BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE LUTZ AND LILLIAN LUTZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 Board of County Commissioners of Metropolitan Dade County appealed a certiorari order upholding an estoppel claim against the County for attempting to change zoning after the property owners had obtained a favorable zoning classification and expended approximately $100,000 in reliance. The court affirmed that equitable estoppel may be invoked against local governments when a property owner, in good faith and upon government action, makes substantial changes in position or incurs extensive obligations.
The court held that equitable estoppel may be invoked against local governments exercising zoning power where a property owner in good faith, upon government action, makes substantial changes in position or incurs extensive obligations and expenses that would make it inequitable to deny relief. The County was estopped from invoking Resolution Z-357-73 and changing the zoning classification because the Lutzes satisfied all elements of equitable estoppel.
[1] Equitable estoppel may be invoked against a local government exercising its zoning power where a property owner, in good faith and upon some act or omission of the govern…
[2] A property owner seeking to invoke equitable estoppel against a local government's zoning power must demonstrate good faith, reliance on a government act or omission, and…
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“Equitable estoppel may be invoked against a local government exercising its zoning power where a property owner '(1) in good faith (2) upon some act or omission of the government (3) has made such a substantial change in position or has incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the right he acquired.'”
Establishes the three-part test for equitable estoppel in zoning cases that the Lutzes met
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Lutzes obtained a zoning change for their property after negotiating, planning, and fulfilling county requirements over more than one year. In rel…
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 Substantial Change In Position cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from an order granting a petition for certiorari. The appellees, George Lutz and Lillian Lutz, his wife, were the petitioners in the trial court and the Board of County Commissioners of Metropolitan Dade County was the respondent. The question presented to us is whether the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law when it held that the County was estopped from changing the zoning on petitioner’s property upon the ground that petitioners had secured a change of zoning and had afterwards expended some $100,000 in reliance upon the zoning change they obtained.
The trial court, in a well-reasoned opinion, has set forth the law as follows:
“This Court has considered the pleadings, the record, the transcript of the hearing, the excellent briefs and oral presentations of counsel and based thereon concludes that Metropolitan Dade County is estopped from invoking Resolution Z-357-73 and from otherwise changing the zoning classification on Petitioners’ parcels.
“The Florida Supreme Court has stated that the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against counties and municipalities. Bregar v. Britton, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 753, CERT. DEN. 348 U.S. 972 [75 S.Ct. 534, 99 L.Ed. 757]; Texas Co. v. Town of Miami Springs, Fla.1950, 44 So. 2d 808; Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.1963, 151 So. 2d 433.
“A recent Third District Court of Appeal case recited the test which Petitioners seeking invocation of the principle must meet and which Petitioners here did fulfill: Equitable estoppel may be invoked against a local government exercising its zoning power where a property owner ‘(1) in good faith (2) upon some act or omission of the government (3) has made such a substantial change in position or has incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the right he acquired.’ City of North Miami v. Margulies, Fla.App. 3, 1974, 289 So. 2d 424; City of Hollywood v. Hollywood Beach Hotel Company, Fla.App. 4, 1973, 283 So. 2d 867.
“The record in the subject case establishes that Petitioners incurred extensive financial obligations and expenses in reliance upon rezoning of their property which zoning was granted only after Petitioners had negotiated, planned and fulfilled county requirements in activities lasting over one year. In a day and age when governmental restrictions and requirements pertaining to land development are extraordinarily extensive and zoning classifications allowing development are granted grudgingly and after exhaustive efforts by a developer, government may not casually ignore the individual landowner’s rights when formulating large-scale zoning plans.
“Under the particular facts of this case, it would be inequitable and unjust to deny the relief sought.”
We concur fully in the law as stated and find in addition that it is supported by a recent decision of the District Court of Appeal Second District, which was not available to the trial judge. That opinion is Town of Largo v. Imperial Homes Corporation, Fla.App.1975, 309 So. 2d 571. See also City of Miami v. The 20th Century Club, Inc., Fla.App.1975, 313 So. 2d 448.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. v. United Res., Inc., 374 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…eir need to secure zoning approval from the Commission. In entering its final judgment, etc., the circuit court relied upon Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. City of Hollywood, 329 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1976), Commissioners of Metropolitan Dade County v. Lutz, 314 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), and Town of Largo v. Imperial Homes Corp., 309 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), in finding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel was applicable. We must respectfully disagree with this conclusion. In the cases cited by the circui…
-
Equity Res., Inc. v. Cnty. OF Leon, 643 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…on the construction of a drainage system, Pelham clearly established sufficient acts of reliance. See Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. City of Hollywood; Franklin County v. Leisure Properties, Ltd.; Board of County Comm’rs of Metro. Dade County v. Lutz, 314 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Furthermore, it cannot be said, without exalting form over substance, that Equity Resources cannot utilize or benefit from Pelham’s acts of reliance because Equity Resources and Pelham are strangers to one another. The trial cour…
-
Walker v. Indian River Cnty., 319 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ity of Miami Beach v. 8701 Collins Ave., 77 So. 2d 428 (Fla.1954). We have not overlooked the recent cases of Town of Largo v. Imperial Homes Corporation, supra, 309 So. 2d 571, and Board of County Commissioners of Metropolitan Dade County v. Lutz, 314 So. 2d 815 (Fla.App. 3rd 1975). In the Imperial Homes case, the owner purchased the property conditioned upon it being rezoned and expended great sums of money for architectural fees, interest, taxes, sewer permits, and other development costs after the proper…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sakolsky v. The City OF Coral Gables, 151 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1963)
- Town OF Largo v. Imperial Homes Corp., 309 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Tex. Co. v. Town of Miami Springs, 44 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1950)
- City OF Hollywood v. The Hollywood Beach Hotel Co., 283 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Bregar v. Britton, 75 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1954)
- City OF N. Miami v. Margulies, 289 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- F. P. Newport Corp., Ltd. v. Sampsell in Bankruptcy, 348 U.S. 972 (U.S. 1955)
- Cleary v. Chicago Title & Tr. Co., 348 U.S. 972 (U.S. 1955)
- City OF Miami v. The 20TH Century Club, Inc., 313 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)