Laserfiche WebLink
issued a written order which expanded its findings concerning <br /> estoppel of the State (v. 2, pp. 714-15) . - <br /> The trial court' s grant of summary judgment here, which <br /> barred the State from increasing its damage claim to reflect a <br /> more accurate assessment of reclamation costs, was inappropriate. <br /> The record does not contain evidence to support the court' s <br /> finding of the required elements of estoppel . The record instead, <br /> shows that the court simply made conclusory findings of fact <br /> without the benefit of evidence . <br /> Specifically, the trial court' s finding that the Division <br /> represented to the defendants that it would not seek more than $3 <br /> million to cover reclamation costs is not supported by the <br /> evidence. Although the Division initially estimated reclamation <br /> to cost $3 million, the Division never represented that those <br /> costs would remain in that amount , or that it would not seek more <br /> than that from the defendants should the costs change. At the <br /> very least, this issue was in dispute . As such, summary judgment <br /> was inappropriate, especially considering that all doubts must be <br /> resolved in favor of the Division . See Casebolt v. Cowan, supra. <br /> Moreover, the court ' s finding of reasonable and detrimental <br /> reliance by the defendants on a representation made by the <br /> Division is simply without evidentiary basis . There is no <br /> evidence in the record to establish that any reliance by the <br /> defendants was reasonable, or that they took a turn for the worse <br /> in position because of any reliance. Again, at the very least, <br /> 11 <br />