Limitations—Estoppel To Claim Limitations

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

S. [§ 6.40] Limitations—Estoppel to Claim Limitations

A personal representative may be estopped from claiming limitations. Bertonazzi v. Hillman, 241 Md. 361, 216 A.2d 723 (1966); Chandlee v. Shockley, 219 Md. 493, 150 A.2d 438 (1959). See also Sole v. Darby, 52 Md. App. 218, 447 A.2d 506 (1982). Whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should or should not be applied depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The modern view adopted by the Maryland courts is that estoppel may arise without "intent to mislead." "[A]ll that is needed to create an equitable estoppel is (1) voluntary conduct or representation, (2) reliance, and (3) detriment." Lampton v. LaHood, 94 Md. App. 461, 476, 617 A.2d 1142, 1150 (1993). See also Zimmerman v. Summers, 24 Md. App. 100, 123, 330 A.2d 722. 735 (1975), where the rule was stated as follows:

But it is plain that the rule now to be followed in Maryland is that equitable estoppel may be applied, not only when the conduct of the party to be estopped has been wrongful or unconscientious, and relied upon by the other party to his detriment, but also when the conduct, apart from its morality, has the effect of rendering it inequitable and unconscionable to allow the rights or claims to be asserted or enforced.

See also Cunninghame v. Cunninghame, 364 Md. 266, 300, 772 A.2d 1188, 1208 (2001), in which the Court summarized its holding on estoppel as follows:

In order for a personal representative to be estopped from asserting the limitation on presentation of claim statute, the personal representative must have made a clear affirmative representation that a claimant detrimentally relied on. More specifically, the personal representative must make an affirmative representation that makes the claimant reasonably believe that the claimant does not need to file a claim within the relevant time period. A personal representative normally will not be estopped by his silence from asserting the statute—Section 8-103. There must be a substantial detrimental affirmative representation that the claimant need not file a claim with the estate, made by one who then has the present power, or who later has the power, to bind the estate. Additionally, it must be established that the claimant relied on the representation to the claimant's detriment, and that the reliance was reasonable.

See further discussion at § 6.59.

See also Grimberg v. Marth, 338 Md. 546, 659 A.2d 1287 (1995). The failure to give notice required by...