CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BERNARD JACOBS ET AL., 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 City of Miami Beach appeals a class action judgment ordering repayment of unconstitutional fire-line charges. The court affirmed the finding that the ordinance imposing these charges was invalid, that the suit properly represented a class action, and that laches did not bar recovery.
The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in: (1) finding this a proper class suit; (2) independently determining the ordinance was invalid as an arbitrary charge unrelated to use or legitimate connection fees; and (3) rejecting the City's laches defense.
[1] A class action suit is proper when plaintiffs represent a class of customers who paid fees under an ordinance later declared unconstitutional.
[2] A trial court may independently find an ordinance invalid, even if it concurs with a prior judicial determination of invalidity.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This Court concurs in the Opinion of Judge Schulz and independently finds, from the evidence presented, that the Ordinance Number 1850, also known as § 45 — 6(j) of the City of Miami Beach Code, is invalid, unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to the laws of the State of Florida, and does herein also set said Ordinance aside, and of no force and effect.”
Establishes that the trial judge made an independent determination of unconstitutionality, not merely relying on the prior judicial decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami Beach enacted an ordinance imposing monthly fire-line charges on certain properties based on the size of their fire lines connected …
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 Unconstitutional Ordinance cases and more on FLexlaw
[*228] REVISED OPINION
PEARSON, Judge.
The City of Miami Beach appeals a final judgment in a class action suit1 which ordered the repayment to the class of money paid by the members of the class to the City under an ordinance which imposed fees and charges to be known as “fire line charges.” The ordinance had been declared unconstitutional in a prior suit in the same court by a different judge. The present trial judge concurred in that decision and found (1) that the plaintiffs represented a proper class, and (2) that because the invalid ordinance carried penalties for nonpayment of the periodic charges, the payments made of the charges must be considered as “payment under protest.”
The City presents three points, as follows: (1) it was error to find this to be a proper class suit; (2) it was error to find the ordinance invalid; and (3) the trial judge erred in failing to find for the City upon its defense of laches. We hold that no reversible error is shown.
The finding of the trial judge that this was a proper class suit is supported by the holdings in the following cases: City of Miami Beach v. Tenney, 150 Fla. 241, 7 So. 2d 136 (1942); Watnick v. Florida Commercial Banks, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 275 So. 2d 278; Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 734.
In the City’s argument directed to the trial court’s finding that the ordinance is invalid, it is urged that the trial judge acted entirely upon the prior determination of another judge in another case in the same court. This argument is refuted by the specific findings contained in the judgment. The judge pointed out:
“This Court concurs in the Opinion of Judge Schulz and independently finds, from the evidence presented, that the Ordinance Number 1850, also known as § 45 — 6(j) of the City of Miami Beach Code, is invalid, unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to the laws of the State of Florida, and does herein also set said Ordinance aside, and of no force and effect.”
There remains on this point only the determination of whether there was sufficient competent evidence to support the finding. We find that the ordinance is invalid on its face and that, therefore, there was no need for special evidence on this issue. We are here dealing with an ordinance proposing to levy upon certain properties a monthly charge if the properties’ fire lines exceeded stated sizes. This charge was not a charge for use but simply for the right to be connected into the City water system. The ordinance makes no attempt to earmark the funds for the purpose of financing an expansion of the system or for increased costs of any kind. It establishes a bare charge without relation to use or a legally collectable connection fee. See City of Dunedin v. Contractors & Builders Ass’n, Fla.App.1975, 312 So. 2d 763. See also cases cited at 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 22 b (1954) and 31 Fla. Jur. Taxation § 62 et seq.
It is true, as the City urges, that a trial judge is not bound by another trial judge’s declaration of unconstitutionality of an ordinance in the judgment of another case. But in view of the above-quoted finding of the present trial judge, which was made independently and which is supported in the record, we will affirm.
The City’s contention, under its third point, that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because of the laches of the plaintiffs is not supportable on this record. See Tampa Water Works Co. v. Wood, 104 Fla. 306, 139 So. 800 (1932).
Affirmed.
. “The class shall be all of the customers of the City of Miami Beach, who paid the ‘fire-line charges’ under ordinance number 1850 of the City of Miami Beach, § 45-6(j) of the City Code of the City of Miami Beach, since October 1, 1970.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frankel v. City OF Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1976)…TON, C. J., ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., and LEE, Circuit Court Judge, concur. BOYD, J., dissents. . Rule 1.220 is identical to its predecessor, Section 14 of the 1931 Chancery Act. . We note that in City of Miami Beach v. Jacobs, 315 So. 2d 227 (Fla.App.3d 1975), the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a finding that a class suit was proper although the factual situation apparently was materially identical to this case. . The constitutional procedural due process requirement is the on…
-
The City OF Miami Beach v. Jacobs, 341 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…ction; and that the members of the class were entitled to repayment by the city of such charges which were paid by them pursuant to the ordinance. The City of Miami Beach appealed therefrom and this court affirmed. See City of Miami Beach v. Jacobs, 315 So. 2d 227 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Thereafter the attorney for the plaintiff class moved for allowance of a fee. The trial court ordered that the defendant, City of Miami Beach, pay to the attorney for the plaintiff class, as his fee for representing the plaintiff…
-
Bill Stroop Roofing, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 788 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…e Ass’n, 492 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), a user fee on vessels anchored in port was determined to be an unconstitutional tax. The shipowners were found to be entitled to recoupment of the “user fees.” Similarly, in City of Miami Beach v. Jacobs, 315 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), this court upheld the trial court’s final judgment which ordered the repayment of unconstitutional “fireline” fees and charges. Coe v. Broward County, 358 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) resulted in a court-ordered refund of…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, 154 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- City of Miami Beach v. Tenney, 150 Fla. 241 (Fla. 1942)
- Tampa Water Works Co. v. Wood, 104 Fla. 306 (Fla. 1932)
- Watnick v. Fla. Commercial Banks, Inc., 275 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- City OF Dunedin v. Contractors & Builders Ass'n OF Pinellas Cnty., 312 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)