850.224.7332

LEGAL LINKS

Florida State Courts
Florida Division of Administrative Hearings
Florida Attorney General
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (formerly Department of Community Affairs)
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine)
Florida Constitution & Statutes
Florida Administrative Code
Florida Administrative Law Central Online Network
Florida Commission on Ethics
Florida Clerks of Court
Municipal Code Online
The Florida Bar

SELECTED PUBLISHED COURT DECISIONS

Fernandez v. Island Club Resort Homeowner's Association, Inc., et al., 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 545b (Fla. 10th Cir. Ct. Dec. 19, 2013) (represented homeowner contesting developer's continued control of homeowners' association; the court held that developer and developer-controlled association violated declaration and Section 720.307, Florida Statutes, by failing to properly turn over control of association to members), affirmed, 2014 WL 5504784 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 31, 2014).

Medallion Home at Mt. Dora, LLC v. PMR Properties, Inc., et al., 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 540a (Fla. 5th Cir. Ct. Aug. 26. 2014) (represented successor developer in action for declaratory and injunctive relief against original developer for violations of declaration of covenants and restrictions; the court held original developer was violating declaration of covenants and restrictions by operating a commercial sales center/office, commercial model homes, a gravel parking lot, and commercial signage within the planned unit development).

Bunker, et al. v. Polk County, Florida, et al., -- Fla. L. Weekly Supp. -- (Fla. 10th Cir. Ct. Jan. 18, 2013) (represented neighboring property owners who successfully challenged the county's approval of a conditional use permit for a 92-acre sand mine and portable cement batch plant; the court invalidated the approval, holding the county commissioners' ex parte site visits violated the neighbors' procedural due process rights and that the conditional use permit approval violated the county's land development code provisions governing mining haul routes and wellhead protection zones).

Celadon Beach Homeowners Ass'n v. City Council for the City of Panama City Beach, et al., -- Fla. L. Weekly Supp. -- (Fla. 14th Cir. Ct. Oct. 23, 2012) (represented city in challenge to city council's decision that condominium's thirty-five (35) foot long, stand-alone trash compactor was not a lawful use in the R-3 zoning district; the court upheld the city council's determination that the stand-alone trash compactor did not comply with the city's land use regulations).

Patel v. Gadsden County, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 124 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Sept. 14, 2012) (represented business owners who challenged county's denial of their special exception application for a drive-thru package store; the court quashed the county's denial, holding the board of county commissioners departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying the special exception application because the regulations relied upon in denying the application contained no criteria or standards, and, further, the board's denial was not supported by competent substantial evidence).

In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2012) (represented the City of Lakeland in successful challenge to the Florida Senate's redistricting map).

Schmutz v. Regatta Bay Co., et al., 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 829a (Fla. 1st Cir. Ct. Feb. 8, 2011) (represented homeowner contesting developer's continued control of homeowners' association; the court held that developer and developer-controlled association violated declaration and Section 720.307, Florida Statutes, by failing to properly turn over control of association to members).

County of Volusia, et al. v. Dep't of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 07-5107 (Dep't of Cmty. Affairs July 12, 2010) (represented nation's largest retailer in action filed by opponents challenging comprehensive plan amendment associated with a proposed 1.2 million square foot distribution center; administrative law judge upheld plan amendment as valid).

Bertolucci, et al. v. Orange County, Florida, et al., 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 514b (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Apr. 9, 2010) (represented neighboring property owners who successfully challenged the county's approval of a special exception permit to convert an existing residence into a religious facility; the court invalidated the approval, holding independent site investigation by a county commissioner denied the neighbors' due process rights and the finding that the religious facility was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood was not supported by competent substantial evidence).

M & H Profit, Inc. v. City of Panama City, 28 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (represented city in defending Bert Harris Act claim based upon height restriction ordinance; the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of action with prejudice, holding, in a case of first impression, that the Bert Harris Act is limited to "as-applied" challenges and that the mere enactment of an ordinance of general applicability is insufficient to state a claim pursuant to the Bert Harris Act).

Trinity Materials, LLC v. Board of Adjustment, City of Alachua, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 483b (Fla. 8th Cir. Ct. June 17, 2008) (represented city in challenge to board of adjustment's decision to deny a special exception application for a proposed concrete batch plant; the court affirmed the board of adjustment's decision, holding the denial was supported by competent substantial evidence regarding the incompatibility of the project with the surrounding residential neighborhoods).

Tasman v. Orange County, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 12a (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Mar. 18, 2008) (represented property owner who successfully challenged illegal "no rental" condition imposed by county in approving special exception for an accessory dwelling unit).

Strand v. Escambia County, 32 Fla. L. Weekly S550a (Fla. Sept. 6, 2007) (represented property owner in successful challenge to $135,000,000 bond issuance by Escambia County for a road widening project on Perdido Key; the Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment validating the bond issuance, holding that bonds utilizing tax increment financing must be approved by a voter referendum) (rehearing pending).

The Reserve at West Bay, LLC v. City of Panama City Beach, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 22a (Fla. 14th Cir. Ct. July 17, 2007) (represented city in challenge to city council's decision to deny proposed planned unit development consisting of mid- and high-rise buildings based upon compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhood; the court affirmed the city's denial of the development, holding denial did not violate procedural due process or depart from the essential requirements of law, and was supported by competent substantial evidence), affirmed, Case No. 1D07-4292 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 28, 2008).

Concerned Citizens of Tarpon Springs, Inc. v. City of Tarpon Springs, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 639a (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. Apr. 4, 2007) (represented nation's largest retailer in an action filed by opponent pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, to challenge the city's approval of retailer's commercial site plan; the court granted summary judgment in retailer's favor on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the site plan).

Barnacle Bay, Inc. v. City of Panama City Beach, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 634c (Fla. 14th Cir. Ct. Mar. 16, 2007) (represented city in challenge to city council's determination that the petitioners' property was not located within the city's coastal overlay district; the court upheld the city council's determination, concluding, in part, that an error on the city's zoning map and future land use map could not override the substantive criteria set forth in the city's regulations), affirmed, Case No. 1D07-1943 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 25, 2007).

City of Center Hill v. McBryde, 952 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (represented property owners who successfully challenged annexation on the basis that the annexation created an impermissible pocket of unincorporated property, contrary to Florida law; the district court on appeal upheld the circuit court's decision invalidating the annexation).

McBryde v. City of Center Hill, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1035a (Fla. 5th Cir. Ct. Aug. 8, 2006) (represented property owners challenging annexation, rezoning, and conditional use permit related to a 1,450-acre limerock mine and cement plant; the court quashed the annexation, rezoning, and conditional use permit; the court held city's decisions departed from the essential requirements of law and were not supported by competent substantial evidence).

Weiland v. City of Clearwater, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1038b (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. Aug. 7, 2006) (represented property owner in defending city's approval of its flexible development application for a 45,000 square foot medical office building; the court affirmed the city's decision to approve the medical office building).

Concerned Citizens of Tarpon Springs, Inc. v. City of Tarpon Springs, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 774a (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. Mar. 22, 2006) (represented nation's largest retailer in appeal by opponents challenging the approval of retailer's commercial site plan; the court affirmed the city's approval of the site plan, holding approval did not violate procedural due process or depart from the essential requirements of law, and was supported by competent substantial evidence).

Smith v. City of Panama City, DOAH Case No. 04-4364-GM (Dep't of Cmty. Affairs Nov. 28, 2005) (represented city in challenge to small-scale plan amendment; the plan amendment was upheld as valid).

Florida Home Builders Ass'n, Inc., v. City of Daytona Beach, DOAH Case No. 03-131-BC (Dep't of Cmty. Affairs July 23, 2003) (represented home builders associations in case of first impression in State of Florida, successfully challenging several local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code).

Gadsden Envtl. Protection Ass'n v. Gadsden County, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 257a (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Mar. 2, 2002) (represented nation's largest retailer in appeal by opponents challenging the county's approval of retailer's commercial site plan; the court affirmed the county's approval of the site plan).

Wex Tex Holdings, Inc. v. Walton County, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 668a (Fla. 1st Cir. Ct. Aug. 24, 2001) (represented county in appeal challenging the county's denial of a proposed marina sales and service center; the court affirmed the denial, upholding the county's interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land development code).

Walton v. Holmes County, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 289a (Fla. 14th Cir. Ct. Feb. 16, 2001) (represented business owners in appeal of decision by the county to deny the owners a quasi-judicial hearing on their entitlement to a land use compliance certification, required as a condition of receiving an alcoholic beverage license from the State; the court ruled that the county, by relying only upon argument of its counsel, had failed to follow the requirements stated in its land development regulations and violated the owners' due process rights).

Newton Oldacre McDonald, L.L.C. v. City of Destin, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 263a (Fla. 1st Cir. Ct. Jan. 30, 2001) (represented city in challenge to decision by the city council to award only partial credit for road impact fees; the court affirmed the city's decision, holding the city properly exercised its regulatory authority, provided procedural due process, and followed the essential requirements of law).

City of Carrabelle v. Bevis & Assocs., Inc., 7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 511a (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. June 8, 2000) (represented business against action brought by city seeking to terminate a sublease to coastal island property being utilized under a DRI development order; the court concluded that the business had not violated its sublease or the DRI development order).

Cook v. City of Lynn Haven, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 176a. (Fla. 14th Cir. Ct. Dec. 7, 1999) (represented neighbor in successful challenge to a replat approved by city; the court held the city had failed to grant procedural due process during the quasi-judicial hearing and the city’s comprehensive plan was not controlling as to subdivision regulations, as the subdivision of land is expressly recognized as a requirement for land development regulations in the Florida Growth Management Act).

Am v. Gadsden County, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 735a. (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Aug. 27, 1999) (represented business owner who challenged the denial of his request for the county to approve his application for a state license to sell beer and wine for off-premises consumption; the court found the county departed from the essential requirements of the law because the regulations relied upon by the county in denying the application contained no criteria or standards).

Windward Marina, L.L.C. v. City of Destin, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 105a (Fla. 1st Cir. Ct. Nov. 19, 1998) (represented city in local government proceedings and appellate proceedings where court upheld the city's denial of an application for a 240-boat dry storage facility and marina), affirmed, 743 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Elliott Point Cmty. Group, Inc. v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 5 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 787a. (Fla. 1st Cir. Ct. June 10, 1998) (represented community group in a successful challenge to the city's approval of a twelve (12) story condominium on basis that the approved project violated the city's land development code).

Florida Wildlife Federation v. Wakulla County, 4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 767a. (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. May 23, 1997) (represented environmental group in a successful challenge to a rezoning as being inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan).

Save Crystal Beach, Inc. v. City of Destin, 3 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 255a (Fla. 1st Cir. Ct. June 12, 1995) (represented citizens group in a successful challenge to a development order approving a sixteen story, 108 unit condominium development on the basis that the development order was inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan, the city issued the development order in violation of its land development code, and the city failed to rezone a portion of the property to be developed in conformance with its comprehensive plan).