How To Prove A California Equitable Estoppel Defense

In California, a defense of Equitable Estoppel is defined as:
Equitable Estoppel is an estoppel that prevents a person from adopting a new position that contradicts a previous position maintained by words, silence, or actions when allowing the new position to be adopted would unfairly harm another person who has relied on the previous position to his or her loss.
It simply means:
A court will not grant a judgment or other legal relief to a party who has acted unfairly, for example, by having made false representations or concealing material facts from the other party.
There are 4 elements of the defense:
- Element 1. The party to be estopped knew the facts. The party being prevented from changing their position was aware of the relevant facts at the time, meaning they understood the situation and the implications of their actions or inactions, which is a key part of the equitable estoppel defense.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The party to be estopped was present during the negotiations and discussions regarding the contract terms.
* The party to be estopped received written communications detailing the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.
* The party to be estopped had access to public records that contained the necessary information about the situation.
* The party to be estopped was informed by a third party about the critical facts related to the dispute.
* The party to be estopped had prior experience with similar situations, indicating their awareness of the relevant facts. - Element 2. The party to be estopped intended that his conduct be acted upon, or that the party asserting the estoppel had the right to believe that it was so intended. For equitable estoppel to apply, the person whose actions are in question must have meant for those actions to be relied upon, or the other party must have reasonably believed that they were meant to be relied upon.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant made repeated public statements indicating their commitment to a specific course of action, leading the plaintiff to reasonably rely on those statements.
* The defendant provided written assurances to the plaintiff, explicitly stating that certain conditions would be met, which the plaintiff relied upon in making decisions.
* The defendant engaged in conduct that suggested approval of the plaintiff’s actions, creating a reasonable belief that such conduct was intended to be acted upon.
* The defendant failed to correct the plaintiff’s understanding of the situation despite having knowledge that the plaintiff was acting based on the defendant’s prior representations.
* The defendant’s actions were consistent with an intention to create a belief in the plaintiff that the defendant would not change their position. - Element 3. The party asserting the estoppel was ignorant of the true state of facts. In a legal context, this means that the person claiming estoppel did not know the real situation or facts at the time, which is important because it shows they were misled or unaware of crucial information that affects their rights or obligations.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The party asserting estoppel was not present during the negotiations and therefore lacked knowledge of the true circumstances surrounding the agreement.
* The party relied on misleading statements made by the opposing party, which created a false understanding of the situation.
* The party did not have access to relevant documents that would have clarified the true state of facts.
* The party was unaware of prior communications that contradicted the claims made by the opposing party.
* The party had no reason to suspect that the information provided was inaccurate or incomplete. - Element 4. The party asserting the estoppel relied upon the conduct to his injury. The party claiming estoppel must show that they were harmed because they relied on someone else’s actions or promises, believing those actions would not change, and that this reliance led them to make decisions that negatively affected them.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The party asserting estoppel reasonably believed the other party’s representations and took action based on that belief, leading to a financial investment in a project.
* The party relied on the other party’s assurances, which caused them to forgo alternative opportunities that would have been financially beneficial.
* The party suffered significant losses after the other party changed their position, which directly contradicted prior conduct that had been relied upon.
* The party’s decision to enter into a contract was based on the other party’s misleading statements, resulting in a detrimental outcome.
* The party incurred expenses and commitments based on the expectation created by the other party’s conduct, which was later retracted.
(See Sg&b v. Aiic, 71 Cal. App. 4th 1260, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552 (cal. Court of Appeals 1999).)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Defense of Equitable Estoppel, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to effectively present your Defense of Equitable Estoppel.
Prove Your CA Equitable Estoppel Defense
U.S. Civil Cases Only