The recent decision in Friends of Nassau County, Inc., v. Nassau County addressed what constitutes a bad faith or frivolous administrative petition under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act. The court debated whether to use an objective or subjective analysis to determine if a petition was brought for an improper purpose. The current Florida APA has two statutes that provide for attorneysâ fees awards if a filing is âinterposed for improper purposes. However, neither statute explains the standard for determining an improper purpose. The court case Friends of Nassau County involved a corporation and its president who opposed a permit issued by a water management district. The court had to decide whether the corporation and its president acted in bad faith during the legal process. The court found that the lawyers did not act in bad faith, but the corporation and its president did. The case was sent back to determine the appropriate penalties for the corporation and its president. The court didn’t agree with the judge that sanctions were necessary because the lawyers acted in bad faith. Instead, they said that the lawyers and their client didn’t do enough to check if their case had a good chance of winning. They found that the client should be punished but not the lawyers. They also said that the client’s officer should be punished because she signed the legal papers without even reading them. In a legal case, Judge Benton cited to another opinion he wrote called Procacci Commercial Realty v. HRS. In that case, the court used an objective analysis to determine if an appeal of administrative action was frivolous or meritless. In the current case, Judge Padovano disagreed with the majority, stating that the appellants had filed the action for a bad reason, to delay a development project. The majority, however, said that as long as a petition has legal justification, the reason behind it doesn’t matter. But this raises questions about how a similar case would be handled under a different law. Many lawyers have assumed that the law in question requires a subjective analysis, but the disagreement in this case means the issue might still be open for debate. Burke v. Harbor Estates Associates was an important case about attorneys’ fees in Florida. It said that determining if someone is acting for an improper purpose is usually a question of fact, not law. This means it’s based on what actually happened, not just the rules. The court also said that “frivolous” purpose means something that’s not important to the case. This case helped set the standard for deciding if someone is acting for an improper purpose. A court case called Agrico v. Department of Environmental Regulation says that business competitors can’t sue just because they’re losing money. But they can sue if they can show that they have a real environmental problem. This means that a competitor can challenge an environmental permit, but they have to have a good reason for doing so. If a competitor challenges a project or development for a valid reason, they are acting in good faith. But, if the challenger is causing the problem themselves or has a hidden agenda, they could be accused of acting in bad faith. Courts look at the facts to figure out the challenger’s true intention, and they don’t always need to understand the challenger’s personal reasons. This has been supported by previous court decisions. For example, in a case where a citizens’ group challenged permits for fern growers, the court ruled in favor of the growers because the citizens’ group was acting in bad faith. The Fern Growers association took the citizens to court for filing fake complaints about their water use to try to put them out of business. The court said that the citizens can only say bad things about the association if they have a good reason, and they can’t just make stuff up. It’s okay if they have a different reason for complaining, as long as their complaint is about something real. The court also said that a lawsuit for trying to ruin someone’s business can only happen if the only reason for doing it was to be mean. It’s okay if the citizens get something out of it too, as long as their complaint has some merit. If a competitor tries to blame someone else for their own mistakes, they might get in trouble with the court. The court will have to decide if the competitor’s claim is valid or if they have a hidden agenda. It’s hard to make a clear rule for this, so the judge will have to look at the specific facts of each case. Sidney F. Ansbacher is a lawyer who specializes in environmental and land use law in St. Augustine. “To teach members to do their job well, serve the public, and improve how the legal system works.”
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/what-is-a-bad-faith-administrative-petition/
Leave a Reply