Gorman v. Pima County
287 P.3d 800
Ariz. Ct. App.2012Background
- Brad Gorman Memorial Fund was created after Brad Gorman's 1999 bicycle death to promote bicycle safety in Pima County.
- Gormans worked with the County on bicycle-safety initiatives and the Brad P. Gorman Memorial Bikeway project.
- County considered a memorial bike park at Camino Miramonte; early discussions included parking, shade, water, restrooms.
- By 2002 location identified; by 2008 project stalled due to funding and final approval issues; 2008-2009 communications referenced funding talks.
- Amendment to an intergovernmental agreement in 2009 added the project to broader funding; County and RTA involvement continued.
- In 2010 the County cancelled the project at Camino Miramonte; Gormans sued in 2010 for breach, estoppel, and misrepresentation; summary judgment granted to County on all claims but estoppel later reversed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a binding contract between Gormans and County? | Gormans relied on Huckelberry's letters as acceptance of an offer. | County administrator lacked authority to bind County; no final board approval or specific contract terms. | No contract formed; summary judgment affirmed regarding contract. |
| Whether the County can be estopped from denying liability despite no contract? | County actions and representations, including amended IGA, created a binding estoppel. | Estoppel requires formalism and authorized acts; Huckelberry lacked contracting authority. | Estoppel claim reversed and remanded for further proceedings; sufficient formality and reliance found to create a triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valencia Energy Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 191 Ariz. 565 (Ariz. 1998) (estoppel elements and governmental reliance considerations)
- Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek, 194 Ariz. 261 (Ariz. App. 1998) (formality and official acts supporting estoppel in government actions)
- Lowe v. Pima County, 217 Ariz. 642 (Ariz. App. 2008) (casual communications and official actions affecting estoppel)
- Pinal County v. Pomeroy, 60 Ariz. 448 (Ariz. 1943) (public officials are bound only by authorized acts)
- Tissicino v. Peterson, 211 Ariz. 416 (Ariz. 2005) (summary judgment standard on appeal; de novo review)
- Kaman Aerospace v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 217 Ariz. 148 (Ariz. App. 2007) (administrative rules may have force of law when consistent with statute)
- Freightways, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 129 Ariz. 245 (Ariz. 1981) (equitable estoppel against regulatory bodies when necessary to prevent injustice)