Opinion
No. 98-1645.
Opinion filed December 2, 1998.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Murray Goldman, Judge. L.T. No. 98-10798.
Murray H. Dubbin, City Attorney, and Jean Olin, Deputy City Attorney, for appellant.
Tew Cardenas Rebak Kellogg Lehman DeMaria Tague, and Joseph L. Rebak, and Melanie Emmons Damian, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, and GREEN, JJ.
The City of Miami Beach ("city") appeals an order temporarily enjoining it from applying any zoning changes to South Beach Ocean Parcel, Ltd.'s ("developer") oceanfront property. Because the developer failed to demonstrate any basis for equitable relief, we reverse and direct the trial court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
The developer purchased the oceanfront property for $6 million. The purchase agreement provided the developer with a thirty-day period to request a full refund. During this period, the developer became confident that its plans for the property would be approved by the city, and thus, it permitted its investment to become non-refundable.
After receiving the developer's initial development proposal, however, the city amended its zoning ordinances in a manner that rendered the proposal out of compliance. The developer then submitted a second proposal, which complied with the new regulations, and sued the city seeking declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief based upon an estoppel theory.
The city then proposed down-zoning the property again, rendering the developer's second proposal out of compliance as well. The developer subsequently obtained a temporary injunction preventing the city from applying any new zoning regulations to the developer's property. The city appeals the issuance of this injunction.
A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proven facts entitling it to relief. See State Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Continental Car Services, Inc., 650 So.2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995);Hiles v. Auto Bahn Federation, Inc., 498 So.2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). In order to be entitled to injunctive relief under the present circumstances, the developer had to demonstrate: 1) that it had a clear right to the relief sought; 2) that it will suffer irreparable harm unless the status quo is maintained; 3) that there is no other adequate remedy at law, and; 4) that the injunction will serve the public interest.See State Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Continental Car Services, Inc., 650 So.2d at 175;South Florida Limousines, Inc. v. Broward County Aviation Dep't, 512 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). We find that there was no estoppel as a matter of law under the present circumstances, see Esplande Patio Homes Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Rolle, 613 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and thus, the developer could not demonstrate a clear right to relief. Accordingly, we reverse and direct the trial court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
Reversed with directions.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.