DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BENGIS ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND FLORIDA SONESTA CORPORATION, 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.
Dade County appeals a summary judgment that enjoined enforcement of a zoning ordinance limiting wall sign size after the County mistakenly issued a permit for an oversized sign. The Florida appellate court reverses, holding that a governmental entity cannot be equitably estopped from enforcing its ordinances based on an illegally issued permit resulting from mutual mistake of fact.
A governmental entity is not estopped from enforcing its ordinances by an illegally issued permit issued as a result of mutual mistake of fact. The court held that the state or its political subdivisions are ordinarily not estopped by the unauthorized acts of their officers, and the removal of a sign used for less than two years does not constitute sufficient economic hardship to warrant an exception to this rule.
[1] A governmental entity is not estopped from enforcing its ordinances by an illegally issued permit resulting from mutual mistake of fact.
[2] A government is not ordinarily estopped by the unauthorized acts of its officers.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a governmental entity is not estopped from the enforcement of its ordinances by an illegally issued permit which is issued as a result of mutual mistake of fact”
The court's central holding on the scope of equitable estoppel against governmental entities.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Sonesta Beach Hotel property was zoned RU-4A, which permitted wall signs of only 102.4 square feet. In April 1970, the hotel's zoning consultant 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 Equitable Estoppel Against The Government cases and more on FLexlaw
Dade County appeals a summary final judgment which enjoins the enforcement against the appellees of a zoning ordinance which regulates the size of wall signs which may be erected in the zoning district where the sign is presently erected. The summary judgment was entered upon the ground that the County was equitably estopped to enforce the ordinance because the appellee sign company had mistakenly applied for a larger size than that permitted by the ordinance; the appellant County had mistakenly issued the permit for the sign and the sign had been erected in reliance upon the permit.1 We reverse upon a holding that a governmental entity is not estopped from the enforcement of its ordinances by an illegally issued permit which is issued as a result of mutual mistake of fact.
The state, or its political subdivision is not ordinarily estopped by the unauthorized acts of its officers. Greenhut Construction Company v. Henry A. Knott, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 247 So.2d 517. The rule was applied by this court in City of Miami Beach v. Meiselman, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 774, where we held that the city was not estopped to revoke a permit which had been obtained in violation of its ordinance. We do not repeat the authorities cited therein.
Appellee’s reliance upon Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 433 is misplaced in view of the fact that it appears in that opinion that the building permit relied upon was validly issued and subsequently rescinded. In the present instance, the initial mistake or misrepresentation was made by the appellee sign company. We note further that the removal of a wall sign, which has now been used for almost two years, is not such an economic *293hardship as to provide a strong basis for a plea that the facts of this cause call for an application of any suggested exception to the rule.
Accordingly, the summary final judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed herein.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sakolsky v. The City OF Coral Gables, 151 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1963)
- Greenhut Constr. Co., Inc. v. Henry A. Knott, Inc., 247 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Joyner v. Joyner, 247 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Meiselman, 216 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)