Grimes v. Walton County, No. 91-945
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | WEBSTER |
| Citation | 591 So.2d 1091 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-945 |
| Decision Date | 02 January 1992 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly D187 Jerry GRIMES and wife, Laura Grimes and Destin Piling and Excavation, Inc., A Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. WALTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, the Walton County Board of Adjustment, an administrative agency of Walton County, and Maris Atchison, Aubrey Brannon, Roy Cassidy, Roy Godwin, Toby Rushing, Lloyd Ward, and Elmer Williams, all individuals who are members of the Walton County Board of Adjustments, Appellees, and Jack Hanna, Marilyn Hanna, Randy O'Connor, Dawn O'Connor, Christie C. Johnson, Jerome P. Johnson, Claire Lucas, Harold Lucas, A.B. Sherling, Rebecca Sherling, Robert E. Hendricks, and Barbara R. Hendricks, Intervenors. |
Page 1091
Excavation, Inc., A Florida Corporation, Appellants,
v.
WALTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida, the Walton County Board of Adjustment, an
administrative agency of Walton County, and Maris Atchison,
Aubrey Brannon, Roy Cassidy, Roy Godwin, Toby Rushing, Lloyd
Ward, and Elmer Williams, all individuals who are members of
the Walton County Board of Adjustments, Appellees,
and
Jack Hanna, Marilyn Hanna, Randy O'Connor, Dawn O'Connor,
Christie C. Johnson, Jerome P. Johnson, Claire Lucas, Harold
Lucas, A.B. Sherling, Rebecca Sherling, Robert E. Hendricks,
and Barbara R. Hendricks, Intervenors.
First District.
Page 1092
Mark D. Davis of Ramey & Davis, DeFuniak Springs, for appellants.
George Ralph Miller, DeFuniak Springs, for appellees.
Robert C. Apgar and Darren A. Schwartz, Haben, Culpepper, Dunbar & French, P.A., Tallahassee, for intervenors.
WEBSTER, Judge.
Appellants (plaintiffs below) seek review of decisions by the trial court (1) allowing a number of parties to intervene after defendants had failed timely to respond to the complaint, and a Clerk's Default had been entered as to a number of the defendants; (2) allowing the intervenors to file a motion to dismiss; and (3) granting the intervenors' motion to dismiss and dismissing the action with prejudice. Because we conclude that it was an abuse of discretion to allow intervention in this action, we reverse.
This action had its genesis in a zoning dispute. According to the complaint, appellants Jerry Grimes and his wife, Laura Grimes, are the owners of a parcel of real property situated in Walton County. The property was purchased with the intent to use it for "personal residential, commercial business office, and construction equipment storage" purposes; the last two uses to relate to appellant Destin Piling and Excavation, Inc., a corporation in which Jerry Grimes is the sole shareholder. At the time of the purchase, the property was zoned "residential development" which, "according to the Walton County Zoning Ordinance, allows light industrial uses."
The complaint further alleges that, in response to a written application by the Grimeses, the Walton County Building Department issued a "Certificate of Zoning Compliance," which certified that the uses proposed by the Grimeses for the property complied "with all Walton County Zoning regulations." However, shortly after the "Certificate of Zoning Compliance" had been issued, several owners of land in the vicinity of the Grimeses' parcel appealed the Building Department's action to the Walton County Board of Adjustment. After a public hearing, the Board of Adjustment "voted unanimously to deny the issuance of the Certificate of Zoning."
Appellants then filed an action in circuit court, seeking review of the Board of Adjustment's decision. For reasons that are not entirely clear from the record, the parties to the first action (appellants, Walton County, the Board of Adjustment and the Board's members), through their attorneys, entered into a stipulation, pursuant to which they agreed that that action would be dismissed without prejudice; that the
Page 1093
Board of Adjustment would reconsider the matter at its next regular meeting; and that the stipulation was not intended to prejudice in any way "[appellants'] right to judicial relief of the Board's decision on reconsideration of the zoning certificate."A transcript attached to, and made a part of, the complaint reflects that, in due course, the matter was placed once again on the Board of Adjustment's agenda. However, the Board, by a unanimous vote, refused to reconsider the matter, as the parties had stipulated in the first action. Accordingly, appellants filed the present action.
The complaint is in two counts. However, both counts seek the same narrow relief--to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Arroyo v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., No. 3D15-194
...by the court in its discretion." However, "the trial court's discretion is not unbounded." Grimes v. Walton Cnty., 591 So. 2d 1091, 1093-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Trial courts are required to consider whether the prospective intervenor has an interest in the proceedings. Union ......
-
Estate of Arroyo v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., Nos. 3D15–194 & 3D15–183
...by the court in its discretion." However, "the trial court's discretion is not unbounded." Grimes v. Walton Cnty. , 591 So.2d 1091, 1093–94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Trial courts are required to consider whether the prospective intervenor has an interest in the proceedings. Union ......
-
Florida Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Doe, Nos. 95-355
...recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion. In Grimes v. Walton County, 591 So.2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), this court discussed the general test to determine whether a trial court has abused its discretion in allowing a part......
-
T.r.-B. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 3D21-1716
...to assert a right by intervention, ...." In general, the intervention rule should be liberally construed. Grimes v. Walton Ct., 591 So. 2d 1091, 1093-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Intervention is a matter of the trial court's discretion. De Sousa v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A., 170 So. 3d 928, 929......
-
Estate of Arroyo v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., No. 3D15-194
...by the court in its discretion." However, "the trial court's discretion is not unbounded." Grimes v. Walton Cnty., 591 So. 2d 1091, 1093-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Trial courts are required to consider whether the prospective intervenor has an interest in the proceedings. Union ......
-
Estate of Arroyo v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., Nos. 3D15–194 & 3D15–183
...by the court in its discretion." However, "the trial court's discretion is not unbounded." Grimes v. Walton Cnty. , 591 So.2d 1091, 1093–94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Trial courts are required to consider whether the prospective intervenor has an interest in the proceedings. Union ......
-
Florida Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Doe, Nos. 95-355
...recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion. In Grimes v. Walton County, 591 So.2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), this court discussed the general test to determine whether a trial court has abused its discretion in allowing a part......
-
T.r.-B. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 3D21-1716
...to assert a right by intervention, ...." In general, the intervention rule should be liberally construed. Grimes v. Walton Ct., 591 So. 2d 1091, 1093-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Intervention is a matter of the trial court's discretion. De Sousa v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A., 170 So. 3d 928, 929......