Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes

Decision Date13 August 1993
Docket NumberNo. 91-6011,91-6011
PartiesHerman CORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAKES, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Andrew T. Lavin, Romanik and Lavin, Hollywood, FL, for plaintiff-appellant.

Michael C. Mattson, Cooney, Haliczer, Mattson, Lance, Blackburn, Pettis & Richards P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Morgan Lewis & Bockus, Nancy A. Copperthwaite, Miami, FL, for defendant-appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before HATCHETT, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

CARNES, Circuit Judge:

This case involves a zoning dispute between the City of Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, and a developer, a dispute that has generated a large volume of litigation in state and federal courts during the past sixteen years. In this latest chapter, the district court has found that the City's zoning actions violated the developer's substantive due process rights and, after dismissing the claims against individual City Council members, the district court has awarded damages against the City. The developer has appealed contending that the district court awarded insufficient damages and should not have dismissed the Council members. The City has cross-appealed on the liability issue. We hold that the district court erred in concluding that the City's zoning actions violated substantive due process, and we reverse on that basis, which renders moot the developer's appeal of the damages calculations. We also conclude that the district court erred in part in dismissing the City Council members on legislative immunity grounds and reverse its judgment on that basis as well.

I. INTRODUCTION

The property involved in this case is an 8.5 acre parcel ("the property") that abuts a state highway, a residential condominium complex, and a neighborhood of single family dwellings. The property, along with a much larger tract of land of which it was a part, was annexed by the City in 1966 with the support of the developer, Herman Corn, who sought to increase the value of his holdings. The City originally zoned the property to permit commercial use subject to approval of the City. The property lay idle for years, as Corn developed the adjacent land by selling condominium units and single-family dwellings to the citizens of Lauderdale Lakes. In 1977, Corn submitted to the City a site plan proposing to develop the property into a 67,000 square foot strip shopping center, and behind that, a 900-unit, 103,000 square foot mini-warehouse facility.

The City's Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the site plan for compliance with technical requirements, and after requesting several changes, recommended approval to the City Council. The City Council returned the site plan to the Board for further review, and the Board again recommended approval. Before voting on the site plan, the City Council and the City Building Committee held public hearings at which residents of the neighborhoods adjoining the proposed development voiced strong opposition to the plan, primarily to the mini-warehouse part of it. After discussing the matter at length and hearing from all sides, the City Council at a July 12, 1977 meeting adopted on first reading two ordinances which affected the property. The first ordinance eliminated mini-warehouses as a permitted use within the relevant zoning classification, and the second one changed the zoning on the property to a more restrictive business classification. Under Council procedures, those two ordinances were not finally enacted and did not become effective until September of 1977. At the same July 12 meeting, and before the two ordinances took effect, the Council voted unanimously to deny approval of Corn's site plan. The next week, the Council adopted a third ordinance, this one imposed a 150-day city-wide moratorium against construction on property in the applicable zoning classification in order to permit completion of a study on the propriety of commercial zoning in residential areas. These actions spawned the litigation that continues to this day.

Herman Corn filed a lawsuit in a Florida state court in August of 1977 challenging the validity of the three ordinances adopted in July and the City's denial of his site plan. After a trial, the state court found that Corn's reliance on the zoning classification of the property in preparing it for development established Corn's vested right to the development and equitably estopped the City from denying approval of the site plan. The court declared the ordinances invalid, directed the City to approve the site plan, and ordered a building permit to be issued after the correction of some technical defects in the plan. That judgment was affirmed by a Florida court of appeals. Then a dispute arose over the City's insistence that Corn comply with a subsequently enacted platting ordinance. After additional litigation, the state court ordered the City to approve the site plan despite Corn's failure to comply with the platting ordinance. Since that time, March of 1985, Corn has had the right to begin development of the property in the fashion he originally intended. Instead of developing the property, however, Corn filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for the City's delay in approving development of his property.

Corn's complaint stated four causes of action: an equal protection claim; a Fifth Amendment just compensation claim; a substantive due process claim; and a procedural due process claim. Named as defendants were the City and its Council members in their individual capacities. Corn later voluntarily dismissed his equal protection and procedural due process claims, and was left with a just compensation claim and a substantive due process claim.

The district court first dismissed Corn's action on ripeness grounds. This Court reversed that determination. Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 816 F.2d 1514 (11th Cir.1987). On remand, the City renewed its motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for summary judgment claiming that the action was barred by res judicata, by the statute of limitations, and as to the individual City Council members, by legislative immunity. The district court granted the motion to dismiss the individual City Council members on legislative immunity grounds. The court refused to grant summary judgment or a 12(b)(6) dismissal to the City based on the statute of limitations and res judicata, but certified its denial as an appealable interlocutory order. This Court affirmed the denial, holding that the action was not barred by res judicata or the statute of limitations. Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 904 F.2d 585 (11th Cir.1990). The case was remanded to the district court again, this time for trial.

The district court then held a non-jury trial, after which it entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 771 F.Supp. 1557 (S.D.Fla.1991). The district court entered judgment for Corn on the substantive due process claim, finding that the City had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying approval of Corn's site plan. The court reserved judgment on the Fifth Amendment just compensation claim, because it considered the calculation of damages under either count to be identical and, thus, judgment on the substantive due process claim served to make Corn whole. The court set damages in the amount of $727,875.02.

Corn filed a motion to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court granted the motion, in part, to make clear that the individual Council members had been dismissed on legislative immunity grounds earlier. The district court denied the motion in all other material respects, and reaffirmed its findings, noting that Corn's motion was largely an improper attempt to take a "second bite at the apple."

Corn, seeking the entire apple, filed this appeal challenging the district court's calculation of damages as well as the dismissal of the individual Council members. The City cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that the City acted arbitrarily and capriciously thereby violating Corn's substantive due process rights. The City also asks us to revisit our earlier determination that Corn's substantive due process claim is not barred by the statute of limitations, 904 F.2d 585, arguing that that prior holding is not the law of the case. We need not address that contention, because our holding that the district court erred in finding a violation of substantive due process renders the City's statute of limitations attack superfluous. 1 Because Corn's just compensation claim remains to be adjudicated on remand, his contention that the district court erred in dismissing the Council members on legislative immunity grounds must be addressed. We decide that the district court erred in dismissing on that ground, but only insofar as denial of the site plan is concerned.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"[T]he ultimate issue of whether a zoning decision is arbitrary and capricious is a question of law to be determined by the court. Although subsidiary facts are properly for the factfinder, the ultimate issue is for the court." Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1578 (11th Cir.1989). Thus, facts determined by the district court are to be respected unless they are clearly erroneous, but our review of the district court's application of law to those facts, including the ultimate determination of whether an action is arbitrary and capricious, is plenary. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 957 F.2d 807, 809 (11th Cir.1992); Stephens v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1571, 1573 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 998, 111 S.Ct. 555, 112 L.Ed.2d 562 (1990). The same is true of the legislative immunity issue.

III. DISCUSSION OF THE LIABILITY ISSUE

The district court's holding, that the City's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 cases
  • Bryan v. City of Madison, Miss.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • 31 March 1999
    ...without just compensation" claim. b. Plaintiff's Substantive and Procedural Due Process Claims In Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir.1993) (hereinafter "Corn I"), a case heavily relied upon by the defendants which involved a zoning dispute, the Eleventh Circuit held t......
  • New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 21 December 1994
    ...valid, permit decision amounting to a taking, will lie."), aff'd, 904 F.2d 585 (11th Cir.1990), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 997 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1400, 128 L.Ed.2d 73 In 1987, the Supreme Court recognized that the Fifth Amendment's Just Compe......
  • Vestavia Plaza, LLC v. City of Vestavia Hills
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 9 September 2013
    ...related to general welfare interests, including its effect on aesthetics and surrounding property values. Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369, 1374-75 (11th Cir.1993). Romero v. Watson, 2009 WL 1361714, *6 (N.D. Fla. May 13, 2009). 13. Admittedly, Count Three also alleges a proc......
  • Hillcrest Prop., LLP v. Pasco Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 13 February 2019
    ...cases, three pre-date McKinney . See Reserve, Ltd. v. Town of Longboat Key , 17 F.3d 1374 (11th Cir. 1994) ; Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes , 997 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir. 1993) ; Eide v. Sarasota County , 908 F.2d 716 (11th Cir. 1990). We thus do not discuss these cases at all. The remaining ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Two Constitutional Theories for Invalidating Extortionate Exactions
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 78, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...(citations omitted)). 87. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 841 (1987). 88. See, e.g., Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 1993) ("First, it must be determined whether there has been a deprivation of a federal constitutionally protected interest......
  • A Framework for Addressing Takings Problems
    • United States
    • Utah State Bar Utah Bar Journal No. 9-6, July 1996
    • Invalid date
    ...794 F.Supp. 364 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (attorney's fees calculation); rev'd on other grounds and remanded by Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir. 1993); rev'd on other grounds by Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 3 F.3d 442 (11th Cir. 1993). [35]See Lucas v. South Carolina C......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT