No. 24-541

Palm Beach Polo, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Florida

Lower Court: Florida
Docketed: 2024-11-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 14th-amendment code-enforcement due-process lien-foreclosure local-government municipal-code
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-12-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Florida Local Government Code Enforcement Boards Act creates unconstitutional due process violations through vague and conflicting provisions regarding fine reduction and lien foreclosure

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Florida Local Government Code Enforcement Boards Act, Chapter 162 of the Florida Statute, and more specifically Section 162.09(2) conflicts in a material way with Section 162.09(8), and the parallel Village of Wellington Municipal Code Section 2-199(b), each of which contains vague, overbroad conflicting provisions which deprive a code violator of knowing whether coming into compliance will allow for the right to request a fine reduction prior to the municipality requesting approval from the Special Magistrate to file an action to foreclose its claim of lien against the violator 3 months after the first recording of the lien which deprives the violator of due process in that the violator cannot know whether compliance will result in a fine reduction or a potential foreclosure action, as such violates the code violator’s constitutional right to due process under the 14° Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ii

Docket Entries

2024-12-09
Petition DENIED.
2024-11-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2024.
2024-11-18
Waiver of right of respondent Village of Wellington, Florida to respond filed.
2024-09-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 16, 2024)

Attorneys

Palm Beach Polo, Inc.
Alexander L. DombAlexander L. Domb, P.A., Petitioner
Alexander L. DombAlexander L. Domb, P.A., Petitioner
Village of Wellington, Florida
Elliot B. KulaKula & Associates, P.A., Respondent
Elliot B. KulaKula & Associates, P.A., Respondent