Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

Page 6 -- November 15, 1996 Inverse Conde~nnation -- Landowners demand damages for delays in development 2acobi v. City of Miami Beach, 678 So.2d J365 (Florida) 1996 Jacobi (as trustee of a trust) and Fensterstock ow. ned two' lots in the city of Miami Beach. One lot had a house that overlapped onto the other. The owners wanted to reconfigure the lots so there would be one lot with the existing house and another upon which they'd put a new house. They applied for approval of the realignment and for a building permit. The city's Department of Planning granted their requests. Neighbors appealed the department's decision to the city's Board of Adjust- ment. The board reversed the decision to allow the reconfiguration, so the permit got nullified. However, the owners continued remodeling and expand- ing the house that was there. The owners appealed to court, and the court ruled in their favor. The owners then got approval from the board. The owners sued the city and the board, saying the municipality's actions were an informal taking for which they had to be compensated. The owners also said the municipality's acts deprived them of their due process rights under the federal Constitution. They wanted to recover the money they lost on account of the board's decision. The city and the board asked the court for judgment without a trial, which the court granted. The owners appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly granted the city and the board judgment without a trial. Their actions were not a taking and did not violate the owners' consti- tutional due process rights. The lower court correctly concluded the board's initial disapproval of the reconfiguration was not a taking. The board's decision did not deny the own- ers "substantially all economically beneficial" use of the land, even tempo- rarily. While their appeal was pending, they could and did -- work on the existing house. The lower court was also correct when it found the board and the city did not violate the owners' due process rights. The owners didn't claim any flaws in the municipality's procedures, and their right to have the property reconfigured was not a fundamental right protected by the federal Constitution. Reconfiguration was a state-created right that could be taken away as long as the municipality followed constitutionally correct procedures. The owners could not collect damages just because their project was delayed and the appeals cost them money. Due process did not guarantee that a municipality would never make an incorrect decision that got overturned through litigation. Tampa-Hillsborough Country Exjgressway Authority v. A. G. W.S. Corp., 640 .So. 2d 54 (1994). McKinney v. Pate, 20 F. 3d J550 (1994).