Equitable Estoppel
This article provides a brief explanation of the legal doctrine known as equitable estoppel under Florida law. “[E]quitable estoppel is a deeply rooted, centuries old tenet of the common law.” Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071, 1077 (Fla. 2001). “The doctrine, which was part of the English common law when the State of Florida was founded, was adopted and codified by the Florida Legislature in 1829.” Id. at 1076. “Equitable estoppel is based on principles of fair play and essential justice and arises when one party lulls another party into a disadvantageous legal position.” Id. (emphasis added).
“Equitable estoppel is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which perhaps have otherwise existed, either of property or of contract, or of remedy, as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse, and who on his part acquires some corresponding right, either of property, or of contract or of remedy.” Major League Baseball, 790 So. 2d at 1076 (quoting State ex rel. Watson v. Gray, 48 So. 2d 84, 87-88 (Fla. 1950)).
“The doctrine of estoppel is applicable in all cases where one, by word, act or conduct, willfully caused another to believe in the existence of a certain state of things, and thereby induces him to act on this belief injuriously to himself, or to alter his own previous condition to his injury.” Major League Baseball, 790 So. 2d at 1076. “By definition (and by usage throughout the centuries), equitable estoppel “estops” or bars a party from asserting something (e.g., a fact, a rule of law, or a defense) that he or she otherwise would be entitled to assert.” Id. at 1077.
For example, Florida’s courts have approved equitable estoppel as a bar that can prevent a party from asserting a statute of limitations defense. See, e.g., Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc. v. Carter, 658 So. 2d 560, 563 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995) (“It is well settled . . . as a general rule . . . that fraud or misrepresentation that misleads a claimant into a justified failure to assert his rights bars reliance on a statute of limitations.”); Alachua Cnty. v. Cheshire, 603 So. 2d 1334, 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“A party will be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense to an admittedly untimely action where his conduct has induced another into forbearing suit within the applicable limitations period.”); Glantzis v. State Auto. Mutual Ins. Co., 573 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“[W]e believe the evidence is such that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies preventing State Auto from resorting to the statute of limitations as a defense.”); Olenek v. Bennett, 537 So. 2d 160, 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (“Fairness and equity dictate that the estate is estopped from raising the statute [of limitations] as a defense.”); Cape Cave Corp. v. Lowe, 411 So. 2d 887, 889 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1982) (“[A] defendant may by its actions become estopped from claiming the benefit of a statute of limitations.”).
In this regard, equitable estoppel should not be confused with “[e]quitable tolling, which involves no misconduct on the part of the defendant, [but] may delay the running of the limitations period based on the plaintiff’s blameless ignorance and the lack of prejudice to the defendant.” Major League Baseball, 790 So. 2d at 1076 n.11. Conversely, “[t]he basic elements of [equitable] estoppel include a false representation or concealment of material facts.” Riverwood Nursing Ctr., LLC v. Gilroy, 219 So. 3d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). “The party relying on the doctrine of equitable estoppel must show that (1) the opposing party represented a material fact contrary to its later position, (2) the party asserting the doctrine relied on the opposing party’s earlier representation, and (3) the party asserting the doctrine changed its position to its detriment due to the opposing party’s representation and its reliance thereon.” Id. (citation omitted).