equitable estoppel doctrine in Wyoming

2020“The elements of equitable estoppel are a lack of knowledge, reliance in good faith, and action or inaction that results in an injury.” Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2003 WY 102, ¶ 34 , 75 P.3d 640, 653 (Wyo. 2003). 20 [¶69] Mr. Binning neither pled nor argued the equitable estoppel claim in the district court.

2020“The elements of equitable estoppel are a lack of knowledge, reliance in good faith, and action or inaction that results in an injury.” Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2003 WY 102, ¶ 34 , 75 P.3d 640, 653 (Wyo. 2003). 20 [¶69] Mr. Binning neither pled nor argued the equitable estoppel claim in the district court.

2009"The elements of an equitable estoppel claim are 1) a delay in filing an action that is induced by the defendant; 2) the defendant misled the plaintiff; and 3) the plaintiff must have acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner." Ballinger v. Thompson, 2005 WY 101, ¶ 22 , 118 P.3d 429, 436 (Wyo.2005).

2009"The elements of an equitable estoppel claim are 1) a delay in filing an action that is induced by the defendant; 2) the defendant misled the plaintiff; and 3) the plaintiff must have acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner." Ballinger v. Thompson, 2005 WY 101, ¶ 22 , 118 P.3d 429, 436 (Wyo.2005).

2005See DeWitt v. Balben, 718 P.2d 854, 861-62 (Wyo.1986).

1988This court recognized the element of affirmative misconduct in DeWitt v. Balben, Wyo., 718 P.2d 854, 861-862 (1986) wherein we cited the following: "Equitable estoppel or estoppel by misrepresentation is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a person whereby he is precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights against another person relying on such conduct; and it arises where a person, by his acts, representations, or admissions, or even by his silence when it is his duty to speak, intentionally or through culpable negligence induces another to believe that certain facts exist,

2014Archuleta, 942 P.2d at 406-07 . [132] In the present case, the evidence offers even less support for an equitable estoppel claim.

2008The elements of an equitable estoppel claim are as follows: "The delay in filing the action must be induced by the defendant; the defendant must have misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff must have acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner." Taylor v. Est. of Taylor, 719 P.2d 234, 240 (Wyo.1986). [T10] We discussed the doctrine of equitable estoppel in Archuleta v. City of Rawlins, 942 P.2d 404 (Wyo.1997).

2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne

2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne

2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne

2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne

2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne

2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne

2021Mendez, 2018 WL 9945832 , at *3 (citing Oak Grove Const. Co. v. Jefferson Cnty., 219 F. 858 (6th Cir. 1915)) (holding that a party to a contract who ratifies an assignment by conduct cannot later contest its legitimacy). [¶40] Assignment by estoppel is closely related to the doctrine of equitable estoppel which this Court has recognized: equitable estoppel is embodied by the following concept: “one who by his acts or representations intentionally or through culpable negligence induces another to believe 12 certain facts to exist, and the latter, not knowing the facts, acts on such belief to hi

2021Mendez, 2018 WL 9945832 , at *3 (citing Oak Grove Const. Co. v. Jefferson Cnty., 219 F. 858 (6th Cir. 1915)) (holding that a party to a contract who ratifies an assignment by conduct cannot later contest its legitimacy). [¶40] Assignment by estoppel is closely related to the doctrine of equitable estoppel which this Court has recognized: equitable estoppel is embodied by the following concept: “one who by his acts or representations intentionally or through culpable negligence induces another to believe 12 certain facts to exist, and the latter, not knowing the facts, acts on such belief to hi

2021Mendez, 2018 WL 9945832 , at *3 (citing Oak Grove Const. Co. v. Jefferson Cnty., 219 F. 858 (6th Cir. 1915)) (holding that a party to a contract who ratifies an assignment by conduct cannot later contest its legitimacy). [¶40] Assignment by estoppel is closely related to the doctrine of equitable estoppel which this Court has recognized: equitable estoppel is embodied by the following concept: “one who by his acts or representations intentionally or through culpable negligence induces another to believe 12 certain facts to exist, and the latter, not knowing the facts, acts on such belief to hi

2021“In its current form, equitable estoppel requires ‘some misrepresentation and is generally applied to prevent fraud, either constructive or actual.’” Id. (quoting Peterson, 957 P.2d at 1311 ). [¶41] A determination of equitable assignment, or that the doctrine of assignment by estoppel applies, would position HOA2 as a successor to HOA1.

2019Stafford , 2008 WY 128 , ¶ 14, 194 P.3d at 318 (citations omitted). [¶159] Mantles argue the district court abused its discretion when it denied the fee award, because "this entire litigation was so interwoven between Mantles' claims and the Counterclaim (particularly the equitable estoppel claim) that it would have been an arbitrary effort to try to distinguish the time and expense" attributable to Mantles' subrogation claim.

2019Stafford , 2008 WY 128 , ¶ 14, 194 P.3d at 318 (citations omitted). [¶159] Mantles argue the district court abused its discretion when it denied the fee award, because "this entire litigation was so interwoven between Mantles' claims and the Counterclaim (particularly the equitable estoppel claim) that it would have been an arbitrary effort to try to distinguish the time and expense" attributable to Mantles' subrogation claim.

2014To make that showing, Inman's evidence must show: "1) a delay in filing an action that is induced by the defendant; 2) the defendant misled the plaintiff; and 8) the plaintiff must have acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner." See Lucky Gate Ranch, L.L.C. v. Baker & Assoc., Inc., 2009 WY 69, ¶ 24 , 208 P.3d 57, 66 (Wyo.2009) (quoting Ballinger v. Thompson, 2005 WY 101, ¶ 22 , 118 P.3d 429, 436 (Wyo.2005)); see also Swinney v. Jones, 2008 WY 150, ¶ 9 , 199 P.3d 512, 516 (Wyo.2008). [126] In opposition to Boykin's motion, In

2014To make that showing, Inman's evidence must show: "1) a delay in filing an action that is induced by the defendant; 2) the defendant misled the plaintiff; and 8) the plaintiff must have acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner." See Lucky Gate Ranch, L.L.C. v. Baker & Assoc., Inc., 2009 WY 69, ¶ 24 , 208 P.3d 57, 66 (Wyo.2009) (quoting Ballinger v. Thompson, 2005 WY 101, ¶ 22 , 118 P.3d 429, 436 (Wyo.2005)); see also Swinney v. Jones, 2008 WY 150, ¶ 9 , 199 P.3d 512, 516 (Wyo.2008). [126] In opposition to Boykin's motion, In

2014To make that showing, Inman's evidence must show: "1) a delay in filing an action that is induced by the defendant; 2) the defendant misled the plaintiff; and 8) the plaintiff must have acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner." See Lucky Gate Ranch, L.L.C. v. Baker & Assoc., Inc., 2009 WY 69, ¶ 24 , 208 P.3d 57, 66 (Wyo.2009) (quoting Ballinger v. Thompson, 2005 WY 101, ¶ 22 , 118 P.3d 429, 436 (Wyo.2005)); see also Swinney v. Jones, 2008 WY 150, ¶ 9 , 199 P.3d 512, 516 (Wyo.2008). [126] In opposition to Boykin's motion, In

2014To make that showing, Inman's evidence must show: "1) a delay in filing an action that is induced by the defendant; 2) the defendant misled the plaintiff; and 8) the plaintiff must have acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner." See Lucky Gate Ranch, L.L.C. v. Baker & Assoc., Inc., 2009 WY 69, ¶ 24 , 208 P.3d 57, 66 (Wyo.2009) (quoting Ballinger v. Thompson, 2005 WY 101, ¶ 22 , 118 P.3d 429, 436 (Wyo.2005)); see also Swinney v. Jones, 2008 WY 150, ¶ 9 , 199 P.3d 512, 516 (Wyo.2008). [126] In opposition to Boykin's motion, In

2014Symons v. Heaton, 2014 WY 4, ¶ 7 , 316 P.3d 1171, 1174 (Wyo.2014). "[The party who is opposing the motion for summary judgment must present specific facts to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists." Id. (quoting Christensen v. Carbon County, 2004 WY 135, ¶ 8 , 100 P.3d 411, 413 (Wyo.2004)).

2014Symons v. Heaton, 2014 WY 4, ¶ 7 , 316 P.3d 1171, 1174 (Wyo.2014). "[The party who is opposing the motion for summary judgment must present specific facts to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists." Id. (quoting Christensen v. Carbon County, 2004 WY 135, ¶ 8 , 100 P.3d 411, 413 (Wyo.2004)).

2014Symons v. Heaton, 2014 WY 4, ¶ 7 , 316 P.3d 1171, 1174 (Wyo.2014). "[The party who is opposing the motion for summary judgment must present specific facts to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists." Id. (quoting Christensen v. Carbon County, 2004 WY 135, ¶ 8 , 100 P.3d 411, 413 (Wyo.2004)).

2014Symons v. Heaton, 2014 WY 4, ¶ 7 , 316 P.3d 1171, 1174 (Wyo.2014). "[The party who is opposing the motion for summary judgment must present specific facts to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists." Id. (quoting Christensen v. Carbon County, 2004 WY 135, ¶ 8 , 100 P.3d 411, 413 (Wyo.2004)).

2008The elements of an equitable estoppel claim are as follows: "The delay in filing the action must be induced by the defendant; the defendant must have misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff must have acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner." Taylor v. Est. of Taylor, 719 P.2d 234, 240 (Wyo.1986). [T10] We discussed the doctrine of equitable estoppel in Archuleta v. City of Rawlins, 942 P.2d 404 (Wyo.1997).

2008The elements of an equitable estoppel claim are as follows: "The delay in filing the action must be induced by the defendant; the defendant must have misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff must have acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner." Taylor v. Est. of Taylor, 719 P.2d 234, 240 (Wyo.1986). [T10] We discussed the doctrine of equitable estoppel in Archuleta v. City of Rawlins, 942 P.2d 404 (Wyo.1997).

2005This standard for the application of equitable estoppel must be distinguished from those situations where the government is acting "as an employer or in a proprietary capacity." See Wells v. Board of Trustees of Laramie County School District No. 1, 3 P.3d 861, 867 (Wyo.2000) (recognizing the application of equitable estoppel for "unintentional, misleading statement!»” when the government is functioning in a proprietary capacity). .

2004We recently described the doctrine of equitable estoppel in Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2003 WY 102, ¶ 34 , 75 P.3d 640, 653 (Wyo.2003): " 'Equitable estoppel is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded from asserting rights which might otherwise have existed as against another person who has in good faith relied upon such conduct and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse.’ " Snake River Brewing Co., Inc. v. Town of Jackson, 2002 WY 11, ¶ 28 , 39 P.3d 397, 407-08 (Wyo.2002) (quoting State Farm Mut.

2004We recently described the doctrine of equitable estoppel in Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2003 WY 102, ¶ 34 , 75 P.3d 640, 653 (Wyo.2003): " 'Equitable estoppel is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded from asserting rights which might otherwise have existed as against another person who has in good faith relied upon such conduct and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse.’ " Snake River Brewing Co., Inc. v. Town of Jackson, 2002 WY 11, ¶ 28 , 39 P.3d 397, 407-08 (Wyo.2002) (quoting State Farm Mut.

2002The test has also been stated as whether enforcement of the new ordinance would render "valueless substantial improvements or businesses built up over the years [or] cause serious financial harm to the property owner." People v. Miller, 304 N.Y. 105 , 106 N.E.2d 34, 36 (1952). [128] As mentioned _ above, when the case involves an ordinance change that invalidates a previously valid use of property, these considerations also involve application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

2002The test has also been stated as whether enforcement of the new ordinance would render "valueless substantial improvements or businesses built up over the years [or] cause serious financial harm to the property owner." People v. Miller, 304 N.Y. 105 , 106 N.E.2d 34, 36 (1952). [128] As mentioned _ above, when the case involves an ordinance change that invalidates a previously valid use of property, these considerations also involve application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

1990In Hoffman v. First National Bank of Akron, Iowa, 99 B.R. 929, 935 (N.D.

1990In Hoffman v. First National Bank of Akron, Iowa, 99 B.R. 929, 935 (N.D.

1987See Lewis v. State Board of Control, Wyo., 699 P.2d 822 (1985); Sturgeon v. Brooks, 73 Wyo. 436 , 281 P.2d 675 (1955), in which the court discussed, although it did not apply, the doctrine of equitable estoppel.