DONALD WILLIAMS, HAZEL TOMASELLI, AMEILIA OVIEDO DE TOVAR, HERBERT GAISER, NICHOLAS VASQUEZ AND WILMA PETERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Mobile home park residents appealed a trial court judgment upholding utility charges imposed by the City of Sarasota and a city ordinance that would have closed the park and evicted them. The court affirmed the utility charges but found the ordinance violated Florida law requiring municipalities to ensure adequate relocation facilities exist before displacing mobile home residents.
The court affirmed the trial court's determination that the water, sewer, and garbage charges were proper. However, the court concluded the ordinance violated section 723.083, Florida Statutes, because the City failed to determine that adequate relocation facilities existed before taking official action that would result in removal or relocation of mobile home residents.
[1] A municipal ordinance that results in the removal or relocation of mobile home park residents is unenforceable if the municipality fails to first determine that adequate…
[2] A claim challenging the validity of a municipal ordinance may be rendered moot by the passage of time and the municipality's failure to enforce the ordinance.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“No agency of municipal, local, county, or state government shall approve any application for rezoning, or take any other official action, which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners.”
Statutory requirement that the City violated by failing to determine adequate relocation facilities existed before taking official action affecting resident removal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceResidents were tenants in a mobile home park owned by the City of Sarasota. The City imposed charges for water, sewer, and garbage services, and passe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Appellants, hereinafter residents, were tenants in a mobile home park owned by the City of Sarasota. They appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of the City, denying their claims that certain charges imposed by the City were in violation of laws governing mobile home parks and that a City ordinance passed for the purpose of closing the mobile home park and evicting these residents did not comply with the same state laws governing mobile home parks. We affirm, without discussion, the trial court’s finding that the charges for water, sewer and garbage were proper. We conclude, however, that the contested ordinance was passed in violation of section 723.083, Florida Statutes (1993),1 and was thus unenforceable for the purpose of evicting these residents.
We agree with the residents that the trial court erred in finding the ordinance valid because the City concedes that it failed to comply with the statutory prohibition against official action that would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home residents without first determining that adequate facilities exist for relocation. However, we also agree with the City’s contention that its failure to follow through with any evictions pursuant to the ordinance has, by the passage of time, resulted in the ordinance being unenforceable for the purpose of evicting these residents. That being the case, we conclude that the issue concerning the validity of the City’s ordinance is now moot, and we dismiss the appeal of this issue.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge, concur. . Section 723.083, Florida Statutes (1993), provides:
723.083 Governmental action affecting removal of mobile home owners. — No agency of municipal, local, county, or state government shall approve any application for rezoning, or take any other official action, which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeFALCO v. City OF Hallandale Beach, 18 So. 3d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…es that a municipality cannot approve an application for rezoning, or take any other “official action” which would result in mobile home relocation, without determining that adequate space exists for that relocation. In Williams v. City of Sarasota, 780 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), the city passed an ordinance for the purpose of closing a city-owned mobile home park and evicting the residents without first determining that adequate facilities existed for relocation. After the trial court denied the resident…
-
Corbin Kitchen v. Cerullo (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…t the issues raised in 3D18-1603 (challenging the July 5 Order) are “rendered moot by the passage of time” and we dismiss that appeal without further discussion. Llopis v. Llopis, 731 So. 2d 719, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Williams v. City of Sarasota, 780 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). trial court also consider the continued placement of the child with the maternal grandmother. The placement of the minor child with the maternal grandmother was the very subject of the July 11 Order pending on appeal. Kitchen…
-
Corbin Kitchen v. Cerullo (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…t the issues raised in 3D18-1603 (challenging the July 5 Order) are “rendered moot by the passage of time” and we dismiss that appeal without further discussion. Llopis v. Llopis, 731 So. 2d 719, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Williams v. City of Sarasota, 780 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). trial court also consider the continued placement of the child with the maternal grandmother. The placement of the minor child with the maternal grandmother was the very subject of the July 11 Order pending on appeal. Kitchen…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence