R. LEE SMITH, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court discharged jurisdiction over a certified question regarding whether property owners may bring Harris Act claims without a law, regulation, or ordinance directly applied to their property, finding the question unlikely to recur due to statutory amendments and expiration of the statute of limitations.
A property owner may not maintain an action under the Harris Act without having a law, regulation, or ordinance directly applied to the owner's property that restricts or limits its use.
[1] A property owner must have a law, regulation, or ordinance directly applied to the owner's property restricting or limiting its use to maintain an action under the Harris…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceProperty owners sought to bring claims under the Harris Act (also known as the Bert Hands Act) challenging governmental actions affecting their proper…
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 Accrual Of A Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in City of Jacksonville v. Smith, 159 So.3d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). In its decision, the district court ruled upon the following question, which the eourt certified to be of great public importance:
MAY A PROPERTY OWNER MAINTAIN AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THE HARRIS ACT IF THAT OWNER HAS NOT HAD A LAW, REGULATION, OR ORDINANCE DIRECTLY .APPLIED TO THE OWNER’S PROPERTY WHICH RESTRICTS OR LIMITS THE USE OF THE PROPERTY?
Id. at 895. We originally accepted jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
The one-year statute of limitations for Bert Hands Act claims has expired for all plaintiffs similarly situated to Petitioners with claims which accrued prior to the October 2015 effective date of the 2015 amendment to the Act. See § 70.001(11), Fla. Stat. (2012); ch. 2015-142, § 1, Laws of Fla. Although we previously denied Respondent’s Suggestion of Mootness, we discharge jurisdiction because the certified question is not likely to recur. See Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 218 n.1 (Fla. 1984).
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
LEWIS, J., dissents.
concurring in result.
I concur with the majority that the First District Court of Appeal’s decision below should be left intact, which the majority does by declining to answer the certified question. Majority op. at 1118. Our opinion in Hardee County v. FINR II, Inc., No. SC15-1260, 221 So.3d 1162, 2017 WL 2291004 (slip op. issued Fla. May. 25, 2017), “approve[d] the First District’s holding in [City of Jacksonville v. Smith, 159 So.3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015),] that the-Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Protection Act does not apply to claims arising from government action that regulates property adjacent to the claimant’s property.” Ma*1119jority op. at 1118.1 Essentially, that opinion answered the certified question in this case. See majority op. at 1118. Thus, in this case, I would approve the decision below based on our opinion in FINR II, Inc.
PARIENTE, J.,
concurring in result.
I concur with the majority that the First District Court of Appeal’s decision below should be left intact, which the majority does by declining to answer the certified question. Majority op. at 1118. Our opinion in Hardee County v. FINR II, Inc., No. SC15-1260, 221 So. 3d 1162, 2017 WL 2291004 (slip op. issued Fla. May. 25, 2017), “approve[d] the First District’s holding in [City of Jacksonville v. Smith, 159 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015),] that the-Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Protection Act does not apply to claims arising from government action that regulates property adjacent to the claimant’s property.” Ma jority op. at 1118.1 Essentially, that opinion answered the certified question in this case. See majority op. at 1118. Thus, in this case, I would approve the decision below based on our opinion in FINR II, Inc. . See § 70,001, Fla. Stat. (2012).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eugene Holly, M.D. v. Albert W. Auld, M.D., 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984)
- Hardee Cnty. v. Finr II, Inc., 221 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 2017)
- City OF Jacksonville v. Smith, 159 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Reuben David Fernandez v. Off. OF Fin. Reg., 159 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)