## Facts

- Teresa L. Harvey lived with her parents, Jeffrey B. Dow, Sr. and Kathryn L. Dow, on their roughly 125-acre property in Corinth, Maine.
- For years, the family commonly discussed that the land was the children’s “heritage” and would be given or left to them when older; the parents maintained a general plan to transfer land at an undetermined time.
- In 1999, with her parents’ permission, Harvey and her future husband placed a mobile home on the property without rent and later built a garage, also with permission.
- In 2003–2004, Harvey decided to build a permanent house at a particular site on the property.
- Harvey’s father approved the house site, obtained the building permit listing him as property owner, and performed substantial construction work on the house.
- Harvey expended about $200,000 (largely from life insurance proceeds after her husband’s death) to complete the permanent home in 2004.
- After the relationship deteriorated, Harvey requested a deed to enable mortgaging the property; the parents refused.
- Harvey sued to compel conveyance of the land underlying the house (or recover damages), relying principally on promissory estoppel; the parents sought a declaration that she had no property rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the parents’ generalized assurances, combined with their conduct in approving and facilitating construction, constituted a “promise” sufficient for promissory estoppel regarding Harvey’s continued right to reside on the house lot.
2. Whether Harvey reasonably and foreseeably relied on that promise to her detriment such that enforcement was required to avoid injustice.
3. What remedy is appropriate once promissory estoppel is established in this context.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the trial court’s post-remand judgment for the parents.
- The court held that the parents’ conduct—approving the specific site, obtaining the building permit as owner, and substantially helping build the permanent home—manifested an intent that Harvey could permanently reside on a defined portion of their land, satisfying the “promise” element.
- The court held that Harvey’s expenditure of approximately $200,000 on a permanent structure constituted reasonable and foreseeable reliance causing substantial detriment.
- The court held that denying enforcement would be unjust because Harvey would own a valuable home fixed to land wholly owned by her parents, leaving her vulnerable to loss of use or ejectment.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Harvey on promissory estoppel and to determine an appropriate remedy.

## Legal Principles

- A promise for promissory estoppel may be implied from conduct, not merely from specific verbal commitments, when the promisor’s actions would reasonably lead the promisee to believe a commitment has been made.
- In assessing promissory estoppel, courts evaluate statements and the full course of conduct to determine whether a promise was made, whether reliance was reasonable and foreseeable, and whether enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice.
- Substantial expenditures to build a permanent, non-movable improvement on another’s land can constitute significant detrimental reliance supporting promissory estoppel.
- Once promissory estoppel is established, the remedy may extend beyond reliance damages and may include contract-like relief, subject to what is necessary to avoid injustice.

## Conclusion

The court held that parents who knowingly approved and substantially assisted their daughter’s construction of a permanent home on their land, against a background of assurances that the land would belong to the children, made an enforceable promise under promissory estoppel; it ordered judgment for the daughter and remanded for determination of an appropriate remedy.


Harvey v. Dow, 11 A.3d 303 (Me. 2011)