Yates v. Pima Cnty.
| Decision Date | 24 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2 CA-CV 2020-0077 |
| Parties | Ira Jon Yates, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Pima County, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. C20183480 The Honorable Leslie Miller, Judge.
By Jeanna Chandler Nash, Thomas D. Laue, and Brooke Marissa Lee Harris
Laura Conover, Pima County Attorney
By Michael LeBlanc, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
¶1 Ira Yates appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his inverse condemnation action for failure to timely file his claim. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 We accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view all inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to Yates. See Botma v. Huser, 202 Ariz. 14, ¶ 2 (App. 2002). In 2006, voters approved a Regional Transportation Authority plan, which included Pima County's plan to widen the intersection of Magee Road and La Cholla Boulevard. Yates objected to the county, claiming the widening would "eliminat[e]" an easement on his property adjoined to La Cholla. The county proceeded with the widening, and access to Yates's easement was eliminated by July 2011. Although Yates was "led to believe" the county would provide "equal alternative access" to his property, later that year, he and the county signed an agreement "toll[ing] and extend[ing] the time [for Yates] to file a Notice of Claim" for "damages against Pima County" to February 10, 2012. The agreement also provided that the county would not raise the statute of limitations as a defense to "any action . . . filed by July 10, 2012." The agreement further stated, "Because of the construction undertaken by Pima County on and near Yates' property in the widening of La Cholla Blvd., [he] may have a claim for damages against [the] County."
¶3 Following an unsuccessful application for rezoning, litigation related to the zoning application, and other negotiations between the parties, Yates filed an inverse condemnation action against the county on July 12, 2018.[1] The county moved to dismiss, arguing that pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821, Yates "realized his damages and knew the cause and source of his alleged damages more than one year before he filed this suit." The trial court granted the motion, recognizing that in April 2017, Yates "had a claim, and yet . . . didn't file it." This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).[2]
¶4 Yates primarily argues the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss "by holding [his] claim was untimely under the statute of limitations." We review this decision de novo.[3] See Romero v. Hasan, 241 Ariz 385, ¶ 6 (App. 2017); Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer &Sethi, P.C., 218 Ariz. 293, ¶ 21 (App. 2008).
¶5 An action against a public entity, including a county in the state of Arizona, must "be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues."[4] § 12-821; see A.R.S. § 12-820(7). "[A] cause of action accrues when the damaged party realizes he or she has been damaged and knows or reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or condition which caused or contributed to the damage." Mayer Unified Sch. Dist. v. Winkleman, 219 Ariz. 562, ¶ 15 (2009) (alteration in Mayer) (quoting A.R.S. § 12-821.01(B)). A party realizes such damages occurred when it comprehends them "fully or correctly." Long v. City of Glendale, 208 Ariz. 319, ¶ 10 (App. 2004) (quoting Webster's II New College Dictionary 922 (2001)).
¶6 Nonetheless, statutes of limitations are subject to claims of equitable estoppel and tolling. Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 432 (1990). "To establish equitable estoppel, a party must generally show: (1) affirmative acts inconsistent with a claim afterwards relied upon; (2) action by a party relying on such conduct; and (3) injury to the party resulting from a repudiation of such conduct." McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., 228 Ariz. 262, ¶ 23 (App. 2011). Similarly, "[i]n instances involving equitable tolling, courts have recognized that, as a matter of equity, a defendant whose affirmative acts of fraud or concealment have misled a person from either recognizing a legal wrong or seeking timely legal redress may not be entitled to assert the protection of a statute of limitations." Porter v. Spader, 225 Ariz. 424, ¶ 11 (App. 2010).
¶7 The county, in its motion to dismiss, argued Yates had "realized he had been damaged" when access to the easement was eliminated in July 2011, or, alternatively, when the trial court, in a separate proceeding in April 2017, concluded that the property's other easement was "limited to access only for the residence on the Property." Further, it claimed Yates nonetheless failed to "allege the County imposed a legal restraint that diminishes his rights" or "a compensable right to rezone the Property." Thus, it argued Yates also failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
¶8 Yates, however, claimed in his response that based on the county's continued representations "that he would be provided equal alternative access" to his property, he could not have realized he had been damaged until January 19, 2017, when the county informed him his easement "would not support further development of his Property." Alternatively, Yates argued his claim accrued at the time of the trial court's April 2017 ruling. Accordingly, he pointed to the tolling agreement, which states that "the statute of limitations to file an action on Yates' claims should be tolled and each be extended by an additional one hundred eighty . . . days."
¶9 Thus, Yates argued his "claim under the Arizona Constitution expired, at the earliest, on July 16, 2018 (one year and 180 days after the January 19, 2017 letter)." And, he argued, because of the county's conduct, "any earlier statute of limitations would none[thele]ss be waived and subject to estoppel and equitable tolling." Lastly, Yates contended he had adequately stated "a claim for a taking."
¶10 The parties generally reassert these arguments on appeal. In its answering brief, the county relies on the tolling agreement as evidence that Yates realized his damages in 2011 and argues neither equitable estoppel nor equitable tolling are applicable, and therefore they do not extend the statute of limitations and save Yates's claim. We agree.
¶11 Yates stated in his first amended complaint that "[t]he construction of the Intersection Reconfiguration was near completion in July 2011 and completely eliminated easement access and postal service to the La Cholla Easement from La Cholla." Thereafter, "[i]n October and November of 2011," he signed the tolling agreement, which explicitly stated, "Yates may have a claim for damages against Pima County" as a result of the construction. The agreement went on to state the following:
The foregoing demonstrates that Yates "fully or correctly" understood the nature of the damages, and that they arose from the county's actions, far more than a year before he filed his initial complaint. Long, 208 Ariz. 319, ¶ 10 (quoting Webster's II New College Dictionary 922); see § 12-821; Standard Constr. Co. v. State, 249 Ariz. 559, ¶ 5 (App. 2020) ().
¶12 We further conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply equitable estoppel or tolling.[5] See Flying Diamond Airpark, LLC v. Meienberg, 215 Ariz. 44, ¶ 27 (App. 2007); Viniegra v. Town of Parker Mun. Prop. Corp., 241 Ariz. 22, ¶ 9 (App. 2016), depublished in part sub nom. Viniegra v. Town of Parker, 244 Ariz. 453 (2017). As the county points out, in the context of estoppel applied to a government actor:
[T]he actions relied upon must bear some "considerable degree of formalism." Rarely will unwritten agreements meet the requisite formalism, and, "[i]n general, the state may not be estopped due to the casual acts, advice, or instructions issued by nonsupervisory employees." Rather, estoppel applies only to the authorized acts of government officials when necessary to prevent a "serious injustice."
Gorman v. Pima County, 230 Ariz. 506, ¶ 21 (App. 2012) () (citations omitted) (quoting Valencia Energy Co. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 191 Ariz. 565, ¶ 36 (1998); Freightways, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 129 Ariz. 245, 248 (1981)). Likewise, equitable tolling is generally reserved for "extraordinary circumstances" and should be applied "only sparingly." McCloud v. State, 217 Ariz. 82, ¶ 16 (App. 2007).
¶13 While the tolling agreement may have been a formal one allowing for application of equitable estoppel, it would not have been effective as such after 2012. As noted, the agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial