SUNSHORES, INC. A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, AND H & S, INC., AN ALABAMA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
COUNTY OF PINELLAS 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.
The court held that while mandamus was an improper procedural vehicle, the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice was erroneous and should have been without prejudice to allow for alternative equitable claims.
Plaintiffs alleged they developed property based on zoning that was later changed to their detriment, seeking a writ of mandamus for a building permit…
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 Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
The lower court dismissed an alternate writ of mandamus with prejudice. We reverse.
Plaintiffs/appellants’ complaint alleged that they had acquired and begun to develop property in reliance upon zoning which was later changed to their detriment. The prayer was for the writ of mandamus. Initially the lower court issued the alternate writ of mandamus requiring the county/appellee to show cause why appellants’ building permit should not be issued. Subsequently, the circuit court dismissed the writ with prejudice, holding in relevant part:
Florida Appellate Rule 4.1 provides that all appellate review of any rulings of any commission or board shall be by certiorari as provided by the Florida Appellate Rules. Based on the allegations of appellants it is clear that a review of the actions of the appellees . . . had to be by certiorari rather than mandamus.
Although mandamus was an improper method, this should not deprive appellants of the opportunity to state a cause of action in equity. Accordingly, the dismissal below should have been without prejudice.
Although Fla.App. Rule 4.1 provides for appellate review by certiorari appellants are not thereby precluded from proceeding with a separate action in equity for equitable estoppel, declaratory relief or injunction. Hollywood Beach Hotel Company v. City of Hollywood, 329 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1976); Town of Largo v. Imperial Homes Corp., 309 So. 2d 571 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 151 So. 2d 436 (Fla.3d DCA 1963).
While the trial court was correct in dissolving the alternative writ of mandamus we reverse the dismissal of appellants’ complaint with prejudice and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waldron L. Sundstrom v. Collier Cnty., 385 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…a.1976). However, the dismissal should have been without prejudice to allow appellant an opportunity to attempt to state a cause of action in equity for equitable estoppel, declaratory relief, or an injunction. Sunshores, Inc. v. County of Pinellas, 351 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, the order is affirmed, but the case is remanded with instructions to delete the words “with prejudice”. GRIMES, Acting C. J., and RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.…
-
Hernando Cnty. v. Leisure Hills, Inc., 689 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…issue when it responded to the complaint in 1985. Prior to Snyder, other courts were permitting independent actions based on equitable estoppel. Sundstrom v. Collier County, 385 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Sunshores, Inc. v. County of Pinellas, 351 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). More importantly, however, we agree with Leisure Hills that the underlying action, the decisive action, taken by the Commission at the meeting at which plat approval was being sought was more legislative than judicial. The Commi…
Authorities Cited
- The Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. The City OF Hollywood, 329 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976)
- Town OF Largo v. Imperial Homes Corp., 309 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Sakolsky v. The City OF Coral Gables, 151 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)