Legal
What's New Research Government Site Index Home Meetings Directories About ICSC Search ICSC Sign On Publications Education Help Messages



ICSC Legal Database - CasesMonday, February 22, 1999 05:01 PM

Case Index:
00109

Citation:
A.A. Profiles. Inc. v. City of Ft. Lauderdale 850 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir. 1988).

Issue:
Whether a city commission's rezoning of property, thereby preventing the landowner's intended development of

the property, constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation in violation of the fifth

amendment of the United States Constitution?

Facts:
The Plaintiff-landowner bought a 28 acre plot of land with the intention of developing a woodchipping Operation.

The Defendant-City Commission unanimously passed a resolution approving the woodchipping operation under

the condition that Plaintiff build a ten foot concrete wall around the premises. Upon learning that Plaintiff failed to

 construct the wall and that Plaintiff was operating an illegal dump on the property, Defendant "temporarily

suspended" the prior resolution and, a few months later, passed an ordinance which rezoned the property,

thereby disallowing the woodchipping operation. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant's actions violated the

Constitutional prohibition against the taking of private property without just compensation. The district court

granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff filed this appeal.

Holding:
Reversed and remanded. The Court first set forth the standard for proving a taking of property due to the

application of a governmental regulation. The landowner must first prove that there has been a final decision on

the application of the regulation to the specific property in question and that there has been no adequate state

remedy to redress the injury caused by the final decision. The landowner must then prove that the governmental

regulation fails to substantially advance a legitimate state interest. In this case, the Court held that the

temporary suspension of the enabling resolution and the subsequent rezoning ordinance prevented Plaintiff from

proceeding with the required construction of the surrounding wall and therefore constituted a final decision on

the application of the regulation. In addition, the court found that Plaintiff was without an adequate state remedy

because the Board of Rules and Appeals in Florida did not have the power to overrule the Defendant's zoning

decision. The Court then held that Defendant's rezoning ordinance did not substantially advance a legitimate

state interest. The original resolution granted Plaintiff a property interest and this property interest was then

denied because Defendant's rezoning ordinance did not accommodate to Plaintiff's woodchipping operation. The

rezoning ordinance was a "confiscatory measure" by the Defendant which, by its nature, constitutes a taking of

private property.

Publication:
Legal Update

Date:
Winter 1988

Classification 1:
Condemnation/Eminent Domain

Classification 2:

Classification 3:

00109 - Legal Update - Winter 1988