Florida Litigation Guide

Estoppel, Equitable -

[1] Elements and Case Citations

(1) A representation by defendant (the party estopped), to plaintiff (the party claiming estoppel) as to a material fact;

(2) The representation is contrary to the condition of affairs later asserted by defendant;

(3) Plaintiff relies on the representation; and

(4) Plaintiff suffers detriment by a change in position as a result of the representation and reliance thereon.

Claims for equitable and promissory estoppel differ only in that promissory estoppel applies to the promisor’s representation of future acts and equitable estoppel addresses existing events. See Crown Life Ins. Co. v. McBride, 517 So. 2d 660, 661-662 (Fla. 1987). A claim for equitable estoppel against the government requires proof of some affirmative misconduct by the government. Tefel v. Reno, 180 F. 3d 1286, 1303 (11th Cir. 1999).

____________________________________

Florida State Cases

Supreme Court: State v. Harris, 881 So. 2d 1079, 1084 (Fla. 2004)

First District: Mobile Med. Indus. v. Quinn, 985 So.2d 33, 35-36 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Second District: Winans v. Weber, No. 2D06-5581, 2007 WL 4355249, *4 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 14, 2007)

Third District:Flagship Resort Dev. Corp. v. Interval Intern., Inc., 28 So.3d 915, 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Fourth District: Lloyds Underwriters at London v. Keystone Equip. Fin. Corp., 25 So.3d 89, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Fifth District: Goodwin v. Blu Murray Ins. Agency, Inc., 939 So. 2d 1098, 1103 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2006)

Florida Federal Cases

Eleventh Circuit: Martin v. Brevard County Pub. Sch., 543 F.3d 1261, 1266 (11th Cir. 2008).

Southern District: BP Products North America Inc. v. Super Stop No. 701, Inc., 2009 WL 5068599, *6 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2009).

Middle District: Chick-Fil-A, Inc. v. CFT Dev., LLC, 652 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1261 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

Northern District: Perdido Sun Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 545 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1234 (N.D. Fla. 2008).

Florida Rules

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (general rules of pleading; estoppel as affirmative defense)

References

Restatement (Second) of Torts งง 552, 894 (1979)

[2] Defenses to Claim for Equitable Estoppel

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See ง 60.

(2) Statute of Limitations: ง 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years) (Florida courts have not addressed the applicable statute of limitations for estoppel claims).

(3) Equitable estoppel requires proof of fraud, misrepresentation or deception. See Lennar Homes v. Gabb Const. Services, 654 So. 2d 649, 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

(4) The promisee had knowledge of, or reasonable ability to learn, the true facts. See Irvine v. Cargill Investor Servs., Inc., 799 F.2d 1461, 1463 (11th Cir. 1986).

(5) The representation must be definite and specific, and not susceptible to multiple interpretations. See Irvine v. Cargill Investor Servs., Inc., 799 F.2d 1461, 1463 (11th Cir. 1986).

(6) Courts may only employ equitable estoppel to prohibit the perpetration of fraud. See Lennar Homes v. Gabb Const. Servs., 654 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

(7) The promisee cannot base an estoppel claim against the state for mistaken statements of law. See Warren v. Dept. of Admin., 554 So. 2d 568, 571 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

(8) Estoppel is not a judicial counteraction to the statute of frauds. Bergman v. DeIulio, 826 So.2d 500, 504 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2002)(citations omitted).

(9) "[A] truthful statement as to the present intention of a party with regard to his future act is not the foundation upon which an estoppel may be built." S. Inv. Corp. v. Norton, 57 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1952).

(10) A claim of reliance must fail where both parties have equal knowledge of the truth. Watson Clinic, LLP v. Verzosa, 816 So.2d 832 , 834 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 2002)