Are Palmetto
Bay officials about to take an additional loss in regard to the Fairchild Subdivision
zoning application? (CLICK HERE to view prior related articles relating to FAIRCHILD
BAY SUBDIVISION LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY.)
Little has been
said (I think nothing has been said) by the Palmetto Bay PR machine relating to
the second case pending at the Circuit Court level. This case is also styled FAIRCHILD BAY SUBDIVISION LLC VS VILLAGE OF
PALMETTO BAY, but has been pending before a trial court under case number
2023-016828-CA-01. This case was heading to trial; the trial judge having
denied cross motions for summary Judgments filed by each party back in late June, 2024.
EDITOR’S NOTE: What
is a summary Judgment? : Summary judgment is a procedure used in civil lawsuits
to fast track the litigation process and avoid unnecessary trials in those
cases where there are no genuine disputes as to any material fact, and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
It appears that
the Plaintiffs will be making a renewed attempt to secure a summary judgment in
their favor (win) and avoid trial. This appears to be based upon the Order
rendered by the Appellate Division, fully favorable to the plaintiff, slamming
the Village of Palmetto Bay. See prior related post: Fully unfavorable decision rendered against the Village of Palmetto Bay by the court in FAIRCHILD BAY SUBDIVISION LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, 2023-000033-AP-01
The new
Plaintiffs may argue that this appellate decision changes everything – and that the prior denial of their motion for Summary Judgment should be reconsidered in light of the
Appellate Court ruling that Palmetto Bay officials "...failed to follow the
essential requirements of the law, rendered a decision wholly unsupported by
competent substantial evidence and subjected Petitioner to reverse spot zoning
that resulted in a confiscatory taking of its real property.”
This was a damning
opinion and it was not contested by the village officials – they accepted the
findings of that order without seeking a rehearing or appeal.
This hearing is presently set for December 3, 2024, at 9:30 AM. Before the Honorable Spencer Eig. Things
are getting interesting once again – and interesting is not often good for the
Village of Palmetto Bay.
The details
(for those who like to take deeper dives):
Each side had
filed their own motions for Summary Judgment in this case. Fairchild Bay filed its motion on September
28, 2023. Palmetto Bay filed its motion for Summary Judgment on November 29,
2023. The Trial Judge had DENIED the
summary judgments filed by both Fairchild Bay and Palmetto Bay by order dated
June 28, 2024. The appellate order was released months later, on September 10, 2024.
So what has
changed since those orders?
First of all,
the parties have changed. The ownership
rights of the property has changes. On
February 22, 2024, the ownership of the Property was transferred from FAIRCHILD
BAY SUBDIVISION LLC to Marcos R. Becari. Thereafter, on July 24, 2024, the
ownership was transferred to Marcos R. Becari and Ann E.Becari as life tenants.
As a result, Marcos R. Becari and Ann E. Becari have succeeded to all rights,
title, and interest in the subject matter of this action.
The next big question
is whether the named individuals are actually new parties or did they simply
dissolve the LLC and step in individually? Also, will the new parties be more
willing to work with this council or will they will take a harder line,
especially armed with the recent appellate order?
We will wait
and see. The hearing is set for Tuesday,
December 3 at 9:30 AM – which is Judge Eig’s standard Motion Calendar
schedule. Motions for summary judgments
usually require a special set as they take longer than a simple 5 minute motion. Perhaps this is a hearing to discuss the appellate order and to discuss when to
specially set the summary judgment motion for rehearing based upon the order.
About Fairchild
Bay Subdivison LLC – this was a Florida Corporation that has been
administrative dissolved, no longer in existence. The only officer listed was
Sainz Homes, as manager and registered agent.
Mrs. Sainz,
identified as the Petitioner's representative (Fairchild Bay Subdivison LLC),
had testified before the Palmetto Bay Council that the Petitioner intended to
subdivide the property; build two homes for the owners and have two single
family homes available for sale.
I am unaware of
the specifics as to the prior relationship, if any, Marcos R. Becari and Ann E.
Becari, to the original applicant/Petitioner Fairchild Bay Subdivison LLC, or
if this impacts the prior representation that two of the homes would be for
owners or if all homes are to be developed and sold to unrelated parties.
