Department of Administration, Division of Retirement v. Flowers

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Department of Administration, Division of Retirement v. Flowers

356 So. 2d 14, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15504

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 1978

DocketNo. GG-217

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 356 So. 2d 14 (Department of Administration, Division of Retirement v. Flowers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Department of Administration, Division of Retirement v. Flowers, 356 So. 2d 14, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15504 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The lower court, applying estop-pel, ordered the Department to pay retirement benefits to Appellee in accordance with an incorrect estimate that the Division of Retirement’s Benefit Calculation Section had mistakenly furnished Appellee in response to his inquiries about his prospective retirement benefits. The Department contends here that the court erred in applying estoppel against the State. We reluctantly agree and reverse. The authorities are clear that estoppel cannot be raised against the State unless there are exceptional circumstances and some positive act on the part of a state officer. Gay v. Inter-County Tel. & Tel. Co., 60 So.2d 22 (Fla.1952); Greenhut Construction Co. v. Henry A. Knott, Inc., 247 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).

REVERSED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The lower court, applying estop-pel, ordered the Department to pay retirement benefits to Appellee in accordance with an incorrect estimate that the Division of Retirement’s Benefit Calculation Section had mistakenly furnished Appellee in response to his inquiries about his prospective retirement benefits. The Department contends here that the court erred in applying estoppel against the State. We reluctantly agree and reverse. The authorities are clear that estoppel cannot be raised against the State unless there are exceptional circumstances and some positive act on the part of a state officer. Gay v. Inter-County Tel. & Tel. Co., 60 So.2d 22 (Fla.1952); Greenhut Construction Co. v. Henry A. Knott, Inc., 247 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).

REVERSED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 So. 2d 14, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-administration-division-of-retirement-v-flowers-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack