Court Opinion

ID: 9587408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:21:49.646842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:58.449572
License: Public Domain

PIEPER, J.,
dissenting.
While I recognize the facts of the case are troubling, I respectfully dissent.
I do not believe that the Tort Claims Act provides a remedy for any negligence or mistake of a governmental employee not authorized by statute or ordinance to deviate from a zoning ordinance duly passed by the county. The negligence or mistake at issue did not involve the exercise of a discretionary act by even the duly authorized zoning administrator; instead, the negligent act or mistake at issue was the misinterpretation of the official zoning classification by an official other than the zoning administrator. Moreover, there simply is no indication that the zoning administrator or anyone else had the authority to deviate from the official zoning classification absent a duly authorized variance.
I am also concerned that the opinion may be interpreted as modifying the long-standing jurisprudence of this state re*328garding the application of estoppel against a governmental entity by recharacterizing a possible estoppel claim, if any, into one for negligence or negligent misrepresentation. United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once noted that “men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.” Rock Island, A. & L.R. Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143, 41 S.Ct. 55, 65 L.Ed. 188 (1920). This case indeed presents such a situation and the majority opinion is very compelling as to the estoppel issue and the issue of summary judgment.
However, based upon my interpretation of the law on this issue, I would affirm the decision of the circuit court.