Killearn Properties, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee
Decision Date | 17 January 1979 |
Docket Number | No. DD-38,DD-38 |
Citation | 366 So.2d 172 |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Parties | KILLEARN PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida Corporation and Killearn Homes Association, Inc., a Florida Corporation, not for profit, Appellant, v. CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, a Municipal Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
Edward S. Jaffry and Mallory E. Horne of Horne, Rhodes, Jaffry, Stephens, Bryan, Horne & Chapman, Frank A. Graham, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellant.
James R. English and Bryan W. Henry, Tallahassee, for appellee.
The facts of the case are for the most part undisputed. The basic conflict involves an agreement between the City of Tallahassee (hereinafter referred to as City) and Killearn Properties, Inc. (formerly, Killearn Estates) (hereinafter Killearn) whereby the City was to supply street lights and the necessary electrical power therefor to the Killearn subdivision in Leon County, near Tallahassee.
On December 31, 1964, a letter (Plaintiff's Exhibit "A") was sent by Mr. J. T. Williams, President of Killearn Estates, Inc., (the predecessor corporation to appellants, Killearn Properties, Inc.) to the then City Manager, Mr. Arvah Hopkins, regarding the possible installation of street lights and electrical power in the Killearn subdivision. That letter was signed by both Mr. Bill G. Cartee, then the President of Killearn and Mr. Hopkins as City Manager, and included the following paragraph:
"Street lighting will be available in the area and the financial arrangements regarding the number to be furnished by the City will be negotiated in the near future."
Killearn was simultaneously considering obtaining the same services from a competitor of the City, Talquin Electric Corp. The record clearly reveals that both the City and Talquin were competing for the business and that both were willing to negotiate for the privilege of furnishing electricity to the subdivision. In reliance upon the representations and promises of the City, it was chosen to provide the services and in 1965 it installed street lights for which appellant, Killearn Homes Association, Inc., paid until 1968. 1
Mr. Hopkins, the City Manager, did not have the authority to sign a formal contract for the City, but had the duty to "work these arrangements out and present them to the City Commission."
In mid 1967 or early 1968, Mr. Hopkins arranged for billing of the street lights to cease. Mr. Williams testified that there was no written evidence of that arrangement. His testimony did indicate that he and Mr. Hopkins had planned to adopt a "formula" for street light service.
On November 2, 1967, the City and Killearn reduced to writing the arrangements of December 31, 1964. (Plaintiff's Exhibit "B") That agreement recited that the parties "hereto mutually affirm and ratify each and every of the numbered conditions and agreements entered into on December 31, 1964 . . .". That document bore the signatures of the then Mayor, the Honorable John A. Rudd, Sr., and the then Killearn President, Bill G. Cartee. 2
In March 1970, a memorandum was signed by the City Commissioners (Plaintiff's Exhibit "C"). They did not sign at an open regular meeting, but rather signed sporadically over a period of two days. However, the record reveals that the memorandum was discussed in open sessions of the Commission and for all practical purposes there approved.
The memorandum provided as follows:
On May 8, 1974, Mr. Williams received a letter from Mr. Cook, the City Auditor and Clerk, (Plaintiff's Exhibit "D") which stated:
On September 8, 1976, Killearn and Killearn Homes Association filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court in Leon County asserting that the City was and is obligated to furnish street light service to Killearn Estates pursuant to the above mentioned agreements.
The Complaint alleged that the City had indicated that it would discontinue the street light service until the Plaintiffs complied with the City's request that they pay an alleged back bill for such service.
The City answered the Complaint and counter-claimed for an amount of $25,308.96 for furnishing, at Killearn's request, 118 street lights and the electricity to illuminate them. The counter-claim asserted that a demand for payment had been made and refused. The City also affirmatively defended on the ground that portions of the alleged contracts violated the 1957 Code of the City of Tallahassee and were therefore beyond the capacity of the City of Tallahassee to perform.
Killearn answered the counter-claim, and affirmatively defended that Killearn was under no duty to pay for the street lights, that the City was guilty of laches, and that the City was estopped from claiming any payment for the street lights.
A pretrial order was filed in which certain facts were stipulated and the legal issues were delineated.
On July 13, 1976, following a trial on the merits, the Judge entered the final judgment here appealed. It provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
County of Brevard v. Miorelli Engineering, Inc.
...become engrained as a cornerstone of the jurisprudence of a majority of the states of this nation. Killearn Properties, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee, 366 So.2d 172, 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Initially, I disagree with the majority's contention that allowing waiver and estoppel in this situati......
-
Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Magaha
...or by any action or nonaction which in the circumstances amounts to approval of the contract"); cf. Killearn Properties, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee, 366 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (employing doctrine of estoppel to bar city from challenging validity of agreements on grounds of lack of p......
-
Firefighters Ret. System v. Citigroup Global Mkt.s Inc.
...provided that the Board at all times maintains continuous supervision over the acts of any agent.” Id. § 33.66(F). Killearn Properties, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee forecloses the related argument of the Board that its alleged violation of the Florida Sunshine Law could excuse it from comply......
-
Salz v. Department of Admin., Div. of Retirement
...(Mrs. Salz cannot regain her position), Mrs. Salz is entitled to the benefit of equitable estoppel. Killearn Properties, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee, 366 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 343 (Fla.1979); Jefferson National Bank v. Metropolitan Dade County, 271 So.2d 207 (Fla......
-
Conflicts between the Sunshine Law and trade secret protection in public procurement: the legislature should create a Sunshine Law exemption for procurement meetings when trade secret documents are involved.
...the proposed award to another vendor should be voided as a Sunshine Law violation. See Killearn Properties, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee, 366 So. 2d 172, 181 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1979) (city which participated in allegedly closed meetings was estopped from asserting Sunshine Law violation to voi......