John Kuluz v. Monroe County, Florida

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida

Opinion filed May 20, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0500
Lower Tribunal No. 21-CA-357-P
________________

John Kuluz, Fred Laemmerhirt, and Lazaro Alberto,
Appellants,

vs.

Monroe County, Florida and 17RM Investments, LLC,
Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James W.
Morgan, III, Judge.

Andrew M. Tobin, P.A., and Andrew M. Tobin, for appellants.

Hershoff, Lupino & Yagel, LLP, and Russell A. Yagel and Joanne M.
Pereira, for appellee 17RM Investments, LLC; Monroe County Attorney’s
Office, and Peter H. Morris, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee Monroe
County, Florida.

Before LOGUE, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

LOGUE, J.
In this matter, Appellants appeal the entry of summary judgment for

Appellees, 17RM Investments, LLC and Monroe County, Florida, and

against Appellants. Appellants own lots in the Florida Keys facing or next to

seven lots owned by Appellee 17RM. 17RM’s lots are undeveloped but are

in the process of being permitted for development. Their development will

impact views and the neighborhood of Appellants’ lots. Appellants filed suit

raising various challenges to the development of 17RM’s lots.

After a careful review of the arguments and the record, we find no

errors in the trial court’s determination that the definition of “road” in section

334.03(22) of the Florida Statutes was incorporated into the Monroe County

Code, see § 19-31, Monroe County Code (“Road means the same as that

term is defined in F.S. § 334.03(23)[1]”); and that the upgrading of a driveway

internal to the property and closed to the public does not trigger the need to

replat under the Code, see § 110-96, Monroe County Code. Because these

determinations are supported by the Code, we also reject Appellants’

contention that Monroe County engaged in an “ultra vires zoning contract”

when it settled a dispute between Monroe County and 17RM over a prior

development order by adopting these interpretations of its Code.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1
Citing to the prior version of section 334.03(22), Florida Statutes.

2
Affirmed.

3