Opinion ID: 2543464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A Party May be Estopped to Challenge the Validity of an Ordinance Even if It Was Void On Its Face.

Text: The Infangers assert that, even if successors in interest may generally be estopped due to the actions of their predecessors, a party cannot be estopped from challenging a statute or ordinance that was void when passed. The Infangers rely heavily on this Court's decision in Hillman v. City of Pocatello, 74 Idaho 69, 72, 256 P.2d 1072, 1073 (1953). In Hillman, this Court carved out an exception to the rule that one taking advantage of a statute cannot challenge its validity. Id. This Court held that the appellant could not be estopped from challenging an ordinance where it was later determined that the ordinance was void when it was passed. Id. The holding of Hillman, however, was undermined by this Court's holding in Alexander v. Trs. of Village of Middleton, 92 Idaho 823, 452 P.2d 50 (1969). In that case, Alexander was appealing a decision of the district court that held that he and the other appellants were estopped from challenging the validity of a city's annexation ordinance because they had accepted the benefits of the ordinance and had delayed the assertion of their rights for a long period of time. Id. at 824, 452 P.2d at 51. In affirming the district court, this Court held the language of Hillman v. City of Pocatello, supra, in precluding the imposition of equitable estoppel as a defense in this type of action, is erroneous. Id. at 827, 452 P.2d at 54. Thus, under the circumstances existing in the present case, estoppel can be used to bar one who challenges the validity of an ordinance that was void when passed. The district court's grant of summary judgment should be affirmed on the alternative theory that the Infangers are estopped to challenge the validity of the vacation ordinance.