Village of North Palm Beach v. S & H Foster's, Inc.
80 So. 3d 433
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Live Oak Plaza, LLC owned a 2.62 acre parcel on the west side of Alternate AIA, contiguous to the Village of North Palm Beach; the Village annexed the property via Ordinance 2008-10 under §171.044, Fla. Stat.; Foster’s Pub operated there under a lease with Live Oak and had a long history as an after-hours bar until 5:00 a.m.; the lease expired December 31, 2010; the Pub sought declaratory relief and a temporary injunction arguing grandfather status permitted 2:00–5:00 a.m. operation despite the Village’s ordinance; the trial court granted relief but the Village appealed; the final order held the Pub’s leasehold created a protected interest and allowed 2:00–5:00 a.m. operation until 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pub has a grandfathered, vested right post-annexation | Pub contends leasehold rights extend after annexation | Village argues annexation subjects Pub to §3-2; no grandfather right | Grandfather relief improperly granted; Village wins |
| Whether law-of-the-case bars review of equitable relief | Affirmation of temporary injunction created law of the case | Law of the case does not bind final equitable ruling | Law of the case does not bar review on final hearing |
| Whether §171.062(1) and §562.14 authorize post-annexation hours | Pub relied on grandfather to justify hours | Annexed property must follow Village liquor ordinance | Pub must comply with village ordinance after annexation |
| Whether equitable relief was proper to grant grandfather status | Grandfather status appropriate to protect leasehold | Equitable relief not proper beyond zoning contexts | Grandfather status improper; reversed |
| Whether any other statutory or case law precludes relief | Statutory protection exists for long-standing use | Statutes grant ordinance power post-annexation; no protection for grandfather use | Relief rejected; remanded for declaratory judgment in Village's favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Playpen S., Inc. v. City of Oakland Park, 396 So.2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (city has power to set liquor sale times; no clear right to injunction)
- Other Place of Miami, Inc. v. City of Hialeah Gardens, 353 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (challenge to grandfather status insufficient; police power to regulate liquor)
- S. Daytona Rests., Inc. v. City of S. Daytona, 186 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) (courts may deny injunctive relief where ordinance is capricious or deprives rights)
- Lewis v. City of Atl. Beach, 467 So.2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (tavern ownership change and nonconforming grandfather status)
- Kozich v. DeBrino, 837 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (temporary injunction findings not binding at final hearing)
- Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condo. Ass’n, 423 So.2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (law-of-the-case concepts apply to preliminary rulings)
- Whitby v. Infinity Radio, Inc., 951 So.2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (law-of-the-case principle in injunction context)
- El Segundo Original Rey de la Pizza Cubana, Inc. v. Rey Pizza Corp., 682 So.2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (law-of-the-case and final-judgment distinctions)
- Parker Family Trust I v. City of Jacksonville, 804 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (distinguishes ultimate legal rulings from injunction standards)
- Juliano v. Florida Dept. of Transp., 801 So.2d 101 (Fla. 2001) (treats administrative and statutory interpretations at different stages)