Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 25, 2015 I Volume 9 1 Issue 2 Husseys' Harris Act claim was sufficient and timely and should not have been dismissed. The court also held that the Husseys' inverse condemna- tion claim was untimely and was properly dismissed. In addressing the timeliness of the Harris Act claim, the court noted that, pursuant to the governing statute, Fla. Stat. § 70.001(11), property owners have four years—plus any tolling time—to file their complaint under the Harris Act. The court found that the limitations period com- menced on September 15, 2004, which was the date that the First District affirmed the DOAH's determination, thereby ending the Husseys' adminis- trative and judicial proceeding; "it was 'when the last element constituting the cause of action occurred." The court further found that, therefore, the Husseys' September 11, 2008, lawsuit was filed within the four-year limi- tations period. The appellate court also concluded that the circuit court had erred by dismissing the Husseys' Harris Act claim under the theory that the RFMD amendments had not been applied specifically to the Husseys' Property. The court found that the RFMD amendments were applied to the Husseys' Property by their very terns. The RFMD amendments specifically identi- fied which lands in the RFMD received which designation, including the Husseys' Property. As to the Husseys' inverse condemnation claim, the court concluded that it was untimely. The court noted that the limitations period for the inverse condemnation claim was also four years, but, unlike with Harris Act claims, no tolling period applied to inverse condemnation actions based on a regulatory taking. The court said that the statute of limitations began running on the effective date of the RFMD amendments (i.e., "when the governmental entity has made a final decision about the permissible use of the property.") The court found that the County ordinance defined that effective date as the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in accordance with law. Here, that order was issued by the DOAH on July 22, 2003, and thus that was the date that four-year statute of limitations began running. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Husseys' inverse condemnation claim, filed on September 15, 2008, was barred by the stat- ute of limitations. See also: M & H Profit, Inc. v. City of Panama City, 28 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Case Note: The County had also contended that the Husseys ' Harris Act notice was unproper. The court disagreed. It said that the Husseys were required to notify the County of their Harris Act claim within one year after the RFMD amendments were applied to their land, subject to tolling of the notice period for the time the Husseys' "Send- ing Lands" designation was being appealed. The court found that the Husseys' notice was timely, and had also honored the statutory mandate that no suit could © 2015 Thomson Reuters 9