Opinion ID: 1828308
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limits on Equitable Estoppel

Text: ¶ 14. Horn Lake states that equitable estoppel is not limited by the precedent set out above. Yet at least one state has found that equitable estoppel does not apply where a governmental entity claims sovereign immunity, see, e.g., Indiana Dep't of Envtl. Mgm't v. Conard, 614 N.E.2d 916, 921 (Ind.1993), except where there is clear evidence that [the government's] agents made representations upon which the party asserting estoppel relied. West Publ'g Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Revenue, 524 N.E.2d 1329, 1333 (Ind. Tax Ct.1988). However, the party claiming equitable estoppel against a governmental entity must show that estoppel is not inconsistent with the public interest, and this interest must be weighed and balanced against the equities of the circumstances. Muncie Indus. Revolving Loan Fund Bd. v. Indiana Const. Corp., 583 N.E.2d 769 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). ¶ 15. The public interest for Southaven to annex the PAA is without question. Southaven a growing by leaps and bounds, and it needs more land in an area where land is at a premium. The cities of Southaven, Horn Lake and Olive Branch are all jockeying for more land where undeveloped land is increasingly scarce. Therefore, Horn Lake cannot show that estoppel is not inconsistent with the public interest. ¶ 16. Horn Lake claims that it detrimentally relied upon the agreement because, believing that the PAA would eventually be annexed, it intentionally chose not to seek to annex the PAA when it had the opportunity to do so. We find this contention to be without merit because Horn Lake, which seeks equity, did not take affirmative steps to protect its rights under the Agreement. Horn Lake had a window of opportunity to annex the PAA and it did not act. Weighing the equities, we find that Horn Lake was harmed not by Southaven, but by its own negligence. This claim is without merit.