THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, APPELLANT,
v.
OCEAN & INLAND COMPANY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's denial of a motion to dismiss and motion for compulsory amendment in a zoning ordinance challenge. The case addresses whether a complainant must disclose the date of property acquisition and provide deed copies as part of the bill of complaint in an action to enjoin enforcement of a zoning ordinance.
The court held that the bill of complaint was not without equity and the motion to dismiss was properly denied. The court also found no merit in requiring compulsory amendment, concluding that a complainant is not required to plead evidence and that a purchaser of property affected by a zoning ordinance is not precluded from challenging the validity of the ordinance.
“Complainant is not required to plead his evidence. Nor is a purchaser of property affected by a zoning ordinance precluded to challenge the validity of the ordinance.”
Establishes that a party need not disclose all evidence in the complaint and that subsequent purchasers retain standing to challenge zoning ordinances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOcean & Inland Company filed a bill of complaint seeking to enjoin the City of Miami Beach from enforcing a zoning ordinance as to certain described p…
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 Zoning Ordinance Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant has disregarded Rule 34 of this Court which became effective May 1, 1939. But, as no timely motion was filed here to dismiss the cause brought here by appeal, and without observance of the said Rule, we have considered the question presented and- will give judgment.
Appellee filed bill of complaint seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a zoning ordinance as to certain described property.
Appellee filed motion to dismiss and motion for compulsory amendment in two particulars and for reasons stated as follows:
1. “To amend the bill of complaint so as to show the date upon which the plaintiff acquired the property involved in this cause, on the following grounds: '
“(a) That the defendant is entitled to know at what *147time the plaintiff acquired the property described in the bill of complaint so as to prepare its answer to said bill.
“(b) So as to show whether or not the plaintiff acquired its property at a time when the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the restrictive measures of the defendant’s zoning ordinance complained of m said bill.
“2. By attaching to said bill of complaint copies of the deeds by which the plaintiff acquired title to said properties described in the bill of complaint, upon the following grounds:
“(a) That the court and the defendant are entitled to have the said deeds before them in consideration of this cause.
“(b) Upon the grounds that the said deeds, as a matter of iaw, would show whether or not plaintiff took title to the property subject to the restrictions of the defendant’s zoning ordinance.
“(c) Upon the grounds that in order to enable the defendant to properly plead in this matter, the deeds conveying the property involved in this cause should be made a part of the record in the bill of complaint so as to show to the defendant under what conditions and to what period of time the plaintiff took title to the property involved in this cause.”
The bill of complaint was not without equity and, therefore, motion to dismiss was properly denied.
We find no merit in the contention that the chancellor committed error in denying motion to require compulsory amendment.
Complainant is not required to plead his evidence. Nor is a purchaser of property affected by a zoning ordinance precluded to challenge the validity of the ordinance.
*148The entire record discloses no reversible error. So the challenged -order is affirmed.
So ordered..
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mayer v. Dade Cnty., 82 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1955)…the Board of Adjustment for a variance on a hardship basis, the Board would be justified in taking into consideration the fact of knowledge by the [*517] property owner at the time he acquired the land. See City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 146 Fla. 145, 200 So. 402; Id., 147 Fla. 480, 3 So. 2d 364. In ruling on certain proffered testimony of expert witnesses as to the reasonableness of set-backs ■ the Chancellor decided that the decision as to whether the various set-back requirements were reason…
-
Rivera v. R. Cobian Chinea & Co., Inc., 181 F.2d 974 (1st Cir. 1950)…City of Twin Falls, 1930, 49 Idaho 89, 286 P. 353, 356; Forbes v. Hubbard, 1932, 348 Ill. 166, 180 N.E. 767, 771; Harmon v. City of Peoria, [*977] 1940, 373 Ill. 594, 27 N.E. 2d 525, 529; City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 1941, 146 Ha. 145, 200 So. 402, 403. . Act of March 2, 1917, c. 145, 39 Stat. 951, 48 U.S.C.A. § 731 et seq. . Block v. Hirsh, 1921, 256 U.S. 135, 41 S.Ct. 458, 65 L.Ed. 865, 16 A.L.R. 165; Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feld-man, 1921, 256 U.S. 170, 171, 41 S.Ct. 465, 65 L.Ed. 87…