John Kuluz v. Monroe County, Florida
This text of John Kuluz v. Monroe County, Florida (John Kuluz v. Monroe County, Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 20, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0500 Lower Tribunal No. 21-CA-357-P ________________
John Kuluz, Fred Laemmerhirt, and Lazaro Alberto, Appellants,
vs.
Monroe County, Florida and 17RM Investments, LLC, Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James W. Morgan, III, Judge.
Andrew M. Tobin, P.A., and Andrew M. Tobin, for appellants.
Hershoff, Lupino & Yagel, LLP, and Russell A. Yagel and Joanne M. Pereira, for appellee 17RM Investments, LLC; Monroe County Attorney’s Office, and Peter H. Morris, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee Monroe County, Florida.
Before LOGUE, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
LOGUE, J. In this matter, Appellants appeal the entry of summary judgment for
Appellees, 17RM Investments, LLC and Monroe County, Florida, and
against Appellants. Appellants own lots in the Florida Keys facing or next to
seven lots owned by Appellee 17RM. 17RM’s lots are undeveloped but are
in the process of being permitted for development. Their development will
impact views and the neighborhood of Appellants’ lots. Appellants filed suit
raising various challenges to the development of 17RM’s lots.
After a careful review of the arguments and the record, we find no
errors in the trial court’s determination that the definition of “road” in section
334.03(22) of the Florida Statutes was incorporated into the Monroe County
Code, see § 19-31, Monroe County Code (“Road means the same as that
term is defined in F.S. § 334.03(23)[1]”); and that the upgrading of a driveway
internal to the property and closed to the public does not trigger the need to
replat under the Code, see § 110-96, Monroe County Code. Because these
determinations are supported by the Code, we also reject Appellants’
contention that Monroe County engaged in an “ultra vires zoning contract”
when it settled a dispute between Monroe County and 17RM over a prior
development order by adopting these interpretations of its Code.
Accordingly, we affirm.
1 Citing to the prior version of section 334.03(22), Florida Statutes.
2 Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John Kuluz v. Monroe County, Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-kuluz-v-monroe-county-florida-fladistctapp-2026.