EDUCATION DEV. CENTER, INC. v. PALM BEACH CTY., 98-3786.

Decision Date01 December 1999
Docket NumberNo. 98-3786.,98-3786.
Citation751 So.2d 621
PartiesEDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., d/b/a My First Step Child Day Care Center, Margie L. Bellamy, David Spring, and The Association for Neighborhood Preservation, Inc., Appellants, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, Salvation Army, and Sac Mercantile, Inc. d/b/a Army Navy Outdoors, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Nancy E. Guffey-Landers and J. Barry Curtin of Levy, Kneen, Mariani, Curtin, Kornfeld & Del Russo, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Robert P. Banks, Assistant County Attorney, West Palm Beach, for Appellee-Palm Beach County.

Brian B. Joslyn and Ronald E. Crescenzo of Boose, Casey, Ciklin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O'Connell, West Palm Beach, for Appellee-Salvation Army.

GUNTHER, J.

The appellants seek review of the trial court's order striking their complaint as a sham pleading. Finding error, we reverse.

The Palm Beach County Commissioners approved the Salvation Army's proposal to develop a prison work release/homeless facility in Palm Beach County. Within thirty days, Plaintiffs Education Development Center, Margie L. Bellamy, David Spring, the Association for Neighborhood Preservation, Inc., and SAC Mercantile, Inc. filed a complaint with Palm Beach County pursuant to section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, alleging that the development order issued to the Salvation Army was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. SAC Mercantile, through its president, was the only plaintiff who signed and verified the complaint. After considering the complaint, the county commissioners decided to maintain their approval of the Salvation Army's proposal.

The plaintiffs then filed their complaint in circuit court. The Salvation Army intervened, filing a motion to strike all plaintiffs except SAC Mercantile for failing to verify the complaint. The trial court granted the motion. Those plaintiffs who were stricken from the complaint now appeal.

Section 163.3215 of the Florida Statutes allows an adversely affected third party to maintain an action to determine whether a development order is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Before an adversely affected third party can file suit in court, however, the party must first file a verified complaint with the local government within thirty days of the local government's action. § 163.3215(4). The issue here is whether, in a case involving multiple plaintiffs, the condition precedent of first filing a verified complaint with the local government is satisfied upon verification by only one plaintiff.

Section 163.3215 enlarged the class of persons with standing to challenge a development order as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. See Southwest Ranches Homeowners Ass'n v. County of Broward, 502 So.2d 931, 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)

. As a remedial statute, section 163.3215 should be liberally construed to advance the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • City of Coconut Creek v. City of Deerfield Beach
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 19, 2003
    ...1st DCA 1999). It places the government on notice of the party's position and intent to pursue it. See Educ. Dev. Ctr., Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 751 So.2d 621, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Our courts have repeatedly affirmed that failure to comply with a statutory condition precedent, absent ......
  • Save Homosassa River v. Citrus County
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 24, 2008
    ...... comprehensive plan.'" Parker, 627 So.2d at 479 (citing § 163.3215(2), Fla. Stat. (1985)); see also Edu. Dev. Ctr., Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 751 So.2d 621, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (section 163.3215 is a remedial statute in that it "enlarged the class of persons with standing to challen......
  • Payne v. City of Miami, 3D05-708.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 16, 2005
    ...requirements for enforcing a comprehensive plan were liberalized. Putnam County, 757 So.2d at 593; Educ. Dev. Ctr., Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 751 So.2d 621, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Southwest Ranches Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. County of Broward, 502 So.2d 931, 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). As a ......
  • State v. Fureman, 5D12–2778.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 21, 2014
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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