This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq.
A Florida case decided in May dismissed a declaratory judgment claim regarding a rezoning application because the lawsuit essentially sought an advisory opinion. At issue in the case was a rezoning application that had been submitted by Golfrock, LLC, which the County had asked to be withdrawn after it completed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Rather than withdraw its application, Golfrock filed a declaratory judgment and asked the court to determine that “under the futility exception to the ripeness doctrine, any claim by GolfRock for a regulatory partial taking is now ripe for adjudication.” The trial court did not agree that Golfrock’s rezoning action was futile, and as such it found that any takings claims Golfrock might assert were not yet ripe. On appeal, the court found that it was unnecessary to determine this issue, as Golfrock’s complaint failed to state a proper cause of action for declaratory relief.
In this case, because Golfrock failed to allege that any regulatory taking had actually occurred, its request for a declaration as to the final decision and futility rules essentially amounted to a request for an advisory opinion regarding the ripeness of its potential but as-yet nonexistant takings claims. Golfrock failed to cite any authority for separating the final decision issue into a separate declaratory judgment action, the court noted, and this sort of procedure would make little sense considering that the final decision requirement is an integral factor in determining whether a taking has occurred. Moreover, Golfrock’s complaint failed to meet the standard for declaratory actions because it failed to allege any uncertainty regarding the existence of some right, power, privilege, or immunity, such as the extent of its property rights or the effect on its property of the amended comprehensive plan. Accordingly, the court held that Golfrock failed to meet its burden in establishing a valid cause of action for a declaratory judgment; “While the declaratory judgment act is intentionally broad, it does have limits—one of which is that courts will not render advisory opinions or give legal advice.”
Golfrock, LLC v Lee County, 247 So. 3d 37 (Fl. App. 5/2/2018)
Leave a Reply