Maltese v. Township of North Brunswick6/20/2002
ng his health benefits. Id. at 371- 72.
It is clear, therefore, that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applied against a municipality only in very compelling circumstances, where the interests of justice, morality and common fairness dictate that course. County of Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80, 104 (1998); Palantine I v. Planning Bd. of Township of Montville, 133 N.J. 546, 560 (1993); Gruber, supra, 39 N.J. at 13; Ranchlands, Inc. v. Township of Stafford, 305 N.J. Super. 528, 538 (App. Div. 1997), aff'd o.b., 156 N.J. 443 (1998); State v. Kouvatas, 292 N.J. Super. 417, 425 (App. Div. 1996).
However, the doctrine is rarely invoked against a governmental entity when the estoppel would interfere with essential governmental functions. O'Malley v. Department of Energy, 109 N.J. 309, 316 (1987); Bonaventure Int'l, Inc. v. Borough of Spring Lake, 350 N.J. Super. 420, 436 (App. Div. 2002); Ranchlands, supra, 305 N.J. Super. at 538.
Additionally, we note that in the Summer Cottagers' Ass'n, Vogt, Middletown Policemen's Benevolent Ass'n, Wood, and Kouvatas cases, the application of equitable estoppel was based upon the actions or conduct of the specific municipality entity having the authority to act, under circumstances where that entity failed to act properly.
Here, the trial court primarily analyzed the estoppel argument based upon the conduct of the public official who did not have the authority to act -- the mayor. That was not the appropriate approach to the estoppel analysis. Rather, the focus must be on the conduct of the person or entity who had the authority to act -- here, the council. Under these circumstances, it is only action by the council that could form the basis for application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Where there is sufficient evidence that the municipality has affirmed the unauthorized act of an employee or officer, the doctrine of implied ratification can be invoked to enforce the agreement. Johnson v. Hospital Serv. Plan of New Jersey, 25 N.J. 134, 140-41 (1957). In Casamasino, supra, 158 N.J. at 346, the Court noted that " he analysis of ratification of employment relations has paralleled the analysis of contract ratification." Citing with approval to Grimes v. City of East Orange, 288 N.J. Super. 275 (App. Div. 1996), the Court outlined the required ratification analysis, as follows:
First, the Bauer test must be applied to decide whether the act or appointment was ultra vires or intra vires. An act or appointment is ultra vires if the "municipality utterly without capacity" to perform the act or make the appointment. Bauer, supra, 7 N.J. at 434. Such an act or appointment is void and may not be ratified. Ibid. In contrast, an intra vires act or appointment is one that is "voidable for want of authority" and may be ratified. Ibid.; Grimes, supra, 288 N.J. Super. at 279. This general rule has been recognized throughout the country. Second, Grimes requires that when the act or appointment involves statutory conditions precedent, ratification must be made with the same formalities required for the original exercise of the power, meaning in accordance with the statutory procedures required for the original act. . . . [Casamasino, supra, 158 N.J. at 347 (other citations omitted).]
Here, there was formal action taken by the Council confirming Mayor Matacera's appointment of plaintiff as the Director of Public Safety. At the outset of his appointment, there was no overt action taken by the council that established plaintiff's compensation and his benefits package as being anything other than that contained in the Township's then-existing salary ordinance.
Ratification by a municipality
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 New Jersey Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|