Wendler v. City of St. Augustine
108 So. 3d 1141
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Wendlers purchased eight parcels in St. Augustine, with seven structures dating 1910–1930 in a National Register district.
- Ordinance 28-89 regulates demolition/relocation of historic structures; amendments in 2002 expanded to 50-year-old homes and extended waiting period to one year.
- 2005 amendment authorized HARB to indefinitely deny demolition/relocation for certain contributing properties.
- Wendlers sought demolition and rezoning in 2007; HARB denied seven demolition permits, deeming six structures contributing to NRHP district.
- City Commission affirmed HARB; Wendlers pursued writ of certiorari and declaratory relief but dismissed in 2010.
- Harris Act claim filed 2011 after presuit and ripeness process; trial court dismissed as untimely; appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does Harris Act accrual begin? | Wendlers: accrual begins when regulation first applied and readily ascertainable. | City: accrual follows one-year after first application; tolling follows presuit and litigation. | Accrual is when impact is ascertainable; timeliness hinges on ripeness and tolling. |
| Is the 2005 Ordinance amendment readily ascertainable to owners? | Amendment created general restrictions; impact not readily ascertainable in 2005. | Amendment created clear, objective restrictions for NRHP districts. | Impact not readily ascertainable until 2007 demolition denials. |
| What is the proper time bar for filing the Harris Act claim and related action? | Four-year statute of limitations from government action; tolling applies to presuit process. | One-year accrual with tolling; suit must be within one year of ripeness. | Wendlers had four years to file; filing in 2011 timely under tolling. |
| Did tolling under § 70.001(11) apply to presuit process and litigation timing? | Tolling applies to presuit presentation to City and not to court filing. | Tolling computed from presuit conclusion; then filing after litigation. | Tolling combined with presuit deadlines permitted timely filing in 2011. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citrus County v. Halls River Development, Inc., 8 So.3d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (readily ascertainable impact governs accrual under Harris Act)
- Russo Associates, Inc. v. City of Dania Beach Code Enforcement Board, 920 So.2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (suit accrual and tolling interpreted for Harris Act)
- M & H Profit, Inc. v. City of Panama City, 28 So.3d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (development plan timing on 'inordinately burdened' inquiry noted)
- Turkali v. City of Safety Harbor, 93 So.3d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (statutory accrual timing stated as § 70.001(11) language)