[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

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.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

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. Whitaker v. United States, No. 5:18-cv-51-MCR/MJF, 2019 WL 4722465, at *9 (N.D. Fla. August 27, 2019); Tefel v. Reno, 180 F. 3d 1286, 1303 (11th Cir. 1999).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund v. Lobean, 127 So.2d 98, 102 (Fla. 1961).

First District: Baxter v. Baxter, 397 So. 3d 826, 831 n.4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024); Campbell v. Dept. of Transp., 267 So.3d 541, 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); Black Bus. Inv. Fund of Cent. Fla., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Econ. Opportunity, 178 So.3d 931, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); City of Jacksonville v. Coffield, 18 So.3d 589, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Second District: Gratkowski v. ASI Preferred Ins. Corp., 351 So. 3d 1216, 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Winans v. Weber, 979 So. 2d 269, 274-275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); In re Estate of Sterile, 902 So.2d 915, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Third District: Quintana v. Rodriguez Family Inv. P'ship, LLLP, 402 So. 3d 398, 401-02 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).

Fourth District: Clayton v. Poggendorf, 237 So.3d 1041, 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Fifth District:  Am. Platinum Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swank, 357 So. 3d 174, 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Lotero-Diaz v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 2023 WL 3644967, *4 (11th Cir. May 25, 2023); U.S. v. Beane, 841 F.3d 1273, 1286 (11th Cir. 2016); Cowman v. Northland Hearing Ctr, Inc., 628 Fed.Appx. 669, 672 (11th Cir. 2015); Mispireta-Castro v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 564 Fed. Appx. 460, 462-63 (11th Cir. 2014). 

Southern District:  Krieger v. TD Bank, N.A., 2023 WL 3778254, *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2023); Oceania III Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2023 WL 2196628, *5 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2023); Gorham v. Kaufman, 2021 WL 4397881, *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2021); Storick v. CFG LLC, 2021 WL 716695, *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2021).

Middle District: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Princess Martha, LLC, No. 8:22-CV-2182-CEH-AAS, 2024 WL 4302359, at *14 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2024); Ferry E-Z Cashing, LLC v. Ferry, 2023 WL 2139382, *7 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2023); Keys v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, 387 F.Supp.3d 1372, 1381-82 (M.D. Fla. 2019); Caporicci v. Chipolte Mexican Grill, Inc., 189 F.Supp.3d 1314, 1321 (M.D. Fla. 2016).

Northern District: Robbins v. Fid. Nat’l Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 13187168, *3 n.10 (N.D. Fla. May 6, 2011); Florida Farm Bureau General Ins. Co. v. Voncille Jernigan, 2010 WL 3927816, *2 n.9 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2010); Perdido Sun Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 545 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1234 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Kayser Props, LLC v. Fidelity Nat. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc., 2007 WL 1490693, *3 (N.D. Fla. May 21, 2007).

FLORIDA RULES

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

FLORIDA REFERENCES

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

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Estoppel, Equitable

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

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 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); Proccor Pharm., Inc. v. World Health Products, LLC, No. 8:22-CV-2227-SDM-SPF, 2024 WL 3758013, at *23 (M.D. Fla. July 3, 2024).

(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. 4th 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. 2nd DCA 2002)

(11) Under Florida law, equitable estoppel is not an independent cause of action and cannot be brought as a stand-alone claim. Millennium Funding, Inc. v. 1701 Mgmt. LLC, 2021 WL 5882999, *17 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2021).

[/MM_Access_Decision]