paperwork re: code violations-inspections;ltrs;court papers, etc.

Home Browse Search

' � r , . Henke did not do so, assertedly because of cost considerations. Given the � status of the record, the Administrative Law Judge can only conclude that the current support system for the structure does create a condition dangerous to � human life. Under such circumstances, section 104(c) of the Uniform Buildlnq - Code authorizes the City to require the abatement of the dangerous condition. Finally, Mr. Henke claims an estoppel against the City. He asserts that Mr. Jacobs was asked to provide a list of improvements necessary and that he relied on that list in deciding to purchase the property. Since the list did not include footings and a foundation and he purchased the property subsequent to receiving the list, Mr. Henke argues that the City is now estopped from imposing additional requirements. In Brown v Minnesota Department of Pub11c Welfare, 368 N.W.2d 906, 910 (Minn. 1985) , the Minnesota Supreme Court summarized the law of government estoppel as follows: To establish a claim of estoppel , plalntiff must prove that defendant made representations or inducements, upon which plaintiff reasonably relied, and that plaintiff will be harmed if the claim of estoppel is not allowed. Northern Petrochemical Co. v. United States Fire Insurance Co. , 277 N.W.2d 408, 410 <Minn. 1979) . The government may be estopped if �ustice requires, but this court has said it does not "envision that estoppel will be freely applied against the government." To estop a government agency, some element of fault or wrongful conduct must be shown. A plaintiff seeking to estop a government agency has a heavy � burden of proof. When deciding whether estoppel will be applied against the government, the court will weigh the public interest frustrated by the estoppel against the equlties of the case. Initially, to establish estoppel � Mr. Henke must show an inducement to an action based on some element of fault or wrongful conduct by the government. The Administrative �_aw Judge does not flnd that the action of the Building Official in not in�tially requirinq conforming footings-and a-foundation constitutes such wrongful conduct. Mr. Henke had told Mr. Jacobs that he only wished to remain 1n the property for a short period of time while a new dwelling was being constructed. Under such circumstances, the Building Officlal did not requlre the addltional footings and foundation. When it became apparent that Mr. Henke lntended to reside in the st,ructure permanently and, perhaps, at some later date. transfer the property to other persons,- the Building Official required strict compliance ►rith the Uniform Building Code. It was the representation of Mr. Henke and not any wrongful conduct by the Building Official which accounts for the-initial lnspection �report excluding improved footings and a foundation. . U�der such circumstances. no.estoppel lies. Armbrewster v Stanton-Pilaer Draina9e District, 169 Neb. 594, 100 . � N.W.2d 781 , 792-793 (1960) ; Jensen v. Omaha Public Power Dlstrict, 159 Neb. 277, 66 N.W.2d 591 , 598 (1958). . �._ ._. - - Even assuming� however, that the Building Offlcial negl�lgently induced detrimental reliance by Mr. Henke, the balancing of harm test �previously stated precludes estoppel . In determining whether conduct on the part of a municipal official creates an estoppel . it is necessary to balance the �o� , A