BARBARA TURCOTTE AND MELVIN TURCOTTE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF COCONUT CREEK AND SEMINOLE PROPERTIES II, INC., 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.
Appellants challenged the validity of a city ordinance amending a development order by filing both a certiorari petition and a separate complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The court affirmed summary judgment for the city, holding that res judicata barred the appeal because the identical issues had already been decided against appellants in the prior certiorari proceeding.
The court held that res judicata barred the appeal because the identical issues were previously decided on the merits in the certiorari proceeding. Additionally, the circuit court correctly determined that the ordinance did not constitute a substantial deviation under section 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes.
[1] Res judicata bars an appeal when the issues raised were previously considered and decided on the merits in a prior certiorari proceeding.
[2] An ordinance that expands the definition of a permitted use, such as including a hotel, does not constitute a substantial deviation under section 380.06(19)(b), Florida S…
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“The circuit court correctly applied section 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), when it determined that the subject ordinance, which simply expanded the definition of a permitted use to include a hotel, did not constitute a substantial deviation under the statute.”
Establishes the substantive legal standard applied to determine whether the ordinance was valid.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Coconut Creek enacted an ordinance approving an amendment to a development of regional impact (DRI) development order that expanded the de…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants appeal an order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. Appellants sought to challenge the validity of an ordinance enacted by the City approving an amendment to a development of regional impact (DRI) development order. Appellants filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. At the same time appellants filed their complaint, they also filed a petition for writ of certiorari, raising the same issues. The trial court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, as did our court. In our order of denial, we stated:
The circuit court correctly applied section 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), when it determined that the subject ordinance, which simply expanded the definition of a permitted use to include a hotel, did not constitute a substantial deviation under the statute.
We find that the issues raised in this appeal were previously raised and considered by this court in the prior certiorari proceeding. We thus conclude that res judicata bars this appeal, as our prior decision “clearly shows that the issue was considered by the court on the merits and relief was denied.” Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1258 (Fla.2004). See also Seminole Entm’t, Inc. v. City of Casselberry, 866 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that issues examined and rejected in a prior certiorari proceeding could not be raised again on appeal from an order granting summary judgment); Lake Rosa v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 911 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (affirming ruling that trial court’s findings in companion certio-rari case were res judicata and barred suit for injunctive and declaratory relief); Treister v. City of Miami, 575 So.2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (affirming entry of summary judgment for the city on the basis that the prior certiorari proceeding was res judicata of the issues raised in the original action); Rhyne v. City of Wilton Manors, 392 So.2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (holding that appellants could not maintain an action seeking simultaneous certiorari and equitable relief, nor could they seek equitable relief after maintaining a certiorari proceeding).
Affirmed.
POLEN, HAZOURI and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Comprehensive Health Ctr., 173 So. 3d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…lief was denied.”); State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Trauth, 971 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (stating that the law of the case doctrine only applies when certiorari is denied on the merits); cf. Turcotte v. City of Coconut Creek, 88 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding that res judicata barred appeal where prior order of court denying petition for writ of certiorari clearly showed that same issue raised on appeal was considered by the court on the merits and denied). Specifically, thi…
-
Ripps v. City OF Coconut Creek, 124 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…entered a summary judgment against the residents. On appeal, we held that our denial of the prior certiorari petition barred the subsequent appeal of the summary judgment because the eases involved the same issues. Turcotte v. City of Coconut Creek, 88 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). In 2010, the Tribe filed an application to rezone approximately 45 acres - to a planned MainStreet Development District to allow “a multi-phase Resort Hotel and Entertainment facility” including a 275 foot tall, 1,000 room hote…
Authorities Cited
- Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004)
- Seminole Ent., Inc. v. City OF Casselberry, 866 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Rhyne v. City OF Wilton Manors, 392 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- The City OF Belleair Beach v. Belleair Beach Yacht Club, Inc., 575 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Lake Rosa & Lake Swan Coal., Inc. v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 911 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)