Wolofsky v. City of Hallandale

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wolofsky v. City of Hallandale

460 So. 2d 409, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2393, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15928

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 14, 1984

DocketNo. 84-576

StatusPublished

This text of 460 So. 2d 409 (Wolofsky v. City of Hallandale) 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.

Bluebook

Wolofsky v. City of Hallandale, 460 So. 2d 409, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2393, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15928 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By an amended complaint appellants sought to recover from the City of Hallan-dale monies paid under protest pursuant to an impact fee ordinance of the City. From a final judgment refusing to refund the entire impact fee paid pursuant to the ordinance, but giving appellants credit for an earlier payment of $75,000 for water plant improvement, the appellants perfect this appeal.

Two issues were presented on appeal. One involves the appellants’ right to a jury trial; the other involves the trial judge’s decision on the merits, which finds that the City was entitled to enact the impact fee ordinance and apply it to appellants’ property.

We have carefully considered the arguments in support of the appellate issues and do not find reversible error demonstrated. The record reflects that at the conclusion of the entire case either there were no definable issues requiring resolution by a jury or their submission to a jury was waived. Furthermore, on the merits we believe the record supports the trial judge’s resolution of appellants’ claim that the City was equitably estopped to apply the impact fee to the appellants’ remaining improvements.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, DELL and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By an amended complaint appellants sought to recover from the City of Hallan-dale monies paid under protest pursuant to an impact fee ordinance of the City. From a final judgment refusing to refund the entire impact fee paid pursuant to the ordinance, but giving appellants credit for an earlier payment of $75,000 for water plant improvement, the appellants perfect this appeal.

Two issues were presented on appeal. One involves the appellants’ right to a jury trial; the other involves the trial judge’s decision on the merits, which finds that the City was entitled to enact the impact fee ordinance and apply it to appellants’ property.

We have carefully considered the arguments in support of the appellate issues and do not find reversible error demonstrated. The record reflects that at the conclusion of the entire case either there were no definable issues requiring resolution by a jury or their submission to a jury was waived. Furthermore, on the merits we believe the record supports the trial judge’s resolution of appellants’ claim that the City was equitably estopped to apply the impact fee to the appellants’ remaining improvements.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, DELL and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 So. 2d 409, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2393, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolofsky-v-city-of-hallandale-fladistctapp-1984.