Abbott v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 4D00-2496.

• Decision Date: 02 May 2001
• Docket Number: No. 4D00-2496.,4D00-2496.
• Citation: 783 So.2d 1213
• Parties: Arnold ABBOTT and Love Thy Neighbor Fund, Inc., and Richard Courtney, Intervener, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. CITY of FORT LAUDERDALE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

783 So.2d 1213

Arnold ABBOTT and Love Thy Neighbor Fund, Inc., and Richard Courtney, Intervener, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. CITY of FORT LAUDERDALE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 4D00-2496.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 2, 2001.

John T. David of the Law Offices of John T. David, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees-Arnold Abbott and Love Thy Neighbor Fund, Inc.

Janet R. Riley of Florida Legal Services, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee-Richard J. Courtney.

Dennis E. Lyles, City Attorney, and Stephen Scott, Assistant City Attorney, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee/cross-appellant.

STEVENSON, J.

Arnold Abbott conducted a feeding program on the beach in Fort Lauderdale for the homeless. When the City informed him that his program violated Park Rule 2.2, he sought an injunction and declaratory relief in the trial court to prevent the City from enforcing the rule against him. In her final order, the trial judge denied Abbott's claims that the rule violated his right to equal protection, his due process of law rights, and his First Amendment freedoms. The trial judge agreed with Abbott that the rule¹ violated his rights under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998 (the Act), and ordered the City to provide an alternative site on public property where Abbott could conduct his feeding program.

Abbott appeals the final order and further contends that the trial court erred in denying his post-trial motion for contempt and/or injunction, where he argued that the site selected by the City was unsuitable and not in compliance with the intent of the trial court's order that the City provide an alternative site on public property for the feeding program. The City cross-appeals, arguing that the trial judge erred in concluding that Park Rule 2.2 violated the Act. We affirm as to the trial court's original final judgement, but reverse the denial of appellant's post-trial motion for further consideration. That is, the trial court must reconsider whether the site selected by the City complied with the intent of the trial court's order.

The Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, section 761.03(1)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (1999), provides in part that:

(1) The government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except ... only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:

(a) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(b) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The trial judge found that Abbott's religious rights under the Act were infringed upon and ordered that the City was enjoined from enforcing Rule 2.2 "until such time as the city either designates an alternative site on public property or amends its zoning codes to provide locations where [Abbott's] activities are permitted as of right rather than as a conditional use."

Subsequent to the entry of the final order, the City selected a location that Abbott contended was unsuitable for his feedings because it was too far away from the Downtown area and did not have shelters or any other...