GARLICK
v.
CITY OF MIAMI
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.
Garlick appealed a chancery court dismissal of his complaint seeking relief from zoning restrictions imposed by the City of Miami. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the chancellor properly denied relief where the appellant purchased property with knowledge of existing zoning impediments.
The court affirmed the chancellor's denial of relief, holding that under the circumstances presented, the chancellor properly exercised discretion in denying the requested relief from zoning restrictions.
“Much of the evidence shows that appellant is suffering material diminution in the value of his property by refusing removal of the zoning restrictions, but it also shows that he acquired the property only a few months before he precipitated this litigation and was aware of the impediment to sell which he now seeks to remove.”
The court identified the key facts distinguishing this case: while the appellant demonstrated property value diminution, he purchased with knowledge of the zoning restriction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant purchased property in Miami a few months before commencing this action. The City Planning Board approved removal of zoning restrictions, but…
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 Notice Of Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
The purpose of this litigation was to secure relief against certain zoning restrictions in the City of Miami. On final hearing the chancellor denied relief sought and dismissed the bill of complaint. The plaintiff appealed. It appears that the City Planning Board approved removing the zoning restrictions but the City Commission denied the recommendation of the Planning Board and the chancellor agreed with the City Commission.
The real point in the case is whether it is controlled by Forde v. City of Miami Beach, 146 Fla. 676, 1 So. 2d 642; City of Miami Beach v. First Trust Company, Fla., 45 So. 2d 681 and that line of cases or by Segal v. City of Miami, Fla., 63 So. 2d 496 and City of Miami Beach v. Elsalto Real Estate, Inc., Fla., 63 So. 2d 495 and that line of cases.
Like many other cases that come to this Court it may be said to be a close one. Much of the evidence shows that appellant is suffering material diminution in the value of his property by refusing removal of' the zoning restrictions, but it also shows that he acquired the property only a few months before he precipitated this litigation and was aware of the impediment to sell which he now seeks to remove. It is further shown that he has neighbors in like situation who are not complaining.
The chancellor had these and other facts before him and denied relief. Under the circumstances we feel impelled to agree so the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and; MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elwyn v. City OF Miami, 113 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…by his own conduct creates the exact hardship which he alleges to exist, he certainly should not be permitted to take advantage of it. On the proposition of the effect of self-created hardships see the following: Garlick v. City of Miami, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 440; Miami Beach United Lutheran Church of the Epiphany v. City of Miami Beach, Fla. 955, 82 So. 2d 880; Mayer v. Dade County, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 513; Freitag v. Marsh, 280 App.Div. 934, 115 N.Y.S.2d 838; Stevens v. Connor, Sup., 120 N.Y.S.2d 345; Deer…
-
Norton Josephson v. Autrey, 96 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1957)…by his own conduct creates the exact hardship which he alleges to exist, he certainly should not be permitted to take advantage of it. On the proposition of the effect of self-created hardships see the following: Garlick v. City of Miami, Fla. 1953, 67 So. 2d 440; Miami Beach United Lutheran Church of the Epiphany v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 880; Mayer v. Dade County, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 513; Freitag v. Marsh, 280 App.Div. 934, 115 N.Y.S.2d 838; Stevens v. Connor, Sup., 120 N.Y.S.2d 345; Deer…
-
Burton Joseph Green v. The City OF Miami, 107 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…by his own conduct creates the exact hardship which he alleges to exist, he certainly should not be permitted to take advantage of it. On the proposition of the effect of self-created hardships see the following: Garlick v. City of Miami, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 440; Miami Beach United Lutheran Church of the Epiphany v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 880; Mayer v. Dade County, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 513; Freitag v. Marsh, 280 App.Div. 934, 115 N.Y.S.2d 838; Stevens v. Connor, Sup., 120 N.Y.S.2d 345; Deer…
Authorities Cited
- Forde v. The City of Miami Beach, 146 Fla. 676 (Fla. 1941)
- City of Miami Beach v. First Tr. Co., 45 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1949)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Elsalto Real Est., Inc., 63 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1953)
- Segal v. City of Miami, 63 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1953)