equitable estoppel doctrine in North Carolina

2013Hamilton, 296 N.C. at 576 , 251 S.E.2d at 443 (“[N] either bad faith, fraud nor intent to deceive is necessary before the doctrine of equitable estoppel can be applied.”) (citation omitted).

2013Hamilton, 296 N.C. at 576 , 251 S.E.2d at 443 (“[N] either bad faith, fraud nor intent to deceive is necessary before the doctrine of equitable estoppel can be applied.”) (citation omitted).

2020“There need not be actual fraud, bad faith, or an intent to mislead or deceive for the doctrine of equitable estoppel to apply.” Gore v. Myrtle/Mueller, 362 N.C. 27, 33 , 653 S.E.2d 400, 405 (2007).

2020“There need not be actual fraud, bad faith, or an intent to mislead or deceive for the doctrine of equitable estoppel to apply.” Gore v. Myrtle/Mueller, 362 N.C. 27, 33 , 653 S.E.2d 400, 405 (2007).

2022North Carolina courts have [] long recognized the doctrine of equitable estoppel, otherwise known as estoppel in pais.” Whitacre P’ship, 358 N.C. at 13-16 , 591 S.E.2d at 879-81 .

2022North Carolina courts have [] long recognized the doctrine of equitable estoppel, otherwise known as estoppel in pais.” Whitacre P’ship, 358 N.C. at 13-16 , 591 S.E.2d at 879-81 .

2013On appeal, Plaintiff asserts that “when a party’s actions or statements convince another not to institute legal action — particularly where promises to remedy the dispute are made —..., [equitable estoppel] will not permit the statute of limitations [to bar a claim] when such assurances are broken.” In support of that point, Plaintiff cites three cases: Duke Univ. v. Stainback, 320 N.C. 337 , 357 S.E.2d 690 (1987); Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Ellis-Don Constr., Inc., 210 N.C.

2013On appeal, Plaintiff asserts that “when a party’s actions or statements convince another not to institute legal action — particularly where promises to remedy the dispute are made —..., [equitable estoppel] will not permit the statute of limitations [to bar a claim] when such assurances are broken.” In support of that point, Plaintiff cites three cases: Duke Univ. v. Stainback, 320 N.C. 337 , 357 S.E.2d 690 (1987); Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Ellis-Don Constr., Inc., 210 N.C.

2011App. 367, 370 , 396 S.E.2d 626, 628-29 (1990)). “[N]either bad faith, fraud nor intent to deceive is necessary before the doctrine of equitable estoppel can be applied.” Id. (quoting Parker, 100 N.C.

2011App. 367, 370 , 396 S.E.2d 626, 628-29 (1990)). “[N]either bad faith, fraud nor intent to deceive is necessary before the doctrine of equitable estoppel can be applied.” Id. (quoting Parker, 100 N.C.

2016TaiDoc presents no North Carolina case in which the court has applied a “notice” or “discovery” rule to tortious interference or unjust enrichment claims, and this Court declines to do so now. {66} TaiDoc does not otherwise contest that its claims accrued before November 16, 2009, but nonetheless argues that either equitable estoppel or the continuing wrong doctrine should preclude application of the statute of limitations. {67} The doctrine of equitable estoppel, which may be invoked to bar a defendant from relying on a statute of limitations defense, “arises when an individual by his acts, r

2013Relying on the doctrine of equitable estoppel, we noted that the defendants had “repeatedly promised to remedy the surface water drainage problems, [the] plaintiffs believed that [the] defendants would keep their word and fix the problems, and[,] in reliance on [the] defendants’ promises, [the] plaintiffs delayed instituting legal action.” Id. at 489 , 435 S.E.2d at 797 .

1962The general principles governing the operation of the doctrine of equitable estoppel are stated by Johnson, J., in Hawkins v. Finance Corp., 238 N.C. 174 , 77 S.E. 2d 669 .

1962The general principles governing the operation of the doctrine of equitable estoppel are stated by Johnson, J., in Hawkins v. Finance Corp., 238 N.C. 174 , 77 S.E. 2d 669 .

2007In applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel however, as noted above, we have explicitly held that "[a]ctual fraud, bad faith, or an intent to mislead or deceive is not essential to invoke the equitable doctrine of Estoppel." Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, Inc., 279 N.C. 132, 139 , 181 S.E.2d 588, 593 (1971).

2007In applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel however, as noted above, we have explicitly held that "[a]ctual fraud, bad faith, or an intent to mislead or deceive is not essential to invoke the equitable doctrine of Estoppel." Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, Inc., 279 N.C. 132, 139 , 181 S.E.2d 588, 593 (1971).

2013App. at 720 , 482 S.E.2d at 739 ; see also McNeely v. Walters, 211 N.C. 112, 113 , 189 S.E. 114, 115 (1937) (comparing the doctrine of equitable estoppel to “the golden rule” -i->— i.e., that “one should do unto others as, in equity and good conscience, he would have them do unto him, if their positions were reversed” — and citing to the maxim of “fair play”).

2013App. at 720 , 482 S.E.2d at 739 ; see also McNeely v. Walters, 211 N.C. 112, 113 , 189 S.E. 114, 115 (1937) (comparing the doctrine of equitable estoppel to “the golden rule” -i->— i.e., that “one should do unto others as, in equity and good conscience, he would have them do unto him, if their positions were reversed” — and citing to the maxim of “fair play”).

2007See Wall v. Macfield/Unifi , 131 N.C.

2004Wall v. Macfield/Unifi , 131 N.C.

2004In re Will of Covington, 252 N.C. 546, 548 , 114 S.E.2d 257, 259 (1960) (discussing the common law origins of equitable estoppel and summariz *17 ing the “multitude of cases” where the doctrine has been applied in this state).

2004In re Will of Covington, 252 N.C. 546, 548 , 114 S.E.2d 257, 259 (1960) (discussing the common law origins of equitable estoppel and summariz *17 ing the “multitude of cases” where the doctrine has been applied in this state).

2000See Hensell v. Winslow , 106 N.C.

2000See id.

2023See Smith Jamison Constr., 257 N.C.

2023Virginia public policy “has been to uphold the validity of the marriage status for the best interest of society.” Needam v. Needam, 183 Va. 681 , 33 S.E.2d 288, 290 (Va. 1945).

2023Virginia public policy “has been to uphold the validity of the marriage status for the best interest of society.” Needam v. Needam, 183 Va. 681 , 33 S.E.2d 288, 290 (Va. 1945).

2015The dissent rejected the majority’s equitable estoppel analysis, concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding plaintiff’s claims and that BB&T’s alleged “assurances” were “nothing more than mere ‘promises’ that Defendant would work to resolve Plaintiff’s claims in the future.” Id. at _, 743 S.E.2d at 659 (Dillon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

2015The dissent rejected the majority’s equitable estoppel analysis, concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding plaintiff’s claims and that BB&T’s alleged “assurances” were “nothing more than mere ‘promises’ that Defendant would work to resolve Plaintiff’s claims in the future.” Id. at _, 743 S.E.2d at 659 (Dillon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

2014App. 19, 25 , 275 S.E.2d 277, 282 (1981) (denying recovery on an equitable restitution claim where plaintiffs could recover under breach of covenant and had an adequate remedy at law)). {41} The court finds that the same evidence that is inadequate to demonstrate any waiver is also inadequate to create the factual basis of an equitable estoppel defense.

2014App. ____, ____, 744 S.E.2d 476, 479 (2013) (vacating an order where the trial court exceeded jurisdictional scope in foreclosure hearing by making findings and conclusions regarding an equitable estoppel defense).

2011Nowell v. Tea Co., 250 N.C. 575, 579 , 108 S.E.2d 889, 891 (1959).

2011Nowell v. Tea Co., 250 N.C. 575, 579 , 108 S.E.2d 889, 891 (1959).

2009The appellate court “assum[ed] for the purpose of [its] decision that the agreement was; in fact, in violation of the Statute of Frauds” and held that the developer was “estopped to contest the validity of the agreement under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.” Id. at 104.