ED KLOSKI, MILTON MRAVIC, GRACE MANNILLO, JOHN SCHARCH, AND MICHAEL BIER, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, APPELLANTS,
v.
MATECUMBE MARINA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit court order that approved a marina expansion plan, holding that while mandamus can compel an administrative tribunal to rule, courts cannot use mandamus to dictate how the tribunal must rule.
While mandamus lies to require an administrative tribunal to rule one way or the other where it has discretion, a reviewing court may not use mandamus to instruct the tribunal how to rule. The circuit court exceeded its authority by declaring rights and instructing the Planning Commission to approve the plan.
[1] Mandamus may lie to compel an administrative tribunal to make a ruling when it has discretion, but a reviewing court cannot instruct the tribunal on how to rule.
[2] A court may compel an administrative body to issue a written order, but it lacks the authority to declare rights or dictate the outcome of the ruling.
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“while mandamus lies to require an administrative tribunal to rule one way or the other where it has discretion, the reviewing court may not instruct the tribunal, by mandamus, how to rule”
States the core holding that distinguishes between compelling a ruling and dictating its content
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatecumbe Marina sought approval to expand an existing marina in Monroe County. The Planning Commission issued conditional approval in December 1988 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretionary Acts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issues in this case as framed by the appellants, and addressed by the appellee, are (1) whether the act the appellee sought to have performed by peremptory writ for mandamus was ministerial, which can be compelled, rather than discretionary, for which mandamus does not lie, and (2) whether the appellee demonstrated that it had exhausted the administrative remedies available to it.
Matecumbe Marina sought the approval of the Monroe County Planning Commission to expand an existing Marina on Upper Matecumbe Key in Monroe County. In December 1988, the Planning Commission issued an initial approval, attaching eight conditions. Matecumbe Marina expended $198,000 for planning, consulting, legal, and surveying fees and submitted a final site plan to the Planning Director. On April 27, 1989, the Planning Director found that the eight conditions had been complied with and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the plan. At a May 25,1989 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the final development plan submitted by Matecumbe and rejected the Director’s recommendation, voting instead to rescind the conditional approval which had been granted five months earlier. Matecumbe sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel approval of its final plan. The circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the petition and made independent findings that the petitioner “in all ways complied with each of the eight conditions imposed upon it by the Planning Commission and that there are no grounds to deny said approval.” Thereafter, it ordered approval of the final plan.
While we agree that the court was empowered to compel the Planning Commission to issue a written order, it was without authority to declare rights and instruct the Commission which way to rule. We have held, in several cases, that while mandamus lies to require an administrative tribunal to rule one way or the other where it has discretion, the reviewing court may not instruct the tribunal, by mandamus, how to rule. Hunter v. Solomon, 75 So. 2d 803, 806 (Fla.1954); Reese v. Baron, 256 So. 2d 70, 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).1
Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
. We do not pass on the merits of the respondent’s final development plan, nor do we reach the second point raised by the petitioners — that the respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies. We note, however, that the actions of the Planning Commission, on a use permit application, are subject to administrative review by the Monroe County Commission. § 9.5-69(e).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dollar v. State, 909 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…r, and a portion of the transcript of the hearing in which the original judge refused to grant a new bond. With regard to the proceeding in this court, mandamus is not the proper remedy under the circumstances. See Kloski v. Matecumbe Marina, Inc., 598 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). See also Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center v. Lewis, 399 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c) provides: If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if th…
-
Mantilla v. Hon. Stanley Goldstein, 608 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…Whether a criminal record should be sealed or expunged involves the exercise of judicial discretion, Hernandez v. State, 603 So. 2d 105 (Fla.3d DCA 1992), as to which mandamus does not lie. Kloski v. Matecumbe Marina, Inc., 598 So. 2d 275 (Fla.3d DCA 1992) (Mandamus not a vehicle to command performance of an act where public officer has discretion). Mandamus is denied without prejudice to appeal. NESBITT, FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ., concur.…
-
The Caliente P'ship v. Johnston, 604 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…red by subsection (7). Otherwise the statute is silent on specific remedies and we decline to fashion one. Less drastic methods, such as mandamus, exist to compel DCA to make a prompt — if not a specific — decision. Kloski v. Matecumbe Marina, Inc., 598 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Broward County Human Rights Board v. Rimon Apartments, 526 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Petition denied. PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur. . Respondent J. Lawrence Johnston is a hearing officer with the D…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hunter v. Solomon, 75 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1954)
- Garnell Staton v. State, 256 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Reese v. Baron, 256 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)