CENTEX HOMES CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, 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.
Centex Homes Corporation appealed the dismissal of its complaint seeking to enjoin Metropolitan Dade County from enforcing a zoning ordinance and declare it invalid. The court held that Centex's action constituted a direct attack on the county commission's denial of a variance petition, which must be challenged via certiorari rather than an equitable proceeding, and therefore affirmed the dismissal.
Centex's complaint constituted a direct attack on the county commission's resolution denying the variance petition, not a general challenge to the ordinance's validity. Certiorari is the proper method for challenging the county commission's quasi-judicial ruling, not an equitable proceeding.
[1] A direct challenge to a county commission's denial of a zoning variance must be brought by petition for certiorari, not by an equitable proceeding.
[2] A county commission's denial of a request for rezoning, when done by resolution, is a quasi-judicial proceeding subject to review by certiorari.
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“the complaint filed by Centex is a direct attack on the resolution of the county commission, rather than a general challenge to the validity of the zoning ordinance as it pertains to Centex's property.”
Establishes the court's characterization of the nature of Centex's action, which determined the proper remedy.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCentex owned a large tract of land in southwest Dade County called Winston Park. In September 1972, the Dade County Commission approved a land use pla…
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 Zoning Ordinance Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal by Cen-tex Homes Corporation, plaintiff in the trial court, from an order dismissing two counts of a complaint in which Centex sought to enjoin the defendant, Metropolitan Dade County, from enforcing a zoning ordinance against it and to declare such ordinance invalid.
According to the complaint, Centex is the owner and developer of a large tract of land in south-west Dade County known as Winston Park. In September of 1972, prior to the commencement of construction by Centex on the land, the Dade County Commission approved a land use plan for development of the tract. The plan provided for a community of single and mul-ti-family dwellings, including townhouse zoning. In May of 1973, subsequent to the construction by Centex of the single family homes, the county passed Ordinance No. 73-56, in which it reduced the density of townhouses to less than that already approved for the Centex project. Dade County advised Centex that the new standards would be applied to the proposed townhouse section of the Winston Park project, whereupon Centex instituted zoning proceedings before the Dade County Zoning Appeals Board by petition for a variance exempting it from the effect of the ordinance. When the petition was denied by formal resolution of the County Commission, Centex did not take certiorari, but later, after the time for filing a petition for certiorari had passed, filed this action for declaratory decree and injunctive relief.
Dade County moved to dismiss the complaint. The trial court entered an order granting the motion, and dismissed Count I, entitled “Estoppel,” for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissed with prejudice, Count II, entitled “Invalidity of Ordinance 73-56,” for failure to state a cause of action. Centex then filed this interlocutory appeal.
The crux of the issue presented is whether it is proper, in this case, for Cen-tex to attack the validity or constitutionality of the zoning ordinance itself on the theory of equitable estoppel in a de novo proceeding (keeping in mind the fact that it had previously sought a variance), or whether this action constitutes a direct challenge by Centex to the denial of the petition for a variance, in which case, such challenge is mandated by Dade County ordinance to be brought by petition for certiorari from the resolution of the county commission and not by an equitable proceeding.
Upon review of the briefs of counsel and the record presented in the appellant’s appendix, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by Centex is a direct attack on the resolution of the county commission, rather than a general challenge to the validity of the zoning ordinance as it pertains to Centex’s property. “Under such circumstances, the rule is that certiorari is the proper method of challenging the county commission’s ruling. . . . The commission’s procedure, i. e., utilizing the resolution as a means of denying the request for rezoning is quasi judicial in nature . . . and certiorari was the proper remedy for review of such quasi judicial proceeding.” Baker v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App. 1970, 237 So. 2d 201, 202 and cases cited therein.
Accordingly, the order granting the motion to dismiss is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. The Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…Harris v. Goff, 151 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1st DCA 1963). The procedure utilized by Dade County in zoning matters such as that involved in the present case has quite clearly been recognized as quasi-judicial. Centex Homes Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 318 So. 2d 149 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Baker v. Metropolitan Dade County, supra; Dade County v. Carmichael, 165 So. 2d 227 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). That being the case, the doctrine of administrative res judicata applies. B. The Circuit Court ruled that the doctrine of adm…
-
Coulter v. Davin, 373 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…orida Department of Citrus, 352 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); School Board of Leon County v. Mitchell, 346 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Rose v. Dade County, 332 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Centex Homes Corporation v. Metropolitan Dade County, 318 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As noted above, in all these cases the matter was treated as a question of subject matter jurisdiction. It seems to us that what these cases have said is that when administrative agency action in a proceeding has become final as…
-
Dade Cnty. v. Yumbo, 348 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…armichael, 165 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1964); Sun Ray Homes, Inc. v. County of Dade, 166 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1964); Baker v. Metropolitan Dade County, 237 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1970); Centex Homes Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 318 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1975); Dade County v. Marca, 326 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1976). The theory behind this argument is that the aforementioned cases have changed the law of zoning as it applies to Dade County, so that zoning actions that were formerly administ…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Otto S. Baker and Bertha H. Baker v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 237 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Centex Homes Corp., 291 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)