In 1975, Ford was President of the U.S., Saigon fell to the Communists, America’s favorite TV show was All In The Family and the movie Jaws was a box office hit. That was the year that Sandra Carter’s uncle retired and built a stilt home on Big Pine Key. During construction of his retirement home, he enclosed the downstairs. In June 1976, the County granted him a certificate of occupancy without any objection to the downstairs enclosure. In 1983, Uncle Arthur and his wife applied for a permit to add an upstairs balcony to their home. The permit was granted and an inspection took place without any objection to the downstairs enclosure.

The years passed without incident until Sandra Carter purchased her uncle’s home in 2001. It was during this time period of 2000-2005 that Judge Payne’s ruling in the LaTorre case was the prevailing law in Monroe County. Payne had held that the four-year statute of limitations applied to cases brought by Monroe County Code Enforcement.

In 2005, however, the LaTorre case was overruled by an appellate court decision which declared that the statute of limitations did not apply to government code enforcement cases. In short, the passage of time was no longer a bar to prosecuting code violation cases. As a result, Monroe County began issuing citations to homeowners with downstairs enclosures regardless of when the “violation” took place. In 2007, Sandra Carter received a notice of violation from Monroe County citing her for having an illegal downstairs enclosure that was built by her uncle in 1975-76.

Having lost her case before the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate, Carter appealed to the local circuit court where Judge David Audlin has recently held in Carter’s favor. Judge Audlin determined that the County had not presented a prima facie case. The County’s case was legally deficient for failing to meet its burden of proof in that state and county law require a code enforcement citation to indicate the date of violation.

The importance of specifying a date of violation derives from the County’s burden of stating a cause of action and determining whether the doctrine of laches might apply, thereby precluding belated enforcement.

Presently, the case has been remanded back to the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate for either further findings or dismissal depending upon whether the County can meet its burden of proof.

To read the entire case, please click the icon