PDT Holdings, Inc. and Phillip Thompson Homes, Inc. (the Builder) planned a three-story duplex at 5230 Alcott Street in Dallas, on an irregular 6,000-square-foot lot whose neighbors to the east, south, and west are residential properties.¹ Before preparing plans, the Builder and its agents met with city officials several times to verify applicable restrictions, and officials identified only a 36-foot maximum-height limit; the City approved the plan for a structure about 36 feet tall and issued a permit, and construction began in October 2017.² In January 2018 the City issued a stop-work order because the parapet wall slightly exceeded 36 feet; the Builder amended the plan at a cost of about $7,500, changing only the parapet height, and the City approved it, issued another permit, and lifted the order.³ In April 2018, with the duplex 90 percent complete, the City issued another stop-work order under the residential-proximity-slope (RPS) ordinance, which it said limited the structure to 26 feet, ten feet below the approved plans; it then lifted the order and told the Builder it was "OK TO FINISH".⁴ The Board of Adjustment denied the Builder's variance requests, the second with prejudice, leaving a duplex that was 95 percent complete at a cost of over $1 million and could not obtain a certificate of occupancy without complying with the RPS ordinance.⁵

The Builder sued to estop the City from enforcing the RPS ordinance under equitable theories including estoppel, laches, and waiver; after a bench trial in which no findings were requested, the trial court rendered judgment estopping the City from enforcing the ordinance, or any height ordinance not raised before January 2018, against the structure.¹ The Fifth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that nothing in the record showed an affirmative misrepresentation or a benefit to the City, that the Builder's reliance was unpersuasive because the RPS ordinance is public record, and that this was not an exceptional case.² The Builder petitioned for review on December 13, 2023; the Court granted review on December 20, 2024, heard argument on January 15, 2025, and decided the case on May 2, 2025.³

Petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals after a bench trial without findings of fact; argued January 15, 2025, and decided May 2, 2025.⁴

The Builder presents whether the court of appeals erred by applying a de novo standard of review after a bench trial with no findings and by reversing without considering whether the judgment could be upheld on any basis supported by the record.¹ The City responds that the court of appeals properly reviewed the inferred findings for legal sufficiency, correctly concluded that the Builder had not established estoppel as a matter of law, and correctly refused to affirm on alternative theories the Builder had abandoned.² The Court addressed the standards of review and whether the law and record support estopping the City.³

With no findings requested, all necessary findings supported by the evidence are implied, and legal and factual sufficiency govern challenges to them; whether the case is exceptional so as to require estoppel against a city is for the court and is reviewed for abuse of discretion.¹ Evidence is legally sufficient if more than a scintilla supports the element.²

Whether the City may be estopped from enforcing the RPS ordinance.

Petitioners (the Builder): The court of appeals applied a de novo standard where the trial court, as arbiter of the facts after a nonjury trial, was owed deference, and it overturned the judgment without asking whether it could be upheld on any basis supported by the record; the City's delayed enforcement and selective enforcement of its height ordinance undermine predictability and a pro-business regulatory environment.¹

Respondents (City of Dallas and Board of Adjustment): The court of appeals correctly reviewed the trial court's inferred findings for legal sufficiency and concluded the Builder had not established estoppel as a matter of law; the City made an unintentional mistake in issuing permits, the RPS ordinance is public record, the Builder's reliance was unreasonable given permit language, and the City received no benefit from its error.²

The Builder argued that the court of appeals denied the trial court the deference owed after a nonjury trial without findings, which it called an error of law needing correction.¹ The City argued that review was unwarranted because the court of appeals correctly applied the legal-sufficiency standard to the inferred findings.²

• Texas Municipal League, et al. filed an amicus brief on February 10, 2025.
• Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino of Bellaire, Texas filed an amicus curiae brief on May 31, 2025.

Holding

Legally sufficient evidence supports the challenged elements of equitable estoppel, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that this is an exceptional case in which justice requires estoppel against the City and estoppel would not interfere with governmental functions; a mere mistaken issuance of a permit is not enough, but affirmative misdirection by city officials, an inspection-approved amended permit, and an "OK TO FINISH" notice were.¹

Reasoning

Elements. Equitable estoppel requires a false representation or concealment of material facts, made with knowledge of them, with intent that it be acted on, to a party without knowledge or means of knowledge, who detrimentally relies; the City challenged three elements.² The intent behind a misrepresentation is not material: officials told the Builder 36 feet was the limit, approved an amended permit for the same height after inspection, and later said the duplex was "OK TO FINISH," all of which were untrue.³ There was evidence that the Builder used due diligence and did not discover the ordinance, and a party's failure to discover a government restriction does not defeat estoppel when it is attributable to affirmative government misdirection; the Builder's reliance on the permits was reasonable because the City did more than issue permits and the Builder spent over $1 million in reliance on the permits, inspections, and lifted stop-work orders.⁴

Exceptional case. Estoppel against a city is available only in exceptional cases where justice requires it and it does not interfere with governmental functions.⁵ Justice requires it here because city officials affirmatively misled the Builder, the Builder would be completely denied relief after three unsuccessful variance requests, the misrepresentation would cause permanent loss since compliance means razing a $1 million structure, affirmative misdirection can overcome the public-record nature of the ordinance under Mosley and Roberts, and the City did not act quickly, first mentioning the ordinance six months after the permit.⁶ The Court rejected the argument that the City must have benefited from its error, because benefit "weighs in favor" of the exception under Super Wash but is not required.⁷ Estoppel would not interfere with governmental functions, because allowing this single over-height structure to remain would not bar future enforcement of the RPS ordinance or hinder public safety, and the Court left open whether harm to neighbors may be considered.⁸ The Court noted that the result would differ if a city purposefully violated the law to invite estoppel.⁹

Disposition

The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment that the City is estopped from enforcing the RPS ordinance against the Builder.¹⁰

Vote Breakdown

Majority Opinion by Justice Busby

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Boyd, Devine, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.