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.
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