Pinecrest FL Lawsuit Settlement: The Megladon Verdict

The Pinecrest, Florida lawsuit brought by developer Megladon, Inc. did not end in a settlement. It ended in a federal jury verdict on March 12, 2026, awarding Megladon $409,000 in business delay damages after jurors found the Village of Pinecrest had a “widespread, unconstitutional” custom of refusing building permits unless property owners handed over strips of their land for public use.¹

What Pinecrest Demanded From Megladon

Megladon, a Coral Gables development entity, bought a residential lot at 13100 SW 77th Avenue in April 2016 for $745,000, planning to tear down the existing house and build a new “tropical modern” home.¹ When the developer applied for a building permit in 2019, Planning Director Stephen R. Olmsted said the adjacent SW 131st Street fell below the village’s 50-foot minimum width for local roads. As a condition of the permit, he required Megladon to dedicate a 7.5-foot strip along the northern boundary of the property to the village as public right-of-way, with no compensation.²

In May 2020, Olmsted put the demand in writing. Megladon’s architect received an email stating that the owner had to sign an affidavit consenting to the dedication and acknowledging that no certificate of occupancy would issue until the land transfer was complete.³ The affidavit also required the owner to waive any right to challenge the demand in court.¹ Giving up the strip would have forced Megladon to recalculate setbacks, lot coverage, and green space, effectively shrinking or redesigning the house. Megladon refused and sued.

How the Court and Jury Ruled

Megladon filed suit in July 2021. The case landed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida before Judge Roy K. Altman as Case No. 1:21-cv-22819.² The developer brought claims under Florida’s prohibited-exactions statute, the Fifth Amendment and Florida Constitution’s takings clauses, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.⁴

On May 28, 2025, Judge Altman ruled on summary judgment that the 7.5-foot dedication requirement was “an unconstitutional condition as a matter of law,” failing the essential-nexus and rough-proportionality tests the Supreme Court set out in Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz.³ The theory: making a homebuilder give up land to widen a street bore no proportional connection to the minor traffic a single house would generate.

Two questions went to the jury: whether Megladon’s state-law exactions claim was timely, and whether the village’s practice qualified as an official custom or policy that triggers municipal liability under Monell.⁴ On March 12, 2026, the jury answered both for Megladon. Jurors found the land-dedication practice was not a one-off but an “unofficial Village custom with the force of law,” based on statements by and to village council members and records of similar demands imposed on other property owners.¹

What the $409,000 Award Covers

The jury awarded $409,000 in business delay damages. That figure compensates Megladon for the years the project sat frozen because the village refused to issue the permit. The lot at 13100 SW 77th Avenue stayed vacant through the dispute, and Megladon absorbed property taxes, labor cost inflation, and lost development opportunity across roughly seven years between the 2016 purchase and the 2026 verdict.⁵

Because the jury found a municipal custom rather than a single employee’s misconduct, liability rests on the village itself, not any individual official. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a prevailing plaintiff in a § 1983 action may also recover reasonable attorney fees; the record does not show whether Megladon has filed a fee petition.

Owner Andreas Hase told the Miami Herald he was “very happy” and “extremely proud” of the outcome. “To me, this is blackmailing — to withhold a permit because you know that the person on the other end has a clock running and needs to build,” Hase said. “I was standing up for ourselves, for our project, and I was standing up for other people who are exposed to this.”⁵

Why This Verdict Matters for Florida Property Owners

Megladon’s trial attorneys, Amy Brigham Boulris and Timothy J. McGinn of Gunster, said the verdict was the first time a developer recovered business delay damages under the Civil Rights Act for a building permit wrongfully withheld through an unconstitutional land exaction.⁶ The strategy combined the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine with a § 1983 damages claim, treating coercive permitting as compensable financial harm rather than something only an injunction can fix.

“This is a major victory for property owners across Florida,” McGinn said. “Hopefully this will send a message to not just the village of Pinecrest, but other municipalities, that you can’t do this.”⁷ He said the ruling could “reshape how local governments across Florida negotiate with residential builders” by giving developers a concrete financial remedy when cities condition permits on demands unrelated to a project’s actual impacts.¹

What Pinecrest Has Said

Village Attorney Mitchell Bierman and a village spokesperson did not respond to The Real Deal’s requests for comment after the verdict.¹ As of mid-2026, no public statement from the Pinecrest Village Council or mayor regarding the verdict, a possible appeal, or the budget impact of the damages award has been reported. If you own property in Pinecrest and were asked to dedicate land as a condition of a permit, the Megladon decision suggests that demand may have been unlawful, and that a damages claim, not just an injunction, is on the table.

1
The Real Deal. Federal Jury Rules Pinecrest Owes Megladon for Land Grab
2
Caselaw – FindLaw. Megladon Inc. v. Village of Pinecrest
3
GovInfo. Megladon Inc. v. Village of Pinecrest, Order on Summary Judgment
4
Midpage. Megladon Inc. v. Village of Pinecrest
5
Miami Herald. Jury Finds Pinecrest Violated Developer’s Civil and Property Rights
6
Gunster. Gunster Wins Civil Rights Verdict in Permitting Exactions Case
7
Gunster. Gunster Federal Case Media Coverage