JAMES FRED RHODES, JR., AND BETTY JOY LEE RHODES, HIS WIFE, AND ROBERT BARNETT AND MARION BARNETT, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF HOMESTEAD, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND FAYE BOGNER, 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.
The court held that a party challenging a city's action as illegal due to procedural defects, like lack of notice, does not need to show injury different from the general public.
Appellants sued to invalidate a special use permit issued by the City of Homestead, alleging the city failed to provide required notice and conduct a …
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 Use Permit cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants sued the City of Homestead and the individual defendant, seeking to have a special use permit, issued to the latter by the city to conduct a real estate business in a zoned residential area declared to be invalid and to enjoin the exercise thereof. The complaint charged the permit was issued illegally by the city in that the city failed to give notice and conduct a public hearing after notice, as required by the city charter. In addition, the complaint challenged the propriety of the action granting the special use permit.
The defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, stating as a ground that the plaintiffs did not show injury to them different from that to the general public. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss with leave to amend. An amended complaint was filed. Defendants moved to dismiss, on the same ground as previously asserted. The motions were granted, again with leave to amend. Plaintiffs stood on the amended complaint, whereupon the court dismissed the cause with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed.
We find error, and reverse. The rule or ground presented by defendants in moving to dismiss has no application where a person affected seeks to challenge such action of the city on the ground that the action was illegal, or that the proceedings *675of the city board or council which resulted in such action were conducted contrary to provisions of the charter, such as by failure to the city to give notice required by its charter, as alleged here. See City of Hollywood v. Pettersen, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 919; Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.1966, 183 So.2d 193.
Judgment of dismissal reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Renard v. Dade Cnty., 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972)…f Hollywood, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 306; Vol. 3, American Law of Zoning, Anderson, § 21.05, p. 558], or when he seeks to review an alleged void act. Hartnett v. Austin, supra; Josephson v. Autrey, supra; Rhodes v. City of Homestead, Fla.App. 1971, 248 So. 2d 674 (opinion filed May 25, 1971). Therefore, we find that in the instant case the appellant had the standing to institute the suit in the trial court.” (Emphasis supplied.) In the years following this Court’s decision in Boucher v. Novotny,3 a split ha…1 / 2
-
Gulf & E. Dev. Corp. v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 354 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1978)…JJ., concur. . See Town of Hillsboro Beach v. Weaver, 77 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1955); City of Hollywood v. Rix, et ux., 52 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1951); Bal Harbour Village v. State ex rel. Giblin, 299 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Rhodes v. City of Homestead, 248 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Florida Tallow Corporation v. Bryan, 237 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., 108 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). . The Planning and Zoning Board of Fort Laud-erdale was…
-
Upper Keys Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Wedel, 341 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…t the “special injury” requirement has no application where a person affected seeks to challenge a zoning action on the ground that said action was illegally enacted, or conducted contrary to the provisions of a charter. Rhodes v. City of Homestead, 248 So. 2d 674 (Fla.3d D.C.A. 1971). Compare Sarasota County Anglers Club, Inc., supra, discussed above, wherein the court, quoting from and adopting the language of the chancellor in his order of dismissal, held no standing for the reason, among others, that: “…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bertram C. Ellison v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 183 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1966)
- The City OF Hollywood v. Birger A. Pettersen, 178 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)