Laserfiche WebLink
this finding was in dispute. Accordingly, summary judgment on <br /> the issue of estoppel was inappropriate. See McKinley, supra. - <br /> B. The trial court' s application of equitable estop- <br /> pel to the State was not proper. <br /> The doctrine of equitable estoppel is not a favored doc- <br /> trine. Jefferson County School Dist . No. R-1 v. Shorrev, 826 <br /> P.2d 830 (Colo. 1992) ; Dove v. Delgado, 808 P.2d 1270 (Colo. <br /> 1991) ; University of Colorado v. Silverman, 192 Colo. 75, 555 <br /> P. 2d 1155 (1976)-. The essence of the doctrine is that a person <br /> is estopped from taking a position contrary to a previous repre- <br /> sentation where another reasonably relies upon the representation <br /> to his detriment . Fueston v. City of Colorado Springs, 713 P.2d <br /> 1323 (Colo. App. 1985) ; United States v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. , <br /> 682 F.Supp. 1122 (D. Colo. 1987) . Before the doctrine may be <br /> applied in a private suit, there must be a clear showing of the <br /> following elements : <br /> (1) The party to be estopped must know the facts; <br /> (2) The party to be estopped must intend that conduct <br /> or representations will be acted upon or must so act that the <br /> party asserting estoppel has a right to believe that it was <br /> intended; <br /> (3) The claimant must be ignorant of the true facts <br /> and have no convenient means of knowing the facts; <br /> (4) The claimant must reasonably rely on the other <br /> party' s conduct or representation, and based on that reliance, <br /> 12 <br />