Galleon Bay Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners
105 So. 3d 555
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Galleon Bay Property on No Name Key was zoned CFV in 1986 allowing limited residential and fishing uses; 8.6 upland acres could yield up to ~25 lots by density, excluding lake and constrained areas.
- Galleon platted 14 lots in 1991, then revised plat approved in 1994 with conservation easements, restricting development and creating a land-use framework.
- ROGO system (1992) capped building permits by a point-based queue; Galleon submitted permits for 13 lots in 1996 and waited in the queue in 1997.
- In 1996–1997, Galleon sought vested rights and a Beneficial Use Determination under the 2010 Plan; Hearing Officer granted vested rights but County Commission denied them.
- Galleon pursued inverse condemnation, obtaining liability judgments; damages trial produced a $3 million verdict and subsequent procedural turmoil led to a liability reexamination and ultimately a remand for proper takings analysis.
- The trial court originally concluded no taking under Penn Central/Lucas, but on appeal this Court identified multiple legal errors and reversed to award liability and pursue compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the county’s actions effected a taking under Penn Central/Lucas standards | Galleon: investment-backed expectations were destroyed by plat revisions and restrictions | County: regulation advanced legitimate interests and compensated appropriately | Taking found; remand for compensation trial |
| Whether it was error to consider Bahia Shores and Dolphin Harbour as separate units for expectations | Galleon: individually platted lots must be evaluated separately | County: broader development context is appropriate | Error to aggregate; reversal warranted |
| Whether Restriction 4's 'and' should be read as 'or' misinterpreting permitted uses | Galleon: Restriction 4 uses 'and' to restrict to both conditions | County: 'and' could be read as 'or' in some contexts | Court held 'and' must be read as 'and'; trial court erred in reading it as 'or' |
| Whether Marr’s appraisal testimony or consented standards should have affected liability | Galleon: Marr’s testimony should reflect viable uses and not be excluded | County: Marr’s testimony was speculative | Taken to be error to rely on Marr given the misapplication of law; remand for proper evidentiary standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (economic impact and investment-backed expectations as factors in takings)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (categorical prohibition on economically viable use; total takings inquiry)
- Jirik v. Department of Transportation, 498 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1986) (vacant platted urban lots presumed separate units; impact on valuation)
- Department of Transportation v. Schindler, 604 So.2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (aggregation vs. separateness in evaluating density/expenditure)
- Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation v. Armadillo Partners, Inc., 849 So.2d 279 (Fla. 2003) (expert testimony admissibility in takings context)