MRS. G. T. SMITH, JR., CHAIRMAN, DR. JAMES T. COOK, VICE CHAIRMAN, JOHN FITE ROBERTSON, SECRETARY, N. EARL JONES AND JOHN D. PENNEKAMP, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PARKS AND HISTORIC MEMORIALS, A COMPONENT STATE AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND ROBERT L. HEATH, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM J. BOLTE ET AL., 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.
This interlocutory appeal addresses whether citizens and taxpayers who own property adjacent to a state park have standing to challenge the Board of Parks and Historic Memorials' decision to permit operation of a miniature railroad in the park. The court held that adjacent property owners must allege special injury distinct from general public harm to maintain suit.
Adjacent property owners lack standing to maintain suit merely because they own property abutting the park; they must allege facts showing injury different in kind from that experienced by the community generally. Board members acting within their jurisdiction without bad faith, malice or corrupt motives are not personally liable for errors or honest discretionary decisions.
“the owner of lots adjacent to a square dedicated to public use could maintain a bill in equity [against the aldermen of the City of Apalachicola] to restrain the diversion of the square to any private use inconsistent with the purpose for which it was dedicated, if by stick diversion the value of the lots will be injuriously affected.”
Establishes that adjacent property owners must show injury to their property value, not merely adjacency, to have standing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials entered into an agreement with Robert L. Heath permitting him to construct and operate a miniature s…
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 Special Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal taken by the defendants individually and as members and as constituting the Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials, and Robert L. Heath, from an Order denying motions to strike and dismiss the complaint of William J. Bolte, et al.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendant Park Board entered into agreement with the defendant Heath whereby the latter was permitted to construct and operate a miniature sightseeing railroad in the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Ft. Lauderdale, and that the operation of such railroad constituted a violation of certain conditions of the deed by which Mr. Birch conveyed the title to said property to the State.
The complaint further alleges that the plaintiffs are “adults, residents, citizens, electors and taxpayers of Broward County, and most of them own land situated adjacent to or in the vicinity of Birch Park.” Then there is an allegation that “the cause is of common or general interest to all of the residents, citizens, electors and taxpayers of Broward County, who as such constitute a class authorized to bring such an action.”
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing that they suffered any special injury and that, therefore, they had no standing to maintain suit. Ashe v. City of Boca Raton, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 122; Guernsey v. Haley, Fla.App. 1958, 107 So.2d 184. The trial judge denied the motion.
On appeal the plaintiffs, citing 39 Am.Jur., Parks, Squares and Playgrounds §§ 18, 19, contend that the mere fact that they own property adjacent to and abutting on the park gives them sufficient standing. We do not agree. No case has been cited by the appellee, nor have we been able to find one, which allows a party to maintain-an action under such circumstances.
In Ruge v. Apalachicola Oyster Canning & Fish Co., 1889, 25 Fla. 656, 6 So. 489, the Florida Supreme Court held that:
“* * * the owner of lots adjacent to a square dedicated to public use could maintain a bill in equity [against the aldermen of the City of Apalachicola] to restrain the diversion of the square to any private use inconsistent with the purpose for which it was dedicated, if by stick diversion the value of the lots will be injuriously affected.1’ (Emphasis supplied.)
And in Town of Flagler Beach v. Green,, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 598, the plaintiffs, who-were adjacent property owners, were required to show an injury different in kind from that experienced by the community generally. The plaintiffs in the instant case-have not sufficiently alleged facts which would show that they have suffered a special injury, and the trial court should have-granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss..
We also have for consideration the failure of the court to strike from the complaint all references to the personal and' individual liability of members of the Park Board. It is a general rule that members, of an administrative board acting within its jurisdiction, in the absence of bad faith, malice or corrupt motives, are not personally liable for errors or mistakes committed in the exercise of their honest judgment and discretion. 3 Davis, Administra-*626tivc Law, §§ 26.01 and 26.05; 2 Am.Jur. 2d, Administrative Law, §§ 799, 800. In view of the fact that the complaint does not allege any grounds which subject said Board members to personal liability or that the Board acted without jurisdiction, the trial court should have granted the defendants’ motion to strike those portions of the complaint.
Accordingly, the order is reversed, and the trial court is directed to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss, with leave to file an amended complaint.
Reversed, with directions.
SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1982)…ded. Rupp and Stasco further rely on State Board of Administration v. Pasco County, 156 Fla. 37, 22 So. 2d 387 (1945),15 but that case involved no claim of negligence or fraud on the part of the county official. They turn finally to Smith v. Bolte, 172 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).16 Once again a perspicacious reading of the case reveals that it is consistent with the Filer-Modlin standard and would not impose liability for mistakes in exercise of an administrator’s discretion. C. We now face the arduous…
-
United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand KEY, Inc., 303 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)…uld be different in degree and kind from that suffered by the community at large. [See, e. g., Town of Flagler Beach v. Green (Fla.1955), 83 So. 2d 598; Henry L. Doherty & Co., Inc. v. Joachin (Fla.1941), 200 So. 238; Smith v. Bolte (Fla.App.1965), 172 So. 2d 624; and Ashe v. City of Boca Raton (Fla.App.1961), 133 So. 2d 122.]. “If it were otherwise there would be no end to potential litigation against a given defendant, whether he be a public official or otherwise, brought by individuals or residents, all…
-
Reubin O'D. Askew v. Hold THE Bulkhead-Save OUR Bays, Inc., 269 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…LILES, A. C. J., and DAYTON, ORVILLE L., Jr., (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur. . See, e. g., Town of Flagler Beach v. Green (Fla.1955), 83 So. 2d 598; Henry L. Doherty & Co., Inc. v. Joachin (Fla.1941), 200 8o. 238; Smith v. Bolte (Fla.App.1965), 172 So. 2d 624; and Ashe v. City of Boca Baton (Fla.App.1961), 133 So. 2d 122. . We again exclude from this rationale a proper “class action.” . See, Bryant v. Peppe (Fla.1970), 238 So. 2d 836; North American Company v. Green (Fla.1959), 120 So. 2d 603; and Gree…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ashe v. City OF Boca Raton, 133 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Ruge v. Apalachicola Oyster Canning & Fish Co., 25 Fla. 656 (Fla. 1889)
- Guernsey v. Haley, 107 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Hettie B. Gammill v. Rhoden, 83 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1955)
- Town OF Flagler Beach v. Green, 83 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1955)