{"id":609,"date":"2011-08-19T11:29:45","date_gmt":"2011-08-19T15:29:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=609"},"modified":"2012-11-04T19:10:20","modified_gmt":"2012-11-04T23:10:20","slug":"wright-v-newman","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wright-v-newman\/","title":{"rendered":"Wright v. Newman, 266 Ga. 519 (1996)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case Name: <\/strong>Wright v. Newman
\nPlaintiff\/Appellee: <\/strong>Kim Newman
\nDefendant\/Appellant: <\/strong>Bruce Wright
\nCitation: <\/strong>266 Ga. 519, 467 S.E.2d 533 (1996)<\/p>\n


\nIssue: <\/strong><\/strong>Whether Wright can be held liable for child support for Newman\u2019s son under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, even though the child is not Wright\u2019s son.<\/p>\n

Key Facts: <\/strong>Wright is the father of Newman\u2019s daughter but not the father of Newman\u2019s son. Newman filed suit to recover child support for both her daughter and son. Wright listed himself as the father on the son\u2019s birth certificate and gave the son his last name. Wright knew that he was not the natural father. This evidenced that Wright promised both Newman and her son that he would assume the obligations and responsibilities of fatherhood, including providing support.<\/p>\n

The detriment alleged is that Newman refrained from identifying and seeking support from the child\u2019s natural father.<\/p>\n

Procedural History: <\/strong>The trial court ordered Wright to pay child support for both children.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong>Under the evidence, the duty to support, which the defendant voluntarily assumed 10 years ago remains enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.<\/p>\n

Judgment: <\/strong>Affirmed<\/p>\n

Reasoning: <\/strong>Elements of promissory estoppel were met:
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n