P.I.E., LLC v. DeSoto County
133 So. 3d 577
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- P.I.E., LLC bought ~50 acres in DeSoto County in Sept. 2005, intending initial use as a borrow pit and later for development.
- P.I.E. applied for an excavation permit in Oct. 2006; a county commission hearing occurred Feb. 27, 2007, where the commission allegedly orally voted to deny the permit.
- The written county action (DeSoto County Resolution 2007-12) was allegedly signed/dated March 28, 2007; P.I.E. presented a presuit Bert Harris Act claim on March 26, 2008.
- DeSoto County moved to dismiss P.I.E.’s amended complaint as untimely under § 70.001(11) (Bert Harris Act), arguing the one-year accrual began on Feb. 27, 2007 (oral vote).
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice; the appellate court reviewed timeliness and the sufficiency of a Penn Central takings claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bert Harris Act one-year period (§ 70.001(11)) began when the commission orally voted (Feb. 27, 2007) or when the written resolution was effective (Mar. 28, 2007) | The statute’s accrual should be measured when the regulation or denial is reduced to a written, signed, and effective order (Mar. 28, 2007) | The law/regulation was first applied at the oral vote; accrual began Feb. 27, 2007, making P.I.E.’s March 26, 2008 claim untimely | Reversed dismissal as to Bert Harris claim; on the face of the complaint P.I.E. pleaded the March 28 effective date, so dismissal was improper; factual issues remain for development |
| Whether Count II stated a Penn Central regulatory takings claim | P.I.E. alleged a Penn Central taking based on the permit denial | DeSoto County argued Count II failed to state a compensable Penn Central taking | Affirmed dismissal of Count II; the complaint did not state a Penn Central taking claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York, 438 U.S. 104 (established the multi-factor regulatory takings framework)
- Wendler v. City of St. Augustine, 108 So.3d 1141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (discussed commencement of Bert Harris Act one-year period in permit-denial context)
- Turkali v. City of Safety Harbor, 93 So.3d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (interpreted Act’s timing language; referenced in context of one-year period)