The Florida Companies v. Orange County, Fla.

Citation: 411 So. 2d 1008Docket: 81-450

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 30, 1982; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Florida Companies appealed a circuit court order that denied their request for certiorari to review Orange County's refusal to approve a subdivision plat for "Greenhill Village." The county's disapproval stemmed from the developers’ failure to meet the one-year requirement for submitting final plans after obtaining preliminary approval in 1973. Despite completing significant work on the project, including a nearly finished sewage treatment plant, the project stalled due to a land sales market downturn. After the mortgage lender foreclosed in 1976, the county canceled the engineering approval citing relevant code provisions.

In 1980, the mortgage lender resubmitted the plat, but the county denied it based on a new growth management policy that restricted central water and sewer systems in the Rural Service Area unless urban services were available or a public health hazard was present. The county mandated that sewage be handled by septic tanks, requiring at least one-acre lots and elevating some lots due to a high water table. The appellant argued that the county's actions were arbitrary and that they were equitably estopped from denying the use of the treatment plant based on prior approvals. The circuit court's denial of certiorari led to the appeal, but the appellant did not raise the constitutional "taking" argument in their initial petition.

The court is unable to consider the appellant's issue regarding the loss of a $251,000 investment made based on preliminary subdivision plat approval. The appellant argues that the county's reversal of its policy should prevent it from denying the appellant's use of the sewage treatment plant, invoking the doctrine of equitable estoppel. This doctrine, applicable to governmental bodies, protects a property owner who has acted in good faith based on governmental approval, resulting in significant investment or obligations, from losing their rights due to subsequent changes in government policy.

The county claims the appellant was unjustified in making expenditures based on preliminary approval and that this approval was revoked due to a lack of substantial work within one year, as per the Orange County Code. However, the court notes that the alleged revocation occurred after the expenditures were made and that the revocation letter was insufficient because it was not executed by the appropriate authority and only canceled "engineering approval," not the preliminary approval itself.

The court finds that expenditures made based on preliminary approval do not negate the application of estoppel, as established in prior case law. The essence of estoppel is grounded in fairness, preventing a governmental body from misleading a citizen into making investments based on assurances. Citizens have the right to rely on a zoning authority's commitments, which bind the authority, regardless of whether final approval has been granted.

The county argues that equitable relief requires good faith and reasonable diligence, asserting that the developers did not act in good faith because they failed to submit a final plan. The county states that expenditures for estoppel occurred before seeking final approval, which was delayed due to the developers' financial issues. Additionally, the county challenges the appellant's standing, noting that the appellant was a lender, not the original developer. The court has previously determined that a lienor or successor in title can invoke equitable estoppel if they justifiably relied on a governmental body's actions. The county cites a case where a lender lacked standing due to non-reliance on zoning, contrasting it with this case, where the appellant made disbursements based on preliminary city approval for the subdivision. The appellant's expenditures were made in reliance on this approval, warranting estoppel against the county's later disapproval. The circuit court's decision denying the writ of certiorari is reversed, quashing the county's disapproval of the plat, and the appellant is entitled to final approval if all conditions of the preliminary approval are met. The court notes that it has jurisdiction to review the county's decision and that its assessment aligns with the circuit court's scope of review. The court opts to quash the county's decision directly, rather than remanding it for further action.