Case Name: Irving YELEN et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF MIRAMAR, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, and John Depp as Building Official, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-01-09
Citations: 324 So. 2d 643
Docket Number: No. 75-521
Parties: Irving YELEN et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF MIRAMAR, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, and John Depp as Building Official, Appellees.
Judges: CROSS, MAGER, and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 324
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
Irving YELEN et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF MIRAMAR, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, and John Depp as Building Official, Appellees.
No. 75-521.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 9, 1976.
David Yelen of Yelen & Yelen, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellants.
Jerome F. Pollock, Hollywood, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We are constrained to affirm the final judgment of the trial court denying plaintiff's second amended petition for writ of mandamus for the reason that the right which the petitioner seeks to have enforced, i. e. to receive a building permit, and the legal duty to be performed by the respondent city, i. e. issuance of such permit, cannot be ascertained to the necessary completeness and certainty required by law without a consideration of the language of the municipal ordinance upon which petitioner relies, which ordinance was never put into evidence. 21 Fla.Jur., Mandamus, § 24, et seq.; Haverty v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 258 So.2d 18; Town of Medley v. Captan, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 449. Absent an examination of the ordinance we are unable to discern any error in the trial court's consideration of the minutes of the appellee city for the purpose of ascertaining the appellee's intent. Whether these minutes, which were offered into evidence by the appellant, are at variance with or are intended to resolve an ambiguity in the ordinance cannot be determined without a review and examination of such ordinance. Having otherwise found the denial of the writ did not constitute an abuse of discretion, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CROSS, MAGER, and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.