Laserfiche WebLink
~ebruarylO, 2006--P~ge7 <br /> <br />before Westchester purchased the property, Metropolitan Government of <br />Nashville and Davidson County representatives advised Westchester the <br />property was properly zoned, could be developed as residential multi-use <br />property, and that no mistakes concerning the zoning of the property had <br />been made. <br /> However, soon thereafter, the local govenunent rezoned the property from <br />multifamily to single-family residential. Because of this change, Westchester <br />could not complete a sales contract to sell the property to a third party for the <br />development of multifamily town houses. <br />Westchester sued, and the court ruled in favor of the government. <br />Westchester appealed, arguing,its good faith reliance on representations <br />made by government employees established a vested fight in the prior zoning <br />of the property. <br />DECISION:Affirmed. <br />The facts did not establish a vested fight in the prior zoning. <br />Westchester relied on representations made by government employees. <br />Importantly, prior to entering into the contract to sell the property to the third <br />party, Westchester was advised by government employees that the property <br />was properly zoned and could be developed as a residential multi-use property, <br />and that no mistakes concerning the zoning of the property had been made by <br />the government. <br /> However, there was no vested fight in favor of one who expended money or <br />created liability in reliance upon oral statements of administrative officials. <br />Ultimately, it was clear that legal estoppel did not generally apply to the acts or <br />statements of public agents. <br /> Although exceptions to this rule did exist, none of the exceptions were <br />relevant to this case. <br /> <br />Editor's Note: Legal estoppel precludes someone from denying the truth of a <br />fact that has been determined in an official proceeding or by an authoritative <br />body. More specifically, in certain situations, the law refuses to allow a person <br />to deny facts that another person has relied upon ancYor acted in accordance <br />with, particularly when that fact was established in a prior legal proceeding. <br /> <br />see also: Wright v. City of Kno.rville, 898 S. W2d 177 (1995). <br />see also: Campbell v. Florida Steel Corporation, 919 S.W. 2d 2d (1996). <br /> <br />GET YOUR NEWSLETTER ONLINE FREE <br />WITH LIVE LINKS AT: www. quinIan.com <br /> <br />© 2006 Qu~nian Pubiis~ing Gmuo. Any reproeuctma ~s prohibited. For more iniorma[ion please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />9'/ <br /> <br /> <br />