RAINBOW LIGHTING, INC.; VIZCAYA GROVE APARTMENTS CORP.; BRICKELL VIEW APARTMENTS CORP.; SEGOVIA GARDENS CORP.; AND VISTA LINDA PLAYA, LTD., APPELLANTS,
v.
LAWTON CHILES, AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPALITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Property owners challenged Miami's fire-rescue special assessment tax, alleging the Governor wrongfully declared the city in financial emergency under state law, which they claimed resulted in the improper tax. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that the tax was adopted by city ordinance (a legislative act) whose motives are not subject to judicial review.
The court affirmed dismissal because the fire tax was adopted by city ordinance (a legislative action), and the motives of city commissioners in adopting ordinances are not subject to judicial scrutiny. The challenge to the Governor's authority does not invalidate a tax properly adopted through the city's legislative process.
[1] The motives of municipal commissioners in adopting ordinances are not subject to judicial scrutiny.
[2] A fire tax imposed by a city ordinance is a legislative action expressing the will of the city, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the governor's declaration of…
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“It is a fundamental tenet of municipal law that when a municipal ordinance of legislative character is challenged in court, the motives of the commission and the persons before it which induced passage of the ordinance are irrelevant.”
Establishes the core legal principle that judicial review of ordinances cannot examine the motives behind their passage
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami imposed a fire-rescue special assessment tax. Appellants alleged that Governor Lawton Chiles erroneously declared the City in a stat…
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.
FLETCHER, Judge.
Rainbow Lighting, Inc., Vizcaya Grove Apartments Corp., Brickell View Apartments Corp., Segovia Gardens Corp., and Vista Linda Playa, Ltd., [appellants] appeal the dismissal of their amended complaint challenging the imposition of a “Fire-Rescue Special Assessment Tax” [the fire tax] by the City of Miami [City]. We affirm.
The appellants allege that the Honorable Lawton Chiles, as Governor of the State of Florida, erroneously declared the City to be in a state of financial emergency (when, they allege, it was not) and thus improperly exercised his authority over the City’s fiscal affairs under the “Local Government Financial Emergencies Act” [the Act], sections 218.50-218.504, Florida Statutes (1995). They further allege that the Governor’s exercise of authority resulted in the imposition of the fire tax. They then contend that, as the Governor was wrongfully using the Act, the fire tax must fall.
However, the amended complaint reveals that the fire tax was not adopted by gubernatorial fiat, but was adopted by City ordinance, which adoption is a legislative action expressing the will of the City. If anything, then, the trial court was being requested to determine that the fire tax was not truly adopted to express the will of the City, but that the City commissioners’ votes were cast for some other motive. This determination neither the trial court (nor this Court) can make as the City commissioners’ motives in adopting ordinances are not subject to judicial scrutiny. See City of Pompano Beach v. Big Daddy’s, Inc., 375 So. 2d 281, 282 (Fla.1979):
“It is a fundamental tenet of municipal law that when a municipal ordinance of legislative character is challenged in court, the motives of the commission and the persons before it which induced passage of the ordinance are irrelevant.”
See City of Gainesville v. Scotty’s, Inc., 489 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); City of Miami Springs v. J.J.T., Inc., 437 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Hardage v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 399 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 411 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1981); Mailman Dev. Corp. v. City of Hollywood, 286 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied, 293 So. 2d 717 (Fla.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 844, 95 S.Ct. 77, 42 L.Ed.2d 72 (1974).
Accordingly, the dismissal of the amended complaint is affirmed.
GERSTEN, J., concurs.
SORONDO, Judge
(specially concurring).
I agree with the reasoning of the majority opinion. For two additional reasons I agree that the judgment under review should be affirmed. First, the trial judge was correct in his conclusion that the Circuit Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the executive actions being challenged. Art. II, § 3, Fla. Const.; Kirk v. Baker, 224 So. 2d 311 (Fla.1969). Second, these plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this law suit. School Bd. of Volusia County v. Clayton, 691 So. 2d 1066 (Fla.1997); North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Forties, 476 So. 2d 154 (Fla.1985); Department of Revenue of the State of Florida v. Markham, 396 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981); Department of Admin. v. Horne, 269 So. 2d 659 (Fla.1972); Boucher v. Novotny, 102 So. 2d 132 (Fla.1958).
GERSTEN, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. & Miami-Dade Cnty. Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez v. Dade Cnty. Police Benevolent Ass'n, 103 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ments of the law. First, the PBA’s subpoenas improperly seek testimony from Mayor Gimenez as to his motive for his legislative decision to veto resolutions of the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners. See, e.g. Rainbow Lighting, Inc. v. Chiles, 707 So. 2d 939, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that city commissioners’ “motives in adopting ordinances are not subject to judicial scrutiny”); City of Gainesville, 489 So. 2d at 1197 (holding that there is a “widely accepted tenet that the motives of municipal c…
-
Hermine Ricketts and Laurence Carroll v. Vill. OF Miami Shores, 232 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ng, for example, requests for information and documents regarding the Village Council’s reasons for, and any investigation of, the ordinance amendment in question). We reject the appellants' arguments on this point. Rainbow Lighting, Inc. v. Chiles, 707 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (City commissioners' motives in adopting ordinances are not subject to judicial scrutiny). .Before an amendment in 2013, the design standard stated "Vegetable gardens are permitted in rear yards.” The amendment added the word "on…
-
Arvind S. Kumbhojkar v. Univ. OF Miami, 727 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…rs concerning tenure of clergy), review granted, 727 So. 2d 905 (Fla. Case no. 93,832, December 14, 1998); Devoney v. State, 717 So. 2d 501 (Fla.l998)(no inquiry into non-discriminatory motivations of jury members); Rainbow Lighting, Inc. v. Chiles, 707 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(no inquiry into motivations of commissioners in adopting ordinance); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996)(motivation of officer making justified traffic stop irrelevant); Johnson Ent…
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 (15 total)
- Dep't OF Admin. v. Mallory E. Horne, 269 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1972)
- Dep't OF Revenue OF the State OF Fla. v. Markham, 396 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Fornes, 476 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1985)
- Grover v. VAN Heusden, 102 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1958)
- Boucher v. Novotny, 102 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1958)
- Philadelphia Hous. Auth. v. Alderman, 419 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1974)
- Hernandez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 419 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1974)
- Kirk v. Baker, 224 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1969)
- Sch. Bd. OF Volusia Cnty. v. Clayton, 691 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1997)
- Mailman Dev. Corp. & GAC Corp. v. City OF Hollywood, 286 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)