SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF CASSELBERRY, ETC. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, ETC. CITY OF SANFORD, ETC., APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 1989-03-09
Nos. 88-1324 to 88-1326
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.
541 So. 2d 666 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Seminole County challenged ordinances adopted by three cities that imposed a six-month moratorium on collecting road impact fees authorized by the county. The trial court upheld the cities' ordinances based on constitutional supremacy, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the cities' potential defense challenging the validity of the county ordinance itself must be considered.


Holding

The summary judgment in favor of the cities based solely on constitutional supremacy is reversed. The cities are entitled to pursue their alternative defense that the county impact fee ordinance is invalid, which matter was not addressed by the trial court.


Headnotes

[1] A non-chartered county ordinance is not effective within a municipality to the extent it conflicts with a municipal ordinance.

[2] A municipality may assert the invalidity of a county ordinance as a defense to the county's action seeking to enforce its ordinance.

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

Key Quotes

“an ordinance [of a non-chartered government] in conflict with a municipal ordinance shall not be effective within the municipality to the extent of such conflict”

Article VIII, § 1(f) of the Florida Constitution (1968) establishing the constitutional basis for municipal supremacy over non-chartered county ordinances

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Seminole County adopted an ordinance imposing impact fees for improvement of county road system roads within the cities of Sanford, Casselberry, and W…

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.


Opinion of the Court
COWART, Judge.

COWART, Judge.

Seminole County adopted an ordinance imposing impact fees for improvement of certain county road system roads (§ 334.-03(6), Fla.Stat.) within the cities of Sanford, Casselberry and Winter Springs. Each of those cities adopted an ordinance establishing a six month moratorium on the collection of all road impact fees within their city limits. Seminole County brought an action for a judgment declaring that the cities’ respective ordinances were invalid. The trial court held that there was a “conflict” between the county ordinance and the cities’ ordinances and that because Seminole County is a non-chartered county, and because Article VIII, § 1(f) of the Florida Constitution (1968) provides that “an ordinance [of a non-chartered government] in conflict with a municipal ordinance shall not be effective within the municipality to the extent of such conflict,” the municipal ordinances “opting out” of the county’s impact fee ordinance were valid and effective to prevail over the county’s impact ordinance. Seminole County appeals.

We reverse on the authority of Ormond Beach v. Volusia, 535 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).1 While the trial court based its summary judgment in favor of the cities on the constitutional supremacy of the cities’ ordinances over the county ordinance, the cities’ counsel in oral argument before this court stated that the cities have also asserted in their answer in the declaratory proceedings below (which answer is not in the record on appeal) that the county impact fee ordinance is invalid, which defense matters the cities should be entitled to pursue even if the cities’ supremacy argument does not prevail. The validity of the county ordinance was not an issue in Ormond Beach.

Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of the cities, based on the constitutional supremacy of the cities’ ordinances over the county impact ordinance, is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur. . While Volusia County is a chartered county whose constitutional powers are based on Article VIII, § 1(g) and Seminole is a non-chartered county whose constitutional powers are based on Article VIII, § 1(f), this distinction is without meaning in this instance because the Volu-sia County charter itself provides that a Volusia County ordinance in conflict with a municipal ordinance is not effective within the municipality to the extent of such conflict. See section 1305, Volusia County Charter.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Madison Cnty. v. Wiley D. Foxx and Quinton Dryden, 636 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
    …he sovereign right to opt-in, we do not think it is appropriate for this court to address this issue without argument on behalf of the affected cities. . City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1992); Seminole County v. City of Casselberry, 541 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); City of Ormond Beach v. County of Volusia, 535 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Taylor v. Lee County, 498 So. 2d 424 (Fla.1986); Gallant v. Stephens, 358 So. 2d 536 (Fla.1978); and State ex rel. Dade County v. Dickinson, 230 So.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw