EDWIN HANDTE AND JANICE HANDTE
v.
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
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.
Petitioners Edwin and Janice Handte sought a writ of certiorari to challenge a circuit court decision affirming an administrative law judge's ruling that Monroe County could impose vacation rental permit and manager license requirements on their non-conforming use properties. The court denied the petition, holding that vested rights to non-conforming uses do not exempt properties from subsequently enacted, generally applicable regulations.
The court held that vested rights to non-conforming use do not preclude the County from subjecting properties to subsequently enacted lawful regulations that are generally applicable to all such properties. A property owner with non-conforming use rights cannot claim exemption from generally applicable regulatory requirements based solely on their vested non-conforming use status.
[1] A vested right to non-conforming use does not shield property from subsequently enacted regulations that are generally applicable to the same use.
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 intelligence“there is no general constitutional right to be free from all changes in land-use laws”
Court cited this principle from New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County in rejecting petitioners' argument regarding non-conforming use rights.
The Handtes owned properties with vested rights to non-conforming use as vacation rentals in Monroe County. Monroe County enacted section 134-1 of the…
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 Nonconforming Use cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 2, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-1527 Lower Tribunal Nos. 20-AP-06-K; 20-AP-08-K ________________
Edwin Handte and Janice Handte,
Petitioners,
vs.
Monroe County, Florida
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Appellate Division, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge. Lee Robert Rohe, P.A., and Lee Robert Rohe, for petitioners. Peter H. Morris, Assistant Monroe County Attorney, for respondent. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ. LOGUE, J.
We deny the petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the decision of the circuit court in its appellate capacity. On second tier certiorari, the “‘inquiry is limited to whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and whether the circuit court applied the correct law,’ or, as otherwise stated, departed from the essential requirements of law.” Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086, 1092 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995)). The departure from the essential requirements of law necessary for granting second tier certiorari “is something more than a simple legal error”: it must involve the violation of “a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Id.
We discern no such departure from the essential requirements of law in the circuit court’s decision affirming the decision of the administrative law judge. The petitioners’ right to the non-conforming use of their properties as vacation rentals did not preclude the County from subjecting that use to the vacation rental permit and vacation rental manager license requirements imposed by section 134-1 of the Monroe County Code.
We reject petitioners’ apparent argument that because they had a vested right to a non-conforming use of their properties as vacation rentals, the properties could not be subject to subsequently enacted lawful regulations generally applicable to all such properties. See, e.g., New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe Cnty., 95 F. 3d 1084, 1090 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding “there is no general constitutional right to be free from all changes in land-use laws”). In so doing, we do not reach the issue of whether the vacation rental permit and vacation rental manager license requirements imposed by section 134-1 constitute violations of the Constitution, either facially or as applied, because that issue is not properly before us.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 2010)
- NEW Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe Cnty., 95 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 1996)