Jennings v. Dade County
1991 WL 147816, 589 So. 2d 1337 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a quasi-judicial proceeding, proof of an ex parte communication with a decision-maker creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice. The burden of proof then shifts to the party who benefited from the communication to prove that the contact was not prejudicial to the outcome.
Facts:
- Larry Schatzman owned property adjacent to property owned by Milton S. Jennings.
- Schatzman applied for a zoning variance from Dade County to permit him to operate a quick oil change business on his property.
- To assist in his application, Schatzman employed a lobbyist.
- Six days before the Dade County Commission's hearing on the matter, Schatzman's lobbyist registered his identity as required by a county ordinance.
- Jennings alleged that this lobbyist had private, ex parte communications with some or all of the county commissioners prior to the public hearing and vote on the variance.
Procedural Posture:
- The Dade County Zoning Appeals Board granted Schatzman's request for a variance.
- Jennings appealed to the Dade County Commission, which conducted a quasi-judicial hearing and upheld the board's decision.
- Jennings filed a lawsuit in circuit court (trial court) against Dade County and Schatzman, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The complaint alleged that ex parte communications between Schatzman's lobbyist and commissioners violated Jennings' due process rights.
- The circuit court dismissed the due process claim, granting Jennings leave only to seek certiorari review in the circuit court's appellate division, which would confine review to the existing record.
- Jennings then filed an application for common law certiorari with the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, to review the trial court's dismissal of his claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does proof of an ex parte communication with a decision-maker in a quasi-judicial proceeding create a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the party who benefited from the communication to prove it was not prejudicial?
Opinions:
Majority - Nesbitt, J.
Yes. An ex parte communication with a decision-maker in a quasi-judicial proceeding creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice. The court reasoned that ex parte communications are 'inherently improper and anathema to quasi-judicial proceedings.' While not every such communication requires automatic reversal, an allegation of prejudice states a valid cause of action. The burden of proof to show a lack of prejudice appropriately shifts to the defendant because knowledge and evidence of the communication's content and impact are 'peculiarly in the hands' of the decision-maker and the party who initiated the contact. To guide the trial court's determination of prejudice, the court adopted a multi-factor test from the D.C. Circuit case PATCO.
Concurring - Ferguson, J.
Yes. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's holding and writes separately to emphasize two points. First, it clarifies the critical distinction between legislative proceedings (like general rezoning), where lobbying is common, and quasi-judicial proceedings (like granting a variance for a specific property), where it is improper. Second, it strongly affirms that prejudice should be presumed from the mere fact that a commissioner granted a private audience to a lobbyist in a quasi-judicial matter. This presumption is necessary to promote the strong social policy of ensuring that quasi-judicial decisions are made in fair, open, and impartial hearings based on the public record.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical procedural safeguard for due process in administrative law, particularly in local government zoning and land use hearings. By creating a presumption of prejudice from ex parte contacts, the court significantly lowers the evidentiary bar for an aggrieved party and shifts the burden to the party who engaged in the improper communication. This ruling strengthens transparency and accountability in quasi-judicial proceedings, discouraging off-the-record lobbying that can undermine the integrity of decisions meant to be based solely on the public record. Future litigants challenging administrative decisions on these grounds will have a clear path to force an evidentiary hearing on the nature and impact of such communications.
