With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Claim We review the trial court’s order dismissing the equitable estoppel claim with prejudice under a de novo standard. Belcher Ctr., LLC v. Belcher Ctr., Inc., 883 So.2d 338, 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). When reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the trial court is limited to the four corners of the complaint, and if the court is required to consider matters outside the.four corners of the complaint, then the claim may not be dismissed on the basis of an affirmative defense. See id. The trial court correctly dismissed the Bairs’ claim for damages under a theory of equitable estoppel. Florida courts recognize that equitable estoppel may be invoked against a governmental entity as a supporting theory for some other remedy. See Pacetta, LLC, 120 So.3d at 29-30 (<HOLDING>); cf. State, Agency for Health Care Admin. v.

A: holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner
B: holding that the transaction must be fair and equitable and in good faith
C: recognizing that equitable estoppel may be invoked to support a bert harris act claim if a property owner relies in good faith upon the governmental action in question
D: holding failure to take action may have some bearing on good faith
C.