Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC
120 So. 3d 27
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Palmer, J. reviews a non-final order where Pacetta, LLC, Down the Hatch, Inc., and Mar-Tim, Inc. sought Harris Act damages against the Town of Ponce Inlet.
- Trial court awarded Pacetta relief based on equitable estoppel creating a vested right to its development plan.
- Pacetta’s development plans relied on assurances and discussions with town officials indicating readiness to amend the comprehensive plan.
- Ponce Inlet’s Comprehensive Land-Use Plan at all times prohibited Pacetta’s proposed development, and amendments require multi-agency approval.
- The plan amendments were contested and ultimately defeated in 2008, leading Pacetta to file suit under the Harris Act.
- The appellate court reverses, holding equitable estoppel cannot create a vested right where the plan prohibits the use and officials lacked authority to unilaterally amend the plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable estoppel can vest rights under Harris Act. | Pacetta relies on good faith assurances to amend the plan. | Town officials could not unilaterally amend the plan; reliance was not in good faith. | No; estoppel cannot establish a vested right under Harris Act. |
| Whether Pacetta reasonably relied on assurances to amend the Comprehensive Plan. | Reliance on assurances was reasonable given ongoing discussions. | Assurances were not legally binding and plan amendments require formal approval. | No; reliance not legally binding and not for good faith reliance. |
| Whether a vested right existed despite a prohibition in the plan. | Equitable estoppel created a vested right to the originally approved terms. | Plan prohibition precludes vested rights to the proposed use. | No; plan prohibits the use and estoppel cannot override statutory framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citrus County v. Halls River Development, Inc., 8 So.3d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (equitable estoppel limited to exceptional circumstances; plan controls allowed uses)
- Verizon Wireless Pers. Commc’ns, L.P. v. Sanctuary at Wulfert Point Cmty. Ass’n, 916 So.2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (estoppel should be invoked against government only in exceptional circumstances)
- Montsdoca v. Highlands Bank & Trust Co., 95 So. 666 (Fla. 1923) (estoppel not applicable to transactions forbidden by law or contrary to public policy)
- Dade County v. Gayer, 388 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (estoppel generally not applied to prohibited uses)