AMY W. FURNANS ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SANTA ROSA ISLAND AUTHORITY, 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.
Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Santa Rosa Island Authority from violating a state law requiring adoption and approval of a land use plan before entering into lease agreements. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaints because plaintiffs failed to comply with statutory prerequisites to filing an environmental protection action.
The trial court properly dismissed the complaints because plaintiffs failed to allege compliance with three statutory conditions precedent: filing a verified complaint with the appropriate governmental agency, waiting at least 30 days after the agency received the complaint, and alleging that the agency failed to take appropriate action within that 30-day period.
[1] A complaint filed under the Environmental Protection Act of 1971, seeking to enjoin a violation of a special act prohibiting certain land use agreements until a land use…
[2] Before filing a complaint under the Environmental Protection Act of 1971, a complaining party must file a verified complaint with the relevant governmental agencies, stat…
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“As the complaints did not seek a temporary injunction to prevent immediate and irreparable harm, Section 403.412(2) (c), Florida Statutes, requires that three conditions must be met before a complaint can be filed.”
Establishes that statutory prerequisites apply to this case and identifies the legal framework governing environmental protection actions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed suit under the Environmental Protection Act of 1971 seeking to enjoin the Santa Rosa Island Authority from violating Section 5 of Cha…
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.
MILLS, Judge.
Appellants-plaintiffs filed suit against appellee-defendant under Section 403.412, Florida Statutes, known as the Environmental Protection Act of 1971, seeking to enjoin defendant from violating Section 5 of Chapter 70-680, Special Acts of Florida, 1970, which prohibited defendant from entering into a lease agreement with respect to any portion of land of Santa Rosa Island until a land use plan had been adopted by defendant and approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Escambia County.
On motion of defendant, the trial court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, and dismissed the amended complaint without leave to amend. The sole issue here is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaints. We affirm.
As the complaints did not seek a temporary injunction to prevent immediate and irreparable harm, Section 403.412(2) (c), Florida Statutes, requires that three conditions must be met before a complaint can be filed. They are:
(1) .The complaining party must file a verified complaint with the governmental agencies or authorities charged by law with the duty of regulating or prohibit ing the act or conduct that is the subject of the complaint. The verified complaint must set forth the facts upon which the complaint is based and the manner in which the complaining party is affected.
(2) At least 30 days must elapse from the time the agency or authority receives the verified complaint until the complaint is filed in court.
(3) The agency or authority that receives the verified complaint must have failed to take appropriate action within a 30-day period.
Plaintiffs failed to allege compliance with the three conditions precedent, therefore, the trial court properly dismissed the complaints.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Friends OF the Everglades, Inc. v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Monroe Cnty., 456 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…nd giving the agency the opportunity to act may a complainant file suit in a court of law. Florida Wildlife Federation, 390 So. 2d at 66. See also Wetzel v. A. Duda & Sons, 306 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Furnans v. Santa Rosa Island Authority, 315 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). In this case, which is one of first impression, Friends seek to invoke section 403.-412(2) to compel the Department to carry out its enforcement duties under Chapter 380. See Section 380.032(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which p…
-
City OF Coconut Creek v. City OF Deerfield Beach, 840 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…elopment regulation with comprehensive plan to file petition with local government outlining facts on which petition is based and reason regulation believed inconsistent prior to filing suit, justified dismissal); Furnans v. Santa Rosa Island Auth., 315 So. 2d 481, 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (finding a failure to comply with section 403.412(2)(c), which required plaintiff to file verified complaint with governmental agency charged with regulating environmental act, setting forth facts on which based and manner c…
-
Furnams v. Santa Rosa Island Auth., 377 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…1968 option, to develop an additional one-half mile tract of Island property. The validity of this agreement was challenged in litigation filed, dismissed by the trial court, and dismissal affirmed on appeal. Furnans v. Santa Rosa Island Authority, 315 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Thereafter, in 1976, the Authority granted to F & K a lease covering one residential lot within the tract area to which F & K had previously asserted their alleged development rights (under the 1968 agreement, as confirmed by th…