quasi-estoppel | estoppel | equitable estoppel | admission | deemed admissions | res judicata
| claim preclusion | collateral estoppel | collateral attack
QUASI ESTOPPEL DEFINED
Quasi-estoppel precludes a party from asserting, to another's disadvantage, a right inconsistent with a position
previously taken. Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857, 864 (Tex. 2000). The doctrine
applies when it would be unconscionable to allow a person to maintain a position inconsistent with one to which he
acquiesed or from which he accepted a benefit. Id. However, before the acceptance of benefits can trigger
estoppel, it must be shown that the benefits were accepted with knowledge of all material facts. Anadarko
Petroleum Corp. v. Thompson, 60 S.W.3d 134, 142 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2000), rev'd on other grounds, 94 S.W.3d
550 (Tex. 2002) ; see Frazier v. Wynn, 472 S.W.2d 750, 753 (Tex. 1971). Additionally, it is well-settled that a
party seeking an equitable remedy must do equity and come to court with clean hands. Truly v. Austin, 744
S.W.2d 934, 938 (Tex. 1988).
QUASI-ESTOPPEL CASE LAW FROM HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS
"Quasi-estoppel precludes a party from asserting, to another's disadvantage, a right
inconsistent with a position previously taken." Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d
857, 864 (Tex. 2000) "The doctrine applies when it would be unconscionable to allow a person to maintain a
position inconsistent with one to which he acquiesced, or from which he accepted a benefit." Id.
Peden v. South Texas Surveying Assoc., Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist] Sep. 10, 2009)(Alcala)
(defamation, substantial truth defense, estoppel, judicial estoppel, quasi-estoppel)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT IN PART, REVERSE TC JUDGMENT IN PART, AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS: Opinion by Justice Alcala
Before Justices Jennings, Alcala and Higley
01-08-00373-CV Tom and Paula Peden v. South Texas Surveying Associates, Inc., and Fred W. Lawton, Stephen
Pohl Appeal from 80th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lynn Bradshaw-Hull
Quasi-estoppel does not apply to the Pedens in this case because, as explained in more detail under the section
concerning judicial estoppel, the Pedens' position in this lawsuit is not "clearly inconsistent" with their earlier
position. Moreover, in the suit against the City the trial court declared that the easement did not encumber the
Pedens' property, as compared to the instant action that asks the court to determine that South Texas and
Lawton were negligent in preparing a survey. We conclude that it is not unconscionable to allow the Pedens to
adopt their position in the instant suit. Therefore, quasi-estoppel does not apply.
Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Hadley Medical Clinic (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 13, 2007)(Hedges)
(auto PI, personal injury settlement, third-party beneficiary, quasi-estoppel)
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore
14-06-00436-CV Allstate Indemnity Company and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Hadley
Medical Clinic, Hampton Medical Clinic, Imperial Valley Medical Clinic, and Southwest Houston Physician Center
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County (R. Jack Cagle)
HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE