IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

MARK R. REINHARDT
APPELLANT,
Case No: 13-000073-AP
UCN522013AP000073XXXXCI
v.
CITY OF DUNEDIN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
APPELLEE
______________________________________________/

__________________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM
THE CITY OF DUNEDIN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. DCEB-13-616
__________________________________________________________________
APPELLANT'S INITIAL BRIEF
__________________________________________________________________
Mark R. Reinhardt
Appellant, pro se
12 Wilson St.
Amissville, VA 20106
540-937-7977

TABLE OF CONTENTS
______________________________________________________________ Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ...........................................................4
STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...........................................................................8
ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................9
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................13
CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE ......................................................14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...........................................................................14
APPENDIX
A.

Notice of Evidenciary Hearing ....................................................A-1

B.

US Post Office Delivery Record 1 ...............................................A-3

C.

Response to Notice of Hearing ....................................................A-4

D.

Notice of Compliance Hearing .....................................................A-8

E.

US Post Office Delivery Record 2 ...............................................A-9

F.

Order Under Appeal ...................................................................A-10

G.

Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Rules of Procedure ............A-12

13-000073-AP

Page 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
______________________________________________________________ Page

CASES
Blackburn and Danish v. Code Enforcement Board of the City of St. Petersburg
No. 10-000007AP-88A (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. October 12, 2010).......7
Sarasota County v. Bow Point on Gulf Condo. Developers, LLC,
974 So.2d 431, 433 n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)........................................7
Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. P'ship
619 So 2d 996, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)............................................7
STATUTES
162.06, Fla. Stat. (2013)..............................................................................8-10, 13
162.11, Fla. Stat. (2013)........................................................................................7
162.12, Fla. Stat. (2013)....................................................................................8-13

RULES
Dunedin Code Enforcement Board Rules Of Procedure
Rule 4, Section 1a......................................................................8, 11-13

13-000073-AP

Page 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

Comes now the Appellant, Mark R. Reinhardt, filing pro se, who submits this
Appellant's Initial Brief. This is an appeal of a Final Order by the Dunedin Code
Enforcement Board in case number DCEB 13-616. The Final Order is dated
October 10, 2013. Appellant will show in this brief that Appellee has not adhered
to statutes governing the mailing of the notice of a hearing.

Appellant owns a single family home at 1453 San Mateo Dr. in the City of
Dunedin (hereinafter the subject property). On August 20, 2013, The Dunedin
Code Enforcement Board (hereinafter DCEB) sent a Notice of Hearing via
certified mail [Appendix A] as to an Evidenciary Hearing regarding alleged
violations at the subject property. The date of mailing of the notice was August 20,
2013 and the hearing date in the notice was September 3, 2013. The timespan
between the date of mailing and the hearing date was 14 days. The actual certified
letter containing the notice was received on September 4, 2013, which was the day
after the hearing was held. The US Post Office delivery record of this mailing is
shown in Appendix B.

Despite not receiving the certified letter containing the Notice, Appellant did
13-000073-AP

Page 4

become aware of the hearing and provided a written response to the DCEB prior to
the hearing [Appendix C]. Appellant had also received a letter, sent by first-class
mail, that was a duplicate of the Notice of Hearing sent via certified mail.
Appellant received this first-class letter on August 31, 2013. The information in
the first-class letter is that upon which Appellant filed the written response. The
Appellant resides in Virginia and, due to the extremely short timeframe given, was
not able to attend the hearing but instead provided a written response.

This response was sent via fax to the Clerk's office on September 3, 2013 prior to
the hearing. In this response, Appellant denied the allegations and asserted that
there was not sufficient notice given under the law with citations to the applicable
statutes, and that a hearing could not be held.

The DCEB held a hearing on the scheduled date, September 3, 2013. At the
hearing, the DCEB disregarded Appellant's testimony and apparently determined
that the notice was sufficient and a hearing on the matter could then proceed. The
DCEB then issued a non-final order of compliance.

On September 19, the DCEB sent a Notice of Compliance Hearing with a date of
mailing of September 19, 2013 and a hearing date of October 1, 2013. [Appendix
13-000073-AP

Page 5

D]. The timespan between the date of mailing and the date of the hearing was 12
days. Again, the Appellant did not receive the Notice until after the hearing date,
which is shown by the US Post Office delivery record in Appendix E. The
Appellant was not able to respond as he had no knowledge of the proceedings.
Nonetheless, the hearing was held in his absence. At the hearing, an Affidavit of
Non-Compliance was submitted by the code inspector and a Final Order was
issued, levying a fine of $150 per day. It is this Order, dated October 10, 2013 that
is being appealed with this Brief. The Order is shown in Appendix F.

13-000073-AP

Page 6

STANDARD OF REVIEW
From the Opinion written in Blackburn and Danish v. Code Enforcement Board of
the City of St. Petersburg, No. 10-000007AP-88A (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. October
12, 2010):
Under section 162.11, Florida Statutes, an appeal of a code enforcement
board's order to the circuit court shall not be a hearing de novo but shall be
limited to appellate review of the record created before the enforcement
board. Sarasota County v. Bow Point on Gulf Condo.Developers, LLC, 974
So.2d 431, 433 n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). When the circuit court in its
appellate capacity reviews local governmental administrative action, three
questions are asked: whether due process was afforded, whether the
administrative body applied the correct law, and whether its findings are
supported by competent substantial evidence. Lee County v. Sunbelt
Equities, II, Ltd. P'ship, 619 So 2d 996, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

13-000073-AP

Page 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Appellee departed from due process in the provision of its notice of hearings
to Appellant. The notice of a hearing is a required notice per F.S. 162.06, and the
means of provision of required notices are governed by F.S. 162.12. The DCEB
Rules of Procedure require proper notice to be issued before a hearing may be held.

The Appellee did not provide notice as directed in F.S. 162.12, and subsequently
held hearings despite the requirements in the Rules of Procedure. The hearings
should not have been held and the Order under appeal should not have been issued.

Appellant seeks relief by this Court in the form of reversing the Order under this
appeal and to release any and all liens on the subject property as a result of said
Order.

13-000073-AP

Page 8

ARGUMENT
Due Process Not Afforded
The nature of this appeal applies directly to whether due process was afforded to
Appellant in the instant case. Appellant asserts that the City of Dunedin departed
from due process by its provision of notice, as will be shown below.

Notice of Hearing Required Under Statute

FS 162.06 governs the enforcement procedures by code enforcement boards and
FS 162.12 governs provisions of notice to alleged violators.

FS 162.06 reads, in pertinent part: The code enforcement board, through its
clerical staff, shall schedule a hearing, and written notice of such hearing shall be
hand delivered or mailed as provided in s. 162.12 to said violator.

Thus, as a notice of a hearing, the notices that the DCEB sent to Appellant for the
hearings that were scheduled on September 3, 2013 and October 1, 2013 are
required per F.S. 162.06 and must be hand delivered or mailed as provided in
162.12.

13-000073-AP

Page 9

Notice of Hearing Must Be Mailed via Certified Mail

FS 162.12(1) begins with All notices required by this part must be provided to
the alleged violator by: and follows in paragraph (a):
Certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed in the tax
collectors office for tax notices or to the address listed in the county
property appraisers database. The local government may also provide an
additional notice to any other address it may find for the property owner.
For property owned by a corporation, notices may be provided by certified
mail to the registered agent of the corporation. If any notice sent by certified
mail is not signed as received within 30 days after the postmarked date of
mailing, notice may be provided by posting as described in subparagraphs
(2)(b)1. and 2.;

The notices for the hearing were required notices under F.S. 162.06. The notices
must be sent according to F.S. 162.12(1)(a). By having fewer than 30 days
between the date of mailing and the hearing, the notices did not conform with
statute. The period between the date of mailing and the hearing date was 14 days
for the Evidenciary Hearing, and 12 days for the Compliance Hearing. The US
Post Office will hold certified mail for 15 days before returning it to the sender.
F.S. 162.12(1)(a) requires a 30-day return period for notices of hearings.
13-000073-AP

Page 10

Appellant received the certified letters for each hearing after the hearing date, but
still within the 15 days it was held by the Post Office. The hearings were held
before the required Notice was received, even though the Notice was still received
within the return time period required under F.S. 162.12(1)(a). This is where the
Appellee has departed from due process.

Requirements of Notice Not Met

FS 162.12 reads [emphasis added]: Evidence that an attempt has been made to
hand deliver or mail notice as provided in subsection (1), together with proof of
publication or posting as provided in subsection (2), shall be sufficient to show
that the notice requirements of this part have been met, without regard to whether
or not the alleged violator actually received such notice.

The notices sent by Appellee did not meet the requirements of F.S. 162.12,
because they were not mailed as provided in subsection (1), which requires a 30
day period for the certified letter to be signed and received. Only after the 30 day
period, along with the other requirements presented in F.S. 162.12(2), shall the
notice be sufficient and the requirements met.

Hearings Not Conforming to DCEB Rules of Procedure

13-000073-AP

Page 11

The Rules of Procedure for the City of Dunedin Code Enforcement Board, Rule 4,
Section 1, states:
The following procedures will be observed in hearings before the
Board:
a. If it is established that proper notice of a hearing has been provided
to the Respondent, a hearing may proceed in the absence of the
Respondent.

As has been shown above, proper notice of the hearings was not provided,
and therefore the hearings should not have been held per Rule 4, Section 1 of
the DCEB Rules of Procedure [Appendix G]. The Appellee again departed
from due process by conducting two separate hearings when the notice
of the hearings was not provided as per F.S. 162.12(1).

13-000073-AP

Page 12

CONCLUSION
The Appellee conducted two hearings in the absence of the Appellant, and from the
determinations in those hearings levied a fine for alleged violations at the subject
property. In order to conduct those hearings, notice of the proceedings must be
sent in accordance with statute, specifically the requirements under F.S. 162.06
and F.S. 162.12. The Rules of Procedure of the DCEB allow a hearing to proceed
only if proper notice has been provided to the alleged violator. As has been shown
in the Argument above, the DCEB departed from due process by:
1) not providing notice conforming to F.S. 162.12 for an Evidenciary Hearing
and a Compliance Hearing
2) conducting an Evidenciary Hearing and a Compliance Hearing without
determining that proper notice has been provided as per Rule 4, Section 1 of
the DCEB Rules of Procedure

Since due process has not been met, the hearings should not have been held, and
the Order issued by the DCEB that is under appeal should not have been issued.
Therefore, as relief, Appellant seeks to have the Court reverse the Order
under appeal and to direct the City of Dunedin to release any and all
subsequent liens as a result of said Order.

13-000073-AP

Page 13

This Appellant's Initial Brief is

Respectfully submitted by,
______________________
Mark R. Reinhardt
Appellant, pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by United States
Mail to Appellee at the Clerk of the Code Enforcement Board, City of Dunedin,
Florida at PO Box 1348, Dunedin, Florida, 34697-1348.
______________________
Mark R. Reinhardt
Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that the font used in this brief is 14-point Times New Roman and
that the brief complies with font requirements of Rule 9.210(a)(2).
______________________
Mark R. Reinhardt
Appellant
13-000073-AP

Page 14

13-000073-AP

Page 15

Applicable Statutes
FS 162.06 governs the enforcement procedures by code enforcement boards and
FS 162.12 governs provisions of notice to alleged violators.
FS 162.06 reads, in pertinent part: The code enforcement board, through its
clerical staff, shall schedule a hearing, and written notice of such hearing shall be
hand delivered or mailed as provided in s. 162.12 to said violator.
FS 162.12 (1)

Evidence that an attempt has been made to hand deliver or mail notice as provided
in subsection (1), together with proof of publication or posting as provided in
subsection (2), shall be sufficient to show that the notice requirements of this part
have been met, without regard to whether or not the alleged violator actually
received such notice.

The period between the date of mailing and the hearing date was 14 days for the
Evidenciary Hearing, and 12 days for the Compliance Hearing. The US Post
Office will hold certified mail for 15 days before returning it to the sender. FS
162.12(1)(a) requires a 30-day return period for notices of hearings. Appellant
received the certified letters for each hearing after the hearing date, but still within
the 15 days it was held by the Post Office. The hearings were held before the
required Notice was received, even though the Notice was still received within the
return time period required under 162.12(1)(a). This is where the Appellee has
departed from due process.
The notices for the hearing were required notices under 162.06. The notices must
be sent according to 162.12(1)(a). By having fewer than 30 days between the date
of mailing and the hearing, the notices did not conform with statute. As the notices
were not properly conforming, the hearings should not have been held per Rule
XXX of the DCEB Rules of Procedure.
13-000073-AP

Page 16

All notices required by this part / notice of hearing is a notice under this part.
162.06
In the Rules of Procedure for the DCEB, Paragraph XXX states:

Therefore appellant seeks to have the Court vacate the order under appeal and to
release any and all subsequent liens as a result of said order.

As such the Appellee cannot invoke jurisdiction over the Appellant because the
requirements under the law that give it that jurisdiction have not been met.

The short interval between the dates shows that the board had no intention of
providing a 30-day mail acceptance period. The law prescribes an adequate
timeframe for a respondent to make an assessment of the alleged violations and
formulate a response and/or actions in regard to the allegations. In fact, any
response was precluded by the DCEB's actions in that the hearing was held before
the expiration of the US Post Office return delivery period for certified mail.

The notion that a 12-day span between the date of notice and the hearing date is
not sufficient is further reinforced by [Statute]:
13-000073-AP

Page 17

(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:
(a)1.Such notice shall be published once during each week for 4
consecutive weeks

In the above statute, the timeframe of publication of notice is 4 consecutive

weeks, which matches the 30-day timeframe prescribed by XXXXX. There is
nothing in the statute to suggest that it was the intention of Legislature to allow a
municipality to put a certified letter in the mail without any regard to a reasonable
response time and have that provide legal jurisdiction to levy fines upon and seize
a citizen's property.

Evid. Hearing
notice time span
Compliance Hearing
notice time span
notices are required under statute, subject to service rules
board rules say hearing a hearing may proceed if there's proper notice
hearing should not have happened
departed from due process
order/liens should be reversed

13-000073-AP

Page 18

(1) A table of contents listing the issues presented for review, with
references to pages.
(2) A table of citations with cases listed alphabetically, statutes and
other authorities, and the pages of the brief on which each citation appears. See
rule 9.800 for a uniform citation system.
(3) A statement of the case and of the facts, which shall include the
nature of the case, the course of the proceedings, and the disposition in the lower
tribunal. References to the appropriate volume and pages of the record or transcript
shall be made.
(4) A summary of argument, suitably paragraphed, condensing
succinctly, accurately, and clearly the argument actually made in the body of the
brief. It should not be a mere repetition of the headings under which the argument
is arranged. It should seldom exceed 2 and never 5 pages.
(5) Argument with regard to each issue including the applicable
appellate standard of review.
(6) A conclusion, of not more than 1 page, setting forth the precise
relief sought

13-000073-AP

Page 19