ALVIN ROSE, TRUSTEE AND INDIVIDUALLY AND JACQUELINE ROSE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., 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.
Property owners appealed a circuit court order dismissing their equitable action challenging the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance as applied to their property. The court held that certiorari, not an independent action in equity, is the proper remedy to review a zoning board's denial of a zoning change request.
Certiorari, not an independent action in equity, is the proper method of review when challenging a zoning board's denial of a rezoning request. The circuit court properly dismissed the complaint because it was an attempt to review the Board's resolution rather than a general constitutional attack on the underlying ordinance.
[1] An independent action in equity is not the proper method to review a denial of a zoning change when the challenge is to the specific application of the ordinance rather t…
[2] Certiorari is the appropriate remedy to review a board's denial of a zoning change request.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“appellants' complaint was an attempt to review the resolution passed by the Board denying appellants' request for a zoning change, rather than a general constitutional attack on the underlying Zoning Ordinance of Dade County itself”
Establishes the court's characterization of the complaint as seeking review of an administrative decision rather than a facial constitutional challenge
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Roses owned property in Dade County zoned RU-1 and requested the Board of County Commissioners reclassify it to BU-1. After a hearing, the Board d…
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 Administrative Action Review cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellants appeal from an order of the circuit court dismissing their complaint attacking the constitutionality of a zoning resolution in regard to their property.
Appellants had requested of the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County a change in the zoning classification, from RU-1 to BU-1, of certain property which they owned in Dade County. After a hearing the Board adopted a resolution, pursuant to Chapter 33 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code known as the Zoning Ordinance of Metropolitan Dade County, denying appellants’ request. Appellants then filed a complaint in equity attacking the constitutionality of the ordinance as applied to their property by the Board. Appellee Dade County filed a motion to dismiss appellants’ complaint on, inter alia, the ground that the complaint failed to state a proper cause of action against it, because certiorari was the only appropriate remedy by which to review the Board’s action. Subsequently, the circuit court granted appellee Dade County’s motion to dismiss and denied appellants’ motion for rehearing. From these orders of the circuit court, appellants appeal.
Appellants contend that (1) they may bring an action in equity to declare that Dade County's Zoning Ordinance is unconstitutional as it was applied to their property, and (2) their complaint stated a cause of action for declaratory relief in equity. Appellee Dade County contends that the only remedy which can be used to review a denial of a zoning change is certiorari.
After a careful review of the record, we are of the opinion that appellants’ complaint was an attempt to review the resolution passed by the Board denying appellants’ request for a zoning change, rather than a general constitutional attack on the underlying Zoning Ordinance of Dade County itself. In such a case, as contended by appellee Dade County, the proper method of review is by certiorari and not by an independent action in equity. Centex Homes Corporation v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.1975, 318 So. 2d 149; and Baker v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 201 and cases cited therein. Based upon this decision, it is unnecessary for us to consider appellants’ other point on appeal. We have considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the orders appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coulter v. Davin, 373 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…State Bank v. Lewis, 362 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Adams Packing Association v. Florida 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 case…
-
Kasser v. Dade Cnty., 344 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…onfiscatory nature of the resolution denying his application for a zoning change, not the constitutional validity of the underlying zoning ordinance. Such a challenge would have served as a basis for review by the Circuit Court. Rose v. Dade County, 332 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Baker v. Metropolitan Dade County, 237 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Metropolitan Dade County v. Greenlee, 213 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Had review been sought in the stipulated fashion and the action by the Board found to…
-
S. Fla. Reg'l Planning Council v. State of Fla. Land & Water Adjudicatory Comm'n, 372 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
Authorities Cited
- Otto S. Baker and Bertha H. Baker v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 237 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Centex Homes Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 318 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)