Background
Joseph Traska invoked the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act after Brevard County pursued code enforcement concerning shipping containers on his property. During proceedings before special magistrate James Stokes, the parties reached a contingent settlement, but the Board of County Commissioners rejected it. The County then asserted that FLUEDRA’s 165-day period had expired and declined to participate further, while Stokes did not issue a written recommendation.
Traska sought mandamus compelling Stokes to prepare and file the recommendation required by section 70.51(19), Florida Statutes, and compelling the Board to act under section 70.51(21). The circuit court issued an alternative writ but later quashed it and dismissed the complaint with prejudice after a non-evidentiary hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District reversed. The majority held that Traska plausibly alleged a claim to compel the narrow ministerial act of preparing and filing a written recommendation. Although mandamus cannot dictate what the special magistrate recommends, section 70.51(19)’s mandatory language may require the magistrate to issue and file a recommendation, regardless of whether its substance involves judgment.
The court also held that the trial court improperly resolved disputed factual issues without evidence. The parties continued negotiating, executed a tentative settlement, and presented it to the Board after the 165-day period. Because section 70.51(23) does not require an extension agreement to take any particular form, whether that conduct established an implied agreement to extend the process required factual development. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including evidence and findings if necessary. Judge Kilbane dissented, concluding that the complaint and its attachments did not establish an indisputable ministerial duty or a clear legal right to relief.
Key Takeaways
- Mandamus may compel an official to perform the required act of issuing a decision or recommendation without controlling its substance.
- The parties’ conduct after FLUEDRA’s 165-day period may create a factual question about whether they agreed to extend the proceeding.
- Once an alternative writ issues, disputed factual predicates generally must be resolved through evidence rather than attorney argument at a motion hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision prevents a local government from obtaining dismissal at the pleading stage merely by asserting that FLUEDRA’s deadline expired when the parties continued participating after that deadline. It also recognizes that a written recommendation has independent statutory consequences, including triggering governmental action and ending the tolling of judicial-review deadlines.
On remand, Traska may pursue relief limited to completion of the magistrate’s ministerial filing obligation. The trial court may not dictate the recommendation’s outcome and must determine, on an evidentiary record if necessary, whether the parties extended the FLUEDRA process expressly or through their conduct.