estoppel based on prior publicly filed documents new york

#Estoppel based on prior publicly filed documents new york free

#Estoppel based on prior publicly filed documents new york free

His understanding was that the petitioners were to receive the property free of the mortgage. Petitioner submitted testimony from the lawyer that created the first will. Both parties later moved for summary judgment. The petitioners commenced this proceeding pursuant to SCPA 1809, claiming breach of contract, breach of warranty, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment. The decedent died, and his wife was named an executor of the estate. Several years later the decedent made a new will but didn’t mention the property in the document. The decedent also executed a will.įrom that time on, the petitioner assumed all of the responsibilities related to the property. The lawyer transferred the property to the petitioners for $1.00. The document the oral agreement they met with an estate lawyer. The decedent said in response that he would have his estate satisfy the balance of the mortgage. The petitioners said that they didn’t want to take ownership of the property because it was subject to a mortgage. The two grandsons became the sole owners. Four shareholders (not the grandsons), backed out of the deal. The family members pooled their money and created a golf course business. The decedent used that money as gifts to family members. Five years prior the decedent had obtained a $100,000 loan secured by the mortgage. Later, the grandfather asked the petitioners about taking over management duties of the property. His grandsons contend that before 2006, the had helped their grandfather with maintenance and snow removal on the property. The decedent owned an apartment building. The court felt that while it would be unfair, it was not unconscionable. Nonetheless, the court concludes that the petitioner can’t rely on this doctrine because the application of the statute of frauds would inflict injury on the petitioner and would be unfair. The court agrees that when promissory estoppel is satisfied it would be unconscionable and egregious to rely on the statute of frauds. The petitioner’s grounds for this action are unconscionability of the statute of frauds. The petitioner brought this case to enforce an oral agreement that would be void because of the statute of frauds.