BIRD ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT, AND CALVARY BIBLE CHURCH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT, APPELLANTS,
v.
BERNARD STEVENS, SUREENA STEVENS, AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Two churches challenged a zoning variance granted to the Stevens without first appealing the Zoning Appeals Board decision to the Board of County Commissioners as required by administrative procedure. The court held that parties seeking to contest administrative decisions must personally exhaust available administrative remedies and cannot rely on appeals filed by third parties.
An aggrieved party seeking to contest a zoning board decision must personally file a notice of appeal to the Board of County Commissioners and cannot rely on an appeal filed by a third party. Failure to file such an appeal constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
“He has no right to sit idly by and rely on a review being sought by others.”
Establishes the core principle that aggrieved parties must personally pursue their administrative remedies rather than depending on third parties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Zoning Appeals Board granted a variance to Bernard and Sureena Stevens. Bird Road Baptist Church and Calvary Bible Church sought to challenge this…
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 Aggrieved Party cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants seek review of a final order of dismissal in a chancery suit, wherein the chancellor found that the appellants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies in seeking review, before the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, of a resolution of the Zoning Appeals Board, which had granted a variance to the appellees, Bernard Stevens and Sureena Stevens.
It is conceded by the appellants that they did not file a notice of appeal and pay the necessary fee, pursuant to the provisions of the Metropolitan Code of Dade County, in order to review the action of the Zoning Appeals Board.1 However, they contend that an appeal was duly filed by a third person and thereafter, subsequent to the time for filing an appeal, dismissed. They contended in the trial court, and contend here, that they had the right to rely on the appeal filed by a third party. It is apparent that the chancellor did not agree with this contention, and neither do we.
If “any aggrieved party whose name appears of record” desires to contest the action of the Zoning Appeals Board, he must file a notice of appeal to the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County seeking review of said action. He has no right to sit idly by and rely on a review being sought by others. Principles applicable to review of civil actions are applicable in determining appropriate review of administrative actions. See : Headley v. Lasseter, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 154. A person who has not seen fit to take an appeal from an order of a trial court has no standing to object to dismissal of an appeal taken by another if he has not cross assigned any *422error. See: Thompson v. Filer, 99 Fla. 539, 126 So. 766. 2
It therefore appearing that even if the appellants were “aggrieved parties” appearing of record [which does not appear from the complaint], they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by seeking an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners to review the complained of resolution of the Zoning Appeals Board.3 Therefore, the chancellor was eminently correct in dismissing their complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and his action in this particular is hereby affirmed. See: Decarlo v. Town of West Miami, Fla. 1950, 49 So.2d 596; Wood v. Twin Lakes Mobile Homes Village, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 738.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- De Carlo v. Town of W. Miami, 49 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1950)
- Waiter Wood v. Twin Lakes Mobile Homes Vill., Inc., 123 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Headley v. Lasseter, 147 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Thompson v. Filer, 99 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1930)