ARTURO CHABAU ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DADE COUNTY AND KEY BISCAYNE PROPERTY TAXPAYER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Property developers sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Dade County Board of County Commissioners from reviewing zoning variances that had been approved by the Zoning Appeals Board. The court held that a neighborhood property owners' association lacked standing to appeal the variances decision because it was not an "aggrieved party" under the applicable statute, and therefore the County Commissioners lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the lower board's decision.
The court held that the property owners' association was not an "aggrieved party" under § 33-313 and therefore lacked standing to appeal to the Board of County Commissioners. Consequently, the Board of County Commissioners lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the Zoning Appeals Board's decision, making any decision by the Commissioners void ab initio.
[1] A representative association lacks standing to appeal an administrative decision unless it has suffered a special injury distinct from that of its members.
[2] An administrative body lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by a party without standing.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Any appealable decision of the zoning appeals board may be appealed by an applicant, governing body of any municipality, if affected, or any aggrieved party whose name appears in the record of the zoning appeals board.”
The statute governing who may appeal zoning decisions, which requires that an appellant be an "aggrieved party" with standing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Chabau and others sought to build an apartment on Key Biscayne. Approximately 800 Key property owners opposed the project through the Key B…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standing To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*130] PER CURIAM.
Appellants Chabau and others want to erect an apartment building on Key Biscayne; some 800 Key property owners disapprove of their planned construction. The corporate appellee (hereinafter “association”) professes its authority to represent the individual property owners in their opposition to appellants’ request for zoning variances. The association appealed to the Dade County Board of County Commissioners from the Zoning Appeals Board’s decision approving the variances. After the association’s appeal was made, but before a decision was rendered by the Commissioners, appellants sought a writ of prohibition in the circuit court. Their petition was denied, and appeal to this court was taken from the denial. The petition and appeal challenge the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners, which ultimately overruled the Zoning Appeal Board’s decision: According to appellants, the Board of County Commissioners was without authority to overturn the decision of the lower administrative tribunal, because the association lacked standing to appeal to that Board. We agree that the association was without standing to appear before the Board of County Commissioners, and reverse the ruling of the circuit court.
We are referred by both parties to § 33-313, Dade County Code (1979):
Any appealable decision of the zoning appeals board may be appealed by an applicant, governing body of any municipality, if affected, or any aggrieved party whose name appears in the record of the zoning appeals board. .
Thus, if the association were not an “aggrieved party”, it could not properly appeal to the Board of County Commissioners, that Board could not review the decision of the Zoning Appeals Board, and any decision of the Commissioners would be void ab initio.
It is clear that a representative association, such as appellee, could not sue in state courts; it would have no standing, unless it, rather than its members, had suffered some special injury. United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974); Hemisphere Equity Realty Corp. v. Key Biscayne Property Taxpayer’s Association, Inc., 369 So. 2d 996 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). The association urges, however, that if it is not “aggrieved” sufficiently to have state court standing, it nevertheless is aggrieved for purposes of review by the Board of County Commissioners.
Although the appellees have referred us to two foreign decisions in which the requirement of aggrievement was lowered to facilitate administrative appeal by representative groups, we are not disposed to embrace their holdings. Contra our decision, Douglaston Civic Association, Inc. v. Galvin, 36 N.Y.2d 1, 324 N.E. 2d 317, 364 N.Y.S.2d 830 (1974); East Camelback Homeowners Association v. Arizona Foundation for Neurology and Psychiatry, 19 Ariz.App. 118, 505 P. 2d 286 (1973).
If Dade County wishes to liberalize access to its local tribunals, it may undertake to do so.
We have considered the other arguments of appellees, and find them to be similarly without merit. Therefore we have concluded that the circuit court erred in denying the writ of prohibition.
For the reasons stated the order appealed is reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Save Brickell Ave., Inc. v. The City OF Miami, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ion is an “unreasonable exercise of legislative power.” Renard v. Dade County, supra, 261 So. 2d at 838; Hemisphere Equity Realty Co., Inc. v. Key Biscayne Property Taxpayers Ass’n., 369 So. 2d 996, 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). . Chabau v. Dade County, 385 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) and F & R Builders, Inc. v. Durant, 390 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cited by the respondents, deal only with the ability to appeal zoning decisions to the County Commission, as provided by the Dade County code. They do not conc…
-
Grove Isle, Ltd. v. Bayshore Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…do not show how petitioners are “substantially affected” any more than the general public by DNR’s decision not to require a lease for the marina. See U.S. Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974); Chabau v. [*1048] Dade County, 385 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). DNR’s decision merely holds that no lease is required for the proposed marina. It in no way concerns the permit requirements for construction of the marina. This case is analagous to Peterson v. Florida Department of Community A…
-
The Izaak Walton League OF Am. v. Monroe Cnty. & Windley Key, Ltd., 448 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…s this chapter may appeal in writing to the board of county commissioners. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days after the act or decision upon which any appeal is made and must specify the grounds thereof. In Chabau v. Dade County, 385 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), another panel of this court squarely held that a representative association like the Izaak Walton League was not “aggrieved” by an adverse zoning decision under a Dade County ordinance indistinguishable from this one and thus cou…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand KEY, Inc., 303 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)
- Hemisphere Equity Realty Co., Inc. v. KEY Biscayne Prop. Taxpayers Ass'n, 369 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)