American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

CONRAD v. FIELDS
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
2007 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 744
Appellant Walter R. Fields and respondent Marjorie Conrad met and became
friends when they were neighbors in an apartment complex in the early 1990's.
Appellant started his own business and became a financially successful businessman.
Appellant built a $1.2 million house in the Kenwood neighborhood in Minneapolis
and leased a Bentley automobile for more than $50,000 a year. Appellant is a
philanthropic individual who has sometimes paid education costs for others.
In the fall of 2000, appellant suggested that respondent attend law school, and
he offered to pay for her education. Respondent, who had recently paid off an $11,000
medical bill and still owed about $5,000 for undergraduate student loans, did not feel
capable of paying for law school on her own. Appellant promised that he would pay
tuition and other expenses associated with law school as they became due. Appellant
quit her job at Qwest, where she had been earning $45,000 per year, to attend law
school. Appellant admitted at trial that before respondent enrolled in law school, he
agreed to pay her tuition.
Respondent testified that she enrolled in law school in the summer of 2001 as
a result of appellant’s “inducement and assurance to pay for [her] education.”
Appellant made two tuition payments, each in the amount of $1,949.75, in August
and October 2001, but he stopped payment on the check for the second payment. At
some point, appellant told respondent that his assets had been frozen due to an
Internal Revenue Service audit and that payment of her education expenses would
be delayed until he got the matter straightened out. In May 2004, appellant and
respondent exchanged e-mail messages about respondent’s difficulties in managing
the debts that she had incurred for law school. In response to one of respondent’s
messages, appellant wrote, “to be clear and in writing, when you graduate law school
and pas[s] your bar exam, I will pay your tuition.” Later, appellant told respondent
that he would not pay her expenses, and he threatened to get a restraining order
against her if she continued attempting to communicate with him.
Respondent brought suit against appellant, alleging that in reliance on
appellant’s promise to pay her education expenses, she gave up the opportunity to
earn income through full-time employment and enrolled in law school. The case was
tried to the court, which awarded respondent damages in the amount of $87,314.63
under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The district court denied appellant’s
motion for a new trial or amended findings. This appeal followed.
Appellant argues that respondent did not plead or prove the elements of
promissory estoppel. Minnesota is a notice-pleading state that does not require
______________________________________________________________________________
168 CHAPTER III: CONSIDERATION