Poway Royal Mobilehome Owners Assn. v. City of Poway

Poway Royal Mobilehome Owners Assn. v. City of Poway (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1460, held that a plaintiff suing a public entity for promissory estoppel must plead "exceptional circumstances" to withstand demurrer. (Id. at p. 1471.) As the Poway court explained, "'an estoppel will not be applied against the government if to do so would effectively nullify "a strong rule of policy, adopted for the benefit of the public . . . ."' '"The courts of this state have been careful to apply the rules of estoppel against a public agency only in those special cases where the interests of justice clearly require it."' The '"facts upon which such an estoppel must rest go beyond the ordinary principles of estoppel and each case must be examined carefully and rigidly to be sure that a precedent is not established through which, by favoritism or otherwise, the public interest may be mulcted or public policy defeated."' " (Ibid.) In Poway Royal Mobilehome Owners Assn. v. City of Poway (2007) a mobilehome park homeowners' association sued the City of Poway for promissory estoppel based on the City's breach of alleged promises to provide the homeowners' association with an opportunity to purchase the mobilehome park. (Poway, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1465-1466.) The trial court sustained the City's demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend and the appellate court affirmed. (Id. at pp. 1465-1466.) The Poway court stated that California courts "'"have been careful to apply the rules of estoppel against a public agency only in those special cases where the interests of justice clearly require it. The '"facts upon which such an estoppel must rest go beyond the ordinary principles of estoppel and each case must be examined carefully and rigidly to be sure that a precedent is not established through which, by favoritism or otherwise, the public interest may be mulcted or public policy defeated."' " (Poway, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 1471.) The court held that the homeowners' association had not alleged "exceptional circumstances" necessary to apply the promissory estoppel doctrine and "leave to amend would not cure the defect." (Ibid.)