CENTRUST SAVINGS BANK, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE CITY OF MIAMI, THEODORE B. GOULD, AND OLYMPIA & YORK FLORIDA EQUITY CORP., D/B/A MIAMI CENTER JOINT VENTURE; AND MIAMI CENTER CORPORATION, D/B/A CHOPIN ASSOCIATES, 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.
Centrust Savings Bank, a Miami property owner and taxpayer, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City of Miami to inspect other property owners' buildings for building code violations and enforce the South Florida Building Code. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that mandamus does not lie for property inspections (not a ministerial duty) and that Centrust lacked standing to challenge building code violations affecting only the general public.
A writ of mandamus does not lie in either circumstance. First, property inspections do not constitute a ministerial duty suitable for mandamus relief. Second, Centrust lacks standing to seek enforcement of building code violations because it has not alleged any special injury apart from that suffered by the general public.
[1] A writ of mandamus does not lie to compel a governmental entity to inspect property for possible building or zoning violations, as such inspections do not constitute a mi…
[2] A private party lacks standing to compel a governmental entity to enforce building codes unless the party demonstrates a special injury distinct from that suffered by the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We are unaware of any case in Florida or elsewhere in the country — and the parties to this appeal have cited none — which has ever held that a writ of mandamus lies to compel an appropriate governmental entity or governmental official to inspect property for possible building or zoning violations.”
Establishes that no precedent supports mandamus for property inspections; the court declines to create such precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCentrust Savings Bank, a Miami corporate taxpayer and property owner, filed suit against the City of Miami and other Miami property owners (Theodore 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 Special Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final order dismissing a complaint for a writ of mandamus brought by a City of Miami corporate taxpayer and property owner, Centrust Savings Bank [Centrust], against the City of Miami and other City of Miami property owners i.e., Theodore B. Gould; Olympia & York Florida Equity Corp., d/b/a Miami Center Joint Venture; and Miami Center Corporation, d/b/a Chopin Associates. The complaint seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the City of Miami to enforce the South Florida Building Code against the defendant property owners as to the latter’s buildings located in the City of Miami. We agree with the trial court that the complaint does not state a prima facie case for mandamus relief based on the following two reasons.
First, the complaint seeks a writ of mandamus to require the City of Miami to inspect the defendants’ property for possible building code violations and to proceed against the defendants in the event violations are found. We are unaware of any case in Florida or elsewhere in the country — and the parties to this appeal have cited none — which has ever held that a writ of mandamus lies to compel an appropriate governmental entity or governmental official to inspect property for possible building or zoning violations. We decline to be the first court in the country to so hold as, in our view, such inspections do not constitute the performance of a ministerial duty for which a writ of mandamus is available. See City of Coral Gables v. State ex rel. Worley, 44 So. 2d 298, 300 (Fla.1950); City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Epicure, 148 Fla. 255, 257, 4 So. 2d 116, 117 (1941); State ex rel. Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v. City of Miramar, 306 So. 2d 173, 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
Second, the complaint also seeks a writ of mandamus to require the City of Miami to enforce specific fire resistivity provisions of the building code which, it is claimed, the defendants are violating with respect to certain concrete floor slabs and other structural components of defendants’ buildings. The plaintiff Centrust makes no claim, however, that it has suffered a special injury, apart from the injury suffered by any member of the general public, as a result of these alleged building code violations. Centrust therefore lacks standing to bring the instant action as to these claimed building code violations. See Boucher v. Novotny, 102 So. 2d 132, 135-36 (Fla.1958); State ex rel. Hanna v. Lee, 124 Fla. 588, 589, 169 So. 220, 221 (1936); see generally 35 Fla.Jur.2d Mandamus & Prohibition § 96 (1982); Annot, 35 A.L.R.2d 1135, 1136-40 (1954).
For these two reasons, a writ of mandamus does not lie in this case, and the complaint herein was properly dismissed below.
Affirmed.
HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ., concur.
[*578] ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Upon consideration after rehearing, we adhere to the opinion and decision of June 10, 1986.
FERGUSON, Judge
(dissenting).
This court has previously held that a public official or public body may, by a mandamus action, be required to discharge an official duty. City of Miami Beach v. Sunset Islands 3 & 4 Property Owners Association, 216 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). It is also the law in this state that a private citizen has standing, without showing special injury, to enforce a public duty by a mandamus action. State ex rel. Davis v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 95 Fla. 14, 116 So. 48 (1928), cert. denied, 281 U.S. 727, 50 S.Ct. 245, 74 L.Ed. 1144 (1930). Appellees have suggested no practical reason, and none appears to me, why enforcement of a municipal building code should be excepted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RHS Corp. v. City OF Boynton Beach & Clear Copy, Inc., 736 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…available to compel such action. See Trianon Park Condominium Ass’n v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1985) (the enforcement of the law by regulatory officials such as building inspectors is discretionary); Centrust Sav. Bank v. City of Miami, 491 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986) (mandamus is not available to compel a governmental entity or official to inspect property for building or zoning violations). The appellant contends that the trial court mischaracterized the contents of count III and failed to…
-
Detournay v. City OF Coral Gables, 127 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…96) (Pariente, J.) (finding that plaintiffs alleged and proved special damages different from those suffered by the community as a whole where plaintiffs shared a private road with defendant property owner), with Centrust Sav. Bank v. City of Miami, 491 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (no standing where plaintiff made no claim that it had suffered a special injury apart from the injury suffered by any member of the general public as a result of alleged building code violations), and Cont’l Con-Dev Co. v. Shallb…1 / 2
-
Maverick Media Grp., Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp., 791 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…t citizens had no private cause of action to challenge city’s allegedly improper traffic control devices). A third party also does not generally have the right to compel the government to enforce regulations. See Centrust Sav. Bank v. City of Miami, 491 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (holding that mandamus action could not be maintained by private citizen to require enforcement of building or zoning codes); RHS Corp. v. City of Boynton Beach, 736 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that mandamus not avail…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 95 Fla. 14 (Fla. 1928)
- Grover v. VAN Heusden, 102 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1958)
- Boucher v. Novotny, 102 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1958)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v. City OF Miramar, 306 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- City of Miami Beach v. State, 4 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1941)
- City of Coral Gables v. State Ex Rel. Worley, 44 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1950)
- State v. Lee, 124 Fla. 588 (Fla. 1936)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Sunset Islands 3 & 4 Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 216 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Haffa v. United States, 281 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1930)
- Rishel v. Cnty. of McPherson, 281 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1930)