CHARLOTTE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
VENTURE OUT IN AMERICA, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Charlotte County appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action in which a developer sought to enjoin the county from rezoning property. The court reversed, holding that the action was premature because the rezoning had not yet occurred and the exact nature of the threatened rezoning was not yet apparent.
The court held that the action was premature and therefore the motion to dismiss should have been granted. Zoning decisions involve a legislative function with substantial discretion, and public hearings are an integral part of the legislative process that should not be interfered with by courts before the rezoning actually occurs.
[1] A court cannot interfere with the legislative process of zoning authority before a rezoning decision has been made.
[2] A lawsuit seeking to enjoin a rezoning action is premature if the rezoning has not yet occurred.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is well settled that the exercise of zoning authority is a legislative function involving much discretion. The holding of public hearings designed to inform the legislative body which way to exercise its discretion is an integral part of the legislative process and should not be interfered with by the courts.”
Establishes the foundational principle that zoning is a legislative function protected from premature judicial interference
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVenture Out in America claimed an interest in property in Charlotte County that it proposed to develop into a trailer park. Relying on prior zoning ac…
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 Premature Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Charlotte County brings this interlocutory appeal from an order of the circuit court denying its motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action praying for in-junctive relief brought by appellee. We reverse.
Appellee claims an interest in certain property in Charlotte County which, allegedly, it proposed to develop into a trailer park. In reliance upon prior zoning actions of appellant, appellee made substantial preliminary expenditures. It now alleges that appellant, by certain resolutions, has indicated an intention to rezone the subject property, in- futuro, adversely to appellee’s interests and to the detriment of its aforesaid proposed development. Sounding in estoppel, the complaint seeks to enjoin appellant from rezoning the property in question.
Appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint raised numerous grounds, all of which are also urged in this appeal. We need only discuss one point, however, since it is dispositive of this case in its present posture; that is, that this action is prematurely brought.
It is well settled that the exercise of zoning authority is a legislative function 1 *250involving much discretion. The holding of public hearings designed to inform the legislative body which way to exercise its discretion is an integral part of the legislative process and should not be interfered with by the courts. The property in question has not yet been rezoned and the exact manner of the threatened rezoning is not yet apparent even if it be assumed that it is inevitable. If and when the rezoning takes place appellee may challenge the decision by appropriate means, and may even seek injunctive relief against enforcement thereof if appellee feels it (or its application as to appellee) is invalid. Until that time the suit is premature.2
Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. v. Benenson, 326 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…threatened future actions by the Board of County Commissioners which might or might not occur, or which might occur in a manner quite different from that anticipated by plaintiffs. See Charlotte County v. Venture Out in America, Inc., Fla.App. 1971, 243 So. 2d 249. We read the complaint as setting forth a present controversy. See Perry v. Genung, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 54. The plaintiffs have a right to have determined the present status of their property as regards the legal effect of the actions already…
Authorities Cited
- Hernandez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Hillsborough Cnty., 114 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1934)