FLORIDA AUTO RESERVE, LLC

v.

THE TOWN OF MEDLEY

Before: TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA, JJ.

[*2] TRAWICK, J.

This is an appeal from an administrative order of a special magistrate for code enforcement. The order was rendered on July 13, 2021. A notice of appeal was filed on September¹, 2021. Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. As a result, this appeal must be dismissed.

Appellant is an automobile dealership which occupies and operates its business at 12450 N.W. South River Drive, Medley, Florida ("the subject property"). Appellant leases this property from its landlord, Alpha Invest of South Florida, LLC ("Alpha Invest"). Due to the alleged failure to pay business taxes for the subject property, a warning notice was issued to Alpha Invest on January 13, 2021, giving them thirty days to obtain a business tax receipt. No warning notice was provided to Appellant. On March 30, 2021, a "Uniform Civil Violation Notice" was issued for the failure to obtain a business tax receipt for the subject property. The notice indicated that a fine of $250 per day would be imposed until the violation was corrected. The record indicates that this notice was sent to Page 2 of 6 [*3] Appellant.¹ On July 13, 2021, the alleged violation was brought before a Special Magistrate. The record does not reflect that anyone appeared to contest the violation. In his order, the Special Magistrate noted that the violator, Alpha Invest, had waived their right to a hearing and found that the violation had not been corrected. A fine was imposed on Alpha Invest in the amount of $21,075, and a code compliance lien was entered. A certificate of service attached to the order indicates that the order was provided to Alpha Invest. No mention was made of Appellant either in the order or on the code compliance lien filed with the Town Clerk.

Appellant contends that they were denied due process because they did not receive the notice of violation or a notice of the hearing before the Special Magistrate. They assert that the failure to provide either of these notices was the reason for the late filing of the notice of appeal. They ask that they therefore be allowed to proceed with the appeal, or in the alternative, that the Court allow Appellant to petition the Special Magistrate to vacate and re-enter his order so that the time for filing will begin anew.

Page 3 of 6 [*4] Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.190 governs appellate review of administrative actions. Rule 9.190(b)(3) provides that:

"[review of quasi-judicial decisions of any administrative body, agency, board or commission not subject to the APA shall be commenced by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in accordance with rules 9.100(b) and ((c), unless judicial review by appeal is provided by general law.

§162.11, Florida Statutes, states:

An aggrieved party, including the local governing body, may appeal a final administrative order of an enforcement board to the circuit court. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the code enforcement board. An appeal shall be filed within 30 days of the execution of the order to be appealed.

(Emphasis added).

While Appellant asks this Court to exercise jurisdiction because of an asserted denial of due process, such a request is beyond the power of this Court to grant. Neither trial nor appellate courts in this state are authorized to extend the time for filing notices of appeal, "no matter what reason or method is employed in an attempt to do so." Congregation Temple De Hirsch of Seattle, Wash. v. Aronson, 128 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 1961). Similarly, in Jones v. Jones, 845 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (5th DCA 2003), the court dismissed an appeal filed more than 30 days after rendition of a judgment, stating: "[j]urisdictional time limits may not be altered by the actions or inactions of the parties or the trial court... The trial court was without authority to extend the time to file a motion for rehearing or to file the Page 4 of 6 [*5] notice of appeal". Following the same rationale, the court dismissed an appeal as untimely in Capone v. Florida Board of Regents, 774 So. 2d 825, 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (concluding that a court's local rules and practices for filing of nonjurisdictional papers cannot usurp the constitutional power of the supreme court's authority to establish the time limit within which appellate review must be sought).

Even if this Court had jurisdiction to consider this appeal, Appellant lacks standing to bring this matter before the Court. Alpha Invest is the owner of the subject property, and the alleged violations were asserted against them. Indeed, Medley Town Code §2-82(a) and (b) specifically state in applicable part:

The owner of any real property in the town shall be responsible for any person or business occupying the premises of the owner's property, which shall be done in compliance with the Town Code....

A property owner violates this section of the Code if a person or business commits a violation of any section of the Town Code at or on the owner's property.

(Emphasis added). Since Appellant was a tenant of the subject property rather than the owner, they were not responsible for the asserted violation. Neither the notice of violation nor the notice of hearing were required to be provided to a non-party. The failure to provide such a notice is thus not properly before this Court. "The right to appeal is available only to those who were parties to the action in the lower tribunal." Ahlers v. Wilson, 867 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). See also Bondi v. Tucker, 93 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (a party who suffers an adverse Page 5 of 6 [*6] judgment has the right to appeal, but non-parties whose rights have not been adjudicated have no right to appeal); Stas v. Posada, 760 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (granting motion to dismiss appeal as to non-parties with no ownership interest in the subject property).

Based on the foregoing authorities, we find that this appeal is untimely and must therefore be DISMISSED. Furthermore, we conclude that Appellant lacks standing to contest the asserted code violation.

TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA, JJ., concur. COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL

OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY

NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

Page 6 of 6 [*7] Copies Furnished to: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]