SEAWATCH AT MARATHON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
CITY OF MARATHON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Seawatch sought second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court order dismissing its challenge to two City of Marathon resolutions as moot. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the challenge to the variance denial was moot because the applicant withdrew its variance application, and the challenge to the conditional use permit was moot because an identical challenge had already been resolved in a related case.
The court affirmed the circuit court's mootness determination. The challenge to Resolution No. 2021-74 was moot because FKAE's withdrawal of its variance application rendered relief impossible. The challenge to Resolution No. 2021-75 was also moot because an identical challenge had already been litigated and resolved in a related case.
[1] In second-tier certiorari review, an appellate court's scope is limited to whether the trial court applied correct law and afforded procedural due process; review of whet…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the legal standard for mootness that the court applied to dismiss Seawatch's challenge to the variance denial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeawatch challenged two resolutions by the City of Marathon: one denying its appeal of a variance granted to Florida Keys Animal Encounters (FKAE), an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conditional Use Permit cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 24, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1567 Lower Tribunal No. 21-157-M
________________
Seawatch at Marathon Condominium Association, Inc.,
Petitioner,
vs.
City of Marathon, et al.,
Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge. Nicholas W. Mulick, PA, and Nicholas W. Mulick, for petitioner. Steven T. Williams, City Attorney, for respondent City of Marathon; Smith/Hawks, PL, and Christopher B. Deem and Barton Smith, for respondent Florida Keys Animal Encounters, LLC. Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and GORDO, JJ. SCALES, J.
In its petition to this Court, Seawatch at Marathon Condominium Association, Inc. (“Seawatch”) seeks second-tier certiorari review of the Monroe County Circuit Court’s July 26, 2023 final order that dismissed, as moot, Seawatch’s first-tier certiorari petition. Seawatch’s first-tier petition challenged two resolutions of the City of Marathon: (i) Resolution No. 2021- 74 (denying Seawatch’s appeal of an approval of a variance sought by respondent Florida Keys Animal Encounters (“FKAE”)); and (ii) Resolution No. 2021-75 (granting FKAE’s amended conditional use permit). Our second-tier certiorari review of the challenged order is limited to whether the Circuit Court applied the correct law and whether it afforded Seawatch procedural due process. Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995).
The Circuit Court determined that Seawatch’s challenge to Resolution No. 2021-74 was moot because FKAE withdrew its variance application after availing itself of an amendment to the City’s land development regulations, thus obviating the need for FKAE to obtain a variance. Under the circumstances presented in this case, the Circuit Court applied the correct law and determined that Seawatch’s challenge to Resolution No. 2021-74 was rendered moot. Montgomery v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 468 So. 2d. 1014, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“A case becomes moot, for the purposes of appeal, where, by a change of circumstances prior to the appellate decision, an intervening event makes it impossible for the court to grant a party any effectual relief.”).
In its order, the Circuit Court further determined that Seawatch’s challenge to Resolution No. 2021-75 (granting FKAE’s amended conditional use permit) was also moot. The Circuit Court concluded that its determinations in a related case1 rendered moot Seawatch’s identical challenges to this same Resolution. In this related case, the Circuit Court held that, in adopting Resolution No. 2021-75, the City of Marathon had observed the essential requirements of law and that the City’s factual findings were supported by substantial, competent evidence. In its second-tier petition to this Court, Seawatch does not assert that its first-tier challenges were any different from those made by the petitioner in the related case. Rather, Seawatch asserts to us an argument – one it did not present to the Circuit Court – regarding the sufficiency of the traffic study relied upon by the Marathon City Council in adopting the Resolution. Seawatch frames this argument as the Circuit Court’s departing from the essential requirements of law by “waiving” the land development regulation’s
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kelly v. Miami-Dade Corr. & Rehab. Dep't (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Montgomery v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 468 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)