KOS 11838 (“KOS”) and BHNVN, Inc. operated businesses in the City of Panama City Beach (the “City”) that rent low-speed vehicles (“LSVs”). In 2017, the City enacted an ordinance that capped the number of LSVs available for rent at 300 and equally divided those LSVs among six licensed businesses who each received 50 LSV “medallions.” KOS was not awarded medallions and challenged the ordinance on two constitutional grounds: denial of equal protection and denial of substantive due process. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. On appeal, the First DCA applied the rational basis test and found that limiting LSVs bears a rational relationship to the legitimate municipal goal of promoting public safety and protecting limited police resources. The First DCA also held that KOS did not negate every conceivable basis which might support the ordinance and it must be upheld against a substantive due process challenge. View More

Peter and Galina Haver (the “Havers”) brought suit against the City of West Palm Beach (the “City”) as a result of the City’s inaction in response to their complaints that their neighbor was running a group home in violation of a City zoning ordinance. The Havers requested injunctive relief, declaratory relief, a writ of mandamus, and a writ of certiorari against the City in connection with the City’s refusal to enforce the zoning ordinance against the neighbor. The trial court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and the Havers appealed. The Fourth DCA affirmed dismissal of the mandamus and certiorari claims, but reversed as to the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, and certified conflict. The Fourth DCA deemed an injunction of this nature “specifically permitted” by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Boucher v. Novotny, 102 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1958). Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court held that the Fourth DCA misread Boucher and they declined to invite judicial interference with administrative enforcement decisions at issue in this case. In the absence of allegations that the government itself had acted illegally, the Florida Supreme Court held that injunctive relief is not an available remedy to compel a city to enforce a zoning ordinance against a third party. View More 

Santa Rosa County (the “County”) first denied, then later granted, a permit to Blue Water Holdings SRC, Inc. (“Blue Water”) to construct and operate a landfill. Blue Water brought suit under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act (the “Act”), seeking damages for the burden imposed from the temporary delay in granting the permit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County “due to the lack of valid appraisal(s) of the real property” as required by the Act. The First DCA reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that (1) the appraisal was properly based on property values rather than business damages; (2) the appraisals were not disavowed by the appraiser; (3) the Act does not require an appraisal of land values immediately before and after denial of a permit, although that would be “more ideal”; and (4) the appraisal is a pre-suit requirement to put the government on notice of the claim—it is not required to give a jury sufficient information to carry out its decision-making. View More 

The Second DCA has certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether the 2021 amendment to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act (the “Act”) applies retroactively to allow a property owner to relinquish title to the property and maintain standing to bring the action pursuant to the Act. The Second DCA held that the 2021 amendment was not a clarification of existing law, but rather a substantive revision to be applied prospectively. View More