Beyer v. City of Marathon
197 So. 3d 563
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 1970 Gordon and Molly Beyer bought Bamboo Key, a nine-acre undeveloped offshore island zoned General Use (1 home/acre).
- State and county planning changes in 1985–1996 progressively reclassified the Key to Conservation/Offshore Island, limiting density to 1 unit/10 acres and ultimately prohibiting development after the 1996 plan (bird rookery designation).
- The Beyers filed a beneficial-use-determination (BUD) application in 1997 (later refiled with the City of Marathon in 2002); a special master recommended denial in 2005 but awarded 16 ROGO points valued at $150,000 and concluded camping/recreational use was the only permissible use.
- The Beyers sued the City for inverse condemnation, claiming regulatory changes deprived them of all or substantially all economically viable use (facial taking). Earlier appeal rejected statute-of-limitations bar for an as-applied claim and remanded.
- On remand the trial court granted summary judgment to the City and State, finding no evidence of investment-backed expectations or that regulation deprived the Beyers of substantially all economic use; it also relied on laches. The appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether zoning/regulatory changes effected a per se (facial) taking depriving owners of all or substantially all economically viable use | Beyer: land-use changes left no reasonable economic use; constitutes a taking requiring compensation | City/State: regulatory scheme and relief (ROGO points, recreational use) leave economic value; no taking | No per se taking; facts support only an as-applied claim |
| Whether Beyers had investment-backed expectations at time of purchase | Beyer: expected development/value would follow; relied on pre-1986 status | City/State: no evidence of concrete development plans or investments from 1970 onward; mere expectancy insufficient | No evidence of investment-backed expectations; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether laches or statute-of-limitations bar the claim | City/State: long delay (30 years) prejudiced governmental ability to recreate conditions; claim barred | Beyer: pursued available BUD relief close to enactment of 1996 plan; delays in agency processing not their fault; earlier decision rejected SOL bar | Laches/limitations defenses not persuasive here, but court affirms on merits (as-applied) |
| Whether award of ROGO points and permitted recreational uses preclude a takings recovery | Beyer: points and recreational use insufficient to replace lost development value | City/State: 16 ROGO points ($150,000) plus recreational uses satisfy reasonable economic expectations | Court held ROGO points plus recreational use reasonably meet economic expectations — no as-applied deprivation of all economically beneficial use |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (standard of review for summary judgment) (Fla. 2000)
- Monroe Cnty. v. Ambrose, 866 So.2d 707 (subjective development expectancy is not a vested right) (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (per se takings where regulation deprives property of all economically beneficial use) (U.S. 1992)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (regulatory takings test: economic impact, investment-backed expectations, character of government action) (U.S. 1978)
- Collins v. Monroe County, 999 So.2d 709 (ripeness and need to pursue administrative relief; takings analysis) (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Shands v. City of Marathon, 999 So.2d 718 (takings and regulatory impact considerations) (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Galleon Bay Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Monroe Cnty., 105 So.3d 555 (owner’s active development efforts can establish deprivation of economically viable use) (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Beyer v. City of Marathon, 37 So.3d 932 (prior appellate decision rejecting statute-of-limitations bar to as-applied claim) (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (tipsy coachman doctrine: affirm for any correct basis supported in record) (Fla. 1999)