PEDERO L. ORTEGA
v.
CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS
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.
Pedro L. Ortega appeals a Final Administrative Order upholding a Code Enforcement violation, contending he was not provided proper statutory notice of the violation or the hearing. The appellate court agreed and quashed the order, finding that posting notice on the property alone does not satisfy the statutory requirement to provide notice via certified mail, hand delivery, or leaving notice at the residence.
The court held that Appellant was not provided statutory notice because the USPS Tracking Webpage was insufficient (listing only city, state, and zip code; suggesting delivery to the original sender; and showing a different zip code than Appellant's) and there was no evidence of certified mail notice of the hearing. The court further held that posting notice on the property is supplementary to, not a substitute for, the required forms of notice under Florida law.
[1] Statutory notice of a code enforcement violation must be provided through methods enumerated in Florida Statutes § 162.12(1)(a), including certified mail, hand delivery,…
[2] A USPS tracking webpage is insufficient to establish notice via certified mail when it fails to provide the full delivery address, suggests delivery to the sender, or lis…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In addition to providing notice as set forth in subsection (1), at the option of the code enforcement board or the local government, notice may be served by publication or posting, as follows.... 'In addition to' does not mean 'instead of.'”
Establishes that posting notice on the property is supplementary to, not a substitute for, statutorily required notice methods
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Ortega allegedly violated a code enforcement ordinance at property located at 3545 N.W. 205 Street, Miami Gardens, Florida. Appellant's regi…
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.
Appellant Pedro L. Ortega ("Appellant") appeals a Final Administrative Order that upheld a Code Enforcement violation. Appellant contends this Court should reverse the Final Administrative Order because Appellant was not provided notice of the alleged violation or of the proceedings below. This Court agrees. [*1] Florida law provides a few different ways in which notice to a violator may be given. See Fla. Stat. § 162.12(1)(a). Specifically, and most pertinent to the instant case, Florida law allows notice (1) via certified mail "to the address listed in the tax collector's office for tax notices or to the address listed in the county property appraiser's database;" (2) by hand delivery; and, (3) by leaving the notice at the violator's usual place of residence with any resident over the age of 15. Id.1 In this case, there is no record evidence of notice via certified mail to Appellant at the address listed in the county appraiser's database or tax collector's office. Appellee appears to be relying on a USPS Tracking Webpage in support of its contention that notice of the violation was provided via certified mail. The Tracking Webpage, however, is insufficient to demonstrate that Appellant was notified via certified mail for at least three reasons. First, it fails to provide the full address to which delivery was made-listing, instead, only the city, state and zip code. Second, it appears to suggest that whatever was sent via certified mail was delivered to the "original [*2] sender." Finally, even if the package arrived at its intended destination, the zip code provided is different from Appellant's zip code.
In any event, even if the Tracking Webpage were somehow sufficient to establish statutory notice of the violation, there would still be no record evidence that Appellant was notified via certified mail of the Notice of Hearing.2 In addition to the total absence of record evidence that would purport to show notice via certified mail, there is also an absence of record evidence that would tend to show that notice was effectuated by hand delivery, or by otherwise leaving said notice at the violator's usual place of residence with a person over the age of fifteen.
[*3] Appellee, nevertheless, contends it complied with its notice requirements because it posted notice of the violation at 3545 N.W. 205 Street, Miami Gardens, Florida.
Appellee misreads the applicable law.
Appellee can, of course, post notice on the violating property. This form of notice, however, is in addition to, and not a substitution for, other required forms of notice. See Fla. Stat. § 162.12(2) (“In addition to providing notice as set forth in subsection (1), at the option of the code enforcement board or the local government, notice may be served by publication or posting, as follows....") (emphasis added); see also Little v. D'Aloia, 759 So. 2d 17, 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("In addition to' does not mean 'instead of.").
In summary, Appellant was not provided statutory notice of the alleged violation or the hearing concerning said violation. The Special Master below erred in finding notice had been properly effectuated and Appellant, as a result, was denied the due process of law.
Accordingly, the Order of the Special Master is QUASHED.
TRAWICK and SANTOVENIA, JJ., CONCUR.