Oral Arguments are happening now. View them on the web or via Mobile App on iPhone / iPad or Android (4.0+).

You are here

deNourie & Yost Homes, LLC v. Frost

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date: 
Friday, May 2, 2014

S-13-0656, deNourie & Yost Homes, LLC (Appellant) v. Joe Frost and Amy Frost and Security State Bank d/b/a Dundee Bank

Douglas County, Judge Gary B. Randall

Attorneys: Jerrold L. Strasheim (Appellant) --- Kristopher J. Covi (McGrath North Mullin & Kratz PCLLO) (Appellees Joe Frost and Amy Frost) --- Christopher J. Tjaden, Michael J. Whaley, Adam J. Wachal (Gross & Welch PCLLO) (for Appellee Dundee Bank)

Civil: Fraudulent inducement; contract; estoppel

Proceedings below: After a trial to the court, the court denied relief to Appellant. Appellant filed a Petition to Bypass the Court of Appeals which was granted by the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issues: The trial court erred in (1) granting partial summary judgment to Appellees; (2) failing to deny Appellees’ Motions for partial summary judgments because they did not meet their burdens of proof; (3) finding Appellees Frosts had not duty to disclose their financial condition, including disregard of issues of fact bearing on Frosts duty to disclose their financial condition; (4) failing to rule on objections taken under advisement; (5) failing to rule in the summary judgment proceedings on Appellant’s claims of fraudulent representations and fraudulent promises by Frosts; (6) failing in summary judgment proceedings to view summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to Appellant, to accord Appellant the benefit of favorable inferences; (7) failing to hold Appellee, Dundee Bank, liable to Appellant based on promissory estoppel; (8) failing to award Appellant $208,896.41 based on promissory estoppel; (9) failing to award Appellant prejudgment interest from February 1, 2009; (10) failing to rule that Appellants’ reliance on Appellee, Dundee Bank’s promise and commitment to pay Appellant $208,896.41 was in good faith, or was reasonable or both; (11) failing to hold Appellant proved by clear and convincing evidence all essential elements necessary to recover $208,896.41 based on promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel and to award prejudgment interest.

This page was last modified on Monday, May 5, 2014