by End of Legal Hopes
For Sandy Martinez, the road has ended in her attempt to challenge $165,250 in fines issued for what she considers minor violations, such as parking cars partially on the lawn. This is a devastating blow, as the Florida Supreme Court refused to accept her case for review, forcing the woman to admit defeat.
The Cause of the Conflict
Martinez received legal support from the Institute for Justice. It is reported that six people live in the house, four of whom have cars. When they all parked in the driveway, one car had to sit with two wheels on the lawn.
This is a $250 fine in the city of Lantana, and these amounts quickly grew to $101,750.
Simple calculations show that this is 407 days of violations. Court documents claim that Martinez could not park on the street because there is no curb, and “the driveways in front of and next to the house are only wide enough for two-way local traffic.”
Accumulation of Fines
The documents note that Martinez was fined around May 6, 2019, for parking on an impermissible surface/lawn/walkway, and she was deemed a repeat offender due to prior violations. The case was heard around June 20, 2019, and she was found guilty. This meant Martinez would receive a daily fine of $250 until she brought everything into compliance with city rules.
Attempts to Negotiate
Martinez was notified of the decision by mail. She reportedly tried to request a compliance inspection to prove the cars had been moved. The lawsuit claims that “calling the officials responsible for code enforcement… was futile,” so she “subsequently forgot about the issue.”
As a result, the daily $250 fine continued to accrue. Martinez says she only learned about this when she tried to refinance the house, although this seems odd, as one could hardly expect the problem to disappear on its own.
Stopping the Accruals
Be that as it may, the city informed her she owed $98,500. An administrative assistant later explained: “the $250/day fine was accruing from May 2019 to today [June 16, 2020]. When I reviewed the cases, I noticed the fines were still accruing and asked an inspector to go out and re-inspect the property. He noted the property was in compliance and stopped the accrual of fines as of today.”
Other Violations
Although the parking fines attract much attention, they were not the only issue between Martinez and the city. The parties first clashed when Lantana began fining Martinez $75 daily for cracks in her driveway. They were reportedly “purely cosmetic,” but the homeowner “did not have the time or money” to address the issue immediately.
This meant fines accumulated for 215 days, ultimately totaling $16,125. The Institute for Justice noted this was “far more than the cost of a brand-new driveway.”
Fence Problems
The problems did not end there, as a “strong storm” knocked down the fence on Martinez’s property. She filed an insurance claim and waited, which meant she received a daily fine of $125 for 379 consecutive days. When the insurance money came, she repaired the fence, but she had already been fined $47,375. This was “several times the cost of the repair and significantly more than the cost of a completely new fence.”
Financial Consequences
It is clear that Martinez cannot pay the $165,250 in fines. Documents from 2021 noted she works at an outpatient medical facility, earning $20.60 per hour. This means the daily parking fine exceeded her daily earnings by $85.20.
The Institute for Justice intervened and attempted to argue that the city of Lantana was violating state provisions on excessive fines. Attorney Ari Bargil stated the law was intended to “prevent people from being reduced to poverty over minor violations.” He also stated that the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case is “a loss for all Florida residents.”
Legal Protection and Its Limits
Although the fines seem excessive, the Institute for Justice noted that Martinez is protected from mortgage foreclosure by Florida’s homestead exemption. However, they stated that these fees “effectively strip Sandy of the equity she has built up in her home and make it virtually impossible to sell it and purchase another home.”
This story highlights the complex interaction between local ordinances, their enforcement, and the lives of ordinary citizens. It raises questions about the proportionality of penalties, the accessibility and transparency of communication with city services, and how systems created to maintain order can lead to financial disaster. The higher court’s refusal to hear the case leaves open the question of mechanisms to protect citizens from the accumulation of excessive administrative fines that can turn into a lifelong financial burden.
