|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Equitable and Promissory Estoppel Claims Barred When City Performing Government Function
2005-1351 and 2005-1361. Hortman v. Miamisburg, 2006-Ohio-4251.
Montgomery App. No. 20664, 161 Ohio App.3d 559, 2005-Ohio-2862. Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-4251.pdf
(Aug. 30, 2006) The Supreme Court of Ohio held today that a political subdivision is immune from civil liability for claims based on the legal theories of equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel when such claims arise from the political subdivision's performance of a governmental function. The Court's 6-1 decision was authored by Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton.
The case involved civil damage claims asserted by Douglas and David Hortman against the city of Miamisburg for alleged damage to their property, which is located at the intersection of South Linden Avenue and Maue Road in Miamisburg.
The city held two neighborhood meetings to discuss a proposed street-widening project affecting both streets adjacent to the Hortman property. The Hortmans attended both meetings, and expressed concern that the construction would damage or destroy several large trees on their property, especially a 200-year-old elm. In discussions with City Engineer Robert Stanley and City Councilman Robert Faulkner at those meetings, the Hortmans were assured that the trees in question would not be destroyed or damaged during the road improvement project.
The Hortmans subsequently signed a work permission agreement allowing city workers and equipment to enter the property and engage in various types of activities including excavation to adjust the driveway level to the new street surface, re-set water service lines and do necessary tree and brush removal as indicated in the city's work plan for the project. During the course of excavation, the root system of the elm was exposed and it had to be removed. Other trees were removed as well.
The Hortmans filed a civil suit seeking damages from the city and its contractor in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. Among other complaints, they asserted a “promissory estoppel” claim for the loss of the trees that the city had promised to preserve. “Promissory estoppel” is a legal doctrine that grants a right of civil recovery to a person who relies on a non-contractual pledge or promise from another party regarding that person's future actions or forbearance from action, when the maker of the pledge fails to do what was promised and the receiver of the pledge suffers compensable harm as a result of his reliance on the broken promise.
The city moved for and the trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the Hortmans' promissory estoppel claims. In its decision, the court cited prior Ohio decisions holding that political subdivisions are granted sovereign immunity from claims for promissory estoppel when a plaintiff's alleged damages arose from the city's performance of a governmental function.
On review, the 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment on the promissory estoppel claim, and remanded that part of the case for additional proceedings. The appellate panel acknowledged that promissory estoppel claims against a political subdivision are generally barred when the government entity was engaged in its official functions. But the 2nd District held that exceptions to this general rule have been recognized, and found that the Hortmans had raised material issues of fact capable of sustaining a judgment in their favor. The 2nd District certified that its decision was in conflict with rulings by the 5th and 10th districts in similar cases, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments to resolve the conflict among districts.
Writing for the Court in today's decision, Justice Stratton noted that R.C. Chapter 2744 grants political subdivisions of the state general immunity from civil liability for negligent acts if those acts take place in the performance of governmental functions, unless certain specific exceptions spelled out in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply. She also noted that, in their pleadings urging affirmance of the 2nd District's decision, the Hortmans had raised both promissory estoppel and the closely related doctrine of “equitable estoppel” (in which a plaintiff acts to his detriment while reasonably relying on a defendant's assertions of purported facts which are later found to be inaccurate).
Justice Stratton observed that the 2nd District had based its reversal of the trial court's summary judgment in this case primarily on its own decision in a 1991 case, State v. First, Inc., in which it held that promissory estoppel could be asserted as an exception to the general rule of sovereign immunity “in a contractual context where the subject matter of the contract is within the authority of the person acting on behalf of the state.”
“In 1991, this court accepted First, Inc. as a discretionary appeal and later dismissed it, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted,” wrote Justice Stratton. “In dismissing the case, we held ‘The court orders that the court of appeals' opinion not be published in Ohio Official Reports, and that it may not be cited as authority except by the parties (in that specific case).' Despite this court's order to the contrary, the appellate court in this case not only cited First, Inc. as authority but relied on it as its primary authority in concluding the Hortmans' promissory estoppel claim was not subject to summary judgment. Today we reaffirm our holding in State v. First, Inc. that the court of appeals decision in that case has no precedential value, and hold that the doctrines of equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel are inapplicable against a political subdivision when the political subdivision is engaged in a governmental function.”
The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Maureen O'Connor, Terrence O'Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzinger.
Justice Paul E. Pfeifer entered a dissent in which he asserted his continuing belief that R.C. Chapter 2744 is unconstitutional in holding political subdivisions immune from civil liability for certain acts. In the context of the Hortmans' claim against Miamisburg, Justice Pfeifer wrote that the majority's blanket exclusion of promissory estoppel claims against a government unit when engaged in a governmental function “extends the coverage of the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act beyond its self-created boundaries. It is one thing to hold the state harmless for the mistakes of its employees; it is quite another to hold that the state need not abide by its promises.”
Contacts
Robert J. Surdyk, 937.222.2333, for
the City of Miamisburg.
Patrick J. Conboy II, 937.237.9485, for Douglas Hortman.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."