Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
COCONUT GROVE CIVIC CLUB, a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, W. Tucker Gibbs, an individual, and John Woodruff, an individual, Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida Municipal Corporation, and Bunkers of Miami, Inc., a Florida Joint Venture, Appellees.
The Coconut Grove Civic Club and two voters appeal an adverse summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action. We affirm.
The City of Miami has entered into a management agreement with appellee Bunkers of Miami Joint Venture for the management of the city-owned Mel Reese Golf Course. Bunkers submitted the only response to the city-issued Request for Qualifications, pursuant to which the City sought to identify a qualified firm which could manage the golf course.
Appellants contend that the management agreement is, in substance, a lease of the golf course to Bunkers. Under the City Charter, the City can enter into a lease of city-owned property without a referendum only if the City has received a minimum of three competitive bids. See Miami, Fla., Charter § 29(b). If there are less than three competitive bids, then the lease transaction must be approved by referendum. See id.
Appellants brought a declaratory judgment action, contending that the management agreement is, in substance, a lease which must be submitted to the voters for approval by referendum. From an adverse summary final judgment, this appeal has been lodged.
Although the City and Bunkers argue to the contrary, for present purposes we assume that the individual appellants have standing to pursue their claim.*
On the merits, however, we affirm. We find no error in the trial court's conclusion that the agreement at issue here is, as stated, a management agreement rather than a lease. We have carefully considered appellants' arguments to the contrary but are not persuaded thereby. Appellants' unhappiness with the agreement is an issue which appellants must pursue with the appropriate city authorities, or otherwise in the political process.
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. Appellants reason that refusal to submit a required item to referendum impairs the individual appellants' constitutionally protected right to vote. But see Smith v. City of Pinellas Park, 336 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 96-1718.
Decided: December 24, 1997
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)