13340 MDR LLC v. PREFERRED BANK, Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 5th Div. 2019
A claim of economic duress often arises when a party is attempting to avoid a contract modification or a settlement and release. (Rich & Whillock, Inc. v. Ashton Development, Inc. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1154, 1158.) The party asserting duress need not establish the other party committed an unlawful act amounting to a tort or a crime, but must establish “a wrongful act which is sufficiently coercive to cause a reasonably prudent person faced with no reasonable alternative to succumb to the perpetrator’s pressure. [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 1158-1159.) “The assertion of a claim known to be false or a bad faith threat to breach a contract or to withhold a payment may constitute a wrongful act for purposes of the economic duress doctrine. [Citations.] Further, a reasonably prudent person subject to such an act may have no reasonable alternative but to succumb when the only other alternative is bankruptcy or financial ruin. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 1159.) However, merely attempting to foreclose on a mortgage is not duress; it is only duress to threaten legal action when the party doing so knows “the claim asserted was false.” (Leeper v. Beltrami (1959) 53 Cal.2d 195, 204.)
There are four elements of equitable estopped: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) that party must intend that its conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the party asserting estoppel must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) the party asserting estoppel must rely upon the conduct to its injury. (D’Egidio v. City of Santa Clarita (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 515, 532.)