Indian Creek Country Club, Inc. v. Indian Creek Village
211 So. 3d 230
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Indian Creek Village (the Village), a very small coastal municipality, imposed special security assessments in 2010 and 2011 against Indian Creek Country Club (the Club) based on a consultant’s (GSG) ERU-based allocation that treated the Club’s golf-course land as equivalent to residential buildable lots.
- GSG recommended allocating 97% of police costs as a special assessment and assigned 33.02 ERUs to the Club’s golf course, producing a large assessment (over $800k in 2010; increased in 2011 after a statutory amendment).
- The Club sued to invalidate the assessments; the Village defended them and separately sought to void a 1996 Agreement with the Club that limited future assessments by claiming conflicts of interest in the 1996 Council votes.
- The trial court invalidated the 2010 and 2011 assessments for lack of competent substantial evidence of (1) a special benefit to the Club’s real property and (2) reasonable apportionment; the court also granted partial summary judgment voiding the 1996 Agreement based on alleged voting conflicts.
- On appeal, the court affirmed invalidation of both assessments (finding the GSG methodology unsupported by competent substantial evidence) but reversed the partial summary judgment voiding the 1996 Agreement (finding the alleged voter interests were too speculative to constitute a statutory "special private gain").
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Club) | Defendant's Argument (Village) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2010 special assessment (special benefit & apportionment) | Assessment arbitrary; no competent evidence that services specially benefitted Club property or that apportionment was reasonable | Consultant findings and witness testimony provide logical relationship and reasonable apportionment | Court: Invalid — no competent substantial evidence supported special benefit or apportionment |
| Validity of 2011 special assessment (special benefit & apportionment) | Same as for 2010; statute amendment doesn’t salvage assessment absent evidence of benefit/apportionment | Statutory amendment (2011) authorizes security assessments for very small municipalities and supports finding of special benefit | Court: Assessment invalid for lacking competent evidence of special benefit and unreasonable apportionment; however court upheld constitutionality of 2011 statutory amendment (single-subject challenge rejected) |
| Single-subject challenge to 2011 statute amendment | Amendment unrelated to bill’s subject; thus unconstitutional and cannot be used to supply legislative finding of special benefit | Amendment properly connected to local government accountability subject; presumption of constitutionality applies | Court: Statute constitutional under single-subject rule; trial court correctly deferred to validity of amendment |
| Validity of 1996 Agreement (conflict of interest / vote) | Agreement valid; alleged Councilmember interests were speculative and did not create statutory "special private gain" requiring abstention | Votes by Club-member councilmembers created conflicts of interest under §112.3143 and rendered contract voidable | Court: Reversed partial summary judgment; alleged interests were speculative and did not constitute statutory special private gain at time of vote |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1992) (two-prong test for valid special assessments: special benefit and reasonable apportionment)
- Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1995) (legislative findings of special benefit/apportionment are factual and entitled to deference unless arbitrary)
- Lake County v. Water Oak Management Corp., 695 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1997) (test: logical relationship between services provided and benefit to real property)
- City of N. Lauderdale v. SMM Properties, 825 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2002) (no presumption of correctness if no competent substantial evidence supports municipality’s finding of special benefit)
- City of Winter Springs v. State, 776 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2001) (upholding standard of deference to legislative determinations unless arbitrary)
- Morris v. City of Cape Coral, 163 So. 3d 1174 (Fla. 2015) (reaffirming deference to legislative decisions on special assessments when supported)
- Lewis v. Leon County, 73 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 2011) (single-subject rule principles and strong presumption of constitutionality)