MIAMI—2014 was not a groundbreaking year for real estate law. Still, Manny Farach, an attorney with the West Palm Beach office of law firm Richman Greer and is board-certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation, can point to many decisions of which real estate practitioners need to be aware.

GlobeSt.com caught up with Farach to get his thoughts on some of the most vital real estate law cases in 2014. You can still read part one: 5 Real Estate Law Cases You Should Remember.

1. Doctrine of Equitable Ownership in Land Developments

“Many Florida land developments are based on long-term ground leases, some of which were drafted in a fashion to avoid ad valorem taxes for the property lessee, i.e., the equitable owner,” Farach says. “The Florida Supreme Court dealt with this issue and held that under the Doctrine of Equitable Ownership, a person is deemed an owner of real property and may be taxed thereon if they have all the benefits and obligations of ownership and notwithstanding they do not possess legal title. Farach says those practitioners whose clients are in long-term ground leases should double-check the taxation provisions to avoid nasty surprises later on. )Accardo v. Brown, 139 So. 3d 848, Fla. 2014).

2. Battle Over Waterfront Rights

Farach notes that Florida waterfront property is often an area's most desirable and valuable. But, he asks, what happens when government action takes away the riparian rights, i.e., the waterfront rights?

“The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that riparian rights, being created by state law and not arising from the Constitution, are not 'fundamental rights' entitled to the fundamental rights standard of review,” he says. “Substantive due process review of legislative actions is considered under the 'rational basis' standard and requires the complaining party to demonstrate the government action has no rational basis to a legitimate government need or power.” In other words, he says, landowners have a much tougher standard to prove the government improperly took away their waterfront rights. (Kentner v. City of Sanibel, 750 F.3d 1274, 11th Cir. 2014).

3. Complexity of Land Use Litigation

The complexity of land use litigation was also highlighted by the decision of Hussey v. Collier County, --- So. 3d ----, 2014 WL 5900018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Farach notes that the Hussey court held that the Bert Harris Act, Florida Statute § 70.001, only compensates for “as applied” claims of inordinate government regulation and contains a one year tolling provision so that the claim does not ripen until the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

“Inverse condemnation claims, on the other hand, do not have the same tolling provision and may be barred by the statute of limitations before the Bert Harris claims ripen,” says Farach. “Parties considering litigation over land use regulations now have two sets of statutes of limitation to contend with.”

In another important land use decision, the Fourth District held that Florida Statute § 163.3167 (8) prohibits referenda on development orders. Farach says this issue has been bouncing back and forth between the Florida Legislature and the Florida courts for several years as community groups opposed to development used the statute section to threaten or attempt referenda on large-scale developments after a development order was issued. This case, he says, squarely puts an end to these tactics for non-legislative land development orders. (Archstone Palmetto Park, LLC v. Kennedy, 132 So. 3d 347, Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

3. Complexity of Land Use Litigation

The complexity of land use litigation was also highlighted by the decision of Hussey v. Collier County, --- So. 3d ----, 2014 WL 5900018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Farach notes that the Hussey court held that the Bert Harris Act, Florida Statute § 70.001, only compensates for “as applied” claims of inordinate government regulation and contains a one year tolling provision so that the claim does not ripen until the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

“Inverse condemnation claims, on the other hand, do not have the same tolling provision and may be barred by the statute of limitations before the Bert Harris claims ripen,” says Farach. “Parties considering litigation over land use regulations now have two sets of statutes of limitation to contend with.”

In another important land use decision, the Fourth District held that Florida Statute § 163.3167 (8) prohibits referenda on development orders. Farach says this issue has been bouncing back and forth between the Florida Legislature and the Florida courts for several years as community groups opposed to development used the statute section to threaten or attempt referenda on large-scale developments after a development order was issued. This case, he says, squarely puts an end to these tactics for non-legislative land development orders. (Archstone Palmetto Park, LLC v. Kennedy, 132 So. 3d 347, Fla. 4th DCA 2014).