James and Melanie Nipper v. Walton County, Florida, a political etc.
208 So. 3d 331
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- James and Melanie Nipper operate a commercial skydiving business on their 290‑acre Walton County farm beginning in 2008.
- The County’s Planning Director denied permits, citing the Land Development Code, and initiated a code enforcement action before the Walton County Code Enforcement Board (CEB).
- At the CEB hearing the County failed to prove a zoning violation; the CEB found no violation, imposed no penalties, and the County did not appeal that decision.
- Separately, the Nippers sued in circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment under a state agritourism exemption (they lost that claim), and Walton County cross‑claimed for a permanent injunction to stop the skydiving business.
- The circuit court granted the County’s permanent injunction, relying on the Planning Director’s interpretation of the zoning code and disregarding the CEB’s prior favorable ruling for the Nippers.
- The Nippers appealed; the First District reversed, finding the County had not demonstrated a “clear legal right” to injunctive relief under the zoning enforcement standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nipper) | Defendant's Argument (Walton County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County demonstrated a clear legal right to a permanent injunction enforcing the zoning code | Skydiving is permissible as an "outdoor recreational" use; CEB found no violation; injunction improper | Skydiving violates uses allowed in Large Scale Agricultural district; Planning Director’s interpretation supports injunction | Reversed: County failed to show clear legal right to injunctive relief because CEB decision and ambiguous code undercut the County’s claim |
| Whether circuit court could disregard the CEB’s final enforcement decision | CEB’s final order conclusively found no violation and should preclude contrary circuit court relief | Planning Director’s view and circuit court authority justified injunction despite CEB ruling | CEB’s final decision cannot be overridden by the Planning Director’s opinion; circuit court erred in relying on Director alone |
| Whether the Land Development Code clearly prohibits skydiving | Code’s list of permitted "outdoor recreational activities such as" makes skydiving functionally similar and not clearly excluded | Skydiving is not functionally agricultural and thus outside permitted uses | Code language ambiguous; does not clearly prohibit skydiving, so County lacked a clear legal right to injunctive relief |
| Whether alternative remedies or irreparable harm analysis defeat injunction | Nippers relied on CEB process and statutory protections; damages and process available | County argued police‑power enforcement justifies injunction irrespective of alternative remedies | Court applied standard that when government seeks injunction to enforce police power, irreparable harm is presumed; but first prong (clear legal right) was not met, so injunction cannot stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Coal. to Reduce Class Size, 827 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2002) (standard of review for injunctions based on mixed fact‑law questions)
- E. Fed. Corp. v. State Office Supply Co., Inc., 646 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (elements required for zoning injunction: clear legal right, inadequacy of legal remedy, irreparable injury)
- Ware v. Polk County, 918 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (when government seeks injunction under police power, irreparable harm is presumed)
- Metro. Dade County v. O’Brien, 660 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (discussing injunctive relief and presumption of irreparable harm in governmental enforcement)
- Henry v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Putnam Cnty., 509 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (limits on county authority to seek injunction enforcing land‑use regulations)
- Kirby v. City of Archer, 790 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (prohibiting re‑litigation in circuit court of issues decided by code enforcement board)
- Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Moorman, 664 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1995) (property owners’ constitutional rights to use and enjoy property within regulatory limits)