Ryals v. Rich
| Decision Date | 29 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1326,1326 |
| Citation | 202 So.2d 779 |
| Parties | Bruce A. RYALS and Bruce A. Ryals Enterprises, Inc., Appellants, v. E. Gene RICH, as Planning and Zoning Director, Orange County Planning and Zoning Commission, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert W. Olsen, Orlando, for appellants.
William S. Turnbull, Orlando, for appellee.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a chancery order which denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. We reverse.
Plaintiff petitioned the trial court for the issuance of an injunction prohibiting defendant from operating a junk yard in violation of the Orange County Zoning Act.
The zoning act in question, Chapter 31068, Laws of Florida, Special Acts 1955, was amended by Chapter 63--1716, § 19, Laws of Florida, Special Acts 1963, to provide:
'(a) The Board of County Commissioners or any aggrieved or interested person shall have the right to apply to the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, to enjoin and restrain any person violating the provisions of this act, of the comprehensive plan, zoning resolutions and rules and regulations adopted under this act, and the court shall, upon proof of the violation of same, have the duty to forthwith issue such temporary and permanent injunctions as are necessary to prevent the violation of same.
The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint was simply that defendant was operating a junk yard in violation of the act. Omitted were the traditional allegations of nuisance, irreparable damages and lack of a law remedy.
The defendant asserts that the omissions are fatal relying upon Philbrick v. City of Miami Beach, 1941, 147 Fla. 538, 3 So.2d 144; Pompano Horse Club v. State ex rel. Bryan, 1927, 93 Fla. 415, 111 So. 801, 52 A.L.R. 51; Jacobsen v. Padgett, Fla.App. 1958, 108 So.2d 303. The plaintiff relies upon the command found in the literal wording of the act to the effect that the Court Shall issue an injunction upon mere proof of a violation. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff and in the order appealed recognized that a niusance had not been plead and found as a basis for the denial of the motion that such allegations were not necessary under the terms of the act.
Going straightway to the fundamental point, it is apparent that if the act is valid, the trial court was correct and the order should be affirmed. However, we cannot vouch that hypothesis.
The special act in question, according to its clear and unmistakable language provides that the court Shall, without exception or limitation, issue an injunction upon proof of any violation of the Orange County Zoning Regulations. It matters not one whit that the infraction be trifling; that no one is aggrieved or damaged; that the violation does not constitute a nuisance or is, in fact, not detrimental to the health, morals, peace, or welfare of the citizenry; that the defendant has valid legal and equitable defenses which, but for the legislative act, would deliver him from prosecution; or that the equities and the chancellor's discretion oppose the issuance of an injunction. As one reflects upon the uncountable factual situations that could arise under this comprehensive zoning regulation, which, except for the act, would be unworthy of notice, the impropriety of this legislation is manifest.
Finally, the essential...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rich v. Ryals, 36838
...reason that such allegations were not necessary under the terms of the Act. In reversing the trial court, the District Court of Appeal, 202 So.2d 779 'Going straightway to the fundamental point, it is apparent that if the act is valid, the trial court was correct and the order should be aff......
-
Cooper v. Gibson
...affirmed. Affirmed. WALDEN, C. J., and REED, J., concur. 1 This court has had occasion to construe this act previously. See Ryals v. Rich, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 779, in which the statute was declared invalid in certain aspects not relevant here.2 See for example sections 47.16, 47.161, 47......