Cameron Estates, Inc. v. Deering, 308 N.E.2d 9 (N.Y. 1973)

A municipality can be estopped from asserting jurisdiction over land if it has acquiesced for a lengthy period in a different boundary, during which time property owners and other governmental entities have relied to their detriment on the municipality’s inaction.

Summary

Cameron Estates sued the Village of Philmont, claiming their properties were outside village limits due to the village’s 80-year acquiescence in certain boundaries. The Village, after discovering an older map from its 1892 incorporation that included the properties, sought to add them to the tax rolls. The New York Court of Appeals held that the village was estopped from asserting its claim because of its long acquiescence, the detrimental reliance of the property owners and the adjacent Town of Claverack, and the village’s affirmative act of filing a map in 1911 that excluded the properties.

Facts

In 1892, the Village of Philmont was incorporated, and its initial boundaries encompassed the appellants’ lands.
In 1911, the Village filed a map with the Secretary of State that excluded the appellants’ properties from the village limits, pursuant to a statutory requirement.
For at least 45 years prior to 1973, the appellants’ lands were not included on the village tax rolls, and the owners did not receive village services.
In 1973, the Village notified appellants that their properties would be added to the tax rolls, based on the 1892 incorporation boundaries, a discovery made by the State Department of Audit and Control.
The Town of Claverack provided municipal services to the area and included the area in its Mellenville Fire District.

Procedural History

The landowners sued the Village, and the Town of Claverack intervened, seeking a declaration that the properties were not within the Village limits.
The Appellate Division ruled in favor of the Village, holding that the original 1892 boundaries controlled, and the Village’s acquiescence in different boundaries was irrelevant.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, granting judgment to the landowners, declaring that their properties were not within the Village of Philmont.

Issue(s)

Whether a lengthy period of acquiescence in certain boundaries and the failure to exercise jurisdiction over particular properties operates to preclude a village from asserting at the present time that such properties are within its territorial limits.

Holding

Yes, because long acquiescence in the location of municipal boundaries, where all municipal action and improvements have been done under the assumption that such are the boundaries, will support the conclusion that such are the true boundaries, especially where property owners and adjacent units of local government have relied to their detriment upon the inaction of the municipal corporation.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court applied the doctrine of acquiescence, stating that “long acquiescence in the location of municipal boundaries by the corporation and the inhabitants thereof where all municipal action and improvements have been done under the assumption that such are the boundaries will support the conclusion that such are the true boundaries notwithstanding they were not originally so located”.
The Court emphasized that “personal, civil and political rights have become fixed according to the boundaries established by usage.”
The Court found that appellants and intervenor had relied upon the boundaries established by custom and usage. Property owners considered the lack of village tax when purchasing land, and the Town of Claverack provided all municipal services.
The Court analogized the doctrine of acquiescence to the concept of estoppel, finding that the elements of estoppel were present: a duty to speak, a failure to speak, and damage to another party due to this silence.
The Court distinguished the case from situations where the original boundaries were set by the Legislature, where the doctrine of acquiescence would not apply.
The Court also noted that the Village Law section providing a procedure for diminishing village boundaries was not applicable, as it applied to areas already recognized as part of the village, not to areas that had never been considered within the corporate limits.
The Court treated the case as an action for declaratory judgment and concluded that the 1911 boundaries were the true and correct boundaries of the Village of Philmont.