Laserfiche WebLink
1. The necessary elements of estoppel of a <br /> representation after full knowledge of the facts <br /> which was reasonably relied upon by the defendants <br /> to their detriment were not established in this <br /> case. <br /> For estoppel to apply, the defendants must establish that <br /> the Division made a representation, after full knowledge of the <br /> facts, upon which the defendants reasonably relied to their <br /> detriment . None of these elements is present in this case. <br /> a. The Division made no representation with <br /> full knowledge of the facts. <br /> In the present case, contrary to the court' s ruling, the <br /> Division never made a representation to the defendants that <br /> reclamation costs would always remain the same year after year. <br /> Indeed, the governing regulations contemplate and provide that <br /> the cost of reclamation may change from time to time. <br /> Under the rules, the Division sets out an estimate of the <br /> cost of reclamation as part of the permit approval process . 2 <br /> CCR 407-2 , Rule 3 . 02 . 2 (1) . Part of the estimate is based on <br /> estimated costs submitted by the permit applicant . 2 CCR 407-2 , <br /> Rule 3 . 02 . 2 (2) (a) . Then, based upon the Division' s estimate, a <br /> performance bond is required. 2 CCR 407-2 , Rule 3 . 02 .2 (1) . <br /> Under rule 3 . 02 . 1 (4) , 2 CCR 407-2 , liability on a <br /> performance bond continues until the entire reclamation plan <br /> required under the Act, the Rules , and the permit has been <br /> completed. The amount of the bond, as determined under the rules <br /> and "as adjusted from time to time, " is an "estimate" of the cost <br /> 15 <br />