221 So. 3d 1162
Fla.2017Background
- FINR operates a neurological rehabilitation center on a parcel adjacent to phosphate-mining property; Hardee County initially approved a land-use designation that included a quarter-mile mining setback on the adjacent parcel.
- In 2012 the county later granted a special exception enabling the mining company to reduce the setback to as little as 150 feet.
- FINR sued Hardee County under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Protection Act seeking $38 million for alleged devaluation of FINR’s property use, claiming the setback reduction inordinately burdened its property.
- The trial court dismissed FINR’s Bert Harris claim, concluding the Act requires the government action to directly restrict the claimant’s property; the Second District reversed and certified conflict with the First District’s decision in Smith.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review, approved the First District in Smith, and held the Bert Harris Act does not apply to claims based on government action taken on an adjacent parcel that does not directly act upon the claimant’s property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bert Harris Act covers devaluation caused by government regulation of adjacent property | FINR argued the county’s reduction of the adjacent setback devalued FINR’s property and thus is compensable under the Act | County argued the Act requires the government action to directly restrict or limit the claimant’s parcel, not merely affect nearby land | Held: The Act requires the government action to directly act on the claimant’s parcel; claims based on action to another parcel are not covered |
| How to interpret the word “directly” in § 70.001(3)(e)1. | FINR urged a broader reading to include indirect devaluation caused by regulation of adjacent land | County urged a plain-text, narrow reading so “directly” limits coverage to action on the claimant’s property | Held: Plain meaning and canons of construction require “directly” to be given effect; it limits the Act to governmental actions that directly act upon the owner’s parcel |
| Whether setbacks created by land‑use designation confer a compensable property interest under the Act | FINR contended the county-created setback benefitted/protected its use and thus was a cognizable interest | County contended the setback was an exercise of police power (zoning) regulating another parcel and does not create a proprietary right in FINR’s land | Held: The quarter-mile setback was a police-power land-use regulation applied to the adjacent parcel and did not create a compensable property right for FINR under the Act |
| Proper breadth of statutory construction given waiver of sovereign immunity | FINR argued the Act should be interpreted to protect property owners whose value is devalued by governmental acts, even if indirect | County emphasized that waivers of sovereign immunity and common-law alterations must be narrowly construed to avoid absurd burdens on public funds | Held: Because the Act alters common law and waives sovereign immunity, it must be narrowly construed; avoiding broad application that would create claims whenever government action affects nearby private property |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Jacksonville v. Smith, 159 So.3d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (held Bert Harris does not apply to regulation of adjacent property)
- FINR II, Inc. v. Hardee County, 164 So.3d 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (district-court decision in conflict with Smith)
- City of Miami v. Romer, 58 So.2d 849 (Fla. 1952) (setbacks are police‑power regulation, not easements)
- Polite v. State, 973 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 2007) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Rabideau v. State, 409 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1982) (waivers of sovereign immunity construed narrowly)
- K.E. Morris Alignment Serv., Inc. v. Tampa‑Hillsborough Cty. Expressway Auth., 444 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1983) (avoid statutory interpretations producing absurd results)