Opinion ID: 201590
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The elements of promissory estoppel

Text: 27 Norton's promissory estoppel claim fails as a matter of law because she has failed to satisfy at least two of the three conditions that must be met to establish promissory estoppel. 3 Under Rhode Island law, these conditions are: 1) A clear and unambiguous promise; 2) Reasonable and justifiable reliance upon the promise; and 3) Detriment to the promisee, caused by his or her reliance on the promise. Filippi v. Filippi, 818 A.2d 608, 626 (R.I. 2003). 28 To meet the first element of promissory estoppel, Norton must establish that Hoyt made a clear, unambiguous and unconditional promise, the terms of which are certain. See B.M.L. Corp. v. Greater Providence Deposit Corp., 495 A.2d 675, 677 (R.I.1985). Norton claims that Hoyt promised to divorce his wife, marry Norton and take care of her for the rest of her life. She has also argued that Hoyt promised to provide lifetime support whether he divorced his wife or not. See Norton, 278 F.Supp.2d at 224. 29 In either case, under Rhode Island law, the alleged promise is probably too vague to be legally enforceable. 4 At least one court has held that a promise to take care of an individual is insufficiently specific to support a claim of promissory estoppel. See Morone v. Morone, 50 N.Y.2d 481, 429 N.Y.S.2d 592, 413 N.E.2d 1154, 1157 n. 3 (1980) (citing Dombrowski v. Somers, 41 N.Y.2d 858, 393 N.Y.S.2d 706, 362 N.E.2d 257, 258 (1977)). The Rhode Island Supreme Court has shown itself, in a slightly different context, to be particularly sensitive to the vagueness of alleged promises underlying such claims. 5 See, e.g., Filippi, 818 A.2d at 626. Hoyt's promise would thus be unlikely to qualify as sufficiently clear and unambiguous under Rhode Island law. 30 We also find Norton's alleged reliance on the promise to be unreasonable. Norton discovered very early in her relationship with Hoyt that he had not been honest with her about his marital status. Then, for twenty-three long years he continually failed to make good on his promise to divorce his wife and marry her. Throughout that time, he repeatedly broke his promises. The record shows that Hoyt continued to engage in family events and, at least at times, to live in his marital home with his wife and children. Therefore, to the extent that Norton did rely on Hoyt's promises to marry her and take care of her for life, this reliance was unreasonable. Norton's promissory estoppel claim thus fails the second element as well. See Filippi, 818 A.2d at 626.