GPITA,_LLC_V._ORANGE_CO._ _2020 CV 25 A O_ _4.3.2023

Before STROWBRIDGE, HARRIS, and CALDERON, J.J.

PER CURIAM.

James D. Shelley and Barbara E. Shelley, GPITA, LLC, and Shelley's Septic Tank, Inc., collectively "the appellants," timely filed notices ofappeal seeking review ofthree separate but related Orange County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate's "Findings ofFact, Conclusions of Law and Order[s]" pertaining to violations of the Orange County Code ("the Code"). We affirm the three orders below. We write only to address the appellants' argument, consistent in all three ofthese appeals, that this Court must vacate and reverse the orders because the special magistrate below failed to consider the three factors enumerated in section 11-37(b) ofthe Code in imposing a fine against the appellants.l The appealed orders of the special magistrate found code violations by the appellants, issued directions to achieve compliance, and tentatively set fines if the appellants did not comply with those directions. The hearing that resulted in the orders at issue was conducted pursuant to section l1-35 ofthe Code. Under section 11-35(0, At the conclusion of the hearing, the code enforcement board or special magistrate shall issue hndings of fact, based on evidence ofrecord and conclusions of law, and shall issue an order affording the proper relief consistent with powers granted by this chapter. . . . The order by the code enforcement board or special magistrate may include a notice that it must I A comparable provision is included in the F'lorida Statutes at Section 162.09(2Xb) Appeal irom the Code Enforcement Board, in and for Orange County, Florida, Yvette Rodriguez Brown, Special Magistrate. [*3] be complied with by a specified date, and that a fine may be imposed, as provided and under the conditions specified in section 11-34(d), the cost ofrepairs may be included along with the fine if the order is not complied with by such date, and include a statement that any person aggrieved by the order who was a party below may appeal in accordance with the procedures shown in this chapter... No actual fine has yet to be imposed related to the violations in these cases, and the phrase setting the fine amount in the appealed orders can be read to simply be a notice that unless there was compliance, a fine would be imposed in the luture and $250.00 is the maximum amount which could be imposed. It is not, as the appellants contend, the actual imposition of a fine. That has yet to be done, if it is to be done, by a separate order ofthe special magistrate. To do that, the special magistrate's orders state that [u]pon expiration of the time for compliance stated herein, accrual ofany fine hercunder and upon presentation of an Affidavit of Non-Compliance from the Code Enforcement Officer, the Special Magistrate is authorized to enter an Order Imposing Fine and Creating Lien and County may record this Order in the Public Records as provided in Section 162.09, F.S. Section 11-37 of the Code, cited by the appellants as controlling in this case, concerns the proceedings for orders imposing fines and liens after a previous order of the code enforcement board or special master has not been complied with by the date set in the initial order. Therefore, section 1l-37 provides procedures related to the future "Order[s] Imposing Fine and Creating Lien[s]," which were referred to in the special magistrate's violation orders appealed by the appellants, not the violation orders themselves. See also Massey v. Charlotte County, 842 So. 2d 142, 145 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (court noted that consideration of the thee factors appiied to the issuance of a lien order). The orders actually imposing fines and liens, ifthey have since been entered, have not been appealed to this Court. Therefore, under our interpretation of the Code, we find the appellants' [*4] argument related to the consideration of the section 11-37(b) factors is not yet ripe for our consideration.

AFFIRMED

DONE AND O

N\**t RDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this.? 4{- day of ,2023. HARRIS and CALDERON, J.J., concur. PATRICIA L. STROWBRIDGE Presiding Circuit.Iudge