RONALD D. JANSON, PETITIONER,
v.
THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, RESPONDENT
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.
Janson sought certiorari review of a city's denial of his building permit, but the court denied his petition because he simultaneously pursued an inverse condemnation suit in a separate proceeding. Florida law prohibits parties from simultaneously challenging agency action through both direct appeal and inverse condemnation remedies.
No. A landowner cannot simultaneously pursue both direct appeal of an agency action and an inverse condemnation suit. Once a party files an inverse condemnation suit, it forecloses that party from challenging the correctness or propriety of the underlying administrative decision through the appeal process.
[1] A landowner may choose to contest the validity of an agency action through the appeal process or accept the agency action as valid and challenge its effect through an inv…
[2] Pursuing an inverse condemnation suit forecloses a party from challenging the correctness of the underlying administrative decision.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a landowner may choose either to contest the validity of the agency action being challenged through the appeal process, or it may accept the agency action as valid, and then challenge its effect by way of an inverse condemnation suit.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that the two remedies are alternative and mutually exclusive
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJanson applied for a building permit from the Board of City Commissioners of St. Augustine. The Board denied his application. Rather than pursuing an …
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 Administrative Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Janson petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s refusal, acting in its appellate capacity, to review the denial of his application for a building permit by the Board of City Commissioners of St. Augustine. We have jurisdiction,1 but we deny the petition because we think Janson is foreclosed from seeking judicial review of the validity and propriety of the Board’s denial of his zoning permit, because he is currently challenging the zoning denial by bringing an inverse condemnation suit in the circuit court in a separate proceeding.
The circuit court in this case relied on Key Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla.1983). Although not factually similar to this case, the principles set out in the opinion are dispositive. The court held that a landowner may choose either to contest the validity of the agency action being challenged through the appeal process, or it may accept the agency action as valid, and then challenge its effect by way of an inverse condemnation suit.
In Key Haven, the landowner failed to pursue its administrative appeal, and opted to file the inverse condemnation suit instead. The court held that the landowner was not foreclosed in its inverse condemnation suit by failing to pursue the administrative appeal. However, it emphasized:
[B]y electing the circuit court as the judicial forum, a party foregoes any opportunity to challenge the permit denial as improper and may not challenge the agency action as arbitrary or capricious or as failing to comply with the intent and purposes of the statute.
Id. at 160.
In Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1984), the landowner, after fully pursuing the administrative appeal process, thereafter filed an inverse condemnation suit. The court held that the inverse condemnation suit was proper, but it emphasized, that the party filing the claim must accept the validity of the agency action or order:
In Key Haven we merely provided an alternative to direct review for those parties who wish to accept the propriety of the action. This was not meant to extin guish the property owner’s right to bring the separate claim of inverse condemnation in circuit court at the conclusion of all judicial as well as executive branch appeals regarding the propriety of the action.... “nce a party agrees to the propriety of the action and chooses the circuit court forum, it is estopped from any further denial that the action itself was improper.” (Emphasis supplied).
Id. at 12-13.
Key Haven and Albrecht dictate that the two remedies of appeal and inverse condemnation cannot be simultaneously pursued. Although a challenge to the administrative decision via appeal does not extinguish a suit for inverse condemnation at the conclusion of the appeal, Albrecht, a filing of an inverse condemnation suit forecloses a party from challenging the correctness of an administrative decision. Key Haven. Thus, Janson’s right to appeal the agency action through administrative and judicial channels was extinguished.
PETITION DENIED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . City of Deerfiled Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982); Wingate v. Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 442 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Stansberry v. City of Lake Helen, 425 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Golf Club OF Plantation, Inc. v. City OF Plantation, 717 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…re about its rights. Dismissal on that basis was correct and, in addition, was warranted based on the fact that, Golf Club may not seek both damages as a result of inverse condemnation and a declaratory judgment. See Janson v. City of St. Augustine, 468 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Key Haven Associated Enters., Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Internal Imp. Trust Fund, 427 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1982), superseded on other grounds as noted in Bowen v. Florida Dep’t of Envtl. Regulation, 448 So. 2d 566, 568-69 (Fla. 2d…
-
Orange Cnty. v. Lust, 602 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…order to avoid the county’s having to pay damages. Permitting alternative theories to proceed (an appeal of the denial of rezoning and inverse condemnation) in the same [*574] action was error. As this court held in Janson v. City of St. Augustine, 468 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985): Key Haven [Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla.1983)] and Albrecht [v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1984)] dictate that the two remedies of appeal and inverse condemnation cannot be simultaneously…
-
LEE Cnty. v. Sylvan Zemel, 675 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ade it clear that a party may “seek circuit court relief for injuries arising from an agency decision,” as for example, for inverse condemnation, if the party accepts the agency [*1382] action as valid. Id.; see also Janson v. City of St. Augustine, 468 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Based on our rulings on the jurisdictional and due process issues, the trial court should revisit its decision on the Zem-els’ claim of inverse condemnation. Therefore, we reverse the final judgment to the extent that it found…
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
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- KEY Haven Associated Enters., Inc. v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1982)
- Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Lark Lynette Lambert, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1983)
- Wingate v. State, 442 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Effie D. Stansberry v. City OF Lake Helen, 425 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)