CERTAIN LANDS OWNED BY EDSEL H. AND CLARA F. HEINLEIN AND EDMOR PROPERTIES, INC. UPON WHICH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ARE DELINQUENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Property owners appealed a foreclosure of special assessment liens for waste fees levied by Metropolitan Dade County, arguing the county failed to comply with requirements to create special purpose districts. The court affirmed the foreclosure, holding that the issue was settled by prior judgment and res judicata principles.
The court held that the county may levy waste charges without first creating special taxing districts, and the issue was barred by res judicata from the prior declaratory judgment action. The ordinances comply with equal protection and due process requirements and contain no constitutional infirmity.
[1] A prior judgment on the merits between the same parties, or their privies, is conclusive as to all matters which were or could have been litigated in the former action, u…
[2] A county ordinance levying waste collection and disposal charges is not unconstitutional for failing to establish special taxing districts, as the county may directly lev…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Nor does the Court find any merit in the contention that Metro can only assess such charges after the creation of a special taxing district. It is apparent from a reading of the ordinance that Metro, as such, can levy a charge and provide a waste service, or alternatively could have proceeded with the establishment of special taxing districts, if the circumstances warrant it.”
Establishes that the county may levy waste charges without first creating special taxing districts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMetropolitan Dade County levied special assessment waste fees against properties owned by Edsel H. and Clara F. Heinlein and Edmor Properties, Inc. Th…
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 Assessment Liens cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment foreclosing special assessment liens for waste fees levied by Metropolitan Dade County. The single point presented on appeal is: Does the failure of Dade County to comply with the requirements to create special purpose districts preclude their foreclosure of special assessment liens? The record reveals that this question was determined adversely to the appellant in a prior suit.
During the progress of the present litigation, appellant secured a stay for approximately one and one-half years for the purpose of bringing a suit for declaratory judgment against Dade County to determine the constitutionality of the procedures employed by the county in levying and collecting the waste fees. This suit resulted in a final judgment adverse to the appellant which held:
“Nor does the Court find any merit in the contention that Metro can only assess such charges after the creation of a special taxing district. It is apparent from a reading of the ordinance that Metro, as such, can levy a charge and provide a waste service, or alternatively could have proceeded with the establishment of special taxing districts, if the circumstances warrant it.
“Since the availability of garbage and waste collection and disposal is provided for tenanted and occupied property, as well as for untenanted or unoccupied property, there is no denial of equal protection, and the mechanics of the ordinance satisfy the due process clause of the constitution. In short, the Court funds no constitutional infirmity in the ordinances under consideration, nor in their applicability to the plaintiff. It is therefore, * * *."
* * * * * *
Edmor Properties, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County No. 65C 2599 Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit dated Feb. 20, 1971.
This judgment was appealed to this court and affirmed, see Edmor Properties, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.1968, 217 So.2d 622.
We therefore conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the issue was settled under the principles of res ju-dicata. Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 400; 19 Fla.Jur. Judgments and Decrees § 120 (1958).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sockol v. Kimmins Recycling Corp., 729 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…nicipal service provided by the county. Id. at 570-71. The landowners concede the law allows the County to impose a special assessment for waste disposal on the entire unincorporated 'area without first creating an MSBU, see Heinlein v. Dade County, 254 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); however, they contend the County was required to create an MSBU in order to impose a special assessment on only a portion of the unincorporated area. We disagree. The plain meaning of section 125.01 and application of pertinent…
Authorities Cited
- del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 179 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Gale v. Gale, 217 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)