estoppel doctrine in California

2026“The doctrine of invited error ‘is an “application of the estoppel principle” ’ and applies when a party invites the court or the jury to commit error.” (People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060 , 1072; accord Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 (Norgart).) “Under this doctrine, ‘ “when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error.” ’ ” (Midell, at p. 1072.) In order for the doctrine to apply, “ ‘[t]he record must show only that counsel made a conscious, deliberate tactical cho

2026“The ‘doctrine of invited error’ is an ‘application of the estoppel principle’: ‘Where a party by his conduct induces the commission of error, he is estopped from asserting it as a ground 10 As set forth above, the jury instructions defined retaliation as arising from, among other things, “opposition to discrimination.” The jury was never asked whether respondents’ opposition to discrimination resulted in adverse employment actions. 21 for reversal’ on appeal.” (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 .) The doctrine rests on the principle that a party may not mislead the trial court

2025“The fundamental rule that a reviewing court does not consider arguments or theories that could have been but were not raised below ‘is especially applicable to the doctrine of estoppel, which includes factual elements that must be established in the trial court.’ ” (Rogers v. County of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 480, 490, fn. 6 .) Because Maldonado did not raise the issue of equitable estoppel in the trial court, we decline to consider it.

2021(Key v. Tyler II, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 533 ; Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982, 997 .) “The fundamental rule that a reviewing court does not consider arguments or theories that could have been but were not raised below ‘is especially applicable to the doctrine of estoppel, which includes factual elements that must be established in the trial court.’ ” (Rogers v. County of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 480, 490, fn. 6 , quoting Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 520, 530 .) a.

2023The doctrine of estoppel “ ‘affirms that “a person may not lull another into a false sense of security by conduct causing the latter to forebear to do something which he otherwise would have done and then take advantage of the inaction caused by his own conduct.’ ” (Southern Cal. Edison, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 1110 , quoting Tresway Aero, Inc. v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 431 , 437–438.) This would appear to be a fair description of what transpired here. 23 Our conclusion that Grosvenor did not waive McMillan’s compliance with the threshold requirement of the renewal option—that McMi

2014“It is well settled that ‘ “issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” ’[Citations.]” (Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 520, 530 .) “This rule is especially applicable to the doctrine of estoppel, which includes factual elements that must be established in the trial court.” (Ibid.) The rule specifically applies to estoppel claims like plaintiff’s, which are based on Tresway Aero, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.3d 431 .

1962Co., 175 Cal. 293, 295-296 [ 165 P. 927 ].) [4] To constitute a waiver there must be an existing right, a knowledge of its existence, and an actual intention to relinquish it, or conduct so inconsistent with the intent to enforce the right as to induce a reasonable belief that it has been relinquished. (51 Cal.Jur.2d, Waiver, § 3, pp. 307-308, and cases cited therein.) The party who has the right may waive it without reliance by another. [5] The doctrine of estoppel, however, is based on the theory that the party estopped has by his declarations or conduct misled another to his prejudice so th

1962Co., 175 Cal. 293, 295-296 [ 165 P. 927 ].) [4] To constitute a waiver there must be an existing right, a knowledge of its existence, and an actual intention to relinquish it, or conduct so inconsistent with the intent to enforce the right as to induce a reasonable belief that it has been relinquished. (51 Cal.Jur.2d, Waiver, § 3, pp. 307-308, and cases cited therein.) The party who has the right may waive it without reliance by another. [5] The doctrine of estoppel, however, is based on the theory that the party estopped has by his declarations or conduct misled another to his prejudice so th

1977(Monarco v. Lo Greco (1950) 35 Cal.2d 621, 627 [ 220 P.2d 737 ].) “In those cases . . . where either an unconscionable injury or unjust enrichment would result from refusal to enforce the contract, the doctrine of estoppel has been applied whether or not plaintiff relied upon representations going to the requirements of the statute itself.” (Monarco v. Lo Greco, supra, 35 Cal.2d 621, 625 .) The jury and the court found that decedent relied upon Al’s oral promise not to share in her estate to her detriment, she having forgone any claim to Al’s estate should he have survived her, having not comm

1977(Monarco v. Lo Greco (1950) 35 Cal.2d 621, 627 [ 220 P.2d 737 ].) “In those cases . . . where either an unconscionable injury or unjust enrichment would result from refusal to enforce the contract, the doctrine of estoppel has been applied whether or not plaintiff relied upon representations going to the requirements of the statute itself.” (Monarco v. Lo Greco, supra, 35 Cal.2d 621, 625 .) The jury and the court found that decedent relied upon Al’s oral promise not to share in her estate to her detriment, she having forgone any claim to Al’s estate should he have survived her, having not comm

2015The doctrine of estoppel has been applied where an unconscionable injury would result from denying enforcement after one party has been induced to make a serious change of position in reliance on the contract or where unjust enrichment would result if a party who has received the benefits of the other’s performance were allowed to invoke the statute. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (Redke v. Silvertrust (1971) 6 Cal.3d 94, 101 , cert. den. sub nom.

2013(Byrne v. Laura (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1068 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 ] (Byrne).) “ ‘The doctrine of estoppel has been applied where an unconscionable injury would result from denying enforcement after one party has been induced to make a serious change of position in reliance on die contract or where unjust enrichment would result if a party who has received the benefits of the other’s performance were allowed to invoke the statute.’ ” (Redke v. Silvertrust (1971) 6 Cal.3d 94, 101 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 293 , 490 P.2d 805 ].) Generally, “four elements must be present in order to apply the doctrine of

2017“The essence of an estoppel is that one has, by false statements or conduct, led another to do that which he would not otherwise have done and as a result the other has suffered injury. [Citation.] The elements of an estoppel claim are: ‘(1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury.’ ” (Golden Day School, Inc. v.

2017“The essence of an estoppel is that one has, by false statements or conduct, led another to do that which he would not otherwise have done and as a result the other has suffered injury. [Citation.] The elements of an estoppel claim are: ‘(1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury.’ ” (Golden Day School, Inc. v.

2007Instead they have conducted themselves relative to *1476 settled and subdivided lands ... as if no title problems existed and have misled thousands of homeowners in the process.” ( Mansell, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 492 .) The Mansell court concluded application of the estoppel doctrine would not have a deleterious effect on the public policy of ensuring public ownership of tidelands, as development, in the Alamitos Bay area “has resulted in an area providing an impressive array of public facilities for navigation and recreation.” ( Mansell, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 500 .) The court cautioned that th

2007Instead they have conducted themselves relative to *1476 settled and subdivided lands ... as if no title problems existed and have misled thousands of homeowners in the process.” ( Mansell, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 492 .) The Mansell court concluded application of the estoppel doctrine would not have a deleterious effect on the public policy of ensuring public ownership of tidelands, as development, in the Alamitos Bay area “has resulted in an area providing an impressive array of public facilities for navigation and recreation.” ( Mansell, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 500 .) The court cautioned that th

2017Whether this court can make a factual finding, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 909, on the issue of whether PCM has waived whatever right it may have had to compel arbitration of the claims asserted by Diaz in this case." DISCUSSION Invited Error "Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the *1204 judgment should be reversed because of that error." ( Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202 , 212, 285 Cal.Rptr. 99 , 814 P.2d 1341 .) "The 'doctrine of invited error' is an 'applica

2017Whether this court can make a factual finding, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 909, on the issue of whether PCM has waived whatever right it may have had to compel arbitration of the claims asserted by Diaz in this case." DISCUSSION Invited Error "Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the *1204 judgment should be reversed because of that error." ( Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202 , 212, 285 Cal.Rptr. 99 , 814 P.2d 1341 .) "The 'doctrine of invited error' is an 'applica

2017Whether this court can make a factual finding, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 909, on the issue of whether PCM has waived whatever right it may have had to compel arbitration of the claims asserted by Diaz in this case." DISCUSSION Invited Error "Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the *1204 judgment should be reversed because of that error." ( Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202 , 212, 285 Cal.Rptr. 99 , 814 P.2d 1341 .) "The 'doctrine of invited error' is an 'applica

2017Whether this court can make a factual finding, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 909, on the issue of whether PCM has waived whatever right it may have had to compel arbitration of the claims asserted by Diaz in this case." DISCUSSION Invited Error "Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the *1204 judgment should be reversed because of that error." ( Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202 , 212, 285 Cal.Rptr. 99 , 814 P.2d 1341 .) "The 'doctrine of invited error' is an 'applica

1942Co. v. Superior Ct., 7 Cal.2d 121 [ 59 P.2d 978 , 107 A.L.R. 714 ].) The following quotation is typical: “The doctrine of election of remedies is but a specific application of the equitable doctrine of estoppel, and it has been frequently held that a change in remedies does not bring about an election of remedies unless the change involves a prejudice to the opposing party.’’ (Commercial Centre R.

1942Co. v. Superior Ct., 7 Cal.2d 121 [ 59 P.2d 978 , 107 A.L.R. 714 ].) The following quotation is typical: “The doctrine of election of remedies is but a specific application of the equitable doctrine of estoppel, and it has been frequently held that a change in remedies does not bring about an election of remedies unless the change involves a prejudice to the opposing party.’’ (Commercial Centre R.

2016Moreover, equitable estoppel requires the party invoking estoppel to exercise reasonable diligence to ensure his case is brought to trial within the statutory period. ( Jordan, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1420-1423; Marchuk v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 1273, 1280 [considering whether the plaintiff kept track of the statutory deadline and informed the 22 trial court of the deadline in rejecting the plaintiff’s estoppel claim]; Wilcox v. Ford (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1170, 1180 [considering the plaintiff’s duty to keep track of the case in deciding that estoppel did not apply]; Tej

2016Moreover, equitable estoppel requires the party invoking estoppel to exercise reasonable diligence to ensure his case is brought to trial within the statutory period. ( Jordan, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1420-1423; Marchuk v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 1273, 1280 [considering whether the plaintiff kept track of the statutory deadline and informed the 22 trial court of the deadline in rejecting the plaintiff’s estoppel claim]; Wilcox v. Ford (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1170, 1180 [considering the plaintiff’s duty to keep track of the case in deciding that estoppel did not apply]; Tej

2002Instead, after having applied unsuccessfully for habeas corpus in the courts below, he now seeks the writ in this court.” ( Griffin, supra, 67 Cal.2d 343, 345-346 .) Defendants read this language as indicating that the Supreme Court’s subsequent discussion of the estoppel principle is implicitly confined to collateral attacks, not to a direct attack on appeal such as defendants are making.

1995A leading case on the application of the doctrine of estoppel as applied to “jurisdiction to act” is In re Griffin (1967) 67 Cal.2d 343 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 431 P.2d 625 ], a case in which a criminal defendant attacked, via a writ of habeas corpus, the action of the trial court in revoking his probation after the probationary term had expired.

2022In its April 6, 2021 minute order, the trial court rejected SP’s request for equitable relief, citing Toigo v. Town of Ross (1998) 70 Cal.App.4th 309 (Toigo), in which the court stated: “The principle of estoppel . . . prohibits a governmental entity from exercising its regulatory power to prohibit a proposed land use when a developer incurs substantial expense in reasonable and good faith reliance on some governmental act or omission so that it would be highly inequitable to deprive the developer of the right to complete the development as proposed. . . . [¶] We note at the outset that [the d

2012Where land use is at issue, “there is no meaningful distinction between an estoppel claim and a vested right claim . . . .” (Toigo v. Town of Ross (1998) 70 Cal.App.4th 309, 321 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 649 ] (Toigo) [“estoppel can be invoked in the land use context in only ‘the most extraordinary case where the injustice is great and the precedent set by the estoppel is narrow’ ”].) In this case, real parties say they reasonably relied to their detriment (1) on the city’s express representations in “a heavily-negotiated settlement that was disclosed to the public, approved by the City at the highest

2020(E.g., Wutkze, supra, 151 Cal.App.3d at pp. 44–45 [holding no basis for estoppel existed where plaintiff was not negligent]; Crittenden v. McCloud, supra, 106 Cal.App.2d at p. 50 [quoting Trout v. Taylor (1934) 220 Cal. 652 as holding that “ ‘[a]n innocent purchaser taking a void instrument can, however, find protection in the doctrine of estoppel, where circumstances are presented which establish negligence or some other misconduct by the other party, which contributed to the loss’ ”]; 15 see also 3 Miller & Starr, supra, §§ 7.54, 8.52.) None of the cases cited by plaintiff hold otherwise.10

2016(Baillarge v. Clark (1904) 145 Cal. 589, 592-594 [where deed transferring title from wife to husband was void for nondelivery, wife was estopped to assert a claim to title where she was informed of husband’s transfer to innocent purchaser within 10 days, but did and said nothing while transferee improved the property]; Green v. MacAdam (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 481, 486 [“‘An innocent purchaser taking a void instrument can . . . find protection in the doctrine of estoppel, where circumstances are presented which establish negligence or some other misconduct by the other party, which contributed to

2015(Biagini, at p. 1009; see Scott v. City of Del Mar (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1302 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 ].) A public agency’s mere nonuse of dedicated land does not show abandonment or give rise to an estoppel claim.

2015(Biagini, at p. 1009; see Scott v. City of Del Mar (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1302 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 ].) A public agency’s mere nonuse of dedicated land does not show abandonment or give rise to an estoppel claim.

2006First, the offer was not withdrawn before it was accepted by formal resolution of the City and constitutes a completed dedication. ( Tischauser v. City of Newport Beach (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 138, 145 , 37 Cal.Rptr. 141 .) Second, "[i]t is well settled ... that a public agency's mere nonuse of dedicated land does not show abandonment or give rise to an estoppel claim." ( Scott v. City of Del Mar (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1304 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 ; see also City of Imperial Beach v. Algert (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 48, 51 , 19 Cal.Rptr. 144 ; City of Sacramento v. Jensen (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 114

2006First, the offer was not withdrawn before it was accepted by formal resolution of the City and constitutes a completed dedication. ( Tischauser v. City of Newport Beach (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 138, 145 , 37 Cal.Rptr. 141 .) Second, "[i]t is well settled ... that a public agency's mere nonuse of dedicated land does not show abandonment or give rise to an estoppel claim." ( Scott v. City of Del Mar (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1304 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 ; see also City of Imperial Beach v. Algert (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 48, 51 , 19 Cal.Rptr. 144 ; City of Sacramento v. Jensen (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 114

2021“It is well settled that ‘ “ issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” ’ [Citations.] This rule is especially applicable to the doctrine of estoppel, which includes factual elements that must be established in the trial court. [Citation.]” (Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 520, 530 .) Moreover, a defendant is under no duty to inform a plaintiff that service is defective.

2021(Key v. Tyler II, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 533 ; Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982, 997 .) “The fundamental rule that a reviewing court does not consider arguments or theories that could have been but were not raised below ‘is especially applicable to the doctrine of estoppel, which includes factual elements that must be established in the trial court.’ ” (Rogers v. County of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 480, 490, fn. 6 , quoting Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 520, 530 .) a.

1994(See Crail v. Blakely, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 751 [“ ‘ “The doctrine of estoppel has been applied where an unconscionable injury would result from denying enforcement after one party has been induced to make a serious change of position in reliance on the contract or where unjust enrichment would result if a party who has received the benefits of the other’s performance were allowed to invoke the statute” ’ ” quoting Redke v. Silvertrust (1972) 6 Cal.3d 94, 101 ( 98 Cal.Rptr. 293 , 490 P.2d 805 )]; Stahmer v. Schley, supra, 96 Cal.App.3d at p. 203 [where “the newly designated beneficiaries of t

1971The doctrine of estoppel has been applied where an unconscionable injury would result from denying enforcement after one party has been induced to make a serious change of position in reliance on the contract or where unjust enrichment would result if a party who has received the benefits of the other’s performance were allowed to invoke the statute. [Citation.]” (Day v. Greene, supra, 59 Cal.2d 404, 409-410 ; see Monarco v. Lo Greco, 35 Cal.2d 621 , 623 [ 220 P.2d 737 ]; Notten v. Mensing, 3 Cal.2d 469, 474 [ 45 P.2d 198 ]; Mintz v. Rowitz, 13 Cal.App. 3d 216, 223-225 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 435 ].) T

2025Tenant’s attorney referenced this precise estoppel argument in his closing comments to the jury, explaining “one of the important elements in the rest of that [estoppel] instruction is when the other party has relied on it, meaning [tenant]. [Tenant] is claiming that [landlord] is 4 Contrary to tenant’s assertion, DRG/Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Chopstix Dim Sum Cafe & Takeout III, Ltd. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 54 does not stand for the proposition that a trial court must determine estoppel as a matter of law.

2008(DRG, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 58 .) The jury returned a verdict in the defendant’s favor on the breach of contract claim, specifically finding that the defendant did not waive contract conditions, after which the trial court refused to consider the plaintiff’s estoppel claim and entered judgment for the defendant.

2020(E.g., Wutkze, supra, 151 Cal.App.3d at pp. 44–45 [holding no basis for estoppel existed where plaintiff was not negligent]; Crittenden v. McCloud, supra, 106 Cal.App.2d at p. 50 [quoting Trout v. Taylor (1934) 220 Cal. 652 as holding that “ ‘[a]n innocent purchaser taking a void instrument can, however, find protection in the doctrine of estoppel, where circumstances are presented which establish negligence or some other misconduct by the other party, which contributed to the loss’ ”]; 15 see also 3 Miller & Starr, supra, §§ 7.54, 8.52.) None of the cases cited by plaintiff hold otherwise.10

1951The following statement from Trout v. Taylor, 220 Cal. 652 [ 32 P.2d 968 ], applies here (pp. 656-657) : “An innocent purchaser taking a void instrument can, however, find protection in the doctrine of estoppel, where circumstances are presented which establish negligence or some other misconduct by the other party, which contributed to the loss.

2025Equitable Estoppel “‘The doctrine of equitable estoppel is founded on notions of equity and fair dealing and provides that a person may not deny the existence of a state of facts if that person has intentionally led others to believe a particular circumstance to be true and to rely upon such belief to their detriment. . . .’” (Krolikowski v. San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 537, 564-565 .) “‘The elements of an estoppel claim are: “(1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act

2012For the following reasons, we do not agree. “ ‘The essence of an estoppel is that one has, by false statements or conduct, led another to do that which he would not otherwise have done and as a result the other has suffered injury. [Citation.] The elements of an estoppel claim are: “(1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct

2022(Tomerlin, supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. 643 .) “[A]n agency[, whether actual or ostensible,] cannot be created by the conduct of the agent alone; rather, conduct by the principal is essential to create the agency.” ( Flores, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 587-588, italics omitted; see Hartong v. Partake, Inc. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 942, 960 [stating that liability for the acts of an ostensible 9 agent rests on the doctrine of estoppel, which requires representations by the principal].) “ ‘ “ ‘The principal must in some manner indicate that the agent is to act for [the principal], and the agent must ac

2022(Tomerlin, supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. 643 .) “[A]n agency[, whether actual or ostensible,] cannot be created by the conduct of the agent alone; rather, conduct by the principal is essential to create the agency.” ( Flores, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 587-588, italics omitted; see Hartong v. Partake, Inc. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 942, 960 [stating that liability for the acts of an ostensible 9 agent rests on the doctrine of estoppel, which requires representations by the principal].) “ ‘ “ ‘The principal must in some manner indicate that the agent is to act for [the principal], and the agent must ac