Opinion ID: 442956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Estoppel Issue

Text: 6 Asserting that [t]he undenied evidence before the Court shows that the assessments were duly made and that no written objections were filed to the proposed assessments, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs were barred from bringing this suit on the basis of both statutory and common law doctrines of estoppel. The district court relied principally on Ala.Code Sec. 11-48-26, which provides: 7 The owner or owners of any real estate or any interest therein which it is proposed to assess for the cost or any part thereof of said improvement may appear at any time on or before the date named in said notice or at said meeting and file in writing with the clerk or in his office any objections or defense to the proposed assessment against said property or to the amount thereof, and persons who do not file objections or protests in writing against such assessment shall be held to have consented to the same. 8 See also Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank, 230 Ala. 257, 160 So. 260, 261 (1935); Jones v. City of Dothan, 230 Ala. 103, 159 So. 689, 690 (1935); cf. Chicago, Milwaukee, Saint Paul & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Risty, 276 U.S. 567, 575, 48 S.Ct. 396, 399, 72 L.Ed. 703 (1928) (finding similar South Dakota statute to comply with due process). The district court also relied on the common law doctrine of equitable estoppel, under which courts have held that a property owner who accepts a public improvement beneficial to his property without making any objection forfeits the right to object to an assessment of his property for the cost of the improvement. See, e.g., Lumbermen's Trust Co. v. Town of Ryegate, 61 F.2d 14, 26 (9th Cir.1932); City of Orangeburg v. Southern Ry. Co., 55 F.Supp. 171, 180 (E.D.S.C.), rev'd on other grounds, 145 F.2d 725 (4th Cir.1944), cert. denied, 324 U.S. 860, 65 S.Ct. 866, 89 L.Ed. 1417 (1945). 9 The district court has erred in this case, however, by accepting the defendants' rendition of the facts. They assert that the plaintiffs fail[ed] to make a protest in any fashion, and thereby acquiesced in the progression of the paving project from start to finish and thus gave the appearance of their approval. The record indicates, however, that lead plaintiff George Williams and at least fifteen of the other named plaintiffs in this action appeared at an initial public hearing less than three weeks after Ordinance 5950 was enacted to protest the maximum assessments which the City Commission had approved, and many of the others who protested on that occasion would presumably qualify for membership in the plaintiff class. Williams and others also attended an additional hearing in early 1982 where they presented a petition to the City Commission objecting to the proposed assessments. The plaintiffs had therefore objected orally at least twice, and had presented written objections at least once, during City Commission meetings held before the assessments were finalized. We find these actions sufficient to escape the bar of section 11-48-26, particularly since past Alabama judicial decisions have repeatedly declined to construe the requirements of this statute narrowly. See, e.g., Berry v. City of Huntsville, 47 Ala.App. 587, 259 So.2d 269, 274-75 (1971), cert. denied, 288 Ala. 731, 259 So.2d 276 (1972); Hill Realty Co. v. City of Mountain Brook, 276 Ala. 191, 160 So.2d 475, 478-79 (1964); Hood v. City of Bessemer, 213 Ala. 225, 104 So. 325, 326 (1925); Wallace v. City of Florence, 16 Ala.App. 506, 79 So. 267, 268 (1918). 10 The record likewise refutes a finding of equitable estoppel. Under Alabama law, three conditions are necessary to such a finding. 11 The actor, who usually must have knowledge of the true facts, communicates something in a misleading way, either by words, conduct or silence. The other relies upon that communication. And the other would be harmed materially if the actor is later permitted to assert any claim inconsistent with his earlier conduct. 12 Mazer v. Jackson Ins. Agency, 340 So.2d 770, 773 (Ala.1976) (quoting Dobbs, Remedies Sec. 2.3 (1973)). The record in this case simply does not support the claim that the plaintiff class, taken as a whole, acted in a misleading fashion. Although some of those who would qualify for membership in the class may have failed to protest the assessments, many others did so persistently and vigorously from the time the maximum assessments were first announced. The protesters made clear that although they desired the improvements Project 31 would bring, they believed the proposed assessments were unreasonably high. Some stated even more specifically that they could not pay such amounts, which in some cases apparently exceeded the value of their property. Under these circumstances, any misconception on the defendants' part is not attributable to the plaintiffs, and we therefore conclude that neither equitable nor statutory estoppel has been established here.