Cascar, LLC v. City of Coral Gables
274 So. 3d 1231
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Property: two-acre Coral Gables waterfront parcel with a 1966 residence designed by Alfred Browning Parker; owned by Cascar after 2007.
- Coral Gables enacted Ordinance No. 2508 on August 28, 1984, creating historic-preservation criteria and demolition-permit rules (codified at Art. III, §§ 3-1103 & 3-1107(D)).
- In 2012 the City designated the residence a local historic landmark under the 1984 ordinance and denied Cascar’s demolition permit application based primarily on that designation.
- Cascar sued under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act (Harris Act), alleging diminution in property value from the City’s refusal to allow demolition.
- The City moved for summary judgment, submitting an uncontested affidavit that the 2012 designation and permit denial applied Ordinance No. 2508 (1984).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding Cascar’s Harris Act claim barred by the Act’s grandfather provision; Cascar appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether application after May 11, 1995 of an ordinance enacted on or before that date can support a Harris Act claim | Cascar argued the post-1995 application gives rise to a Harris Act cause of action | City argued the Harris Act’s grandfather clause bars claims based on the application of laws enacted on or before May 11, 1995, regardless of when applied | The court held the grandfather provision bars Harris Act claims where the ordinance was enacted on or before May 11, 1995, even if first applied after that date |
| Whether cited cases on ripeness/time bar (§ 70.001(11)) require a different result | Cascar relied on Wendler, Citrus County, Brevard County to defeat summary judgment | City argued those cases concern § 70.001(11) (ripeness/one-year limitation), not the § 70.001(12) grandfather clause | The court rejected Cascar’s reliance as inapposite; ripeness cases do not undermine the plain meaning of the grandfather clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Bair v. City of Clearwater, 196 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (interpreting Harris Act grandfather clause to bar claims based on application of laws enacted on or before May 11, 1995)
- Atwater v. Kortum, 95 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 2012) (statutory language controls where text is clear and unambiguous)
- Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (summary judgment standard; review de novo)