City of Lauderdale Lakes, Florida v. Tinisha Allen, et al.,

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAKES, FLORIDA,
Appellant,
v.
TINISHA ALLEN, et al.,
Appellees.
No. 4D2024-2584
[November 12, 2025]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE22-
008087.
Sidney C. Calloway and Amy M. Wessel Jones of Shutts & Bowen LLP,
Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
EWEN, LILLIAN, Associate Judge.
The 	City 	of 	Lauderdale 	Lakes 	(“the 	City”) 	appeals 	from 	the 	final
judgment entered after a bench trial on the City’s petition to foreclose
against non-homestead property owned by the appellee Tinisha Allen
(“Allen”), after she failed to pay several municipal code enforcement liens.
On appeal, the City contends the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. 	We
agree with the City and reverse.
Over a two-year period from 2019 to 2021, the City’s code enforcement
officials 	inspected 	Allen’s 	property 	and 	cited 	Allen 	for 	multiple 	code
enforcement 	violations. 	When 	she 	failed 	to 	bring 	the 	property 	into
compliance, the City’s special magistrate held an evidentiary hearing in
November 	2019, 	which 	resulted 	in 	the 	entry 	of 	two 	separate 	orders
imposing fines of $100.00 per day.
The special magistrate held another evidentiary hearing in March 2020
on additional violations, which resulted in the entry of two more orders
fining Allen $100.00 per day and $250.00 per day, respectively. 	The

2
special magistrate conducted a third evidentiary hearing in December
2021, which resulted in a fifth order imposing a fine of $100.00 per day.
The City recorded the five orders in the Broward County public record,
which constituted liens on the property. 	After waiting more than the
statutorily required three months, the City petitioned to foreclose on the
liens. 	§ 162.09(3), Fla. Stat. (2022). 	The City eventually moved for
summary 	judgment, 	claiming 	the 	total 	amount 	for 	the 	violations 	as
$676,650.00.1 After a hearing, the trial court granted the City’s summary
judgment motion in part, concluding the City was entitled to foreclose on
the orders, but it deferred ruling on the total amounts due on the liens.
The trial court conducted a nonjury trial to determine the amount Allen
owed to the City on the liens. Both parties submitted supplemental briefs
after the trial. 	In its final judgment, the trial court sua sponte2 ruled the
total amount of the City’s fines constituted a complete taking of Allen’s
property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.
The trial court recalculated the amount of the liens, reducing the total
to $93,903.28. In lowering the total lien amount, the trial court considered
the testimony of the parties and witnesses regarding the specifics of the
violations,3 the difficulties of the COVID-19 era, and Allen’s inability to
travel to the Florida property from her Georgia residence. 	The trial court
awarded prejudgment interest on two of the five liens, and it did not award
costs. 	The trial court denied the City’s motion for rehearing.
1 The City’s petition also included counts for declaratory judgment and temporary
and permanent injunctive relief. We decline to reach those issues in light of our
holding.
2 “Our courts have recognized that constitutional challenges to code enforcement
ordinances/procedure may be raised in appeals of the order imposing the fine to
the circuit court.” Martinez v. City of Lantana, 410 So. 3d 15, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA
2025). Allen failed to properly raise a constitutional challenge by appealing any
of the special magistrate’s five orders, and the trial court improperly raised that
challenge sua sponte.
3 The trial court also assessed the gravity of the violations and assigned weight
to each violation in its order. 	Taking sworn testimony and making findings of
fact are firmly within the special magistrate’s purview. 	§ 162.07(3), Fla. Stat.
(2024); §162.07(4), Fla. Stat. (2024).

3
In this case, the City merely sought to exercise its statutory right, under
section 162.09(3), Florida Statutes (2022), to foreclose on the liens:
A certified copy of an order imposing a fine, or a fine plus
repair 	costs, 	may 	be 	recorded 	in 	the 	public 	records 	and
thereafter shall constitute a lien against the land on which the
violation exists and upon any other real or personal property
owned by the violator. Upon petition to the circuit court, such
order shall be enforceable in the same manner as a court
judgment by the sheriffs of this state, including execution and
levy against the personal property of the violator, but such
order shall not be deemed to be a court judgment except for
enforcement purposes. 	A fine imposed pursuant to this part
shall 	continue 	to 	accrue 	until 	the 	violator 	comes 	into
compliance 	or 	until 	judgment 	is 	rendered 	in 	a 	suit 	filed
pursuant to this section, whichever occurs first. A lien arising
from a fine imposed pursuant to this section runs in favor of
the local governing body, and the local governing body may
execute a satisfaction or release of lien entered pursuant to
this section. 	After 3 months from the filing of any such
lien which remains unpaid, the enforcement board may
authorize the local governing body attorney to foreclose
on the lien or to sue to recover a money judgment for the
amount of the lien plus accrued interest.
(Emphasis added).
“To foreclose on a code enforcement lien, a city is required to show the
entry of an order imposing a lien, fines accrued from the order, and an
outstanding balance on the lien.” City of Fellsmere v. Almanza, 380 So. 3d
1199, 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). 	In the instant case, the City met its
burden.
“A party dissatisfied with an enforcement board special magistrate’s
order can either appeal that order or choose to be bound by it. 	However,
it cannot initiate a collateral attack on that order by commencing a new
action in circuit court.” 	Brevard Cnty. v. Obloy, 301 So. 3d 1114, 1117
(Fla. 5th DCA 2020). Allen had a remedy at law to contest the amount and
duration 	of 	the 	fines 	under 	section 	162.11, 	Florida 	Statutes 	(2022).
However, she chose not seek that remedy by failing to appeal ANY of the
special magistrate’s five orders. 	Allen could not then collaterally attack
the order by commencing a new action. Id.

4
Put simply, Allen waived her right to contest the amount and duration
of the fines by failing to appeal the magistrate’s orders. 	Id.; see also
Kirby v. City of Archer, 790 So. 2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). 	We
therefore 	reverse 	the 	final 	judgment 	that 	recalculated 	the 	liens 	and
reinstate the lien amounts as determined by the special magistrate.
The trial court then compounded the error when it awarded accrued
interest on only two of the five liens. 	“[T]he enforcement board may
authorize the local governing body attorney to foreclose on the lien or to
sue to recover a money judgment for the amount of the lien plus accrued
interest.” 	§ 162.09(3), Fla. Stat. (2024). 	Here, the trial court failed to
award interest on each of the liens. 	We therefore remand the case for
imposition of interest on the five liens.
The trial court also exceeded its authority in fashioning the final
judgment. 	“It is well-settled that where a particular form of relief is not
requested by the parties and the matter is not tried by consent, the
granting of such relief violates due process.” 	Pavilion at Healthpark, LLC
v. S.M., 403 So. 3d 517, 519 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (quoting Schanck v.
Gayhart, 245 So. 3d 970, 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)); see also Pro-Art Dental
Lab, 	Inc. 	v. 	V-Strategic 	Grp., 	LLC, 	986 	So. 	2d 	1244, 	1252 	(Fla.
2008) (“Florida law clearly holds that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear
and to determine matters which are not the subject of proper pleading and
notice, and to allow a court to rule on a matter without proper pleadings
and notice is violative of a party’s due process rights.” (emphasis omitted)
(citation modified)).
Here, the trial court erred in ruling on issues that were neither raised
in 	the 	pleadings, 	argued 	at 	trial, 	nor 	contained 	within 	the 	pretrial
stipulation. The trial court sua sponte found the liens violated the Takings
Clause of the U.S. Constitution, unilaterally decided the gravity of each
violation, and weighed the effect of the pandemic orders on Allen’s ability
to bring the property into compliance. In doing so, the trial court violated
the City’s due process rights.
Finally, the trial court failed to award costs to the City, as statutorily
authorized. 	See § 162.10, Fla. Stat. (2025).
We reverse the final judgment and remand for reinstating the lien
amounts as determined by the special magistrate, recalculation of the
interest, and assessment of costs in compliance with sections 162.09(3)
and 162.10, Florida Statutes.
Reversed and remanded with directions.

5
KUNTZ , C.J., and MAY , J., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.