Opinion ID: 2185419
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: claimed waiver of challenge

Text: York Cold Storage next contends that the district court erred in failing to find that the Bowmans waived their right to challenge the decision of the Board of Adjustment by their failure to seek injunctive relief to stop construction. Section 19-912 provides that on appeal, the district court shall not stay proceedings upon the decision appealed from, but the court may, on application, on notice to the board and on due cause shown, grant a restraining order. York Cold Storage in effect argues that the foregoing statute places upon one who wishes to challenge the grant of a variance an affirmative duty not only to appeal but to also seek and obtain a restraining order pending the outcome of the appeal. Waiver is a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known, existing legal right or conduct from which such relinquishment can be inferred. Stuhr v. Stuhr, 240 Neb. 239, 481 N.W.2d 212 (1992); Licht v. Association Servs., Inc., 236 Neb. 616, 463 N.W.2d 566 (1990). To establish the waiver of a legal right, there must be clear, unequivocal, and decisive action of the party showing such purpose, or acts which amount to an estoppel. See Jelsma v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 231 Neb. 657, 437 N.W.2d 778 (1989). The Bowmans took no action which can be said to have clearly and unequivocally demonstrated a knowing relinquishment of the right to challenge the variance nor such as to estop them from so doing. The very opposite is true; they filed their appeal and promptly gave York Cold Storage notice that they had done so. York Cold Storage simply made a business decision to take the risk of construction, knowing that the grant of the variance was being challenged and might be reversed. There is nothing in § 19-912 which requires one to either seek and obtain a restraining order or forgo any challenge to a variance. On the contrary, the statute merely provides that a challenger who wishes to incur the cost of obtaining a restraining order may do so in order to temporarily protect himself from the consequences of the variance during the pendency of the appeal. In so holding, we are not unmindful of Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. DeVilbiss, 729 P.2d 353 (Colo.1986), which holds that the failure of one challenging a zoning variance to obtain a temporary injunction pending the outcome of an appeal renders the cause moot. The problem with this approach, however, is that it encourages the disregard of legal challenges and promotes construction which may subsequently be found to be in violation of an erroneously waived zoning regulation. In this regard, we consider the reasoning in Bat'tles v. Board of Adjustment and Appeals, 711 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.App.1986), to be sounder. The Bat'tles court rejected the notion that the failure to obtain a restraining order or to file a supersedeas bond renders the cause moot. That court concluded that as the statute concerning the grant or denial of a variance was silent on whether a bond or restraining order was required, the general law of civil suits applied, and that law does not require a losing plaintiff to seek a bond or a restraining order. We therefore reject the DeVilbiss approach and hold that just as a plaintiff who collects a judgment which is appealed but is not superseded takes the risk of having to make restitution, Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gantt, 256 Ala. 262, 54 So.2d 595 (1951), so, too, does one who builds in accordance with a zoning variance which is appealed take the risk that it will have to tear down what it has built.