Hussey v. Collier County
158 So. 3d 661
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Francis and Mary Hussey bought 979 acres in North Belle Meade (1989–1991); property had previously allowed mining and was designated agricultural.
- In July 2002 Collier County amended its comprehensive plan creating a Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMD) and mapped specific parcels as Receiving, Neutral, or Sending Lands; the Husseys’ tract was designated Sending Land, which barred mining and limited residential development.
- The Husseys challenged the Sending designation administratively (DOAH) and on appeal to the First DCA; DOAH issued a final order July 22, 2003, and the First DCA affirmed on September 15, 2004.
- The Husseys served a Harris Act notice in July 2004 (and amended notice in 2008) and sued under the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Act and for inverse condemnation on September 11, 2008.
- The circuit court dismissed both claims with prejudice; the Second DCA reviews the dismissal de novo, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Harris Act suit (statute of limitations) | Harris claim tolled during administrative/judicial proceedings; suit filed within four years after tolling ended | County conceded limitations period began when First DCA affirmed DOAH and that suit was timely | Court: Harris suit was timely; limitations ran from Sept. 15, 2004, so 2008 filing was within four years plus tolling |
| Harris Act notice requirement (one‑year rule / 180‑day ripeness) | Husseys served notice July 21, 2004 and waited required 180 days before suing | County argued notice or ripeness defects | Court: Notice was timely and statutory 180‑day pre‑suit period was honored; claim not barred for lack of notice |
| Whether Harris Act covers general ordinances vs as‑applied challenges | Husseys: RFMD amendments were applied to their parcel (mapped as Sending Land), so claim is as‑applied and cognizable under Harris Act | County/court below relied on M & H Profit (Harris limited to as‑applied) to argue dismissal | Court: RFMD amendments were applied to specific parcels; M & H Profit distinguished and dismissal on that ground was error — Harris claim survives pleading stage |
| Inverse condemnation claim: ripeness and statute of limitations | Husseys: regulatory taking claim is as‑applied and ripe after DOAH/administrative final order; timely, they argued | County: argued ordinance not applied or claim time‑barred | Court: inverse condemnation ripened when DOAH issued final order (July 22, 2003); four‑year limitations expired before suit—dismissal of inverse condemnation affirmed (statute‑barred) |
Key Cases Cited
- M & H Profit Inc. v. City of Panama City, 28 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (discusses Harris Act as‑applied limitation and distinguishes reclassification of specific parcels)
- Wendler v. City of St. Augustine, 108 So. 3d 1141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (interpreting Harris Act tolling and notice timing)
- Collins v. Monroe Cnty., 999 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (ripeness for inverse condemnation: final administrative decision starts limitations period)
- Sarasota Welfare Home, Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 666 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (statutory accrual principles for claims)
- Hussey v. Collier Cnty., 883 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (table decision affirming DOAH and triggering tolling end)