estoppel doctrine in Pennsylvania

2025Despite the clear language of the statute, over the past thirty- five years, this Court has read into the Uniform Act on Blood Tests two threshold determinations: a “court may order blood tests to determine paternity only when the presumption of paternity has been overcome[,]” and “[o]nly when the doctrine of estoppel does not apply[.]” Jones v. Trojak, 634 A.2d 201, 206 (Pa. 1993) (citing John M., 571 A.2d at 1380 ); 11 see also Strauser, 726 A.2d at 1054 (holding that because the alleged biological father could not overcome the presumption of paternity, blood tests establishing a 99.9% proba

2025See Jones, 634 A.2d at 206 (“Only when the doctrine of estoppel does not apply will the mother be permitted to proceed with a paternity claim against a putative father with the aid of a blood test”); Freedman v. McCandless, 654 A.2d 529, 532 (Pa. 1995) (same).

2016“Evidence of fraud ‘must be considered by the trial court in whether to apply paternity by estoppel.’” Id. (quoting Sekol v. Delsantro, 763 A.2d 405, 410 (Pa.Super.2000)).

2016“Evidence of fraud ‘must be considered by the trial court in whether to apply paternity by -5 - J-S41045-16 estoppel.’” Doran, 820 A.2d at 1279 (quoting Sekol v. Delsantro, 763 A.2d 405, 410 (Pa. Super. 2000)).

2022This Court has stated, however, that, “when allegations of fraud arise in a paternity action, an estoppel analysis must proceed in a different manner -9- J-A13010-22 than it would without such averments.” Doran, 820 A.2d at 1283 (citation omitted).

2016“When allegations of fraud arise in a paternity action, an estoppel analysis must proceed in a different manner than it would without such averments.” Doran, 820 A.2d at 1279 (quoting McConnell v. Berkheimer, 781 A.2d 206, 211 (Pa. Super. 2001)). “[This Court will] not allow the application of estoppel to punish the party who sought to do what was righteous and reward the party who had perpetrated a fraud.” Glover v. Severino, 946 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2016“When allegations of fraud arise in a paternity action, an estoppel analysis must proceed in a different manner than it would without such averments.” Doran, 820 A.2d at 1279 (quoting McConnell v. Berkheimer, 781 A.2d 206, 211 (Pa.Super.2001)).

2016“When allegations of fraud arise in a paternity action, an estoppel analysis must proceed in a different manner than it would without such averments.” Doran, 820 A.2d at 1279 (quoting McConnell v. Berkheimer, 781 A.2d 206, 211 (Pa. Super. 2001)). “[This Court will] not allow the application of estoppel to punish the party who sought to do what was righteous and reward the party who had perpetrated a fraud.” Glover v. Severino, 946 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2017Id. ____________________________________________ 2 “The presumption of paternity and the doctrine of estoppel, therefore, embody the two great fictions of the law of paternity: the presumption of paternity embodies the fiction that regardless of biology, the married people to whom the child was born are the parents; and the doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology, in the absence of a marriage, the person who has cared for the child is the parent.” Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176, 180 (Pa. 1997) (plurality).

2012See generally Brinkley, 549 Pa. at 249 , 701 A.2d at 180 (“The presumption of paternity and the doctrine of estoppel ... embody the two great fictions of the law of paternity: the presumption of paternity embodies the fiction that regardless of biology, the married people to whom the child was born are the parents; and the doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that, regardless of biology, in the absence of a marriage, the person who has cared for the child is the parent.”).

1993In Hauptmann v. Department of Transportation, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 277, 283 , 429 A.2d 1207, 1210 (1981), the court set forth the doctrine of equitable estoppel as it applies to a Commonwealth agency, as follows: The underlying premise of the estoppel cases is that the doctrine of estoppel may be applied to a Commonwealth *90 agency, in cases in which it has intentionally or negligently misrepresented some material fact, knowing or having reason to know that another person will justifiably rely on that misrepresentation, and where that other person has been induced to act to his detriment b

1993In Hauptmann v. Department of Transportation, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 277, 283 , 429 A.2d 1207, 1210 (1981), the court set forth the doctrine of equitable estoppel as it applies to a Commonwealth agency, as follows: The underlying premise of the estoppel cases is that the doctrine of estoppel may be applied to a Commonwealth *90 agency, in cases in which it has intentionally or negligently misrepresented some material fact, knowing or having reason to know that another person will justifiably rely on that misrepresentation, and where that other person has been induced to act to his detriment b

2025“There are actually two ways in which one may prove a consentable line: by dispute and compromise, or by recognition and acquiescence.” Id. - 20 - J-A14036-25 In demonstrating a consentable line by dispute and compromise, one must show evidence of: (1) a dispute with regard to the location of a common boundary line[;] (2) the establishment of a line in compromise of the dispute[;] and (3) “the consent of both parties to that line and the giving up of their respective claims which are inconsistent therewith.” Newton v. Smith, 40 Pa.Super. 615, 616 (1909). “[W]here such a line has been clearly e

2025“There are actually two ways in which one may prove a consentable line: by dispute and compromise, or by recognition and acquiescence.” Id. - 20 - J-A14036-25 In demonstrating a consentable line by dispute and compromise, one must show evidence of: (1) a dispute with regard to the location of a common boundary line[;] (2) the establishment of a line in compromise of the dispute[;] and (3) “the consent of both parties to that line and the giving up of their respective claims which are inconsistent therewith.” Newton v. Smith, 40 Pa.Super. 615, 616 (1909). “[W]here such a line has been clearly e

2017The doctrine of estoppel, however, is not cognizant against a municipality where the agent of the municipality that is clothed in its power acts “in excess of [the municipality’s] powers, or in violation of positive law, or for an act requiring legislative or executive action.” Ervin v. City of Pittsburgh, 14 A.2d 297, 301 (Pa. 1940). 6 Board to request a variance; the landowner succeeded in having the property rezoned but when she then sought a variance, the zoning hearing board denied her request.

2017Id.

1982DeFrank v. County of Greene, 50 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 30 , 412 A.2d 663 (1980); see Breinig v. Allegheny Co., 332 Pa. 474 , 2 A.2d 842 (1938) (a municipality like a private corporation is subject to the doctrine of estoppel).

1982DeFrank v. County of Greene, 50 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 30 , 412 A.2d 663 (1980); see Breinig v. Allegheny Co., 332 Pa. 474 , 2 A.2d 842 (1938) (a municipality like a private corporation is subject to the doctrine of estoppel).

2025See Jones, 634 A.2d at 206 (“Only when the doctrine of estoppel does not apply will the mother be permitted to proceed with a paternity claim against a putative father with the aid of a blood test”); Freedman v. McCandless, 654 A.2d 529, 532 (Pa. 1995) (same).

2007The paternity by estoppel doctrine provides that, “because of a person’s conduct (e.g., holding out the child as his own, or supporting the child), that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage, nor will the child’s mother who has participated in this conduct be permitted to sue a third party for support, claiming that the third party is the true father.” Freedman, 539 Pa. at 591 , 654 A.2d at 532-33 . (footnote omitted) Evidence of fraud is relevant, and can preclude application of the estoppel doctrine.

2016“When allegations of fraud arise in a paternity action, an estoppel analysis must proceed in a different manner than it would without such averments.” Doran, 820 A.2d at 1279 (quoting McConnell v. Berkheimer, 781 A.2d 206, 211 (Pa. Super. 2001)). “[This Court will] not allow the application of estoppel to punish the party who sought to do what was righteous and reward the party who had perpetrated a fraud.” Glover v. Severino, 946 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2016“When allegations of fraud arise in a paternity action, an estoppel analysis must proceed in a different manner than it would without such averments.” Doran, 820 A.2d at 1279 (quoting McConnell v. Berkheimer, 781 A.2d 206, 211 (Pa.Super.2001)). “[This Court will] not allow the application of estoppel to punish the party who sought to do what was righteous and reward the party who had perpetrated a fraud.” Glover v. Severino, 946 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa.Super.2008).

2002The result of the majority opinion in this case exemplifies the danger envisioned by Justice Nigro in his dissenting opinion in Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523 , 741 A.2d 721 (1999), where he stated: This situation is a perfect example of why I believe that our courts should abandon the strict application of the estoppel doctrine and grant trial courts the discretion to order paternity blood tests and then consider such evidence along with other factors relevant to the best interests of the child involved.

2002The result of the majority opinion in this case exemplifies the danger envisioned by Justice Nigro in his dissenting opinion in Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523 , 741 A.2d 721 (1999), where he stated: This situation is a perfect example of why I believe that our courts should abandon the strict application of the estoppel doctrine and grant trial courts the discretion to order paternity blood tests and then consider such evidence along with other factors relevant to the best interests of the child involved.

2000In the case of Nesbitt v. Erie Coach Co., 416 Pa. 89 , 204 A.2d 473 (1964), our Supreme Court held that “[i]n order for the doctrine of estoppel to be applied in bar of the statute of limitations, fraud or concealment must necessarily be established.

2000In the case of Nesbitt v. Erie Coach Co., 416 Pa. 89 , 204 A.2d 473 (1964), our Supreme Court held that “[i]n order for the doctrine of estoppel to be applied in bar of the statute of limitations, fraud or concealment must necessarily be established.

2008J.C., 826 A.2d at 6 . ¶ 10 Specifically, Presley argues that the ordering of genetic testing before ruling on the estoppel claim raised by Russell was error, because it “caused the child harm by calling into question the only father [the child] has known.” Presley’s brief at 13.

2006That he embraced that status for a relatively short period of time solely because he was misled is a critical factor the trial court overlooks. ¶ 12 In its supplemental opinion, the trial court acknowledged that evidence of fraud is relevant to the estoppel analysis and that “a putative father -will not be estopped from denying paternity when fraudulent conduct induces that putative father into treating the child as his own.” (Supplemental Opinion, 3/15/05 at 1, citing J.C. v. J.S., 826 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super.2003); Doran v. Doran, 820 A.2d 1279 (Pa.Super.2003)).

1993Co., 353 Pa. 523 , 46 A.2d 224 (1946). 3 The Superior Court granted the appeal from an order requiring the putative father to submit to a blood test based on this Commonwealth’s long-standing doctrine of estoppel. 4 The Superior Court held that, “[w]hen an Order appealed from involves a blood test and the issue presented focuses on whether or not the doctrine of estoppel must be applied to the denial of paternity by a presumptive parent which will control whether or not an Order to submit to blood tests will issue, [we have] treated the Order as appealable.” Christianson, 390 Pa.Super. at 402

1993Co., 353 Pa. 523 , 46 A.2d 224 (1946). 3 The Superior Court granted the appeal from an order requiring the putative father to submit to a blood test based on this Commonwealth’s long-standing doctrine of estoppel. 4 The Superior Court held that, “[w]hen an Order appealed from involves a blood test and the issue presented focuses on whether or not the doctrine of estoppel must be applied to the denial of paternity by a presumptive parent which will control whether or not an Order to submit to blood tests will issue, [we have] treated the Order as appealable.” Christianson, 390 Pa.Super. at 402

2025“There are actually two ways in which one may prove a consentable line: by dispute and compromise, or by recognition and acquiescence.” Id. - 20 - J-A14036-25 In demonstrating a consentable line by dispute and compromise, one must show evidence of: (1) a dispute with regard to the location of a common boundary line[;] (2) the establishment of a line in compromise of the dispute[;] and (3) “the consent of both parties to that line and the giving up of their respective claims which are inconsistent therewith.” Newton v. Smith, 40 Pa.Super. 615, 616 (1909). “[W]here such a line has been clearly e

2016It is a form of estoppel, whereby once "a consentable line has been clearly established ..., the line becomes binding under application of the doctrine of estoppel after twenty-one years." Plauchak , 653 A.2d at 677 ; see also Niles , 545 A.2d at 930 (same); Newton v. Smith , 40 Pa.Super. 615 , 616 (1909) (stating "where such a line has been clearly established and the parties on each side take possession or surrender possession already held up to that line, it becomes binding, under the application of the doctrine of estoppel").

2017In Northcroft, the Superior Court concluded that, unlike in instances where equitable estoppel is used 4 as a defense and must be pled, a plaintiff’s “affirmative use of equitable estoppel is not waived by the failure to raise it in the trial court…consideration of its applicability is proper because the character of the plaintiff’s action as stated in his complaint and the evidence at trial are amenable to an estoppel analysis, even if those specific words were never used.” Id. at 626 (internal citations omitted).

2011“Equitable estoppel arises when a party by acts or representation intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe that certain facts exist and the other justifiably relies and acts upon such belief, so that the latter will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts.” Id. “[A] municipality like a private corporation is subject to the doctrine of estoppel.

2012Under the equitable doctrine of estoppel, “[wjhere...parties proceed in good faith reliance upon the other parties’ contractual obligations, the doctrine will preclude the other parties from denying their obligations.” Sullivan v. County of Bucks, 92 Pa. Cmwlth. 213, 230-231, 499 A.2d 678, 688 (1985), app. denied, 516 Pa. 623 , 532 A.2d 21 (1986).

2001A municipality, like a private corporation, is subject to the doctrine of estoppel, as is a school district. ” 14 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d §§79:15, 79:18 (1996), citing Sullivan v. County of Bucks, 92 Pa. Commw. 213 , 499 A.2d 678 (1985) and McNelly Appeal, 122 Pa. Commw. 601 , 553 A.2d 472 (1989).

2007See, e.g., Kohler v. Bleem, 439 Pa.Super. 385 , 654 A.2d 569, 580 (1995) (Tamilia, J., dissenting) (arguing that to provide the fullest protection to the children involved, a determination of paternity by estoppel should not be overcome by a finding of fraud with respect to the specific identity of the biological father). .

2007See, e.g., Kohler v. Bleem, 439 Pa.Super. 385 , 654 A.2d 569, 580 (1995) (Tamilia, J., dissenting) (arguing that to provide the fullest protection to the children involved, a determination of paternity by estoppel should not be overcome by a finding of fraud with respect to the specific identity of the biological father). .

1997Id. *428 In 1990, estoppel was extended to a mother who "cannot hold out her husband to be the father (of her child) and, thereafter, upon separation, charge a different man with paternity." Christianson v. Ely, 390 Pa.Super. 398, 402-403 , 568 A.2d 961, 963 (1990).

1997Id.