Johnson Pope Attorneys Secure Appellate Victory in Complex FLUEDRA Land Use Dispute

Johnson Pope attorneys Mark S. Bentley and Christopher J. Bonti secured an important appellate victory for their client before Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. In its September 10, 2026 decision, the court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the client’s case and sent the matter back for further proceedings.  

The appeal arose from a land use and code enforcement dispute involving the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, commonly known as FLUEDRA. The law gives property owners a process for seeking relief when they believe a government decision or enforcement action unfairly restricts the use of their property. 

A Complex Procedural Dispute 

Johnson Pope’s client initiated the FLUEDRA process following a code enforcement dispute with Brevard County. The parties participated in mediation and reached a proposed settlement, but the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners ultimately rejected the agreement. 

The County then took the position that FLUEDRA’s 165-day timeframe had expired and declined to continue with the process. However, the special magistrate had not issued the written recommendation required under the statute. 

The client filed a lawsuit seeking to require the special magistrate to issue that recommendation and the County to complete the remaining steps in the FLUEDRA process. The trial court initially allowed the case to move forward but later dismissed it with prejudice without conducting an evidentiary hearing. 

The Appellate Court’s Decision 

On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded that the client had presented a plausible claim that the special magistrate was required to prepare and file a written recommendation. 

The court explained that although the special magistrate has discretion over what to recommend, the obligation to issue a recommendation is separate. In other words, a court may require the special magistrate to issue the recommendation, but it cannot dictate what that recommendation should say.  

The appellate court also considered the County’s argument that the FLUEDRA process ended when the 165-day timeframe expired. The record showed that the parties continued working toward a resolution after that deadline. They negotiated terms, signed a proposed settlement agreement and presented it to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. 

The court determined that this continued activity raised a factual question about whether the parties had agreed, through their actions, to extend the FLUEDRA process. Because factual questions remained, the trial court should not have dismissed the case without first considering evidence.  

The appellate court reversed the dismissal and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court may now hear evidence and determine whether the parties agreed, either expressly or through their conduct, to continue the FLUEDRA process beyond the original deadline.  

Why the Decision Matters 

Obtaining a reversal on appeal can be difficult. An appeal is generally limited to the existing court record, and the attorneys must show that a significant legal or procedural error affected the lower court’s decision. 

This case was particularly challenging because it involved a specialized Florida land use law, questions about government responsibilities and a disagreement over what occurred after a statutory deadline. 

The decision is significant because it allows the client’s case to continue. It also reinforces the principle that when important facts are disputed, those questions should be evaluated through evidence rather than decided solely through written filings and attorneys’ arguments. 

While the appellate ruling does not resolve the underlying code enforcement dispute, it gives the client another opportunity to pursue relief before the trial court. 

Experienced Representation in Land Use and Appellate Matters 

Mark Bentley focuses his practice on land use, zoning, local government, and related real estate matters. Chris Bonti represents clients in complex litigation, land use litigation and appellate matters.  

Their combined experience allowed the Johnson Pope team to address the overlapping land use, statutory and appellate issues involved in the case. 

Johnson Pope congratulates Mark and Chris on this meaningful result and their continued commitment to advocating for the firm’s clients in complex land use and appellate matters. 

To learn more about Johnson Pope’s land use and appellate capabilities, contact our team or visit our land use practice page.

This post is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.