Safer v. City of Jacksonville

• Decision Date: 23 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. J-286,J-286
• Citation: 212 So.2d 785
• Parties: Anna SAFER and Josephine Safer, as Beneficiaries and Trustees of the Estate of Harry Safer, and Benjamin Safer, as Trustee of the Estate of Harry Safer, Appellants, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, a municipal corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 785

212 So.2d 785

Anna SAFER and Josephine Safer, as Beneficiaries and Trustees of the Estate of Harry Safer, and Benjamin Safer, as Trustee of the Estate of Harry Safer, Appellants, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. J-286.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 23, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 19, 1968.

Evans & Stewart, Jacksonville, for appellants.

William M. Madison, Claude L. Mullis and William Lee Allen, Jacksonville, for appellee.

RAWLS, Judge.

The Safer sisters, Plaintiffs, have appealed from a final order dismissing their amended complaint with prejudice.

The sole question is whether the trial court erred in granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. We find that it did and reverse.

The complaint seeking a declaratory judgment alleged the following facts: Harry Safer, after living a thrifty life, died testate in 1947, leaving a modest estate (8 dwellings) to be held in trust to provide necessities for his wife and two maiden daughters. He instructed the trustee to paint the buildings with two coats of paint every four or five years and to keep same in a reasonable state of repair. The widow has since died, and the trust is the sole income for the two maiden daughters, now ages 54 and 57, and provides, after upkeep and taxes, only sufficient funds for necessary health and welfare without any luxuries.

In 1966 the City of Jacksonville adopted a 'Housing Code' after two unsuccessful attempts in the past five years to get the local legislators to introduce an enabling act. A copy of the Code was attached to and made a part of the complaint. The effect of the Code is to require all dwellings, apartment houses and rooming houses, irrespective of when constructed, altered or repaired, to meet current building standards as to plumbing, heating, electrical wiring, minimum standards for space, yard drainage, etc. It provides for fine and imprisonment for violations and vests in the Supervisor of Building the right to demolish the premises for failure of an owner to improve his property to meet the required standards. The cost of demolishing same is to be charged to the owner and collected in the manner provided by law.

The Code vests broad enforcement powers in the Supervisor of Building and even allows him to impose additional 'requirements, not specifically covered by this Code,' when he finds same to be necessary for safety, health and general welfare of the occupants--subject to appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. It allows 'undue hardship' cases to appeal from the decision of the Supervisor of Building to the Housing Board, does not define 'undue hardship,' but permits the Board in such cases to vary the application of the ordinance. The Supervisor is authorized to adopt, without notice, new regulations or cancel same as and when he sees fit.

The complaint further alleged that the Code is arbitrary, constitutes an illegal usurpation of legislative power that has never been granted to the City, an unreasonable deprivation of property without just compensation, an illegal exercise of police power and other grounds not necessary to mention here.

The...