Can You Say "Estoppel?"

At the August Board Meeting, the Board was finally  considering a response, after a number of months, to a formal complaint against a well-known property in the Township.  This response could have been an enforcement of the Ordinance it was alleged to have been violated.  During the discussion of the matter, the Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons, of Kelly and Lemmons law firm, stated to the Board that estoppel had not attached and that, indeed, it is very unusual for estoppel to have attached in governmental matters such as the one before them.  (This was one of several statements by him to the Board on the complaint.)

Interestingly, the Board did not ask the attorney to clarify what he meant by "estoppel has not attached."  I don't know the reasons the five of them did not ask for this information since I cannot read their minds and they did not speak on the subject, but perhaps:

1)  They've all gone out and received law degrees recently.
Just kidding...

2)  This concept of estoppel has been so well and exhaustively explained to them during the many special meetings called concerning this property and the Township's own counterclaim lawsuit regarding it that they did not require a refresher.
OR, understanding it well themselves,
3)  They somehow did not feel that the many people present in the audience would benefit from a full understanding of what the TOWNSHIP Attorney was advising them. Forget that the audience members, along with the rest of us taxpayers, are paying for this advice!
4)  They did not feel a need to address it because they did not consider that estoppel having not attached was that important, so why delve into it anyway???  Just a question...


Why is estoppel important?  Here are two brief, general explanations of it which, along with other information, can be found online:

Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied."

Estoppel is essentially a rule of evidence whereby a person is barred from denying the truth of a fact that has already been settled. Where a court finds that a party has done something warranting a form of estoppel, that party is said to be "estopped" from making certain related arguments or claiming certain related rights. The defendant is said to be "estopped" from presenting the related defense, or the plaintiff is said to be "estopped" from making the related argument against the defendant.

What this means in any matter in which estoppel has not attached is essentially that past decisions by former Boards which may have been in error, may have been founded on partial or incorrect information, may have been you-fill-in-the-blank, do not stop this Board from finding otherwise. In this particular case, if they had reason to believe that the Ordinance should be enforced in the here-and-now based on the argument and facts laid out before them by the complainants' attorney, based on the Ordinance, and based on the Township Attorney's complete advice, they were not bound legally to do otherwise.  There was not a precedent set by those earlier Boards which must be followed.  If they felt previous Boards were incorrect, they could "right the wrong."

Ultimately, the Board voted 3-2 to allow the property owner to continue to do what was being done and found that the property owner was not in violation of the Ordinance. Supervisors Storlie, Ceminsky, and Madden voted in favor of the property owner complained against, while Supervisors Budenski and Miller voted against the motion.

Now, what they ultimately decided was their decision, whether you or I or anybody agrees with it or not. They were elected to make these decisions on behalf of all of us.  I simply say that I believe it clearly would have been preferable to directly address the concept of estoppel when it was raised, explore what it means, and explain in so many words why they were deciding as they did even though it had not attached. It appeared to me by some statements made that at least some felt a need to go along with what other Boards had done, so I am still not sure, because they did not directly address it, whether this concept WAS clearly understood by (all of) them. Or perhaps those parties simply believed that what other Boards had done was correct in spite of certain facts, definitions, and explanations about local ordinances taking precedence that were presented that night.  

In all matters such as this which could be subject to further legal action, taxpayers would surely desire that, and want to be assured that, each aspect of legal advice is clearly explained in some detail for all, examined thoroughly, and weighed consciously before decisions are made.  

Hoping it IS a "beautiful day in your neighborhood..."