Centex Homes Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 75--309
| Decision Date | 29 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--309,75--309 |
| Citation | 318 So.2d 149 |
| Parties | CENTEX HOMES CORPORATION, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Williams, Salomon, Kanner & Damian and Gary S. Brooks, Miami, for appellant.
Stuart Simon, County Atty., and Stanley B. Price, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
This is an interlocutory appeal by Centex Homes Corporation, plaintiff in the trial court, from an order dismissing two counts of a complaint in which Centex sought to enjoin the defendant, Metropolitan Dade County, from enforcing a zoning ordinance against it and to declare such ordinance invalid.
According to the complaint, Centex is the owner and developer of a large tract of land in south-west Dade County known as Winston Park. In September of 1972, prior to the commencement of construction by Centex on the land, the Dade County Commission approved a land use plan for development of the tract. The plan provided for a community of single and multi-family dwellings, including townhouse zoning. In May of 1973, subsequent to the construction by Centex of the single family homes, the county passed Ordinance No. 73--56, in which it reduced the density of townhouses to less than that already approved for the Centex project. Dade County advised Centex that the new standards would be applied to the proposed townhouse section of the Winston Park project, whereupon Centex instituted zoning proceedings before the Dade County Zoning Appeals Board by petition for a variance exempting it from the effect of the ordinance. When the petition was denied by formal resolution of the County Commission, Centex did not take certiorari, but later, after the time for filing a petition for certiorari had passed, filed this action for declaratory decree and injunctive relief.
Dade County moved to dismiss the complaint. The trial court entered an order granting the motion, and dismissed Count I, entitled 'Estoppel,' for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissed with prejudice, Count II entitled 'Invalidity of Ordinance 73--56,' for failure to state a cause of action. Centex then filed this interlocutory appeal.
The crux of the issue presented is whether it is proper, in this case, for Centex to attack the validity or constitutionality of the zoning ordinance itself on the theory of equitable estoppel in a de novo proceeding (keeping in mind the fact that it had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co.
...matters such as that involved in the present case has quite clearly been recognized as quasi-judicial. Centex Homes Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 318 So.2d 149 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Baker v. Metropolitan Dade County, supra; Dade County v. Carmichael, 165 So.2d 227 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). That ......
-
Dade County v. Yumbo, S. A., 76-1433
...827 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1964); Baker v. Metropolitan Dade County, 237 So.2d 201 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1970); Centex Homes Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 318 So.2d 149 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1975); Dade County v. Marca, 326 So.2d 183 (Fla.1976). The theory behind this argument is that the aforemention......
-
Coulter v. Davin
...Mitchell, 346 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Rose v. Dade County, 332 So.2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Centex Homes Corporation v. Metropolitan Dade County, 318 So.2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As noted above, in all these cases the matter was treated as a question of subject matter jurisdiction.......
-
Dade County v. Florida Mining and Materials Corp.
...in Dade County is a quasi judicial function. Dade County vs. Marca, 326 So.2d 182 (183) (Fla.1976); Centex Home Corp. vs. Metropolitan Dade County, 318 So.2d 149 (3 DCA 1975); Dade County vs. Metro Improvement Corp., 190 So.2d 202 (3 DCA 1966); Dade County vs. Carmichael, 165 So.2d 227 (3 D......