Fehlhaber Corp. v. Village of Tequesta

696 So. 2d 880, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6158, 1997 WL 292672
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 4, 1997·No. No. 96-2221·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellant (plaintiff) failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Plaintiff did not follow the procedures, set forth in the Village of Tequesta’s Code, to challenge the building official’s decision before filing its lawsuit in the trial court.

After finding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the trial court proceeded in its final judgment to address the merits of the underlying zoning controversy. Because plaintiff should have first exhausted the available administrative remedies, we vacate the portion of the final judgment that addressed and decided the merits of the controversy.

DELL, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fehlhaber Corp. v. Village of Tequesta, 696 So. 2d 880, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6158, 1997 WL 292672 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

696 So. 2d 880 (Fehlhaber Corp. v. Village of Tequesta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Central Fla. Inv. Inc. v. Orange Cty. Code Bd.
790 So. 2d 593 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Lee v. St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners
776 So. 2d 1110 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
State v. Johnson
696 So. 2d 880 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)