Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Waters Mark v. Brevard Cty, 5D16-1302 (2017)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 5D16-1302 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED WATERS MARK DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, LC, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-1302 BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed October 20, 2017 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, George B. Turner, Judge. John H. Pelzer, Glenn N. Smith, and Elizabeth Adler, of Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant. Dale A.
More
         IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FIFTH DISTRICT

                                                NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                                FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                                DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

WATERS MARK DEVELOPMENT
ENTERPRISES, LC,

             Appellant,

 v.                                                    Case No. 5D16-1302

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,

             Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed October 20, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
George B. Turner, Judge.

John H. Pelzer, Glenn N. Smith, and
Elizabeth Adler, of Greenspoon Marder,
P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Dale A. Scott and Michael J. Roper, of Bell
& Roper, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.


PER CURIAM.

      We conclude that the applicable statute of limitations did not commence to run until

Appellee denied Appellant’s application for site plan approval on October 31, 2012. See

M & H Profit, Inc. v. City of Panama City, 
28 So. 3d 71
(Fla. 1st DCA 2009). We

distinguish Citrus County v. Halls River Development, Inc., 
8 So. 3d 413
(Fla. 5th DCA
2009). In that case, the challenged government act involved the reclassification of the

land use category on a particular piece of property.

      Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings. In doing

so, we express no view on the merits of the claim.

      REVERSED AND REMANDED.


TORPY, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.




                                            2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer