Turkey Creek, Inc. v. City of Gainesville

• Decision Date: 27 November 1990
• Docket Number: No. 90-13,90-13
• Citation: 570 So.2d 1055
• Parties: 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2871 TURKEY CREEK, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1055

570 So.2d 1055

15 Fla. L. Weekly D2871

TURKEY CREEK, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE, Appellee.

No. 90-13.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

Nov. 27, 1990.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1991.

A. Bice Hope, Gainesville, for appellant.

John D. Jopling, Gainesville, for appellee.

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant, Turkey Creek, Inc. (TCI), appeals a final order in which the trial court granted the summary judgment motion of appellee, City of Gainesville (City), and denied TCI's motion for summary judgment. The parties' dispute hinges upon a provision stated in a stipulation entered into between these parties, which was incorporated into a final judgment rendered in 1981. Each party claims that the provision is unambiguous, yet the interpretation that each asserts is diametrically opposed to the other's. We conclude that the provision is ambiguous and that the trial court must review the entire record of the prior case to determine the legal effect of the disputed provision.

In 1972, Westel, Inc., the predecessor in title to TCI, ¹ purchased certain properties and had them rezoned by the Alachua County Commission to a broad commercial category, "BH." The properties were annexed into the City of Gainesville in 1979. Following annexation, the City sought to downzone the properties, but met with objections from Westel based upon a vested-rights letter which Westel had obtained from the Department of State dated January 6, 1977. In 1981, the City sued TCI and its predecessors in title to resolve the zoning and other developmental issues. On April 21, 1981, the City and TCI and its predecessors entered into a stipulation in which the City agreed to rezone the property to various commercial categories. In Item E thereof, the parties addressed the City's drainage requirement for TCI's property in Northwood Center, as follows:

The storm water drainage system for the entire area which is known as Northwood Center, and which has previously been approved by Alachua County, and the City of Gainesville staff, shall be accepted by the City of Gainesville as meeting its drainage ordinances and requirements. The 'runoff coefficient' shall be that as stipulated and approved by Alachua County, and shall be applicable to the entire drainage system in Northwood Oaks Subdivision, Northwood Pines Subdivision, Pineridge Subdivision, and Northwood Center, rather than to each unit or phase separately.

On May 21, 1981, the circuit court ratified the stipulation and incorporated it into its final judgment.

During the next eight years, TCI sold all but about five acres in Northwood Center. In early 1988, TCI sought to plat the five acres into legal building lots, and also sought site-plan approval to build a restaurant called "Family Diner" on one of the parcels. The City denied approval of these requests because TCI refused to construct additional drainage facilities over and above those that had been accepted by the City in 1981.

TCI filed suit against the City, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, on the ground that the 1981 final judgment required the City to accept the existing Northwood Center storm water drainage system as meeting the City's drainage ordinances and requirements so long as future development was within the new zoning classification. The City moved for summary judgment, asserting that the 1981 judgment had provided that the City accepted the storm water drainage system for Northwood Center as meeting its drainage ordinances and requirements as they existed in 1981, for the degree of development present in the area at that time. The City asserted that the stipulation and judgment did not abrogate the inherent police power of the City to require retention or detention ponds or other drainage management structures required for the public safety as a result of development occurring on the property after 1981. Even assuming arguendo that the stipulation was intended to estop the City from permanently exercising its right to require drainage improvements for future development, the City claimed that any such agreement would be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.

The trial court denied TCI's motion for summary judgment and granted the City's motion, finding that the 1981 judgment

did not and does not relieve the Plaintiff, or its successors and assigns from complying with codes, regulations and ordinances of the CITY OF GAINESVILLE relating to stormwater management systems and structures to be required by additional development on the property which is the subject of this suit. Conversely, the CITY OF GAINESVILLE is not precluded by the terms of the judgment of May 21, 1981, from requiring the construction of reasonably necessary stormwater management systems and structures as a precondition to further development of the Plaintiff's property.

It is evident to us, based upon the record on appeal, that the trial court construed the 1981 final judgment without resorting to the record in the earlier case. Although counsel for both parties at the summary judgment hearing agreed that the judge could rule on the effect of the final judgment by construing the language of the judgment alone, we consider that the ambiguity of the disputed provision nonetheless precludes such an approach. As this court stated in Boynton v. Canal Auth., 311 So.2d 412, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), the legal operation and effect of a final judgment is a question of law for the court. If the language in that judgment is unambiguous, the court must determine the legal effect of the...