BOARD OF CTY. COM'RS v. Casa Dev. Ltd.
332 So.2d 651 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A county commission's denial of a franchise application, when made without a formal evidentiary hearing and based on policy considerations, is a quasi-legislative action. The proper method to challenge such an action is an original lawsuit for declaratory or injunctive relief in circuit court, not an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari.
Facts:
- In 1973, Casa Development Ltd., II, obtained an appropriate zoning classification to build a residential development on 820 acres in Hillsborough County.
- In 1975, Casa Development applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County for water and sewer franchises for the development, pursuant to a Special Act authorizing the County to issue such franchises.
- Casa Development and the county had been negotiating the conditions for the franchise, but Casa Development was unwilling to meet the conditions proposed by the county.
- A public hearing on the application was held, during which Casa Development's representative made unsworn statements in support of the application and the county attorney responded with his own opinions.
- On February 5, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners voted to deny Casa Development's application.
Procedural Posture:
- Casa Development Ltd., II, first filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court to challenge the Board's denial of its franchise application.
- Casa Development later amended its filing to include a petition for a writ of certiorari in the same action.
- The circuit court proceeded as if reviewing the case on a writ of certiorari but permitted limited supplementation of the record.
- The circuit court entered an order overturning the Board's denial and directed the Board to issue the water and sewer franchises to Casa Development.
- The Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a county commission's decision to deny a water and sewer franchise application, where the enabling statute does not mandate a formal evidentiary hearing and the decision is based on discretionary policy, a quasi-judicial action reviewable by writ of certiorari?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimes, J.
No. The county commission's decision to deny the franchise was a quasi-legislative action, not a quasi-judicial one, and therefore is not reviewable by certiorari. Review of quasi-judicial actions by commissions and boards is by certiorari, where the court determines if the decision is supported by competent substantial evidence. In contrast, challenges to quasi-legislative actions, such as this one, must be brought through a new lawsuit for declaratory or injunctive relief, arguing the action was arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional. An action is quasi-judicial only if it requires a hearing with notice, a fair opportunity to be heard, the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and a judgment contingent on the showing made at the hearing. Here, the Special Act did not require such a hearing, and none was conducted; the meeting involved unsworn statements and policy negotiations. Furthermore, the Special Act's provision for a direct 'appeal' to the circuit court is unconstitutional, as the Florida Constitution grants circuit courts appellate jurisdiction only as provided by 'general law,' not special acts. Because the appellees sought the wrong remedy, the case is remanded to the circuit court to be tried as an original action.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical procedural distinction between challenging quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative acts of local governments in Florida. It clarifies that the nature of the proceeding—specifically, whether a formal, trial-type hearing is required and conducted—is determinative of the action's character. By holding that a discretionary franchise denial is quasi-legislative, the court channels such disputes into original lawsuits where a full evidentiary record can be developed, rather than certiorari review, which is limited to the record created before the agency. This case serves as a crucial guide for litigants on selecting the proper procedural vehicle for seeking review of administrative actions, preventing cases from being dismissed for seeking an improper remedy.
