Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 24, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0285 Lower Tribunal No. 22-8069 ________________
Tower Hotel, LLC, et al., Appellants,
vs.
City of Miami, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine, Judge.
Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A., and Robert Zarco, Michael Braunstein, and Jacky Beda, for appellants.
Victoria Méndez, City Attorney and Rachel S. Glorioso Dooley, Senior Assistant City Attorney, and Marguerite C. Snyder, Assistant City Attorney, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.
BOKOR, J. Appellants, the owners of four properties designated as unsafe by the
City of Miami’s Unsafe Structures Panel,1 appeal the trial court’s denial of
their motion for a temporary injunction against demolition. The owners allege
that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that they lacked a
substantial likelihood of success on their claims for breach of contract and
equitable estoppel, which were predicated on the assertion that the City
deliberately withheld issuance of necessary repair permits and prevented
them from being able to timely complete repairs and bring the buildings into
compliance.
BACKGROUND
After all four property owners received final orders from the Unsafe
Structures Panel directing them to repair or demolish the properties, three of
the four owners entered into compliance agreements with the City, giving
them additional time to complete repairs.2 These agreements provided that
“[a]ll building permits shall be obtained and paid for within sixty (60) calendar
days after the [repair] plans have been submitted,” and all repairs must be
1 See § 8-5, Miami-Dade County Code; § 10-101, City of Miami Code. 2 The four appellants in this case are Tower Hotel, LLC (located at 1460 NW 7th Street, Miami), Piedra Villas, LLC (located at 2614 SW 8th Street, Miami), El Shopping, LLC (located at 300 SW 12th Avenue, Miami), and Beatstik, LLC (located at 439 NW 4th Avenue, Miami). Beatstik did not enter a compliance agreement with the City.
2 completed within a limited time after issuance of the permits.3 Under these
agreements, the City would be entitled to proceed with demolition
immediately if the owners violated any of their time requirements, though the
owners could also request extensions of time from a building official, and the
owners were barred from undertaking any construction or repair work until
the repair plans had been submitted and approved by the City and all
required permits were obtained from the City. The agreements also included
an enforcement clause expressly providing that they are not enforceable
against the City.
All four owners timely submitted repair plans within the time required
by the agreements (in Beatstik’s case, the repair or demolish order), and the
City promptly approved the plans as to the three owners subject to the
agreements. However, the City never issued all necessary building permits,
even after approval of the plans, and the owners were consequently unable
to obtain permits or complete repairs within the requisite time after
submission of the plans. None of the owners requested extensions of time
prior to expiration of their deadlines.
3 Piedra Villas and El Shopping were given 90 days, and Tower Hotel was given 180 days.
3 After the City issued stop work notices and attempted to proceed with
demolition, the owners brought the underlying complaint for breach of
contract and equitable estoppel, alleging that the City breached its own
obligations under the repair or demolish orders and compliance agreements
by failing to timely issue the necessary building permits. The trial court
initially granted a stay and an ex parte injunction against demolition, but later
dissolved the stay and injunction and denied the owners’ motion for a
temporary injunction, finding that they lacked a substantial likelihood of
success due to their failure to request extensions of time prior to the permit
deadlines. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
We review a trial court’s order on a motion for temporary injunction via
a hybrid standard whereby the court’s factual findings are reviewed for abuse
of discretion and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. See, e.g.,
Quirch Foods LLC v. Broce, 314 So. 3d 327, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). The
party seeking the injunction must show: “(1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits, (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law,
(3) irreparable harm absent entry of an injunction, and (4) that the
injunction would serve the public interest.” Fla. Dep’t of Health v. Florigrown,
LLC, 317 So. 3d 1101, 1110 (Fla. 2021). “The party seeking an injunction
4 must satisfy each element with competent, substantial evidence.”
Telemundo Media, LLC v. Mintz, 194 So. 3d 434, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
We agree that the owners’ inability to enforce the compliance
agreements against the City precluded finding a substantial likelihood of
success on their breach of contract claims.4 Moreover, because Beatstik did
not enter into a compliance agreement, did not receive its permits or
complete repairs within the requisite time, and did not appeal the repair or
demolish order or request an extension of time under the City and County
codes,5 the trial court correctly denied the temporary injunction as to
Beatstik. See Frye v. Miami-Dade County, 2 So. 3d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2009) (affirming denial of temporary injunction against demolition and
finding failure to exhaust administrative remedies where owner failed to
appeal or obtain permits for repair within time specified by Unsafe Structures
4 While the City disputes the extent to which the compliance agreements impose an affirmative obligation for it to issue the building permits, it has conceded that the agreements are a binding contract that modifies the time limitations for compliance under the Miami-Dade County Code and City of Miami Code. 5 See § 8-5(m)–(n), Miami-Dade County Code; § 10-101(m)–(n), City of Miami Code (providing that owners of unsafe structures may seek an extension of time from the Unsafe Structures Panel upon a written request and that an owner or interested party aggrieved by a decision of the Panel may seek judicial review by filing a notice of appeal in the circuit court within 30 days of rendition of the order).
5 Panel); City of Miami v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 206 So. 3d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA
2015) (same).
However, the enforceability of the compliance agreements against the
City had no bearing on the other three owners’ likelihood of success on the
equitable estoppel claims, which were predicated not on the enforceability of
the agreements, but their reliance upon the City’s alleged representations
that it would timely approve the permits.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 24, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0285 Lower Tribunal No. 22-8069 ________________
Tower Hotel, LLC, et al., Appellants,
vs.
City of Miami, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine, Judge.
Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A., and Robert Zarco, Michael Braunstein, and Jacky Beda, for appellants.
Victoria Méndez, City Attorney and Rachel S. Glorioso Dooley, Senior Assistant City Attorney, and Marguerite C. Snyder, Assistant City Attorney, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.
BOKOR, J. Appellants, the owners of four properties designated as unsafe by the
City of Miami’s Unsafe Structures Panel,1 appeal the trial court’s denial of
their motion for a temporary injunction against demolition. The owners allege
that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that they lacked a
substantial likelihood of success on their claims for breach of contract and
equitable estoppel, which were predicated on the assertion that the City
deliberately withheld issuance of necessary repair permits and prevented
them from being able to timely complete repairs and bring the buildings into
compliance.
BACKGROUND
After all four property owners received final orders from the Unsafe
Structures Panel directing them to repair or demolish the properties, three of
the four owners entered into compliance agreements with the City, giving
them additional time to complete repairs.2 These agreements provided that
“[a]ll building permits shall be obtained and paid for within sixty (60) calendar
days after the [repair] plans have been submitted,” and all repairs must be
1 See § 8-5, Miami-Dade County Code; § 10-101, City of Miami Code. 2 The four appellants in this case are Tower Hotel, LLC (located at 1460 NW 7th Street, Miami), Piedra Villas, LLC (located at 2614 SW 8th Street, Miami), El Shopping, LLC (located at 300 SW 12th Avenue, Miami), and Beatstik, LLC (located at 439 NW 4th Avenue, Miami). Beatstik did not enter a compliance agreement with the City.
2 completed within a limited time after issuance of the permits.3 Under these
agreements, the City would be entitled to proceed with demolition
immediately if the owners violated any of their time requirements, though the
owners could also request extensions of time from a building official, and the
owners were barred from undertaking any construction or repair work until
the repair plans had been submitted and approved by the City and all
required permits were obtained from the City. The agreements also included
an enforcement clause expressly providing that they are not enforceable
against the City.
All four owners timely submitted repair plans within the time required
by the agreements (in Beatstik’s case, the repair or demolish order), and the
City promptly approved the plans as to the three owners subject to the
agreements. However, the City never issued all necessary building permits,
even after approval of the plans, and the owners were consequently unable
to obtain permits or complete repairs within the requisite time after
submission of the plans. None of the owners requested extensions of time
prior to expiration of their deadlines.
3 Piedra Villas and El Shopping were given 90 days, and Tower Hotel was given 180 days.
3 After the City issued stop work notices and attempted to proceed with
demolition, the owners brought the underlying complaint for breach of
contract and equitable estoppel, alleging that the City breached its own
obligations under the repair or demolish orders and compliance agreements
by failing to timely issue the necessary building permits. The trial court
initially granted a stay and an ex parte injunction against demolition, but later
dissolved the stay and injunction and denied the owners’ motion for a
temporary injunction, finding that they lacked a substantial likelihood of
success due to their failure to request extensions of time prior to the permit
deadlines. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
We review a trial court’s order on a motion for temporary injunction via
a hybrid standard whereby the court’s factual findings are reviewed for abuse
of discretion and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. See, e.g.,
Quirch Foods LLC v. Broce, 314 So. 3d 327, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). The
party seeking the injunction must show: “(1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits, (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law,
(3) irreparable harm absent entry of an injunction, and (4) that the
injunction would serve the public interest.” Fla. Dep’t of Health v. Florigrown,
LLC, 317 So. 3d 1101, 1110 (Fla. 2021). “The party seeking an injunction
4 must satisfy each element with competent, substantial evidence.”
Telemundo Media, LLC v. Mintz, 194 So. 3d 434, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
We agree that the owners’ inability to enforce the compliance
agreements against the City precluded finding a substantial likelihood of
success on their breach of contract claims.4 Moreover, because Beatstik did
not enter into a compliance agreement, did not receive its permits or
complete repairs within the requisite time, and did not appeal the repair or
demolish order or request an extension of time under the City and County
codes,5 the trial court correctly denied the temporary injunction as to
Beatstik. See Frye v. Miami-Dade County, 2 So. 3d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2009) (affirming denial of temporary injunction against demolition and
finding failure to exhaust administrative remedies where owner failed to
appeal or obtain permits for repair within time specified by Unsafe Structures
4 While the City disputes the extent to which the compliance agreements impose an affirmative obligation for it to issue the building permits, it has conceded that the agreements are a binding contract that modifies the time limitations for compliance under the Miami-Dade County Code and City of Miami Code. 5 See § 8-5(m)–(n), Miami-Dade County Code; § 10-101(m)–(n), City of Miami Code (providing that owners of unsafe structures may seek an extension of time from the Unsafe Structures Panel upon a written request and that an owner or interested party aggrieved by a decision of the Panel may seek judicial review by filing a notice of appeal in the circuit court within 30 days of rendition of the order).
5 Panel); City of Miami v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 206 So. 3d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA
2015) (same).
However, the enforceability of the compliance agreements against the
City had no bearing on the other three owners’ likelihood of success on the
equitable estoppel claims, which were predicated not on the enforceability of
the agreements, but their reliance upon the City’s alleged representations
that it would timely approve the permits.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against a governmental entity where (1) a property owner in good faith reliance (2) upon some act or omission of the government (3) has made such a substantial change in position or has incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the right he or she acquired.
Castro v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Code Enf’t, 967 So. 2d 230, 233–34 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2007) (granting certiorari to quash enforcement of amendments to
building code that would require demolition of illegal addition to property
where City had repeatedly issued permits encompassing property addition
and owners relied on permits as representations that addition was allowed).
Here, after the three owners subject to the agreements complied with their
initial deadline for submitting repair plans, their ability to comply with the
second deadline for permit issuance depended solely on the City’s approval,
rendering compliance functionally impossible if the City delayed the permit
issuance more than 60 days. Such a delay is exactly what the unrefuted
6 timeline shows, and interpreting the agreements in such a way as to allow
the City to unilaterally prevent compliance would both be unreasonable and
render much of the agreement meaningless. See, e.g., Super Cars of Miami,
LLC v. Webster, 300 So. 3d 752, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (describing the
“cardinal principle of contract interpretation” by which “the contract must be
interpreted in a manner that does not render any provision of the contract
meaningless.” (quotation omitted)). Although the trial court did not
specifically address the likelihood of success on the estoppel claims, 6 it
found that the owners “have demonstrated that at least some of the
responsibility for their not being able to meet the deadlines they agreed to
falls on the City due to delays in approvals, requirements for changes to
submitted plans, and new requirements based on interim inspections.” The
extent to which these delays were in fact intentional has yet to be
established, but would not preclude application of the doctrine of equitable
estoppel at this juncture.7
6 The trial court didn’t examine this factor because it determined as a matter of law that the owners’ failure to seek an extension of time barred the relief sought. We review a conclusion of law de novo, and we disagree with the trial court’s interpretation of the contract as preventing equitable estoppel as a matter of law. 7 Further, “a temporary injunction is based on limited evidence developed at a preliminary stage of the case,” so “the parties are not required to completely prove their cases” at the injunction stage. Hasley v. Harrell, 971 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
7 While we emphasize that “equitable estoppel . . . may only be applied
against a governmental entity under exceptional circumstances,” Castro,
967 So. 2d at 233, from the undisputed facts of the record at the time of the
injunction hearing, allowing the City to proceed with demolition based on a
reading of the compliance agreements that gave the owners no reasonable
opportunity to comply with their deadlines would be inconsistent with the
basic principles of fairness that the concept of equitable estoppel is founded
upon. As this court has previously explained:
Stripped of the legal jargon which lawyers and judges have obfuscated it with, the theory of estoppel amounts to nothing more than an application of the rules of fair play. One party will not be permitted to invite another onto a welcome mat and then be permitted to snatch the mat away to the detriment of the party induced or permitted to stand thereon. A citizen is entitled to rely on the assurances or commitments of a zoning authority and if he does, the zoning authority is bound by its representations, whether they be in the form of words or deeds. . . .
Id. at 234 (quoting Coral Springs St. Sys., Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d
1320, 1334–35 (11th Cir. 2004)); see also Goodman v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
Unsafe Structures Bd., 480 So. 2d 217, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (granting
certiorari to quash 180-day time limit for repair of unsafe structure where
Board did not have competent evidence to support time limitation for
“extensive” repairs). Based on the record before us, the onus was on the
City after the owners fulfilled their initial obligations. The owners timely
8 submitted plans, which were approved. Based on those approved plans, the
owners timely sought permits. Instead of issuing permits (or providing a
legitimate reason why permits could not be timely issued), the City ran out
the clock and then sought demolition.8 Indeed, the trial court found that at
least part of the delay was attributable to the City. Accordingly, based on the
record and the factual findings made by the trial court, the three owners
subject to the compliance agreements met their burden for a temporary
injunction based on their equitable estoppel claims. We affirm the trial
court’s denial of a temporary injunction as to Beatstik, LLC, but, based on
the facts present here, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order and
remand for entry of a temporary injunction as to Tower Hotel, LLC, Piedra
Villas, LLC, and El Shopping, LLC.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
8 The City posits in its answer brief that, “As Appellants would have it, they undertook to do no more than submit their building plans to the City and wait.” But the stipulated timeline submitted to the trial court and part of the record on appeal contradicts this assertion. The owners submitted the plans, received approval, and then timely sought permits. The record also reflects that the owners timely responded to the City at every opportunity. The record further reflects that the City often changed its approvals of certain portions of the plans to denials without explanation, and otherwise did not act in good faith. It frustrates the purpose of a mitigation plan if the City can simply fail to act and then seek a draconian remedy of demolition based on nothing more than the owners’ inability to comply with a deadline based on the City’s own (in)action.