City of Miami v. Southeast First Nat. Bank of Miami

• Decision Date: 07 October 1975
• Docket Number: No. 75--268,75--268
• Citation: 320 So.2d 836
• Parties: The CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, a Municipal Corporation Appellant, v. SOUTHEAST FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, a national banking association, Trustee, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 836

320 So.2d 836

The CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, a Municipal Corporation Appellant, v. SOUTHEAST FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, a national banking association, Trustee, Appellee.

No. 75--268.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 7, 1975.

John S. Lloyd, City Atty., and Michael E. Anderson, Asst. City Atty., for appellant.

Sams, Anderson, Alper & Post, Sam Daniels, Barrett, Diliberto & Estrumsa, Miami, Stuart Simon, County Atty., Snyder, Young, Stern, Barrett & Tannenbaum, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

The City of Miami appeals a judgment of the circuit court which dismissed the City's petition for writ of certiorari. The petition in the circuit court sought to review a ruling of the Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals. The circuit court dismissed the petition upon motion of some of the appellees who were respondents to the petition, holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the ruling complained of because the petition was filed after an oral ruling by the Board but prior to the filing of the minutes of the Board. The minutes constituted the only written record of the order for which review was sought.

We reverse upon a holding that the City's petition in the trial court presented to that court a situation which called for relief in the nature of a suggestion for writ of mandamus. It was error for the trial court to dismiss the petition because it presented a clear case where relief by an extraordinary writ was required. The court should have considered the petition as a suggestion for mandamus and required the filing of a written order so that a review of the order could be had.

The petition for certiorari filed in the circuit court grew out of the following circumstances Four building permits were issued to Mr. Burton Goldberg, a developer for construction on a project variously known as Fair Isle and Sailboat Key. On March 15, 1974, the Director of the Building Department of the City of Miami notified Mr. Goldberg that the building permits had been revoked by the City upon the ground that, no action having been taken under the building permits, they had expired. Goldberg, Sailboat Key Corporation, Arkin Construction Company and City National Bank, as Trustee, filed an appeal to the Board of Rules and Appeals of Metropolitan Dade County on March 28, 1974. It is conceded by the City that this Metropolitan Board had authority to review the City's action because the City has adopted the South Florida Building Code. The Board, at its regular meeting on May 13th, heard the appeal, overruled the building official of the City and ordered reinstatement of the building permits.

On May 17, 1974, the City filed its petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court. At the same time, the City filed a motion for extension of time to file a certified copy of the record. This motion recited the situation with which the City was confronted, in that it wished review of the order of the Board which had not and might not for some time be reduced to writing. The court granted the motion for extension of time but took no further action. The Metropolitan Board failed to file the minutes of its May 13th meeting until June 10, 1974. Thereupon, after the filing of the minutes and after the time had passed for the filing of a petition for review of the written order contained in the minutes, the respondents to the petition for certiorari filed a motion to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the petitioner sought review of an oral order or decision of the Board of Rules and Appeals of Dade County. The order dismissing the petition for certiorari granted...