interest on Land Law courses at university, but not common in practice.

 

I think it would be very, very difficult for her to prove the existence of a promise to gift the house in a case like this. You would still need to defend the case properly and take it seriously.

[tiger7861]

Proprietary estoppel is one of those things that is a point of interest on Land Law courses at university, but not common in practice.

 

I think it would be very, very difficult for her to prove the existence of a promise to gift the house in a case like this. You would still need to defend the case properly and take it seriously.

Her sister has become a witness saying she can confirm a promise was made her sisters name is alos on the eviction notice as she currently lives there

[steampowered]

It doesn't really matter what she confirms, cases are not judged by a popularity contest. It will matter what is in the detail of her witness statement. Unless she actually overheard the promise (or claims to have done so) I would think the value of the sister's evidence is limited.

[tiger7861]

It doesn't really matter what she confirms, cases are not judged by a popularity contest. It will matter what is in the detail of her witness statement. Unless she actually overheard the promise (or claims to have done so) I would think the value of the sister's evidence is limited.

 

She was living with us for two years and claims that she heard this many time "the house is yours"

my ex is 1000% sure she has 2 kids the courts will not ask her to move at worst she is hope to live there rent free untill kids r 18 at best to get a stake in the house

[steampowered]

Then you will have to contest her evidence in court, on the basis of the detailed witness statement which she will need to produce. If she is making it up I can't imagine a skilled solicitor or barrister would have any problem ruining her credibility on the witness stand. I can't imagine her statement would be given much weight given the conflict of interest.

 

As mentioned earlier, for a case like this I would be using a solicitor. If proceedings have been issued you should be able to claim your legal costs if successful or if the case is withdrawn.

[tiger7861]

Then you will have to contest her evidence in court, on the basis of the detailed witness statement which she will need to produce. If she is making it up I can't imagine a skilled solicitor or barrister would have any problem ruining her credibility on the witness stand. I can't imagine her statement would be given much weight given the conflict of interest.

 

As mentioned earlier, for a case like this I would be using a solicitor. If proceedings have been issued you should be able to claim your legal costs if successful or if the case is withdrawn.

Do u think ive got much to worry abt

she has bank statemnts reciepts showing how much she spent on the house of there own accord she is claiming to her detriment she spent this money

Edited October 15, 2013 by tiger7861

[steampowered]

Do u think ive got much to worry abt

she has bank statemnts reciepts showing how much she spent on the house of there own accord

 

Its very hard to say to be honest. It would depend whether she can convince a judge that you made the promise. I wouldn't like to comment on the likelihood of this without seeing the evidence that would be presented in court (i.e. the detailed witness statements). The judge will take a view as to how reliable your daughter in law is as a witness based on the quality of her witness statement and how she stands up to cross-examination.

 

My instinct is that her claim sounds weak, but perhaps at least arguable.

[tiger7861]

If its arguable is it possible to convince judge it says estoppel only offers min relief meaning?

[tiger7861]

Its very hard to say to be honest. It would depend whether she can convince a judge that you made the promise. I wouldn't like to comment on the likelihood of this without seeing the evidence that would be presented in court (i.e. the detailed witness statements). The judge will take a view as to how reliable your daughter in law is as a witness based on the quality of her witness statement and how she stands up to cross-examination.

 

My instinct is that her claim sounds weak, but perhaps at least arguable.

Everything.is argueable in court she may be working on the basis may be the judge may believe her side

Edited October 15, 2013 by tiger7861

[steampowered]

I don't understand what you mean by 'min relief meaning'.

 

In order for the daughter in law to have a claim, she would have to convince the judge that you promised her that she could have the house. I think she will struggle to do this without some sort of written evidence and without establishing some sort of reason for you to make the promise. That is why I think her claim sounds weak. However, the claim it is not legally impossible so I would not want to reach a firm view on CAG because I have not had the opportunity to read the court documents or the evidence she plans to produce in court.

 

She may well be working on the basis that the judge believes her, although she might struggle with this. She may also be hoping that you offer her a sum of money to go away. Is she represented by solicitors?

 

It is very important to make sure that you comply with all the deadlines and court orders. I would advise using a solicitor for this, especially as you can most likely recover your costs from her if she loses the case (as this is not likely to be in small claims track).

[tiger7861]

I don't understand what you mean by 'min relief meaning'.

 

In order for the daughter in law to have a claim, she would have to convince the judge that you promised her that she could have the house. I think she will struggle to do this without some sort of written evidence and without establishing some sort of reason for you to make the promise. That is why I think her claim sounds weak. However, the claim it is not legally impossible so I would not want to reach a firm view on CAG because I have not had the opportunity to read the court documents or the evidence she plans to produce in court.

 

She may well be working on the basis that the judge believes her, although she might struggle with this. She may also be hoping that you offer her a sum of money to go away. Is she represented by solicitors?

 

It is very important to make sure that you comply with all the deadlines and court orders. I would advise using a solicitor for this, especially as you can most likely recover your costs from her if she loses the case (as this is not likely to be in small claims track).

Thank you for reply its in the multi track claim process yes she does have a solicitor i have one also standard disclosure has been done she has confirmed to us via a solicitor she has nothing in writing her case is relying on detriment why did she meaning us spend money on the house when we new it was not ours her solicitors are saying (claiming) the deeds where in my name but the actual owners where my son and her as i had gifted them the house so when i sent her an eviction notice this propriety estoppel came out "it says you are e stopped from claiming your house as it has been gifted".

[steampowered]

Fair enough. Good luck with the case. No guarantees but I can't imagine she has much chance of being successful without anything in writing, if you never gave the promise and give evidence to that effect. I guess you should also be calling your son as a witness for him to confirm a promise was never made.

[tiger7861]

Fair enough. Good luck with the case. No guarantees but I can't imagine she has much chance of being successful without anything in writing, if you never gave the promise and give evidence to that effect. I guess you should also be calling your son as a witness for him to confirm a promise was never made.

yes he has given a statement to that affect i was reading about estoppel this is my understanding.

propriety estoppel will always grant the minimum relief necessary to reverse the detriment suffered.

what is your understanding of the above sentence.

[The Mould]

Look tiger

 

The daughter-in-law will need to established that you promised her the house or at least a share in it, if she undertook the improvements carried out over a ten year period.

 

You said at the opening of yoiur post here, that you promised son and daughter-in-law can live in the property while their names were on the housing list and that you would not and did not charge them any rent for this period.

 

If daughter-in-law has undertaken numerous cosmetic improvements over this said period of time, with or without you consent to do so, then she and her intended witness will need to prove to the Court that you promised her the house in exchange for the same or that you promised her 50% share in house in exchange for same or that you promised to reimburse her in full for these improvement costs.

 

Further, the burden of proof is upon her, she needs to produce credible evidence that you gifted her the house as alleged.

 

Of course her witness is going to support her case with her contentions that she heard you promise the house.

 

According to your original posting here, there is no case made out for propriety esttoppel and no detriment has been suffered by daughter-in-law in reliance of the said promise.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[The Mould]

Yes, also as pointed out by Steampowered, you ought to call and rely upon your witness as regards the promise that you did give to them both.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[The Mould]

Your son is your witness is what I meant to say.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[Andyorch]

May be of interest to you:-

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_v_Rice

 

http://www.newsquarechambers.co.uk/files/Publications/Deal%20or%20No%20Deal%20TELTJ145%20(Chris%20Lloyd)%20April%202013.pdf

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kTioB1row2UC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=estoppel+will+always+grant+the+minimum+relief+necessary+to+reverse+the+detriment+suffered&source=bl&ots=1afqtHfe75&sig=rrP7su9W3vNd9cyzKiI89vxnF9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oFZdUvTyBoKx0QWKkYC4Dg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA

[steampowered]

yes he has given a statement to that affect i was reading about estoppel this is my understanding.

propriety estoppel will always grant the minimum relief necessary to reverse the detriment suffered.

what is your understanding of the above sentence.

 

I think the sentence is clear, but I'm not sure if its still good law. To be honest I haven't really looked at proprietary estoppel since university, several years ago now, but my understanding is that there is a split in the case law between cases where remedy was awarded according to detriment (i.e. spending on the house) and cases where remedy was awarded according to the promise (i.e. the alleged promise to gift the whole house). This issue is discussed in the .PDF posted by andyorch which is very helpful.

[tiger7861]

Look tiger

 

The daughter-in-law will need to established that you promised her the house or at least a share in it, if she undertook the improvements carried out over a ten year period.

 

You said at the opening of yoiur post here, that you promised son and daughter-in-law can live in the property while their names were on the housing list and that you would not and did not charge them any rent for this period.

 

If daughter-in-law has undertaken numerous cosmetic improvements over this said period of time, with or without you consent to do so, then she and her intended witness will need to prove to the Court that you promised her the house in exchange for the same or that you promised her 50% share in house in exchange for same or that you promised to reimburse her in full for these improvement costs.

 

Further, the burden of proof is upon her, she needs to produce credible evidence that you gifted her the house as alleged.

 

Of course her witness is going to support her case with her contentions that she heard you promise the house.

 

According to your original posting here, there is no case made out for propriety esttoppel and no detriment has been suffered by daughter-in-law in reliance of the said promise.

 

Kind regards

there is a case for prop estoppel and she has claimed she has suffered detriment but reading law of waiver chapter 11 same eg is there as in my case living there rent free any detriment she has suffered has already been payed back by rent free accommodation.