Dudley v. City of Tampa, No. 2D03-5843.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | Casanueva |
| Citation | 912 So.2d 322 |
| Parties | Yvonne DUDLEY, Twanda M. Cole, Kimberly Duncan, Sonya A. Hayes-Joseph, Dudley Hearn, Jr., Debra Hearn, Henry C. Henley, Betty Ann Hull, Tony Jackson, Gail Jackson, Rhonda Johnson, Brenda Livingston, Windell Nelson, Sr., Iris Nelson, Samuel Opong Yao, Debra Williams Opong Yao, Leonard Snead, Edith Snead, Marsha Thomas, Jennifer Tillis, Quankela Tillman, Willie Tolbert, Willie Wilson, Donna Wilson, and Shirley Anderson, Appellants, v. CITY OF TAMPA and Tampa Hillsborough Action Plan, Inc., Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 12 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-5843. |
v.
CITY OF TAMPA and Tampa Hillsborough Action Plan, Inc., Appellees.
Page 323
G. Luis Dominguez and Richard Guerra of Fowler Rodriguez & Chalos, Coral Gables, and Samuel R. Mandelbaum of Mandelbaum & Fitzsimmons, Tampa, for Appellants.
David L. Smith, City Attorney, and Jerry M. Gewirtz, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Tampa, for Appellee City of Tampa.
Warren Hope Dawson of Dawson & Associates, Tampa, for Appellee Tampa Hillsborough Action Plan, Inc.
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Appellants, residents of the Martin Luther King Village Subdivision in the City of Tampa, sued the City of Tampa and the Tampa Hillsborough Action Plan, Inc. [THAP] for negligence claiming that they and their homes have suffered substantial damage due to defective soil conditions of which the City and THAP were aware but failed to disclose.1 The residents appeal a partial final judgment that dismissed count X against the City and count XV against THAP.2 After careful review of the pleadings and record, we conclude the trial court did not err in dismissing these two counts of their third amended complaint with prejudice because the City and THAP owed no duty to the residents. We write only to discuss that portion of count X claiming that the City was negligent for failure to warn of the defective soil conditions.
The third amended complaint asserted that in 1987 the City, in an effort to combat
Page 324
urban blight, developed an Affordable Housing Program. Also at this time, the Mayor's Challenge Fund was established, a central component of which was to make money available to qualified individuals who were traditionally unable to buy homes. To meet the objectives of the Affordable Housing Program, the City would designate the following: a vacant tract of land to be used as the site for the housing subdivision, a not-for-profit developer, a not-for-profit entity to take title and sell parcels to homeowners, and the builder. In 1994, THAP, the designated not-for-profit developer, acquired the property now known as the Martin Luther King Village subdivision from its private owner. Prior to acquiring the property, THAP hired an engineering company to test the soil conditions. Following testing, the engineers reported that the soil beneath the land was not suitable in its present condition for constructing homes.3
In 1995, THAP sold the land to the second not-for-profit developer, Tampa United Methodist Centers, Inc. [TUMC], which contracted with a builder, All State Homes, Inc., to construct single family homes on the property. In February 1996, early in the construction process, the builder uncovered a layer of fibrous organic material and communicated this problem to TUMC, saying that as a result of the soil's condition the foundations of the homes would need to be strengthened at extra cost. TUMC refused to fund the additional work, claiming that it had already given the builder notice of the soil problem. Construction and sale of the homes continued without any action to ameliorate the problem.
Count X alleged that the City, which was neither the developer nor owner of the land nor the builder of the homes, was aware of the soil defects prior to the construction of the plaintiffs' homes and failed to disclose the soil defects to them. Further, it alleged that the developer purchased the land in question "at the behest of the City."
Because the partial final judgment in favor of the City was predicated on the motion to dismiss, we must take as true those facts properly pleaded in the complaint. Paragraph 174 of the third amended complaint asserted that the City had a "legal duty to warn all Plaintiffs of the known and defective soil conditions affecting the Land." Although the allegations regarding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Johnson v. Badger Acquisition, No. 2D06-697.
...v. Abril, 969 So.2d 201, 205 (Fla. 2007); Goldberg v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 899 So.2d 1105, 1110 (Fla.2005); Dudley v. City of Tampa, 912 So.2d 322, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). "Establishing the existence of a duty under negligence law is a minimum threshold legal requirement that opens the c......
-
Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller of Collier Cnty. v. Doe, Case Nos. 2D19-2368
...be either an underlying common law or statutory duty of care with respect to the alleged negligent conduct."); Dudley v. City of Tampa, 912 So. 2d 322, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("There can be no governmental liability unless a common law or statutory duty of care existed that would have been ......
-
Weber v. Marino Parking Sys., Inc., No. 2D11–3745.
...[100 So.3d 730] The existence of a legal duty is a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal. See Dudley v. City of Tampa, 912 So.2d 322, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992)). Further, on a motion to dismiss, the allegations of a com......
-
Estate of Johnson v. Badger Acquisition, No. 2D06-697.
...v. Abril, 969 So.2d 201, 205 (Fla. 2007); Goldberg v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 899 So.2d 1105, 1110 (Fla.2005); Dudley v. City of Tampa, 912 So.2d 322, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). "Establishing the existence of a duty under negligence law is a minimum threshold legal requirement that opens the c......
-
Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller of Collier Cnty. v. Doe, Case Nos. 2D19-2368
...be either an underlying common law or statutory duty of care with respect to the alleged negligent conduct."); Dudley v. City of Tampa, 912 So. 2d 322, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("There can be no governmental liability unless a common law or statutory duty of care existed that would have been ......
-
Weber v. Marino Parking Sys., Inc., No. 2D11–3745.
...[100 So.3d 730] The existence of a legal duty is a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal. See Dudley v. City of Tampa, 912 So.2d 322, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992)). Further, on a motion to dismiss, the allegations of a com......