BELVEDERE DEVELOPMENT CO.
v.
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, ET AL.
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.
A developer sought judicial relief to compel a flood control district to enlarge its drainage facilities to alleviate flooding on its property. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the drainage district has no positive legal duty to drain any particular parcel of land and that any discretionary decision to modify drainage methods rests with the district's administration.
The court held that the drainage district has no positive legal duty to maintain its facilities so as to drain any particular parcel of land. The decision to change the method of maintaining the canal is discretionary and rests entirely with those administering the drainage district, not with the courts. Judicial relief is therefore unavailable.
“It is the view of the court that under the circumstances, judicial relief is not available to plaintiff, because there is no positive legal duty on defendants' part to maintain, their facilities so as to drain any particular parcel of land.”
States the core holding that the drainage district lacks a positive legal duty to provide drainage relief to specific parcels.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff's lands are low-lying and have been subject to seasonal flooding since the West Palm Beach Canal's construction. The canal did not create th…
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 Takings Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause was heard after due notice on defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
*49As this suit is understood, plaintiff’s lands are low, and during rainy seasons have been subject to flood conditions as long as the West Palm Beach Canal has been in existence. The canal as now maintained, did not create the condition. It is a natural one. Before the canal was dug, the condition in question was worse.
No complaint was made down through the years about the maintenance of the canal because the lands in question were far from inhabited areas, and were undesirable. Now nearby communities have grown and expanded to make them suitable for suburban development. Drainage is now important, and the owner seeks to have defendants enlarge their drainage facilities to discharge greater quantities of water and relieve the condition on plaintiff’s lands.
It is the view of the court that under the circumstances, judicial relief is not available to plaintiff, because there is no positive legal duty on defendants’ part to maintain, their facilities so as to drain any particular parcel of land. The averments of paragraph V1 of the amended complaint are not accurate from a legal standpoint. The duty to change the method of maintaining the canal is a discretionary one resting entirely with those charged with the administration of the drainage district, and plaintiff’s remedy is with them.
It is ordered and decreed that the action is dismissed, with court costs assessed against the plaintiff.