Question

Vincent Simmons appeals from the trial court's order awarding to his wife, Dorothy Simmons, a one-half Page 214 interest in land that he inherited from his parents. Vincent contends that the land is non-marital property and, consequently, should have remained his separate property. Vincent and Dorothy Simmons were married on October 9, 1976. On April 11, 1995, Vincent's mother, Louise Simmons, executed The Louise B. Simmons Trust in order to convey certain land in Florida to her children, Vincent and his sister, upon her death. Louise Simmons died on April 1, 1999, but the land remained in trust for several years after her death. After Louise died, Dorothy became concerned that she would not receive an interest in the Florida land if Vincent died before the trust was distributed, so she hired an attorney in Monticello, David Chambers, to prepare a document to protect her interest. After speaking with Dorothy, Mr. Chambers drafted an affidavit to be executed by Vincent, which stated, in pertinent part: “I have been married to my wife, Dorothy Simmons, for 25 years. It is my intention, through this affidavit, to convey to my said wife marital interest in said real property. If I should die prior to the above-stated Trust being dissolved, then my said wife shall receive my share of said real property as her own property. Otherwise, if said Trust is dissolved prior to my death, then my wife shall be entitled to her legal marital interest in said real property.” The trust property was distributed to Vincent and his sister on November 1, 2002. On February 11, 2003, Dorothy filed a complaint for divorce. The parties reached agreement regarding the division of all property except for the Florida land. On appeal, Vincent argues that the trial court erred in finding that his affidavit constituted a contract to convey an interest in the Florida land to Dorothy. He argues that there is a total absence of consideration to support a contract in this case. Dorothy argues that her ongoing marriage to Vincent constituted adequate consideration to support the contract. Should the appeals court uphold the trial court’s ruling and grant one-half interest in the property to Dorothy? How would you rule? What rule of consideration applies in this case? [Simmons v. Simmons, 98 Ark. App. 12, 249 S.W.3d 843, 2007 Ark. App. LEXIS 107 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007.)]

In 2001, Joseph Toscano, who was employed as the general manager of a Fields Pianos store in Santa Ana, was very unhappy with his job and decided to find other employment. Toscano contacted Michael Greene, the president of San Diego–based Greene Music, because he had heard that Greene was considering buying Fields’s Riverside store. During the course of several conversations in June and July 2001, Michael Greene offered Toscano a sales management position with Greene to start on September 1, 2001. On August 1, 2001, Toscano resigned from Fields in reliance on Michael Greene’s promise of employment. In mid-August, however, Greene withdrew the employment offer. Toscano later found lower-paying jobs, the first at a piano store in Mission Viejo and then at another piano store in Utah. Toscano sued Greene for promissory estoppel. Should Toscano prevail on his claim for promissory estoppel? Why or why not? [Toscano v. Greene Music, 124 Cal. App. 4th 685 (2004).]

Answer 1

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****

Promissionary estoppel is a rule of law that binds a promiser to meet his promise without any official consideration, although a promise made by a promise made to the promisee and the promisee is based upon the promise and acted and suffered a serious detriment. This is a promise made without formal consideration. The promissory estoppel doctrine allows a party to recover the value of a commitment made. In this scenario, Toscano acted on Greene's threat to forfeit its salaries. In this case the Promissory estoppel elements are present. They are as follows:

(i) The Promisor agreed that the Promisee would make a difference,

(ii) Promisee trusted and acted on the pledge, and

(iii) Promisee was badly hurt.

Tuscano will therefore triumph over its promissory stoppel claim.