BROWARD COUNTY, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA NATIONAL PROPERTIES, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Broward County appealed a circuit court order granting a writ of prohibition that prevented the county from requiring permits or conducting hearings against Florida National Properties regarding dredge and fill activities. The appellate court granted certiorari and quashed the prohibition order, holding that prohibition was unavailable because the county's initial action of informing FNP of licensing requirements was executive/ministerial, not judicial or quasi-judicial.
The writ of prohibition was improper and quashed because the county's action of informing FNP of licensing requirements was executive or ministerial action, not judicial or quasi-judicial action, and prohibition lies only to prevent judicial or quasi-judicial actions. Additionally, FNP has adequate alternative remedies available through administrative proceedings and appellate review of final agency action.
[1] Prohibition lies only to prevent judicial or quasi-judicial actions, not legislative, executive, or administrative actions.
[2] An extraordinary writ of prohibition is to be employed with great caution and utilized only in emergencies, and may be invoked only where the party seeking the writ has n…
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“Prohibition lies only to prevent judicial or quasi-judicial actions, not legislative, executive or administerial actions.”
Establishes the fundamental limitation on when prohibition is available as a remedy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida National Properties (FNP), a real estate developer, conducted dredging for fill from a lake on its property. Broward County issued FNP a notic…
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 Notice Of Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge.
Broward County appeals a non-final order directing it to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not be granted, and prohibiting it from “requiring any permits, conducting any hearings or taking any action against” appellees, petitioners below, pending further order of that court. We treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari which we grant, quashing the trial court’s order. Appellee, Florida National Properties (FNP) is a real estate developer which had been dredging for fill from a lake on certain property owned by it. The county issued to FNP a notice of violation on the grounds that FNP had failed to obtain a required county license for such activities, and scheduled an administrative hearing. Before the hearing could be held, FNP filed its petition for writ of prohibition in the circuit court seeking to prohibit the hearing.
The trial court issued an “order nisi in prohibition”. The county’s answer alleged that the case was moot because the notices of violation had been rescinded. Subsequently, the county notified FNP that be fore it commenced any excavation on another parcel of land which it owned (known as Meadow Run), it would be required to apply for a dredge and fill license. That notice triggered from FNP (and an intervenor, North Springs Improvement District), a motion to amend the order nisi in prohibition so as to include the Meadow Run property within its scope. After hearing, the court granted the motion to amend and amended its prior order accordingly. It is from this amended order that the county has taken its appeal, which we now treat as a petition for writ of certiorari.
While we would not ordinarily review a mere order to show cause, see, e.g., Capital Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Ins., 478 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA1985), we conclude that the order involved here not only departs from the essential requirements of law, but that absent immediate review by this court, the county may suffer irreparable harm for which remedy on plenary appeal is inadequate. The effect of the circuit court’s order is to allow FNP to conduct dredge and fill activities while the prohibition proceeding is pending below, without first having obtained a Broward County license which, the county says, “establishes conditions to protect the environment and to specifically ensure that there is a minimal impact on wetlands.” Any harm to the environment created by FNP’s dredging without the proper safeguards would, of course, not be remediable on plenary appeal.
At the time FNP filed its motion to amend, the county had merely informed FNP that it would need to apply for a county license before commencing any dredge and fill operations on the Meadow Run property. There had been no notice of violation issued with respect to the activities on that property, nor had any administrative hearing been scheduled. The county’s conduct in simply informing FNP that it needed to apply for a license was not judicial or quasi-judicial action but was, instead, an executive or administerial action. Prohibition lies only to prevent judicial or quasi-judicial actions, not legislative, executive or administerial actions. See State ex rel. Swearingen v. R.R. Comm’rs of Fla., 79 Fla. 526, 84 So. 444 (1920); Koulianos v. Phillips, 516 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA1987).
Furthermore, prohibition is an extraordinary writ, to be employed with great caution and utilized only in emergencies, and may be invoked only where the party seeking the writ has no other appropriate and adequate legal remedy. English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1977). Should appellees be cited for a violation of the Broward County code, they have available administrative remedies and the right to review by appeal of any final agency action.
We limit our ruling here to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. We need not, nor do we, determine at this juncture the underlying question concerning the validity of the legislation granting Broward County the authority to issue dredge licenses and hold hearings on notices of violation.
Certiorari is granted and the amended rule nisi in prohibition is quashed.
HERSEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allan & Conrad, Inc. v. Univ. OF Cent. Fla., 961 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…ehicles, 736 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Morse v. Moxley, 691 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Prohibition is also inappropriate if the parties have the right to remedy the wrong by direct appeal. English; Broward County v. Florida Nat’l Props., 613 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Bondurant v. Geeker, 499 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Id. at 1139 (Sawaya, J., concurring and concurring specially). Here, the Petitioners clearly have a remedy on direct appeal to correct the wrong they perceive the trial…
-
Whiley v. Hon. Rick Scott, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2011)…er very limited circumstances. See English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla.1977); Curtis v. Albritton, 101 Fla. 853, 857, 132 So. 677 (Fla.1931); Sica v. Singletary, 714 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Broward County v. Fla. Nat’l Props., 613 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Chiles v. Phelps, 714 So. 2d 453, 457 (Fla.1998) (explaining that usually the constitutionality of an act should be challenged in a declaratory action in circuit court, and that this Court only accepts jurisdiction…
-
O'Donnell's Corp. v. Himrod Ambroise, 858 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ehicles, 736 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Morse v. Moxley, 691 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Prohibition is also inappropriate if the parties have the right to remedy the wrong by direct appeal. English; Broward County v. Florida Nat’l Props., 613 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Bondurant v. Geeker, 499 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Application of these general principles makes it abundantly clear that prohibition is not an appropriate remedy in the instant case. The dissent concludes that issuance o…
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
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. The R.R. Comm'rs of the State of Fla., 79 Fla. 526 (Fla. 1920)
- Burns v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Capitol Fid. Life Ins. Co. v. State, 478 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Koulianos v. Phillips, 516 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)