City of Sunny Isles Beach v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
Docket: No. 3D11-1846
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 19, 2011; Florida; State Appellate Court
The dispute involves the City of Sunny Isles Beach and Publix Supermarkets, stemming from a 2006 Site Plan Application submitted by Publix, which the City declared null and void due to alleged fraud. Previous rulings included a writ of prohibition against the circuit court's consideration of Publix’s request for a declaratory judgment on the City's land development ordinances, and a decision to vacate and remand the circuit court's order that quashed the City Commission's ruling on Publix's application, citing a lack of reasons for the court's decision.
On remand, the circuit court found that Publix was denied due process, the Commission’s decision deviated from essential legal requirements, and that there was insufficient competent evidence to support the Commission's ruling. The City is now challenging this circuit court order through second-tier certiorari, which is granted under limited circumstances where a lower tribunal violates established legal principles leading to a miscarriage of justice.
The standard for second-tier certiorari focuses on procedural due process and whether the correct law was applied, rather than the correctness of the legal conclusions or evidence sufficiency. The court concluded that the circuit court’s finding of due process violations was in error, specifically noting that Publix had made three administrative appeals and questioning the circuit court's reference to only two. This misunderstanding contributed to the decision to quash the circuit court's order.
On March 16, 2007, Publix appealed to the City Manager regarding the Community Development Director's ruling that its application was null due to fraudulent representations. After the City Attorney rejected this appeal, Publix appealed to the City Commission on May 3, 2007, requesting a public hearing, which was held on June 21, 2007. The circuit court mischaracterized the notice for this hearing as limited, suggesting only certain issues would be addressed, when it actually stated that the Commission would hear all appeals related to Publix's Site Plan Application. During the hearing, Publix claimed its appeal focused on specific issues, but did not assert a lack of notice or preparedness to discuss additional challenges. The court found a due process violation due to the City Attorney's dual role as both advocate and advisor. However, this conclusion was erroneous, as due process permits agency attorneys to fulfill dual functions in administrative proceedings. The presence of the City Attorney did not equate to a due process violation, as he was not involved in a prosecutorial capacity against Publix, and the court's ruling conflicted with established legal principles regarding procedural due process.
The circuit court quashed the City Commission's decision, asserting that the City failed to adhere to essential legal requirements by attempting to enforce conduct that was not prohibited by its code. This determination was seen as a violation of first-tier certiorari review principles, indicating that the circuit court engaged in improper fact-finding. According to Section 33-6(A) of the City Code, all parties must provide full and accurate disclosures when presenting to the City Commission. Section 33-6(B) states that any actions taken may be voidable if disclosures are found lacking. The City Commission concluded that Publix did not meet these disclosure requirements, leading to appropriate action under Section 33-6(B).
The circuit court's ruling suggested a distinction between failing to disclose fully and providing inconsistent representations to different entities, which is a form of evidence re-weighing not permitted in certiorari reviews. The court's finding that Publix's conduct did not amount to fraud and was thus not forbidden by the City Code was deemed a violation of established legal principles.
Additionally, the circuit court asserted that the City Commission lacked substantial competent evidence to establish fraud under City Code Section 33-6, incorrectly stating that such evidence would entail proving Publix never owned 17.13 acres. The court failed to justify this narrow view and improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the City, which was not responsible for disproving Publix's claims. The allegations of fraud were based on Publix's incomplete and inaccurate disclosures in its site plan application for a mixed-use development, not merely claims regarding property ownership.
Publix's application for a development project was nullified due to its failure to provide a necessary land survey indicating the precise size and location of the property. Nearly a year later, Publix submitted an amended Letter of Intent, claiming the parcel was 17.13 acres with a proposed density of 378 condominium units and a marina with 140 boat slips. However, the City Attorney noted that density requirements could not count underwater land, which Publix had included. Subsequently, Publix submitted a site plan application to the County for the same project but listed a parcel size of only 5.41 acres and omitted the marina. The Commission concluded that Publix's purchase of submerged land was an attempt to circumvent the City's density regulations. Publix professed to be a good corporate citizen but was accused of evading compliance with local laws. The alleged fraud was not in claiming title but in being misleading regarding its development plans and land holdings. The circuit court's decision was deemed flawed due to a failure to apply the correct law, resulting in a miscarriage of justice, prompting the granting of the petition to quash the lower court's ruling. Publix's argument that its appeal had been unfairly rejected was contradicted by the fact that the issues had already been addressed at a prior hearing. The City maintained that Publix did not provide sufficient evidence regarding its ownership of the land, highlighting its evasiveness about the extent of its holdings and compliance with density requirements in its site plan application.
