How To Prove A Florida Equitable Estoppel Defense
In Florida, 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:
This means a court will not grant a judgment or other legal relief to a party who has not acted fairly; for example, by having made false representations or concealing material facts from the other party.
There are 3 elements of the defense:
- Element 1. The party against whom estoppel is sought made a representation about a material fact that is contrary to a position it later asserts. Estoppel occurs when one party makes a significant statement about a fact that is later proven false by their own actions, preventing them from changing their position and denying the truth of that original statement.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The party previously stated that the property was free of any liens, which influenced the other party’s decision to proceed with the transaction.
* The party assured the other party that all necessary permits were obtained before the construction began, leading to reliance on that representation.
* The party represented that they would not contest the validity of the contract, but later filed a lawsuit challenging its enforceability.
* The party explicitly confirmed that the deadline for compliance was extended, which caused the other party to delay their actions.
* The party provided written documentation indicating that the agreement was finalized, only to later claim that it was never executed. - Element 2. The party claiming estoppel relied on that representation. In a legal context, this means that one party is arguing that they relied on a promise or statement made by another party, which led them to take certain actions or make decisions based on that belief, and now they should be protected from any changes to that promise.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The claimant made significant financial investments based on the defendant’s assurance that the project would proceed as promised.
* The claimant turned down alternative opportunities after receiving the defendant’s representation, believing it to be a secure commitment.
* The claimant incurred expenses for materials and labor, relying on the defendant’s statements about the project’s timeline.
* The claimant communicated their reliance on the defendant’s representation in written correspondence prior to the project’s delay.
* The claimant expressed concerns about the project’s viability, and the defendant reaffirmed their commitment, further solidifying the claimant’s reliance. - Element 3. The party seeking estoppel changed their position to their detriment based on the representation and reliance on it. The party claiming estoppel acted differently because they believed what someone else said, and this change in their actions caused them harm or loss.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The party seeking estoppel relied on the defendant’s assurance that the contract would be renewed, leading them to forgo other business opportunities.
* After receiving the defendant’s representation, the party invested significant resources into a project that hinged on the expected contract renewal.
* The party incurred substantial expenses based on the defendant’s promise, which they would not have undertaken had they known the contract would not be renewed.
* The party’s reliance on the defendant’s representation resulted in a financial loss when the contract was not renewed as promised.
* The party made long-term commitments based on the defendant’s assurances, ultimately leading to a detrimental position when those assurances were not fulfilled.
(See State v. Harris, 881 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. Supreme Court 2004). Lewis v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 659 So.2d 1255, 1256-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).)
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 FL Equitable Estoppel Defense
U.S. Civil Cases Only