KEY BISCAYNE PARK ACQUISITIONS LLC
v.
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE AND TERRA ACQUISITIONS FLORIDA LLC
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.
Key Biscayne Park Acquisitions LLC appealed a quasi-judicial decision by the Village of Key Biscayne, challenging a zoning or land use matter. The appellate court denied the appeal, finding that the Village complied with due process requirements and that the petitioner failed to preserve certain issues for appeal.
The court denied the appeal, holding that the Village satisfied due process requirements by providing notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard, and that the petitioner failed to properly preserve issues for appellate review by not making timely, specific, contemporaneous objections at the administrative level.
[1] Due process requires an attempt to provide actual notice reasonably calculated to apprise a party of an action and afford an opportunity to be heard.
[2] A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if parties are provided notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if parties are provided notice of hearing and opportunity to be heard”
Establishes the standard for due process in quasi-judicial proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves Key Biscayne Park Acquisitions LLC challenging a decision by the Village of Key Biscayne, apparently involving zoning or land use ma…
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.
Before: TRAWICK, DE LA O, and ARECES, R., JJ.
PER CURIAM DENIED. See Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995); Jennings v. Dade Cnty., 589 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if parties are provided notice of hearing and opportunity to be heard); Goldstein v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, Florida Real Estate Comm'n, 389 So. 3d 678 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (due process requires an attempt to provide actual notice which is reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the action and afford that party an opportunity to be heard); Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985) (in order to be preserved for further review by an appellate court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be a part of that presentation); Advanced Chiropractic & Rehab. Ctr. Corp. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d [*3] 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (to properly preserve an issue for appellate review, a litigant must make a timely, specific, contemporaneous objection); Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. City of N. Bay Vill., 911 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (requirement to make contemporaneous objections applies to administrative hearings); Parker-Cyrus v. Justice Admin. Com'n, 160 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (issues raised for the first time in the reply during certiorari proceedings will not be considered); City of Hialeah Gardens v. Miami-Dade Charter Found., Inc., 857 So. 2d 202, 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (reliance on professional staff presentation and information contained in an application constitutes competent substantial evidence); Bd. of County Com'rs of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469, 474 (Fla. 1993) (enactments of zoning ordinances are legislative, not subject to certiorari review.); Town of Juno Beach v. McLeod, 832 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (a zoning change accompanied by a consistent land use change does not constitute "spot zoning.").
DE LA O, and ARECES, R., JJ., concur. COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL OF RECORD
AND TO ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Brevard Cnty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)
- Henn v. Sandler, 589 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Parker-Cyrus v. Just. Admin. Comm'n, 160 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- City OF Hialeah Gardens v. Miami-Dade Charter Found., Inc., 857 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Town OF Juno Beach v. McLEOD, 832 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)