Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 162.06 (2025)
Enforcement procedure.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
162.06 Enforcement procedure.—
(1)(a) It shall be the duty of the code inspector to initiate enforcement proceedings of the various codes; however, no member of a board shall have the power to initiate such enforcement proceedings.
(b) A code inspector may not initiate enforcement proceedings for a potential violation of a duly enacted code or ordinance by way of an anonymous complaint. A person who reports a potential violation of a code or an ordinance must provide his or her name and address to the respective local government before an enforcement proceeding may occur. This paragraph does not apply if the code inspector has reason to believe that the violation presents an imminent threat to public health, safety, or welfare or imminent destruction of habitat or sensitive resources.
(2) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), if a violation of the codes is found, the code inspector shall notify the violator and give him or her a reasonable time to correct the violation. Should the violation continue beyond the time specified for correction, the code inspector shall notify an enforcement board and request a hearing. 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. At the option of the code enforcement board, notice may additionally be served by publication or posting as provided in s. 162.12. If the violation is corrected and then recurs or if the violation is not corrected by the time specified for correction by the code inspector, the case may be presented to the enforcement board even if the violation has been corrected prior to the board hearing, and the notice shall so state.
(3) If a repeat violation is found, the code inspector shall notify the violator but is not required to give the violator a reasonable time to correct the violation. The code inspector, upon notifying the violator of a repeat violation, shall notify an enforcement board and request a hearing. The code enforcement board, through its clerical staff, shall schedule a hearing and shall provide notice pursuant to s. 162.12. The case may be presented to the enforcement board even if the repeat violation has been corrected prior to the board hearing, and the notice shall so state. If the repeat violation has been corrected, the code enforcement board retains the right to schedule a hearing to determine costs and impose the payment of reasonable enforcement fees upon the repeat violator. The repeat violator may choose to waive his or her rights to this hearing and pay said costs as determined by the code enforcement board.
(4) If the code inspector has reason to believe a violation or the condition causing the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible in nature, the code inspector shall make a reasonable effort to notify the violator and may immediately notify the enforcement board and request a hearing.
(5) If the owner of property that is subject to an enforcement proceeding before an enforcement board, special magistrate, or court transfers ownership of such property between the time the initial pleading was served and the time of the hearing, such owner shall:
(a) Disclose, in writing, the existence and the nature of the proceeding to the prospective transferee.
(b) Deliver to the prospective transferee a copy of the pleadings, notices, and other materials relating to the code enforcement proceeding received by the transferor.
(c) Disclose, in writing, to the prospective transferee that the new owner will be responsible for compliance with the applicable code and with orders issued in the code enforcement proceeding.
(d) File a notice with the code enforcement official of the transfer of the property, with the identity and address of the new owner and copies of the disclosures made to the new owner, within 5 days after the date of the transfer.
A failure to make the disclosures described in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) before the transfer creates a rebuttable presumption of fraud. If the property is transferred before the hearing, the proceeding shall not be dismissed, but the new owner shall be provided a reasonable period of time to correct the violation before the hearing is held.
History.—s. 1, ch. 80-300; s. 5, ch. 86-201; s. 1, ch. 87-391; s. 5, ch. 89-268; s. 2, ch. 94-291; s. 1442, ch. 95-147; s. 2, ch. 96-385; s. 4, ch. 99-360; s. 64, ch. 2004-11; s. 2, ch. 2021-167.
Note.—Former s. 166.056.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2003).
Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2003). “See Fla. Stat. § 162.06 (4).) But the dissent’s competing view is well-taken, and it might well be true that the Board lacks the power to review Rhodes’ unilateral condemnation order under § 162.”
Massey v. Charlotte Cnty., 842 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). “*145 § 162.06(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). If the violation is not timely corrected, the code inspector must notify the code enforcement board.”
Ciolli v. City of Palm Bay, 59 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). “Pursuant to section 162.06, Florida Statutes (2003), the City was required to provide Ciolli with written notice of the Code Enforcement Board hearing by hand-delivery or mail as provided in section 162.”
Verdi v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 684 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). “In section 162.06(4), the legislature clearly recognizes that certain code violations may be irreparable or uncorrectable and has thus conferred authority upon the County's enforcement mechanism to address these matters as well.”
City of Tampa v. WA BROWN, 711 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “See § 162.06, Fla. Stat. (1995). If the court finds a code violation at the hearing, it enters an order pursuant to section 162.”
City of Gainesville Code Enf't Bd. v. Lewis, 536 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). “Section 162.06. Under the procedures set forth in section 162.”
Jones v. Seminole Cnty., 670 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). “[3] §§ 162.06; 162.07; 162.11, Fla. Stat. (1993).”
Monroe Cnty. Code Enf't v. Carter, 14 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “The appropriate procedure for this Part I administrative enforcement proceeding is found in section 162.06(2). Section 162.06(2) provides that, “if a violation of the codes is found, the code inspector shall notify the violator and give him or her a reasonable time to correct…”
Green Terrace E33, LLC v. Joseph Abruzzo, as Clerk & Comptroller for Palm Beach Cnty., Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). “See § 162.06, Fla. Stat. (2022) (requiring notice of a code enforcement procedure be given to a violator); § 162.”
Cowart v. Duro (M.D. Fla. 2024). “at 750-51 (citing Fla. Stat. § 162.06 (2)). The formal rules of evidence do not apply at the hearing; the special magistrate takes testimony from the code inspector and the alleged violator and “must issue findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order affording the proper…”
— 162.06(2) — 2 cases
Massey v. Charlotte Cnty., 842 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). “*145 § 162.06(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). If the violation is not timely corrected, the code inspector must notify the code enforcement board.”
Monroe Cnty. Code Enf't v. Carter, 14 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “The appropriate procedure for this Part I administrative enforcement proceeding is found in section 162.06(2). Section 162.06(2) provides that, “if a violation of the codes is found, the code inspector shall notify the violator and give him or her a reasonable time to correct…”
— 162.06(4) — 1 case
Verdi v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 684 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). “In section 162.06(4), the legislature clearly recognizes that certain code violations may be irreparable or uncorrectable and has thus conferred authority upon the County's enforcement mechanism to address these matters as well.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.