Home Estoppel

Estoppel

Equitable Estoppel Defined

Equitable Estoppel Defined

Equitable estoppel is an American counterpart to the English concept of estoppel by representation of fact. The representation that invokes equitable estoppel applies to representations made by both words and/ or conduct. Although the representation must be clear and unambiguous, a representation under equitable estoppel can also be inferred from silence when there is a duty to speak or when negligence has arisen from a duty of care.
The English counterpart, Estoppel by Representation of Fact, is usually implemented as a defense, although in certain cases it can be a support in a cause of action or a counterclaim.
American equitable estoppel is commonly summarized as:
    Facts misrepresented,
    Facts that are concealed,
    Hiding knowledge of true facts,
    Acting with fraudulent intent,
    Acting from unjust inducement,
    Benefiting from detrimental reliance,
    Injury to the complainant, and
    A clear, concise, unequivocal proof of act, which in no way involves implication.
Equitable estoppel is alternatively known as estoppel in pais and is meant to protect a party to a contract from being harmed by the voluntary conduct of another party. It is immaterial to a finding of equitable estoppel whether the voluntary conduct is action, silence, acquiescence, or the concealment of material facts.
When equitable estoppel is considered estoppel by laches, it is a form of estoppel that precludes a party from being allowed to bring an action because the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce one of their legal rights in a proper period of time.

3 Major Stems to Proprietary Estoppel

3 Major Stems to Proprietary Estoppel

Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim that can arise in relation to land use rights of the owner and may be an effect that develops in connection with disputes that arise from transfers of ownership in the event the transfer is disputed.
There are three major stems under which proprietary estoppel can develop. Proprietary estoppel can develop if:
1. One party represents themselves as having transferred a land interest to another party but their actions have no legal effect,
2. A party only promises to transfer the land or property interest to another party but does not do so despite the expectation that the other party will be affected by detrimental reliance in order to spend money,
3. or in some other manner act to their own detriment due to the promised transfer of property.
The 1880 case of Wilmott v. Barber established five elements that had to be established before proprietary estoppel could apply. These elements are:
1. The claimant (plaintiff) must have made a mistake as to his or her legal rights,
2. The claimant must have made some act of detrimental reliance,
3. The defendant, who possesses the legal right, must know that his own right exists and is inconsistent with the right that has been claimed by the claimant,
4. The defendant must know the claimant’s belief is mistaken, and
5. The defendant must have encouraged the claimant to engage in the detrimental reliance.
In American law proprietary estoppel is not a distinct form of estoppel, and is instead considered a part and parcel of the general doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Understanding Collateral Estoppel

Understanding Collateral Estoppel

In modern terminology, collateral estoppel is also known as issue preclusion. Whichever name it is known as, collateral estoppel is a common law doctrine of estoppel that prevents an individual from filing litigation involving an issue that has already been settled by the courts. This form of estoppel is related to the criminal law concept of double jeopardy.
Once a court has decided an issue that is necessary to enact a judgment, that decision of the court precludes the issue from being litigated again on a different cause of action that involves a party which was involved in the first case. One of the underlying principles behind collateral estoppel is to prevent legal harassment and to prevent the abuse of judicial resources.
Collateral estoppel does not prevent the filing of an appeal of a decision, nor does it prevent a party from asking a judge to be allowed to make a revised decision or argument. In Federal court, judgments on appeal are given a preclusive effect. However, in the event a Federal decision is vacated, the preclusive effect of a judgment will fail.
Constitutional issues of due process problems are raised by collateral estoppel, especially when it is applied to a party which was not involved in the original suit that allowed the invocation of collateral estoppel in the first place. However, collateral estoppel in this case only applies to parties that have not actually litigated the issue under dispute unless the party in the case has legal privity to a party that previously litigated the issue.