A Florida court has upheld a decision regarding housing funding eligibility that affects developers seeking state support for mixed-use projects. The First District Court of Appeal ruled on November 12, 2026, in the case of BDG Fern Grove Phase Two, LP v. WHFT LL Workforce, LTD, et al. (Docket No. 1D2025-1661). The ruling is significant as it clarifies the interpretation of funding requirements under the state’s housing finance regulations.

The court's decision impacts BDG Fern Grove Phase Two, LP, which applied for funding from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation for a mixed-use development project in Orange County. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to specified eligibility criteria when seeking state funding for housing projects.

Background

BDG Fern Grove Phase Two, LP (referred to as Fern Grove) is a developer that applied for state funding under a Request for Applications (RFA) issued by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The RFA, numbered 2024-2313, sought proposals for State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) funding for mixed-income and mixed-use developments. The application process included strict eligibility requirements, particularly concerning the developer's experience with mixed-use projects.

The Florida Housing Finance Corporation received a total of sixty-five applications for funding. After an internal review, it scored fifty-seven applications as eligible and recommended ten for funding. Fern Grove's application was for a 129-unit mid-rise development that included plans for a food pantry and counseling facility. However, it faced challenges as other applicants, specifically WHFT LL Workforce, LTD, protested its preliminary approval.

Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended that Fern Grove's application be denied, citing that it failed to meet the experience requirements outlined in the RFA. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation adopted this recommendation as its Final Order, leading to Fern Grove's appeal.

The Ruling

The First District Court of Appeal ruled that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation had incorrectly interpreted the RFA by imposing an unwritten requirement for a “dedicated space” for institutional services. The court stated, “We cannot adopt the ALJ’s substitution of ‘definable unit’ for the RFA’s own term,” emphasizing that the language of the RFA should be interpreted according to its plain terms.

Despite finding that the “dedicated space” requirement was an error, the court affirmed the Final Order based on other findings. The ruling noted that Fern Grove failed to demonstrate the necessary experience with institutional services being available at least five days a week. The court concluded, “The Final Order’s determination that Fern Grove’s referenced developments failed to demonstrate the requisite five-day-per-week institutional presence rests on competent, substantial evidence independent of the implied ‘dedicated space’ requirement.”

Judges M.K. Thomas, T. Bilbrey, and K. Kelsey concurred in the decision, which highlights the importance of developers understanding the explicit terms of funding applications.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for developers seeking state funding for mixed-use developments in Florida. It clarifies that eligibility requirements must be strictly adhered to and that agencies cannot impose additional criteria not explicitly stated in the application guidelines. The decision reinforces the need for developers to provide clear evidence of their experience in delivering services as stipulated in the RFA.

Furthermore, the court's ruling may influence future applications and protests regarding funding eligibility. Developers may need to be more diligent in ensuring that their applications meet all outlined criteria to avoid similar disputes. The decision also serves as a reminder that funding agencies must adhere to the language of their own regulations when evaluating applications.

What's Next

Fern Grove may consider appealing the decision, but details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. Currently, there are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling.