DISCOUNT SLEEP OF OCALA, LLC, ETC., ET. AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF OCALA, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Discount Sleep of Ocala challenged the City of Ocala's fire service fees as invalid. The trial court dismissed the complaint as untimely under the four-year statute of limitations, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the complaint was timely filed because a subsequent ordinance triggered a new limitations period.
Appellants timely filed their complaint. Ordinance 6015 became effective on October 8, 2009 when signed by the mayor and repealed the fire service fees. When Ordinance 2010-43 repealed Ordinance 6015 on May 4, 2010, it triggered a new four-year limitations period, making the February 20, 2014 complaint timely.
[1] An ordinance stating it takes effect upon approval by the mayor or upon becoming law without such approval becomes effective immediately upon mayoral approval.
[2] A subsequent ordinance repealing a prior ordinance does not automatically revive the ordinances that the prior ordinance had repealed, absent express revival.
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 plain language of Ordinance 6015 dictated that it became effective both (1) when it was signed and approved by the mayor, or (2) without such approval on October 1, 2010. Thus, Ordinance 6015 became effective on October 8, 2009, and it repealed the fire service fees.”
Establishes the court's interpretation of when the ordinance became effective based on plain language construction
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 Ocala enacted ordinances establishing fire service fees beginning in 2006. On October 6, 2009, the City enacted Ordinance 6015, which repe…
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 Statute Of Limitations Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal follows the trial court’s order dismissing Appellants’ complaint with prejudice. Appellants raise several issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. Appellants contend that they timely filed their complaint within the four-year limitations period set forth in section 95.11(3)(p), Florida Statutes (2014). We agree and reverse.
The City of Ocala enacted several ordinances that established, repealed, and later reenacted certain fire service fees. The City began assessing the fees in 2006, but on October 6, 2009, the City enacted Ordinance 6015, which repealed the fees. Ordinance 6015 provided that it took effect “upon approval by the mayor, or upon becoming law without such approval on October 1, 2010.” The mayor signed and approved the ordinance on October 8, 2009. Subsequently, on May 4, 2010, the City repealed Ordinance 6015 and reinstated the fees by enacting Ordinance 2010-43.
Appellants filed their complaint challenging the validity of the fees on February 20, 2014. The trial court found that Ordinance 6015 never took effect because it was repealed before its effective date of October 1, 2010. Consequently, the court held that the fire service fees had been continuously in effect since 2006, and Appellants failed to timely file their complaint within the four-year statute of limitations period. We disagree.
The plain language of Ordinance 6015 dictated that it became effective both (1) when it was signed and approved by the mayor, or (2) without such approval on October 1, 2010. Thus, Ordinance 6015 became effective on October 8, 2009, and it repealed the fire service fees. See, e.g., State ex rel. Gibbs v. Couch, 139 Fla. 353, 190 So. 723, 732 (1939) (noting that when legislation states it becomes effective on “approval by the Governor ... or becoming] a law without such approval,” either condition would make the law immediately effective); see also Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of N. Miami, 286 So.2d 552, 553-54 (Fla.1973) (“Municipal ordinances are subject to the same rules of construction as are' state statutes_”). Moreover, without express revival, Ordinance 2010-43 could not reinstate prior ordinances governing the imposition of the fire service fees. See § 2.04, Fla. Stat. (2014). Therefore, while Ordinance 2010-43 repealed Ordinance 6015, it also triggered a new four-year limitations period beginning on May 4, 2010. Accordingly, Appellant’s complaint was timely and the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Disc. Sleep OF Ocala, LLC v. City OF Ocala, 245 So. 3d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…al court dismissed Appellants' original complaint with prejudice based on the statute of limitations. This Court reversed the order of dismissal, concluding that Appellants' complaint was timely filed. See Disc. Sleep of Ocala, LLC v. City of Ocala, 200 So. 3d 156, 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).1 On remand, Appellants filed a second amended complaint, seeking a declaration that the fire service user fee enacted by the City and collected from them and all other City utility customers as part of the monthly utility…
-
Discount Sleep v. City of Ocala (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…urt dismissed Appellants’ original complaint with prejudice based on the statute of limitations. This Court reversed the order of dismissal, concluding that Appellants’ complaint was timely filed. See Disc. Sleep of Ocala, LLC v. City of Ocala, 200 So. 3d 156, 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).1 On remand, Appellants filed a second amended complaint, seeking a declaration that the fire service user fee enacted by the City and collected from them and all other City utility customers as part of the monthly utilit…
-
Disc. Sleep of Ocala, LLC v. City of Ocala (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Rinker Materials Corp. v. City OF N. Miami, 286 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1973)
- State ex rel. George Couper Gibbs v. Couch, 139 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1939)