Finr II, Inc. v. Hardee County, Florida
164 So. 3d 1260
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- FINR purchased property in Hardee County used for a neurological rehabilitation facility; the county later rezoned it as a "rural center," which conferred a 1/4-mile phosphate-mining setback protecting FINR.
- CF Industries owned adjacent parcels; Hardee County later adopted Resolution 12-21 granting CF a special exception and reduced setbacks, allowing mining much closer to FINR’s property.
- FINR alleged the reduced setbacks caused excessive noise, vibration, dust, and a $38 million diminution in property value and filed identical complaints in federal bankruptcy court and state circuit court under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act (the Act).
- The state trial court denied FINR’s motion to abate but dismissed FINR’s state complaint with prejudice, holding the Act does not cover property owners whose land was not the direct subject of governmental action.
- On appeal, the Second District reversed the dismissal (but affirmed the denial to abate), holding the Act permits claims by owners of adjacent property burdened by governmental action affecting neighboring land, and certified conflict with the First District’s decision in City of Jacksonville v. Smith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bert Harris Act allows claims by owners whose property is adjacent to (not the direct subject of) governmental action | FINR: The Act protects any property owner whose existing use or vested right is inordinately burdened by government action, even if the action targets adjacent land | Hardee County: The Act applies only when the governmental regulation acts directly on the plaintiff's property; adjacent-property claims are barred | The court held the Act can be invoked by adjacent-property owners whose property is directly and detrimentally affected by governmental action taken against neighboring property |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed FINR’s complaint for failure to state a claim under the Act | FINR: Complaint alleges vested expansion/use rights and a substantial loss in market value from reduced mining setbacks, sufficient to state a claim | Hardee County: Alleged harms are incidental; statutory language limits relief to property that was the subject of the regulation | The court reversed dismissal, concluding FINR’s allegations (accepted as true on a Rule 1.140 motion) were sufficient to state a Bert Harris claim |
| Proper interpretation of "real property at issue" and "government action" under the Act | FINR: Terms encompass property that is inordinately burdened as a consequence of government action, not only property directly regulated | Hardee County: "Real property at issue" must be the property directly subject to the governmental regulation | The court read the Act’s plain language to allow recovery where government action directly and immediately harms a property owner’s reasonable, investment-backed expectations, even if the regulated parcel is adjacent |
| Whether City of Jacksonville v. Smith controls | FINR: Smith is wrongly decided; it construes the Act too narrowly and conflicts with legislative intent | Hardee County: Smith supports dismissal | The court declined to follow Smith, certified conflict with the First District, and adopted a broader construction favoring recovery for adjacent-property harms |
Key Cases Cited
- Hussey v. Collier Cnty., 158 So.3d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (standard of review on motion to dismiss)
- Mathews v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 139 So.3d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (use of plain statutory meaning to determine legislative intent)
- Gulf Atl. Office Prop., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 133 So.3d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (statutory construction principles)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (plain-meaning rule for statutes)
- Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1999) (courts cannot add words to statutes)
- City of Jacksonville v. Smith, 159 So.3d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (contrasting First District en banc holding that adjacent-property owners cannot recover under the Act)
- City of Jacksonville v. Coffield, 18 So.3d 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (Bert Harris Act claim framework)
- Royal World Metro., Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 863 So.2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (prefer statutory construction that gives effect to legislative purpose)
- Brevard Cnty. v. Stack, 932 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (distinguishing Bert Harris claims from takings jurisprudence)