Case Name: George R. ALBRECHT and C. G. Schindler, Jr., Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida; The Honorable Reubin O'D. Askew, Governor; Honorable Jim Williams, Lieutenant Governor; Honorable Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Secretary of State; Honorable Robert Shevin, Attorney General; Honorable Bill Gunter, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner; Honorable Gerald A. Lewis, Comptroller; Honorable Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture; Honorable Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education; Honorable Joseph W. Landers, Jr., Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation, as the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida; the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida; and the Department of Environmental Regulation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-03-25
Citations: 407 So. 2d 210
Docket Number: No. 79-2234
Parties: George R. ALBRECHT and C. G. Schindler, Jr., Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida; The Honorable Reubin O’D. Askew, Governor; Honorable Jim Williams, Lieutenant Governor; Honorable Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Secretary of State; Honorable Robert Shevin, Attorney General; Honorable Bill Gunter, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner; Honorable Gerald A. Lewis, Comptroller; Honorable Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture; Honorable Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education; Honorable Joseph W. Landers, Jr., Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation, as the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida; the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida; and the Department of Environmental Regulation, Appellees.
Judges: OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 407
Pages: 210–216

Head Matter:
George R. ALBRECHT and C. G. Schindler, Jr., Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida; The Honorable Reubin O’D. Askew, Governor; Honorable Jim Williams, Lieutenant Governor; Honorable Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Secretary of State; Honorable Robert Shevin, Attorney General; Honorable Bill Gunter, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner; Honorable Gerald A. Lewis, Comptroller; Honorable Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture; Honorable Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education; Honorable Joseph W. Landers, Jr., Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation, as the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida; the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida; and the Department of Environmental Regulation, Appellees.
No. 79-2234.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
March 25, 1981.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Dec. 11, 1981.
Lee S. Damsker of Gordon & Maney, P. A., Tampa, for appellants.
Alfred W. Clark, Tallahassee, for appellee Department of Environmental Regulation.

Opinion:
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment on the pleadings which dismissed a complaint on grounds of res judicata.
The pleadings reflect the following facts. Appellants were owners of coastal property in Pinellas County, 300 feet of which had been lost by erosion between 1943 and 1974. In 1974 they applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority, for permission to fill and bulkhead their land to its original size. The board approved the application subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.
Appellants then applied to the Department of Pollution Control for water quality certification. However, that department denied their application. As a result, they filed a petition for review, and pursuant to a reorganization of the state environmental agencies, their application was transferred to the Department of Environmental Regulation. Following a hearing, the -hearing officer issued a recommended order affirming the denial. The secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation adopted the recommended order, and the. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund affirmed it.
Appellants sought judicial review in the First District Court of Appeal pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes (1975). The court denied their petition in an opinion, issued on January 30, 1978. Albrecht v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 353 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Almost seven months later, appellants filed suit in the circuit court of Pinellas County against the State of Florida and several state agencies alleging that by virtue of the administrative action recited above they had been unable to put their property to any use and that its fair market value had been greatly diminished. The complaint requested that the court declare the property to have been, the subject of inverse condemnation and fix an amount of compensation to be paid ap.-. pellants as a result of the taking. ' The court entered judgment on the pleadings against appellants, and they have appealed from that judgment.
The court predicated its judgment on Coulter v. Davin, 373 So.2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). In Coulter, this court held that one may bring suit in circuit court to collaterally attack the constitutionality of a law pursuant to which an administrative agency takes action. On the other hand, we said:
[W]hen administrative agency action in a proceeding has become final as to a party, whether or not review by a district court of appeal is sought, that party is foreclosed from asserting in circuit court that the agency action is unconstitutional (or ,is improper for any other reason).
373 So.2d at 427. Perceiving appellants' complaint as one attacking the constitutionality of the agency action rather than one attacking the constitutionality of the law under which the agency acted, the lower court held that once the decision in Al-brecht became final, the doctrine of res judicata barred appellants' action.
Appellants seek to avoid the rationale of Coulter by arguing that they are not now trying to void the action of the Department of Environmental Regulation. Rather, they contend that they are seeking compensation for the taking which came about as a result of that action. They suggest that this is not a matter which they could have raised in the administrative proceedings because the issue of taking is a judicial function, and a jury must determine compensation. Despite the ingenuity of their position, we cannot accept it as a rational exception to the principles of Coulter.
Under the teaching of Coulter, appellants could have argued the question of .whether the order of the Department of Environmental Regulation constituted a taking of their property in the proceedings before the First District Court of Appeal. Cf. Farrugia v. Frederick, 344 So.2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), in which the court considered just such a contention. The fact that they did not raise it is irrelevant to the application of res judicata. Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617 (1926). To now allow them to assert it under the guise of arguing that the taking was legal but that they were entitled to be paid for it would be to permit them to go through the back door. They could have made the same contention in the administrative proceeding, and the First District Court of Appeal could have required that any taking be compensated. In fact, this is in essence what happened in Estuary Properties, Inc. v. Askew, 381 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Upon review of the denial of an application for development approval, the court in Estuary recognized that the state could legitimately regulate wetlands development for public benefit even though it had the effect of expropriating private property. However, the court held that under these circumstances, the state must compensate the landowners. It effectuated this result by ordering that the application be granted unless the county where the land was located commenced condemnation proceedings within thirty days.
Appellants are bound by the final determination of Albrecht. Therefore, principles of res judicata bar the relief they sought in circuit court.
AFFIRMED.
OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Rehearing denied:
. The parties agree that section 253.763, Florida Statutes (1979), is inapplicable to this case.