Code Enforcement Gone Wrong

A trio of recent appellate cases against the City of Miami illustrate three fundamental requirements for any code enforcement proceeding: (1) that property owners receive full and fair notice of the proceedings; (2) that property owners receive a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing; and (3) that any decision rests on competent and substantial evidence. When a code enforcement proceeding fails to meet these requirements, courts will reverse.

Notice: You Cannot Defend What You Do Not Know About

In Carbon v. City of Miami, 2025-13-AP-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Apr. 1, 2026), the appellants challenged a code enforcement order requiring them to demolish their building. They argued that the City denied them due process because it never properly notified them that immediate demolition was possible. The hearing notice contained conflicting and confusing information, including a statement that the violation did not meet the criteria for immediate demolition. Also, the hearing occurred before one of the deadlines in the notice had even expired.

The Florida Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. In practice, this means that a code enforcement board must provide reasonable notice and a fair opportunity to be heard before issuing violation orders and fines. The standard is less stringent than in a courtroom, but it still applies to code enforcement proceedings. The opportunity to be heard must be meaningful, full, and fair. That requires notice sufficient to give a property owner a real chance to prepare and participate in the hearing. When a hearing notice fails to identify the issues a code enforcement board will actually decide, the notice violates due process and taints the entire proceeding.

In Carbon, the appellate court vacated the demolition order and sent the matter back to the City for further proceedings.

Participation: The Right to Be Heard Means More Than Showing Up

In Hryshankou v. City of Miami, 2025-25-AP-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Apr. 10, 2026), a short-term rental case, the appellate court addressed a different due process failure: what happened during the hearing itself. On appeal, the appellant argued that the code enforcement board denied him a meaningful ability to cross-examine key witnesses and present rebuttal evidence. After reviewing the transcript, the appellate court agreed.

The record showed that a board member initially told the appellant he could not object to testimony. The appellant was repeatedly interrupted, scolded, and lectured during his presentation. During his cross-examination of a witness, a board member and the city attorney interrupted him and answered questions on the witness's behalf. The court found that the repeated disruptions and the lack of appropriate decorum exhibited by the city attorney and board members violated the appellant’s due process rights.

The court vacated the board's orders and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Evidence: A Decision Must Rest on Facts, Not Assumptions

Both Hryshankou and a similar case, Shehata v. City of Miami, 2025-26-AP-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Mar. 27, 2026), also illustrate the level of evidence necessary to support a code enforcement order. Administrative findings and orders must be based on competent and substantial evidence. In plain terms, "substantial evidence" means enough credible evidence that a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion. It must be reasonable and logical, not speculative.

The court's role on appeal is narrow: does any competent substantial evidence support the board's conclusion?

In Hryshankou, the board imposed a fine without analyzing the requirements of the zoning code and without following the steps required before assessing fines. No evidence rebutted the appellant's claim that he had stopped the violating activity before the hearing.

In Shehata, the record similarly contained no evidence that the appellant had failed to correct the alleged violation within the time provided. The appellant's unrebutted testimony established that he ceased renting the property on a short-term basis, removed the listing, and hired professionals to assist him in getting necessary approvals, all before the hearing. Despite this, the board found the appellant in violation, imposed a $10,000 fine for an "irreparable violation," and assessed a $1,000 daily fine. The appellate court found the board's decision nonsensical: it imposed a fine to compel correction of an alleged violation that the board simultaneously found, without any evidence, to be irreparable and incapable of correction. The board also failed to determine whether the violation had been corrected by the deadline stated in the notice.

The appellate court also noted that the board spoke to the appellant sarcastically and dismissively in a manner that betrayed a predetermined outcome, denying him due process. Similar to the appellant in Hryshankou, the appellant was mocked for pleading not guilty, interrupted multiple times, and issued fines in complete disregard of what the law requires.

The court reversed the board's orders.

Takeaway

Code enforcement proceedings, whether before a board or a special magistrate, are more complicated than most property owners expect. Even appointed board members sometimes do not know or follow the legal and factual requirements for a proper hearing. As these cases show, boards sometimes issue violation orders without the requisite evidence and impose fines in violation of the law. There is usually a very short window to appeal such decisions.

We recommend consulting with a lawyer upon first receipt of a notice of violation. A lawyer can help you understand the nature and extent of the alleged violation, the risks of noncompliance, and the options for challenging the allegations. While a lawyer is not required for the hearing itself, the above cases illustrate the benefit of having counsel present who understands the procedural and evidentiary rules. After the hearing, you often have 30 days or less to challenge a decision, so quick action is essential to preserving your appeal rights.

Contact us if you have received a notice of violation, a notice of hearing, or are otherwise involved in a code enforcement proceeding and want assistance.