Petition for Writ of Mandamus: APPELLATE PROCEDURE – Appealability/Improper
Relief— Regardless that the Petitioner may try to remedy a future similar
problem with a method that the Development Director rejected, the Petition for
Writ of Mandamus to compel the Director to issue an after-the-fact permit is
moot as the Petitioner remedied the problem and the Director issued the
permit. Petition dismissed. Solomon v. State, No.
12-000036AP-88B (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. February 8, 2013).
IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY,
FLORIDA
APPELLATE DIVISION
David Solomon,
Petitioner,
vs. Ref. No. 12000036AP-88B
UCN522012AP000036XXXXCV
State of Florida,
Respondent.
____________________________________________/
THIS CAUSE is before the
Court on a Petition Seeking a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Pinellas County
Planning and Development Director to issue an after the fact permit. The Planning and Development Department
refused to issue the permit at issue because of a recessed junction box which
reduced the wall’s 1-hour fire rating. The
Department refused to accept Petitioner’s attempt to return the wall’s 1-hour
fire rating to an acceptable level by using fire rated mortar instead of fixing
the recessed junction box.
Since the filing of this Petition
for Writ of Mandamus, Petitioner has remedied the problem of the recessed
junction box, and the Planning and Development Department issued the permit
that was the subject of this Petition. Accordingly,
the Court finds that the underlying Petition has become moot such that the
above-styled petition should be dismissed. “A case is ‘moot’ when it presents no actual
controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist.” Godwin
v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992).
Petitioner argues that the Petition is not moot because in the future he
may wish to use the same mortar that the Planning and Development refused to
accept in this case. However, it is not
the function of a judicial tribunal to “give opinions on moot questions, or to
declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue.” Montgomery v. Dep’t of Health &
Rehabilitative Servs., 468 So. 2d 1014, 1016-1017
(Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See Merkle v. Guardianship of Jacoby, 912 So.2d 595,
599-600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (explaining that an appellate court will dismiss a
case if the issues raised in it have become moot).
Therefore, it
is,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled
petition is dismissed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida
this ________ day of _________ 2013.
Original order
entered on February 8, 2013, by Circuit Judges Amy M. Williams, Peter
Ramsberger, and Pamela A. M. Campbell.
Copy furnished to:
DAVID SOLOMON
880 MANDALAY AVE
#N911
CLEARWATER, FL 33767
GABE PARRA
100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVE
CLEARWATER, FL 33756
OFFICE OF STATE
ATTORNEY
14250 49TH STREET
NORTH
CLEARWATER, FL 33762
HON. PATRICK K.
CADDELL
14250 49TH STREET
NORTH
CLEARWATER, FL 33762