City of White Settlement v. Super Wash

• Decision Date: 03 March 2006
• Docket Number: No. 04-0340.,04-0340.
• Citation: 198 S.W.3d 770
• Parties: CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT, Texas, Petitioner, v. SUPER WASH, INC., Respondent.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 770

198 S.W.3d 770

CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT, Texas, Petitioner, v. SUPER WASH, INC., Respondent.

No. 04-0340.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued April 13, 2005.

Decided March 3, 2006.

Michael R. Burkett, Garrett & Burkett, Fort Worth, for petitioner.

Hal R. Ray Jr., Pope, Hardwicke, Christie, Harrell, Schell & Kelly, L.L.P., Fort Worth, for respondent.

Chief Justice JEFFERSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

Super Wash, Inc., a car wash business, is seeking to estop the City of White Settlement from enforcing an ordinance that requires Super Wash to maintain a continuous fence along one side of its property. On competing motions, the trial court granted summary judgment for the City. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. We conclude that, under the circumstances presented the City cannot be estopped from enforcing its zoning ordinance. We reverse the court of appeals' judgment in part and render judgment for the City.

I Background

Super Wash's property was originally zoned for multi-family housing but was rezoned in 1986 for commercial use. Prior to that rezoning, area residents encouraged the City to impose restrictions on the commercial use to minimize vehicular traffic in their neighborhood. The City's ordinance contained language designed to meet those concerns:

This change of zoning is expressly conditioned upon the owner and/or occupant, now or later, of this property constructing and thereafter maintaining a six-foot wooden privacy fence with brick columns on Longfield [Drive].¹

City of White Settlement, Tex., Ordinance No. 837-86 (March 25, 1986) (the Ordinance). The Ordinance also contained a reversionary clause providing that, if the owner or occupant did not erect and maintain the fence, the property would revert to multi-family housing use. Id.

Super Wash was not aware of the Ordinance when it purchased the property in August 2000. At the start of construction, Super Wash submitted its site plan to the City for approval. The plan called for a curb cut and exit onto Longfield Drive and did not provide for a privacy fence separating the car wash from the neighborhood. Because the City's zoning map omitted any reference to the fence requirement, a City building official mistakenly approved Super Wash's site plan and issued a building permit on February 8, 2001. Within a week of the permit's issuance, residents in the abutting neighborhood brought the Ordinance to the City's attention and insisted that the car wash comply with it. On February 12, 2001, the City informed Super Wash that it was required to build a fence along Longfield Drive. On March 1, after construction was forty-five percent complete, the City informed Super Wash that it must also remove the planned exit onto Longfield Drive in accordance with the City's interpretation that the Ordinance required a continuous fence. Super Wash amended its site plan and, under protest, completed construction in line with the City's interpretation.

Super Wash sued the City, claiming that the Ordinance: (1) was not uniformly applied to all commercially zoned property, (2) constituted impermissible contract zoning,² and (3) included a reversionary clause that impermissibly delegated the City's legislative power. Super Wash argued alternatively that the City should be estopped from enforcing the Ordinance. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the City's motion and denied Super Wash's motion. With attorney's fees the only remaining issue, the parties filed a joint motion for final judgment, which was granted.

Super Wash appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court on the uniformity and contract zoning issues. 131 S.W.3d 249, 257-59. Super Wash has not contested those holdings. The court reversed and rendered judgment that the reversionary clause was void and severable. Id. at 260-61. The City does not contest that holding. As to the estoppel issue, the court held there were issues of material fact regarding whether the City official's acts were authorized, whether this was the type of case that required estoppel, and whether the City would be prevented from exercising its governmental functions if it were estopped from enforcing the Ordinance. Id. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for trial. Id. at 261. We granted the City's petition for review to determine whether the court of appeals erred in remanding the estoppel issue. 48 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 454 (Mar. 14, 2005).

II Discussion

We have long held that a city cannot be estopped from exercising its governmental functions,³ but have not thoroughly presented the reasons for that settled rule. See City of Hutchins v. Prasifka, 450 S.W.2d 829, 835 (Tex.1970) (city not estopped from enforcing zoning restrictions); Rolison v. Puckett, 145 Tex. 366, 198 S.W.2d 74, 77 (1946) (city not estopped from collecting taxes). In general, the rule derives from our structure of government, in which the interest of the individual must at times yield to the public interest and in which the responsibility for public policy must rest on decisions officially authorized by the government's representatives, rather than on mistakes committed by its agents. See City of San Angelo v. Deutsch, 126 Tex. 532, 91 S.W.2d 308, 310 (1936) ("[T]he city's public or governmental business must go forward, unimpeded by the fault, negligence or frailty of those charged with its administration.").

Decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court elaborate on these themes, and we find it useful to mention a few here. This line of cases makes clear that "equitable estoppel will not lie against the Government as against private litigants." Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 419, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 110 L.Ed.2d 387 (1990) (citing Lee v. Munroe & Thornton, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 366, 3 L.Ed. 373 (1813), The Floyd Acceptances, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 666, 19 L.Ed. 169 (1869), and Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 408-09, 37 S.Ct. 387, 61 L.Ed. 791 (1917)); see also Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 68 S.Ct. 1, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947). One reason for this is that barring estoppel helps preserve separation of powers; legislative prerogative would be undermined if a government agent could— through mistake, neglect, or an intentional act—effectively repeal a law by ignoring, misrepresenting, or misinterpreting a duly enacted statute or regulation. See Richmond, 496 U.S. at 428, 110 S.Ct. 2465 (noting that "[i]f agents of the Executive were able, by their unauthorized oral or written statements to citizens, to obligate the Treasury for the payment of funds, the control over public funds that the [Appropriations] Clause reposes in Congress in effect could be transferred to the Executive"). Additionally, the interests of an individual seeking to estop a governmental entity must at times yield to the general public's interest in a government that is not encumbered by the threat of unlimited liability. See Richmond, 496 U.S. at 434, 110 S.Ct. 2465 ("[T]he inevitable fact of occasional individual hardship cannot undermine the interest of the citizenry as a whole."). Finally, the Supreme Court has noted that barring estoppel against the federal government protects the public fisc. See id. at 433, 110 S.Ct. 2465 ("[O]pen[ing] the door to estoppel claims would only invite endless litigation over both real and imagined claims of misinformation by disgruntled citizens, imposing an unpredictable drain on the public fisc.").

Not unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, we have held that the unauthorized act of a government official cannot estop a city's enforcement of a zoning ordinance. See Prasifka, 450 S.W.2d at 836; City of Amarillo v. Stapf, 129 Tex. 81, 101 S.W.2d 229, 232 (1937); see also Edge v. City of Bellaire, 200 S.W.2d 224, 228 (Tex.Civ. App.—Galveston 1947, writ ref'd). In Prasifka, for example, the property in dispute was zoned for residential use, but the city's planning commission passed a resolution changing the use to manufacturing. 450 S.W.2d at 834. Because the resolution was not a proper means of changing the land use and the city never enacted a new zoning ordinance, the land remained officially zoned for residential use. Id. at 833. Despite this, a city worker improperly changed the city's zoning map to reflect a change to manufacturing use. Id. at 834. Relying on the revised map, Prasifka purchased the land. Id. When the city attempted to enforce the residential zoning classification, Prasifka argued that the city should be estopped from contesting the validity of the resolution that changed the zoning to manufacturing. Id. at 833. We held that the city could not be estopped from enforcing its zoning laws based on the unauthorized alteration of the zoning map. Id. at 835-36.

However, we also found "authority for the proposition that a municipality may be estopped in those cases where justice requires its application, and there is no interference with the exercise of its governmental functions." 450 S.W.2d at 836 (citing City of Dallas v. Rosenthal, 239 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1951, writ ref'd n.r.e.)). We cautioned that this exception is available "only in exceptional cases where the circumstances clearly demand its application to prevent manifest injustice." Id. The court, not the jury, determines whether the exception applies. See Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229, 245 (Tex.1999) (courts must determine "the expediency, necessity, and propriety of equitable relief"). This case presents an occasion to clarify the exception and reiterate its limited applicability.

A

Estoppel When "Justice Requires"

Super Wash argues that the exception articulated in Prasifka should apply here, as this is a case in which justice requires estoppel. We have applied the exception in only one circumstance. In Roberts v. Haltom City, we held that a city...