Firestone Financial Corp. v. Meyer

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing defendant’s promissory estoppel counterclaim to plaintiff’s lawsuit alleging breach of contract arising out of defendant’s alleged default on four loans and in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its claim against defendant. Defendant’s counterclaim, which alleged that plaintiff induced defendant to purchase equipment via plaintiff’s failed promise of $500,000 line of credit to fund such purchase, was sufficient to state claim of promissory estoppel that precluded Dist. Ct. from finding that such claim was “implausible” so as to support instant dismissal. Moreover, Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, where: (1) Dist. Ct. failed to explain rationale for said order; and (2) record suggested that said order was based on improper rejection of defendant’s promissory estoppel/prior breach of contract defenses.