PENSACOLA ADVERTISING, INC. APPELLANT,
v.
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pensacola Advertising, Inc. (PAI) sought equitable estoppel to prevent enforcement of a county sign ordinance after relocating a sign based on an oral representation by a county employee that there was 'no problem' with the relocation. The court affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction, holding that PAI's reliance on the oral representation was unreasonable given the company's professional experience with permitting processes.
The court affirmed the denial of equitable estoppel, holding that PAI's reliance on the county employee's oral representation was unreasonable as a matter of law given PAI's professional knowledge and experience with county permitting processes. Equitable estoppel does not apply where a sophisticated party with prior experience in the regulatory area should have known that an oral representation was an insufficient basis for relying on non-compliance with applicable ordinances.
[1] A final judgment entered by a trial court reviewing administrative action is reviewable by appeal if it is not otherwise made directly appealable to the Supreme Court.
[2] A court reviewing administrative action is primarily relegated to assaying the record to determine whether the applicable law was applied in accordance with established p…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The doctrine of equitable estoppel has been applied to erroneous representations of fact by government officials.”
Establishes that equitable estoppel is available in principle against government entities, but does not apply categorically to all such representations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePAI relocated an off-premises sign without obtaining a county permit, relying on an oral representation from a county employee that there was 'no prob…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equitable Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pensacola Advertising, Inc. (PAI) appeals an order denying a permanent injunction to prevent enforcement of a county sign ordinance under which the county had ordered the removal of PAI’s off-premises sign that PAI had relocated without obtaining a county permit. PAI contended below that, based upon the oral representations of a county employee to a PAI officer to the effect that there was “no problem” in PAI relocating its sign, it relocated the sign to a location prohibited by the sign ordinance without applying for a permit. As a result of PAI’s reliance on these representations, PAI argues that the county should be equitably estopped from enforcing its ordinance and requiring removal of the sign. We disagree and affirm.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel has been applied to erroneous representations of fact by government officials. Dolphin Outdoor Advertising v. Department of Transportation, 582 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, in its order below, the trial court found that PAI’s reliance on the county employee’s oral representation:
... was made unreasonably [sic] in light of [PAI’s] officer’s previous experience, knowledge and involvement in the permitting processes of the [county], where [PAI’s] officer was a professional who had assisted in drafting county sign ordinances, who worked in the local off premise sign field several years and who had applied for several permits in connection with off premise sign locations and relocations, and that this professional should have known such oral representation was an insufficient basis upon which to rely in relocating its off premise sign in violation of [the ordinance]....
These factual findings of the trial court are based upon competent and substantial evidence. Accordingly, the trial court correctly ruled that the facts did-not support equitable estoppel, and, therefore, that the county would not be enjoined from enforcing its ordinance. State Department of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So. 2d 397, 400-401 (Fla.1981). See generally 22 Fla.Jur.2d, Estoppel and Waiver, § 57 (1980).
AFFIRMED.
MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Dep't OF Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1981)
- Dolphin Outdoor Advertising v. Dep't OF Transp., 582 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)