Court Opinion

ID: 9727960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:53:45.27808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:44.586221
License: Public Domain

NEUMANN, Justice,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result, but only because the appellants have failed to question the nature *598of the representations on which the appellee relied.
I write separately because the majority opinion may suggest that some form of affirmative deception is a predicate to equitable estoppel only in nonclaim statute of limitation cases. I think section 31-11-06 clearly requires that any misrepresentation which may give rise to equitable estoppel must be made with the deliberate intention of misleading. Or, to put it in the language used in In re Estate of Frandson, I believe some form of affirmative deception is an essential element of equitable estoppel in whatever context the doctrine might be applied.
Here, however, the. appellants have not chosen to question the decedent’s intent in making her representations. They have focused instead on the reasonableness of the appellee’s reliance on those representations, and on that point I agree with the majority’s analysis.