Handsome, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission

Summary

The dissent would conclude that Handsome had standing to challenge the zoning commission's permit-extension decision despite losing legal title through foreclosure. It reasons that Handsome retained possession, continued operating its business, complied with an agreement permitting it to reacquire title, and therefore had a substantial and legitimate interest specially affected by the decision. The dissent maintains that the trial court's aggrievement finding was supported by the evidence and should not have been vacated. Justice Palmer, dissenting, would have allowed the court to reach the merits of the commission's appeal rather than dismissing Handsome's appeal for lack of standing.