PB: Palmer Trinity Lawsuit Hearing Tomorrow Night
by SDM
Palmetto Bay released the agenda for tomorrow night’s (June 18, 2012) Committee of the Whole meeting. Of particular importance is item 2:
Discussion re: Village of Palmetto Bay v. Palmer Trinity Private School, Third District Court of Appeal Appellate Court Case No.: No. 3D12-190; Lower Tribunal No. 10-259
SDM knows what you are thinking: Is this a typo? The Village of Palmetto Bay is FINALLY going to publicly discuss its ill-fated and quixotic attack on the Palmer Trinity School? Apparently, yes.
Then again, don’t get your hopes up too much. This council does the bidding of a group of fanatics – that’s really the only fair way of characterizing them. SDM hears that some of the SOPs want to take the lawsuit to the Florida Supreme Court!
Let’s take a look at whether this case has such a chance. Here is how the Florida Supreme Court describes its jurisdiction:
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is set out in the Constitution with some degree of flexibility by which the Legislature may add or take away certain categories of cases. The Court must review final orders imposing death sentences, district court decisions declaring a State statute or provision of the State Constitution invalid, bond validations, and certain orders of the Public Service Commission on utility rates and services.
In addition to these forms of mandatory review authority, if discretionary review is sought by a party, the Court at its discretion may review any decision of a district court of appeal that expressly declares valid a state statute, construes a provision of the state or federal constitution, affects a class of constitutional or state officers, or directly conflicts with a decision of another district court or of the Supreme Court on the same question of law.
The Supreme Court may review certain categories of judgments, decisions, and questions of law certified to it by the district courts of appeal and federal appellate courts.
The Palmer case does not involve a death sentence – except to taxpayers
– and did not declare a state law invalid so those options are off the table. The lawsuit’s question did not involve orders of the PSC so forget that one.
Under the discretionary jurisidiction category, the case did not declare a state law valid, construe a provision of the state or federal constitutions or involve a class of constituional or state officers. Toss those.
Therefore, to get to the Supremes, the case’s decision must directly conflict with a decision of another district court or of the Supreme Court on the same question of law; or, the judgment must be certified to the court by a district court of appeal (because there is no federal question involved.)
The Palmer decision was rendered by the appeals division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit’s appellate division, which is a court lower to, and under the jurisdiction of, the Third District Court of Appeal.
SDM’s Bottom Line: For Palmetto Bay to get to the Supreme Court, it must go to the Third DCA first.
SDM Correction: An alert reader noted that the Third DCA issued the last opinion in this case when it denied Palmetto Bay’s request for a writ of certiorari. Therefore, Palmetto Bay has already covered the base of going to the district court.
The Palmer case began in 2006, when the school filed its initial application. Yes, you are reading that date correctly. For the beleagured school, its fight against city hall has gone on for SIX years. Repugnant.
If the village decides to appeal, which basically requires paying a filing fee and some lawyers, it will delay the inevitable conclusion of this case by at least another year. For purely political purposes, appealing the decision probably helps Vice Mayor Pariser the most because the final determination wouldn’t come until next year.
However, delaying a resolution to Palmer could also hurt the incumbents running two years from now. Here’s how:
Let’s assume that nobody rushes the case along at the appeals court Supreme Court so the case remains pending until next summer. By then, the cost of the lawsuit – just on Palmetto Bay’s side – will probably reach $750,000.
[SDM Update: An alert reader commented that on July 13, 2012, the Third District Court of Appeal ruled that Palmer was entitled to its attorney's fees and costs to be determined by the circuit court. This means Palmetto Bay taxpayers will pay this expense unless it is covered by a Florida League of Cities insurance policy. SDM figures Palmer's fees will be at least as much as Palmetto Bay's.]
What are the possible outcomes of an appeal?
First, the Third DCA Supreme Court could reject the case outright, meaning Palmetto Bay loses. Second, the court could fully hear the matter and still rule against the village; also a loss. Third, and least likely, the court could rule for the village.
One question for Wednesday night is what would a ruling for the village look like? SDM doesn’t know but the lawyers might take a $600/hour guess. Many times appeals courts issue the Supreme Court issues very narrow decisions essentially sending the matter back for more action by the village.
SDM Code Breaker: At the end of the day, a “victory” for the village may be nothing more than a requirement for another hearing sometime in 2014 just as Mayor, err… Councilwoman Joan Lindsay and Mayor Shelley Stanczyk are running for re-election (assuming village voters amend the term limits provision in the charter).
Of course, any perceived “loss” to Palmer before the next election cycle would have to hurt Mayor Stanczyk more than Councilwoman Lindsay because Lindsay’s supporters are immune to logic. Hell, they may demand Lindsay run against Stanczyk! (Oh, if there is a blog god, give SDM that race.)
SDM P.S.: The village leadership has claimed all along that if they lost to Palmer, the costs of the litigation would be covered by an insurance policy through the Florida League of Cities. SDM Wonders: Will the insurer permit the village to continue this fight? Or, will it cut its losses and require the village to either settle or waive the insurance coverage?
SDM can’t wait to find out.
NEWS FLASH – By order of the Third DCA dated July 13, 2012, Palmer Trinity’s Motion for Attorneys Fees is GRANTED. THis means the Village must pay some or all of Palmer’s attys fees.
This is not entirely accurate. The opinion at issue as far as the Florida Supreme COurt goes is the opinion of the Third DCA. In other words, this is inaccurate insofar as it suggests that Palmetto Bay must go back to the Third DCA before trying to go to the Florida Supreme COurt. The report is absolutely accurate when it says that the Florida Supreme Court will only take the case if the Third DCA opinion conflicts with another DCA or if the Third DCA certifies the case as being of great public importance. There is no conflict and the Third DCA will not certifiy the opinion as one of great public importance. In fact, as I posted earlier, the Third DCA has granted Palmer’s motion for attorneys fees by order dated July 13, 2012. All that remains is to find out HOW MUCH Palmetto Bay will have to pay…..
This is a very complicated case in SDM’s view. With regard to the legal fees order granted by the Third DCA, does that cover just the fees and costs related to defending Palmetto Bay’s appeal? Does Palmer need a similar order from the original court, too?
Without seeing the order, it is hard to say. At the very least, this order grants attys fees for the appeal.
A decision to appeal the PT matter to a higher court is an easy one for the Council ‘majority’ to make. The reasons are obvious…it effectively delays the inevitable negative outcome until after the November elections and a likely recall vote. Their highly-compensated appellate attorneys will certainly want to preserve their nice income stream and thus ‘find’ several legal issues to attack on appeal. Of course, they get paid regardless. But probably the strongest motivation for the Council to keep this unsuccessful litigation going is that nothing comes out of their own pockets. Only the PB taxpayers take the big hit which only gets bigger as this matter goes on and on. Maybe it’s time to negotiate a settlement with Palmer Trinity before things get much worse.
Instead of “Discussion re: The Village of Palmetto Bay vs. Palmer Trinity”, how about Public Apology to Palmer Trinity AND all the residents of Palmetto Bay for wasting taxpayers dollars! If I had an extra $600,000.00, I would get a few more police officers (esp. during this recent increase in home burglaries); get some better playground equipment for the kids; host another Village wide event (picnic or movie); open Thallata Park sunrise to sunset like all the other parks are….OK, that should ALL cost $600,000.00 or less! Will ANY elected official rise above the rest and take responsibility??? (I was only doing what my minions told me to do doesn’t cut it!)
Update on the news. I have just learned that Palmer did have their motion for attorney’s fees granted. The cost to Palmetto Bay under the Three Amigos is now coming home to roost.
Let’s be realistic in what will happen during the Palmer Discussion on Wednesday:
Shelley Stanczyk will blame everyone, especially her predecessors. The fault lies with the Palmer ‘bullies’, the fault lies with staff, the fault lies with the village attorney, lies with the Manager, lies with a corrupt court system; in the end, it is all about Shelley Stanczyk and her lies. There is no responsibility attributable to her.
Let’s see how well she can choke down the crow.
Brian Pariser will suddenly find religion and now, for the first time, be able to discuss this case in public, even though both he and Shelley Stanczyk have alleged that they cannot discuss it with the public. He will attack ‘reckless statements’ made about the case. It will be interesting to see how far his new found religion will get him on Wednesday.
Let’s see how well he can choke down the crow.
Joan Lindsay will bemoan that Palmer would never have happened if we would have enacted her NPO back in 2009, which of course is another village official reckless misstatement of fact from the Three Amigos Bureau of no-accountability as Palmer applied under the County Code, the Palmetto Bay code still had yet to be enacted. Everyone needs to keep in mind that Brian Pariser and Shelley Stanczyk both voted for the code as enacted in 2009 without complaint.
Shelley Stanczyk will cry out to the crowd that only they, the three amigos, have fought against over development that without them, there would be a gas station and WalMart on every residential corner. Again, this will be another misstatement as the comprehensive development master plan would have to be amended before you could rezone the property to allow for any commercial use as WalMarts and gas stations are not permitted special uses in residential areas.
Answers we are really owed from the three amigos:
Why have you continually failed to listen to your own attorneys and instead continue to follow the legal advice of [CCOCI's attorney]? Neighborhood groups really need to look closely at his record before they hire him. He has lost every court proceeding where he has opposed Palmetto Bay. Palmetto Bay has ultimately lost every court proceeding where [CCOCI's attorney] is allied with Palmetto Bay. Perhaps this is the source of the problems. [CCOCI's attorney] is a talented activist and can stir the pot, but he is not the person to bring reasoned and well positioned resolution to an issue. It takes sage legal advice and maturity to properly advise a client. [CCOCI's attorney] appears to be limited to taking personal shots at opponents and rally the torches and pitchforks.
It is also interesting to note that he has recently appeared before the Village Council as a lobbyist. It seems he has a good relationship with the ‘right’ people on the council. One has to wonder if all that ‘pro bono’ legal work for CCOCI has paid dividends in the form of lobbying fees he is now earning.
Will [CCOCI's attorney] be assisting in defending against the determination of fees that Palmer has pending?
Respectfully, if the village has $600,000 (or, rather, had $600,000) SDM could also find other, better uses. However, the BEST “other use” is not to tax the money from homeowners in the first place. This village – at least under this majority – does not deserve ANY MORE money than the minimum necessary to maintain the village’s status quo; and not a dollar more. No more money for garden clubs, Thalatta boondoggles, parking structures in the middle of nowhere, etc.,…must SDM go on?
No more money for ‘free discounts’ to the friends and family of the three amigos. The Three amigo corruption is right in front of our faces. Money to the ‘right’ groups. “Freebies’ to their friends such as fee waivers for the Italian Club and Garden Club.
Wake up people. The three amigos are all about how they can curry political favor at our expense. $600,000 and counting. Additional monies in fees for Palmer pending. Discounts, at our expense, to their friends.
Appointing their corrupted cronies to the Charter Review to make way for a huge power grab including increasing term limits.
No wonder there is a recall movement going on here.
I will watch the meeting on cable tonight. The council meetings are known as the best farce television since the gong show.
Thank you Howard Tendrich and Patrick Fiore for standing by the people. Curse Shelley Stanczyk, Brian Pariser and Joan Lindsay for bringing shame to Palmetto Bay.
What the [@#$%]. If you do not, then it is your own fault.