- 16 -
full with payment of the $4,244.75. However, even if the parties
had in fact agreed to such a resolution, a point which we will
address infra, the agreement would not be legally binding.
Petitioner does not contend, nor is there evidence, that the
parties complied with the procedures specified under section 7121
or 7122 for either a closing agreement or an offer-in-compromise.
Rather, petitioner admitted at trial that she did not sign an
offer-in-compromise or closing agreement form, and petitioner’s
counsel conceded that petitioner was not relying on any argument
that an agreement under section 7122 had been reached.
Furthermore, because the relevant negotiations took place in a
prepetition setting, any other general theories, such as accord
and satisfaction, would be insufficient to create a legally
binding settlement.
Nonetheless, the conclusion that the facts here could not
support the existence of a legally binding compromise for
$4,244.75 does not end the inquiry. Petitioner submits on brief
that respondent “must be equitably estoppel [sic] from pursuing
any further assessments against Ms. Dormer after the June 2002
agreement was reached and Ms. Dormer’s settlement check
received.”
Equitable estoppel is a judicial doctrine that operates to
preclude a party from denying its own acts or representations
that induced another to act to his or her detriment. Wilkins v.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011