T & G PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL FL, LLC,
Appellant,
vs. Ref. No.: 18-0070AP-88B
UCN: 522018AP000070XXXXCI
CITY OF DUNEDIN, FLORIDA,
Appellee.
Appellant appeals a code enforcement order from the City of Dunedin, in which the City's Code Enforcement Board ("Board") denied Appellant's request for a fine reduction. Appellant raises several issues in its challenge to the code enforcement order denying the request for fine reduction; we find merit in only one. Because Appellant's due process rights were violated, we reverse.
Appellant is a company owned by a husband and wife. On September 27, 2017, Appellant received a notice of violation for its rental property that included several violations, including damage to the roof area from a tree falling during Hurricane Irma. The notice stated Appellant had until October 22 to come into compliance. In December, the code enforcement inspector determined the property was not in compliance and sent out a notice of hearing. On January 9, 2018, a hearing was held and Appellant was found to be in violation and ordered to come into compliance by January 29. A compliance hearing was held on March 6, and Appellant was found to still not be in compliance, and an order imposing a lien was entered that fined Appellant $200 a
day. No one representing Appellant attended either hearing. The roof was finally deemed to be in compliance on July 3. In August, Appellee alerted Appellant that the fines, plus interest, were still due in the amount of $31,205.96. The letter included the following: "Also enclosed with this letter is Rule 5, Section 4 of the Code Enforcement Board's Rule of Procedure, which provides the process for requesting a fine reduction by the Board." Appellant timely requested a fine reduction via a short email and several attachments. On October 2, a hearing was held. One of Appellant's owners and an attorney were present to represent Appellant. The request for a fine reduction was denied, and Appellant filed the instant appeal.
Appellant asserts its due process rights were violated when the Board took testimony at a non-evidentiary hearing without notice. Rule 5, section 4 of Appellee's code enforcement rules of procedure states in pertinent part:
After a fine has been imposed by the Board and within thirty (30) days after the violation is brought into compliance, a violator may petition for reconsideration of a fine. The Petition must include conclusive evidence showing extreme or undue hardship in the payment of the fine or preventing the violator from coming into compliance within the time period established by the Board's order. . . . The City may present, in written form, a response to the petition for reduction of fine. The Board shall make its determination based solely upon the written petition and the City's written response, unless the Board determines that it is necessary to hear oral argument from the violator and/or the City. The Board may request information from the Code Officer.
Here, after requesting information from the code enforcement officer, the Board called upon one of Appellant's owners to testify. Appellant contends that compelling one of the owners to testify without warning was detrimental to its motion, and if Appellant had known testimony would be taken, the other owner, who had worked on the roof and spoken with the code enforcement officers, would have attended. Moreover, Appellant maintains that it had counsel ready if the Board decided oral argument was necessary.
2
Original Order entered on January 17, 2020, by Circuit Judges Pamela A.M. Campbell, Amy M. Williams, and Thomas M. Ramsberger.