GOLFROCK, L L C v. LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Citation: Not availableDocket: 15-2105

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 2, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

GolfRock, LLC (Appellant) sought to change the zoning of a parcel of land in Lee County, Florida (Appellee), but after Lee County amended its comprehensive plan, it requested that GolfRock withdraw its application. GolfRock did not comply, leading Lee County to deem the application withdrawn, leaving no pending rezoning request. Subsequently, GolfRock filed a declaratory judgment action asserting its private property rights under Article X, Section 6(a) of the Florida Constitution and Section 70.001, Florida Statutes, claiming that its request for relief was ripe for adjudication due to the futility of continuing the zoning application process.

Lee County moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it failed to state a claim for declaratory relief. Although the trial court denied this motion, the case continued with cross-motions for summary judgment focusing on the issue of ripeness. GolfRock contended that its claim for a regulatory partial taking was ripe under the futility exception to the ripeness doctrine, while Lee County argued the opposite.

The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of Lee County, determining that GolfRock failed to demonstrate that its claims were ripe or that the futility exception applied. GolfRock appealed this decision. However, the appellate court found that GolfRock's complaint did not sufficiently state a cause of action for declaratory relief, indicating the trial court lacked jurisdiction and should have dismissed the complaint outright. To establish a claim for declaratory relief, a party must demonstrate doubt regarding the existence of a right or status and entitlement to have that doubt resolved.

GolfRock's complaint fails to assert uncertainty regarding any immunity, power, privilege, status, or right, only mentioning its established private property rights. To advance a takings claim related to the handling of its zoning application by Lee County, GolfRock needs a final denial of that application. It contends that pursuing the application further would be prohibitively expensive and that such denial is a "fait accompli," especially since Lee County's amended comprehensive plan no longer allows the intended use of its property. Consequently, GolfRock seeks a court declaration that its claim is ripe, arguing that ongoing efforts regarding the zoning request are legally futile.

Ripeness, crucial in regulatory takings claims, requires a plaintiff to demonstrate receipt of a final decision on the application of challenged regulations and to seek compensation through state-established procedures. Florida courts have adopted this federal approach, necessitating a definitive governmental determination on permissible property uses. The Supreme Court emphasizes that a final agency decision is essential to assess whether a regulation has deprived a landowner of economically beneficial use or undermined reasonable investment-backed expectations. Such assessments cannot be definitively made without knowing the extent of permissible development on the property.

Although the Supreme Court recognizes a limited exception where further applications would be futile, it mandates that landowners initially allow land-use authorities to exercise discretion. However, once it is clear no discretionary approval is possible, or the permissible uses are sufficiently known, a takings claim can be considered ripe. GolfRock's complaint does not attempt to assert a takings claim but instead requests a declaration that the County's actions constitute a final decision and that further pursuit of its application would be futile.

GolfRock is requesting the trial court to assess its potential for an as-applied regulatory takings claim; however, it failed to provide legal authority supporting the separation of the "final decision" requirement from the takings action itself. Relevant case law emphasizes that without a final determination on land use, a regulatory taking cannot be established. GolfRock did not adequately explain its claim for declaratory relief, lacking allegations that it is uncertain about any rights or privileges necessary to invoke the court's jurisdiction. Specifically, it does not assert doubt regarding its property rights or the impact of a revised comprehensive plan on its previously submitted rezoning application. Although the declaratory judgment act is broad, it does not permit courts to issue advisory opinions. Consequently, GolfRock's complaint does not satisfy the jurisdictional criteria for declaratory relief, leading to the reversal of the final summary judgment and remanding the case for dismissal.