Miami-Dade Property Owner Gains Ground in Code Enforcement Case
The property owner should have been afforded a laches defense in front of a code enforcement hearing officer, a three-judge panel said.
November 21, 2017 at 02:53 PM
6 minute read
A southwest Miami-Dade County property owner who says the county is wrongly requiring him to maintain and clean up a public road will get another code enforcement hearing.
Old Cutler Creek LLC owns about 9.5 acres in a narrow strip of land between Florida's Turnpike and Southwest 107th Avenue and from 216th Street to Old Cutler Road south of Cutler Bay.
The owner has been fighting a county code enforcement citation over maintenance of what he maintains is a public road adjacent to his property for more than two years — and recently gained some ground on a laches claim of an unreasonable delay in enforcement.
A Miami-Dade Circuit Court appellate panel said the county hearing officer who presided over the code citation erred when he failed to allow for a laches defense.
“In this instance, the hearing officer's preclusion of the laches defense … is tantamount to a failure to observe the essential requirements of law,” Judge Antonio Arzola wrote in the Nov. 6 opinion for the three-judge panel. Judges Jose M. Rodriguez and David Miller concurred.
The judges concluded, “The hearing officer did not afford due process, and his findings and conclusions were not based on competent and substantial evidence.”
The county did not return a request for comment by deadline.
Malcolm B. Wiseheart III, the Miami attorney for Old Cutler Creek, said the key now would be to prove the county knew there was an issue on the road long before it cited his client for a code violation.
“The predominant feature of the laches defense is that Miami-Dade County has been waiting too long to enforce this, which has caused legal prejudice to the property owner,” Wiseheart said. “In this case, it has been going on well before the ordinance was enacted since the late '90s. It's a very long time. … Why did they choose not to enforce this, and why all of the sudden are they able to enforce this?”
If Wiseheart and his client can establish the laches defense, the county would be precluded from pursuing the case, and all other issues would become moot, Wiseheart said.
The legal battle dates back to Sept. 18, 2015, when the county cited Old Cutler Creek and Robert M. Oliver III for “placing an article in the public right-of-way without a permit,” according to county records.
Oliver is the registered agent and title manager for Old Cutler Creek, state records show.
The right of way at issue is part of Southwest 107th Avenue between 216th and 220th streets, according to a March 18, 2016, county description filed in court.
In late 2016, the issue boiled over into the courts when Old Cutler Creek sued County Clerk Harvey Ruvin alleging a hearing that was supposed to be scheduled in May never was set, according to the complaint.
Old Cutler Creek appealed a Sept. 12, 2016, county order requiring it to “maintain and clear Miami-Dade County's right of way,” according to Old Cutler Creek's appeal. It also filed a motion for either a rehearing or a written opinion, with the court denying both.
A southwest Miami-Dade County property owner who says the county is wrongly requiring him to maintain and clean up a public road will get another code enforcement hearing.
Old Cutler Creek LLC owns about 9.5 acres in a narrow strip of land between Florida's Turnpike and Southwest 107th Avenue and from 216th Street to Old Cutler Road south of Cutler Bay.
The owner has been fighting a county code enforcement citation over maintenance of what he maintains is a public road adjacent to his property for more than two years — and recently gained some ground on a laches claim of an unreasonable delay in enforcement.
A Miami-Dade Circuit Court appellate panel said the county hearing officer who presided over the code citation erred when he failed to allow for a laches defense.
“In this instance, the hearing officer's preclusion of the laches defense … is tantamount to a failure to observe the essential requirements of law,” Judge
The judges concluded, “The hearing officer did not afford due process, and his findings and conclusions were not based on competent and substantial evidence.”
The county did not return a request for comment by deadline.
Malcolm B. Wiseheart III, the Miami attorney for Old Cutler Creek, said the key now would be to prove the county knew there was an issue on the road long before it cited his client for a code violation.
“The predominant feature of the laches defense is that Miami-Dade County has been waiting too long to enforce this, which has caused legal prejudice to the property owner,” Wiseheart said. “In this case, it has been going on well before the ordinance was enacted since the late '90s. It's a very long time. … Why did they choose not to enforce this, and why all of the sudden are they able to enforce this?”
If Wiseheart and his client can establish the laches defense, the county would be precluded from pursuing the case, and all other issues would become moot, Wiseheart said.
The legal battle dates back to Sept. 18, 2015, when the county cited Old Cutler Creek and Robert M. Oliver III for “placing an article in the public right-of-way without a permit,” according to county records.
Oliver is the registered agent and title manager for Old Cutler Creek, state records show.
The right of way at issue is part of Southwest 107th Avenue between 216th and 220th streets, according to a March 18, 2016, county description filed in court.
In late 2016, the issue boiled over into the courts when Old Cutler Creek sued County Clerk Harvey Ruvin alleging a hearing that was supposed to be scheduled in May never was set, according to the complaint.
Old Cutler Creek appealed a Sept. 12, 2016, county order requiring it to “maintain and clear Miami-Dade County's right of way,” according to Old Cutler Creek's appeal. It also filed a motion for either a rehearing or a written opinion, with the court denying both.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Florida Court's Reversal of Attorney Fees Triggered by Client's Death
4 minute readCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250