UNITED REAL ESTATE VENTURES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 3d DCA | 2009-12-23
No. 3D09-1191
Before GERSTEN, SUAREZ, and SALTER, JJ.
26 So. 3d 48 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2009)

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.


Holding

The court held that the circuit court correctly applied the law and afforded procedural due process in upholding the special magistrate's order finding a code violation.


Facts & Procedural History

United Real Estate Ventures, Inc. (United) used a helipad on its property. A code enforcement proceeding found United in violation of a village code p…

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
SUAREZ, J.

SUAREZ, J.

United Real Estate Ventures, Inc. (“United”), petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the circuit court’s opinion upholding an order issued by a special magistrate of the Village of Key Biscayne, Florida, in a code enforcement proceeding involving the use of a helipad by the property owner, United. We deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

The standard of review on a second-tier petition for writ of certiorari is whether the lower court applied the correct law and afforded procedural due process. City of Miami v. Cortes, 995 So.2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

We find that the circuit court correctly applied the law and afforded procedural due process and deny the petition for writ of certiorari. The federal use of the helipad by President Nixon’s administration was immune from enforcement by reason of the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution and was not conformed into a legal non-conforming use for private individuals when the federal government ceased to use the helipad and conveyed the property to a private third party. See Alaska R.R. Corp. v. Native Village of Eklutna, 43 P.3d 588 (Alaska 2002); Nolan Bros. v. City of Royal Oak, 219 Mich.App. 611, 557 N.W.2d 925 (1996). The Code *49Enforcement Special Magistrate correctly-applied the law and afforded procedural due process in concluding that United was in violation of Section 30-100(a) of the Code of the Village of Key Biscayne by engaging in a prohibited use.

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw