for Writ of Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial Action: Agencies, Boards, and
Commissions of Local Government: ADMINISTRATIVE
– Code Enforcement – jurisdiction – Court does not have jurisdiction to
review order setting original amount of fine for code violations since order
was not appealed within thirty days – there is no statute, rule, or code
provision which tolled the time for rendition of the original order – Petition
denied. Spradlin v. Town of
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MARY K. SPRADLIN,
vs. Appeal No.06-0018AP-88A
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Amended Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Response and the Reply. Upon consideration of the same and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds that the Amended Petition must be denied as set forth below.
Petitioner, Mary K. Spradlin (Spradlin), seeks review of the Order
Conditionally Reducing Administrative Fine, entered February 7, 2006, and the Administrative
Fine Order, entered October 10, 2005, by the Code Enforcement Special Master
for the Respondent, Town of North Redington Beach, Florida (Town). In reviewing the administrative action taken
below, the Court must consider whether Spradlin was afforded procedural due
process, whether the essential requirements of law were observed and whether
the Order is supported by competent substantial evidence. See Haines City Community
Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 530 (
record shows that Spradlin is the owner of real property located at
$ 2,000.00. It is from this order that Spradlin filed the above-styled Petition for Writ of Certiorari, on March 7, 2006.
Before this Court, Spradlin raises
no issues directed at the Order Conditionally Reducing Administrative Fine, but
rather generally argues that the Administrative Fine Order, entered in October 10,
2005, is not supported by competent substantial evidence. The Court agrees with the City that the Court
lacks jurisdiction to review this Order as Spradlin failed to seek appellate
review within thirty days of its entry. See
Fla. R. App. P. Rule 9.100(c); see also Kirby v. City of
Further, the Court finds that there
is nothing in Chapter 162 or in the City’s Code that requires an agency or local
governing body to inform a party of his/her right to seek administrative or judicial
review and the time limits for seeking such review. Compare with Latin Express Service,
Inc. v. State, Department of Revenue, 660 So.2d 1059, 1060 (
Therefore, it is,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
JOHN A. SCHAEFER
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
LAUREN LAUGHLIN BRANDT C.
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Copies furnished to:
Michael C. Barry, Sr., Esquire
Mary Kay Spradlin
Post Office Box 235
Edwin Peck, Esquire
 Upon order of this Court, Spradlin filed, on April 10, 2006, an Amended Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
 The Court notes that Florida Statutes, section 162.11, and Code Sec. 2-100, states that an aggrieved party may appeal a “final” administrative order to the circuit court. The Court finds that the Administrative Fine Order does not use the word “final” anywhere in the title or body of the order, nor does the Order set forth the aggrieved party’s right to appellate review. While the Court finds that this has no bearing on the outcome of this particular Petition, the City may want to add language to its final orders utilizing the word “final” and setting forth the appellate right to review as stated in the statute and Code to avoid any potential due process claims.