St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz

Citation77 So.3d 1220
Decision Date04 January 2012
Docket NumberNo. SC09–713.,SC09–713.
PartiesST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. Coy A. KOONTZ, etc., Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

77 So.3d 1220

ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner,
v.
Coy A. KOONTZ, etc., Respondent.

No. SC09–713.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 3, 2011.Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 2012.


[77 So.3d 1221]

William H. Congdon and Kathryn L. Mennella, Palatka, FL, for Petitioner.

Christopher V. Carlyle and Shannon McLin Carlyle and The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, The Villages, FL, and Michael D. Jones of Michael D. Jones and Associates, P.A., Winter Springs, FL, for Respondent.

Harry Morrison, Jr. and Kraig A. Conn, Tallahassee, FL, Virginia Saunders Delegal, on behalf of Florida Association of Counties, Inc. and Florida League of Cities, Inc.; Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Scott D. Makar, Solicitor General, and Courtney Brewer, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of the Attorney General, Thomas M. Beason, General Counsel and Meredith C. Fields, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Kevin X. Crowley of Pennington Moore, Wilkinson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of the Northwest Florida Water Management District, William S. Bilenky General Counsel, and Joseph J. Ward, Assistant General Counsel, Brooksville, FL, on behalf of the South Florida Water Management District, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District; E. Thom Rumberger and Noah D. Valenstein of Rumberger, Kirk and Caldwell, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of National Audubon Society; David L. Powell, Gary K. Hunter, Jr., and Mohammad O. Jazil of Hopping Green and Sams, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of Association of Florida Community Developers, Inc.; Amy Brigham Boulris and John W. Little, III of Brigham Moore, LLP, Coral Gables, on

[77 So.3d 1222]

behalf of Florida Home Builders and National Association of Homebuilders, Keith C. Hetrick, General Counsel, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of Florida Homebuilders Association; and Steven Geoffrey Gieseler and Nicholas M. Gieseler, Stuart, FL, on behalf of Pacific Legal Foundation, As Amici Curiae.LEWIS, J.

This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz, 5 So.3d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ( Koontz IV ). In its decision, the Fifth District construed provisions of the state and federal constitutions. The district court also certified a question to be of great public importance, which we have rephrased as follows:

DO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE X, SECTION 6(a) OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION RECOGNIZE AN EXACTIONS TAKING UNDER THE HOLDINGS OF NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, 483 U.S. 825 [107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677] (1987), AND DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD, 512 U.S. 374 [114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304] (1994), WHERE THERE IS NO COMPELLED DEDICATION OF ANY INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USE AND THE ALLEGED EXACTION IS A NON LAND–USE MONETARY CONDITION FOR PERMIT APPROVAL WHICH NEVER OCCURS AND NO PERMIT IS EVER ISSUED? 1

We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)–(4), Fla. Const.

We rephrase the certified question to reflect that the issue presented by this case is controlled by the existing interpretation of the United States Constitution by the United States Supreme Court. This Court has previously interpreted the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment and the takings clause of the Florida Constitution coextensively. See, e.g., Tampa–Hillsborough County Expressway Auth. v. A.G.W.S. Corp., 640 So.2d 54, 58 (Fla.1994) (“We acknowledge that in striking down the offending portion of the statute in Joint Ventures, we referred to the takings clauses of our state and federal constitutions.”); Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 563 So.2d 622, 623 (Fla.1990) (“We answer the question in the affirmative, finding those subsections invalid as a violation of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution and article X, section 6(a) of the Florida Constitution.”). We also rephrase the question to address the two actual factors to which the doctrine of exactions was expanded by the Fifth District-application of the doctrine to an alleged exaction that does not involve the dedication of an interest in or over real property; and application of the doctrine where an exaction does not occur and no permit is issued by the regulatory entity.

[77 So.3d 1223]

For the reasons expressed below, we answer the rephrased question in the negative and quash the decision under review.

BACKGROUND

This case has an extended procedural history. Prior to the issuance of the decision that is currently before the Court, issues related to the regulation of this property were before the Fifth District Court of Appeal on three occasions. During the first appeal, the Fifth District reversed a determination by the trial court that the claim of Coy A. Koontz, Sr. (Mr. Koontz) was not ripe for adjudication and remanded the matter for a trial on whether the actions of the St. Johns River Water Management District (St. Johns) effected a taking of Mr. Koontz's property. See Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 720 So.2d 560, 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ( Koontz I ), review denied, 729 So.2d 394 (Fla.1999). After the trial court determined that a taking had occurred, St. Johns twice attempted to appeal that determination, but the Fifth District dismissed both appeals, concluding that the orders issued by the trial court did not constitute final orders or appealable non-final orders. See St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 861 So.2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ( Koontz II ); St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 908 So.2d 518, 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ( Koontz III ). After the trial court entered a judgment assessing damages in favor of Coy A. Koontz, Jr., as personal representative of the Estate of Mr. Koontz, St. Johns filed an appeal to review that judgment. See Koontz IV, 5 So.3d at 8.

The decision resulting from that appeal in Koontz IV provides the following background:

This case involves a landowner, Mr. Koontz, who, in 1994, requested permits from [St. Johns] so that he could develop a greater portion of his commercial property than was authorized by existing regulation.... Based on the permit denial, Mr. Koontz brought an inverse condemnation claim asserting an improper “exaction” by [St. Johns].

In the most general sense, an “exaction” is a condition sought by a governmental entity in exchange for its authorization to allow some use of land that the government has otherwise restricted. Even though the government may have the authority to deny a proposed use outright, under the exactions theory of takings jurisprudence, it may not attach arbitrary conditions to issuance of a permit.

In relating the circumstances giving rise to this case, the trial court explained:

The subject property is located south of State Road 50, immediately east of the eastern extension of the East–West Expressway in Orange County. The original plaintiff, Coy Koontz, has owned the subject property since 1972. In 1987, a portion of the original acreage2 adjacent to Highway 50 was condemned, leaving Mr. Koontz with 14.2 acres. There is a 100–foot wide transmission line easement of Florida Power Corporation running parallel to and about 300 feet south of Highway 50, that is kept cleared and mowed by Florida Power....

....

[77 So.3d 1224]

All but approximately 1.4 acres of the tract lies within a Riparian Habitat Protection Zone (RHPZ) of the Econlockhatchee River Hydrological Basin and is subject to jurisdiction of the St. Johns River Water Management District.

In 1994, Koontz sought approval from [St. Johns] for a 3.7 acre development area adjacent to Highway 50, of which 3.4 acres were wetlands and .3 acres were uplands.

In his concurring opinion in Koontz II, Judge Pleus explained the positions [advanced] by the parties during the permit approval process:

Koontz proposed to develop 3.7 acres closest to Highway 50, back to and including the power line easement. In order to develop his property, he sought a management and storage of surface waters permit to dredge three and one quarter acres of wetlands. A staffer from St. Johns agreed to recommend approval if Koontz would deed the remaining portion of his property into a conservation area and perform offsite mitigation by either replacing culverts four and one-half miles southeast of his property or plug certain drainage canals on other property some seven miles away. Alternatively, St. Johns demanded that Koontz reduce his development to one acre and turn the remaining 14 acres into a deed-restricted conservation area. Koontz agreed to deed his excess property into conservation status but refused St. Johns' demands for offsite mitigation or reduction of his development from three and seven-tenths acres to one acre. Consequently, St. Johns denied his permit applications.

Id. at 1269 (Pleus, J., concurring specially). In its orders denying the permits, [St. Johns] said that Mr. Koontz's proposed development would adversely impact Riparian Habitat Protection Zone [“RHPZ”] fish and wildlife, and that the purpose of the mitigation was to offset that impact.

After hearing conflicting evidence, the trial court concluded that [St. Johns] had effected a taking of Mr. Koontz's property.... In reaching this conclusion, the trial court applied the constitutional standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Nollan and Dolan. In Nollan, with respect to discretionary decisions to issue permits, the Supreme Court held that the government could impose a condition on the issuance of the permit without effecting a taking requiring just compensation if the condition “serves the same governmental purpose as the developmental ban.” 483 U.S. at 837, 107 S.Ct. 3141. This test is referred to as the “essential nexus” test. In Dolan, the Court added the requirement that, for such a condition to be constitutional, there must also be a “rough proportionality” between...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Weir v. Newsom
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • March 11, 2020
    ...never actually issued the conditional permit and therefore "nothing was ever taken from Mr. Koontz." St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz , 77 So. 3d 1220, 1231 (Fla. 2011), rev'd, 570 U.S. 595, 133 S.Ct. 2586, 186 L.Ed.2d 697 (2013). Second, it held that a demand for money—as oppose......
  • Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 25, 2013
    ...under our decisions in Nollan and Dolan .The Florida District Court affirmed, 5 So.3d 8 (2009), but the State Supreme Court reversed, 77 So.3d 1220 (2011). A majority of that court distinguished Nollan and Dolan on two grounds. First, the majority thought it significant that in this case, u......
  • Phillips v. Montgomery Cnty.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • August 18, 2014
    ...Real Estate Holdings, L.L.C. v. D.C. Mayor's Agent for Historic Pres., 944 A.2d 1036, 1052–55 (D.C.2008) ; St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 77 So.3d 1220, 1231 (Fla.2011)overruled on other grounds by Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2586, 186......
  • Anderson Creek Partners, L.P. v. Cnty. of Harnett
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 19, 2022
    ...was money rather than a more tangible interest in real property." Id. at 612, 133 S.Ct. 2586 (citing St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz , 77 So.3d 1220, 1230 (Fla. 2011) ). On further review, however, the United States Supreme Court observed that, "if we accepted this argument[,] i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Case Summary: Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 21, 2013
    ...Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on the Koontz case this June. Footnotes St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz, 77 So.3d 1220 (Fla. 2011) citing Iowa Assurance Corp. v. City of Indianola, 650 F.3d 1094, 1096-97 (8th Cir. 2011); West Linn Corporate Park, LLC v. City......
1 books & journal articles
  • Real property actions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Causes of Action
    • April 1, 2022
    ...at *6 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), opinion withdrawn by 792 So.2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); See Also St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz , 77 So. 3d 1220, 1231 (Fla. 2011) (describing takings categories as physical invasion which is a per se taking, regulatory takings for interference depriv......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT