City required Properties (P) to extend Lake Run Boulevard and to install utility connections along the extension. Properties sought Sto's and Sto's property owner (Ds), Watkins, financial participation in extending the road. There was no written agreement. Before construction on the extension had started, Ds verbally withdrew any intent to participate in the project. P sought payment from D for $112,000, which it claimed was Ds' share of the construction costs. P claimed unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel. Ds moved for summary judgment. The trial court concluded that 'a written or oral agreement between the parties to share costs was nonexistent' and that P had 'not established that a benefit was conferred upon Ds which resulted in P's loss.' The trial court granted Ds' motion.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.