Falkinburg v. Vill. of El Portal
| Decision Date | 13 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D15–2335.,3D15–2335. |
| Citation | 183 So.3d 1189 |
| Parties | Barbara FALKINBURG, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF EL PORTAL, Fullview International Group, LLC, Wealthy Delight, LLC, and Biscayne Park Acquisition Group, LLC, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Coffey Burlington and Jeffrey B. Crockett ; Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., Evian L. White and Jeffrey M. Hearne ; Community Justice Project, Inc. and Charles F. Elsesser, Jr., for apellant.
Greenspoon Marder, Joseph S. Geller and Jason D. Silver, Fort Lauderdale; Howard L. Kuker ; Kriss & Feuerstein, Jerold C. Feuerstein and Jennifer Tolston, New York, for appellees.
Before, SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.
Plaintiff Barbara Falkinburg appeals the trial court's order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. We reverse because the plaintiff's complaint alleged a meritorious cause of action under section 723.083, Florida Statutes (2015), thus the trial court erred in dismissing it.
Falkinburg lives in a 240–lot trailer park in the Village of El Portal in Miami, Florida called "Little Farm Mobile Home Park." Little Farm is located along Biscayne Boulevard, north of 79th Street. The complaint, filed by Falkinburg and two other co-plaintiffs who are also residents of Little Farm,1 alleges that the Village of El Portal, a municipality of the State of Florida, did not comply with the statutory requisites of section 723.083, Florida Statute (2015), when the Village entered into a Settlement Agreement with the defendants, who were the current and prospective owners of Little Farm. The terms of the Settlement Agreement required that the owners start the process to close the mobile home park within sixty (60) days. The Settlement Agreement, which was attached to Falkinburg's complaint, states that the Village of El Portal had determined that the residential mobile home park is no longer a permitted use of the property under the Village's current Land Development Code and that it would be "advantageous to demolish and remove the mobile homes existing on the site." The Complaint further alleged that the Village of El Portal would prefer a mixed use and commercial development to Little Farm.
In addition, the complaint alleged that the Village of El Portal never made any findings, determinations, or investigation on the statutorily required issue of whether "adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners." The complaint states that no finding of the existence of comparable alternative housing for the Little Farm residents could be made. It further sought a declaration to invalidate the Settlement Agreement signed by the Village of El Portal, an injunction against the closing of Little Farm, as well as a statutory attorney's fees award under section 723.068, Florida Statutes (2015).
The four named defendants, the Village of El Portal, Fullview International Group, LLC, Wealthy Delight, LLC, and Biscayne Park Acquisition Group, LLC filed motions to dismiss. At the hearing before the trial court on the motions to dismiss, the issue before the court was whether the complaint and its attached Settlement Agreement stated a cause of action under section 723.083. The Village of El Portal conceded that the Settlement Agreement had been approved by its council members and thus constituted "official action." It also conceded that the Village of El Portal had not studied the relocation issue to determine that mobile home parks or other adequate alternative housing existed for the residents of Little Farm.
The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the signing of the Settlement Agreement did "not constitute official action which would result in the closure" of Little Farm. Falkinburg filed a motion for reconsideration or to amend, which was denied. This expedited appeal followed, as at least 85 evictions of Little Farm tenants have been filed since the Settlement Agreement was entered into and a "notice of park closing/change in land use" has been sent to all residents asking them to vacate Little Farm by February 2016.
We review this case de novo, as it involves a trial court granting a dismissal with prejudice of a complaint. Morin v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach
...ensued.II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss with prejudice. Falkinburg v. Village of El Portal, 183 So.3d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). We are bound by the same restrictions the trial court faced when it ruled on the motion to dismiss, and we there......
-
Sousa v. Zuni Transp., Inc.
...as true. See, e.g., Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 254 So.3d 1056, 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (citing Falkinburg v. Village of El Portal, 183 So.3d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ). The trial court is bound to the "well-pled allegations of the complaint, including its incorporated attac......
-
Llanso v. WNF Law, P.L.
...of the complaint, not factual determinations. See Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1199 (Fla. 2006) ; Falkinburg v. Village of El Portal, 183 So. 3d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). "Unlike a motion for summary judgment, when ruling on a motion to dismiss, ‘[a] court may not go beyond the......
- Brunswick v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families