Florida’s top court is asked to review ‘excessive’ property fines leading to foreclosure

A public interest legal group is asking the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that allowed the city of Largo to seize a property over unpaid property fines that the group argues are unconstitutionally excessive.

The city took the property as part of a surge in foreclosures in cities across Florida documented earlier this year in a Miami Herald series, The Foreclosure Franchise.

The Herald’s reporting showed that Florida cities often impose daily fines of more than $100 on properties that have been found to be in violation of municipal code and sometimes continue to charge additional fines even after the initial problems have been resolved. In the city of Miami some fines have reached seven-figures, for violations ranging from allowing a vacant structure to deteriorate to having an unpermitted carport.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, citing the Herald’s investigation, argues in its filing with the Supreme Court that the daily fines on the Largo property, which added up to more than $550,000, violated the ban on excessive fines in the Florida Constitution and “financially ruins” the property’s owner, Donald Bourgeois. The filing further argues that Bourgeois was denied his constitutional right to contest those fines.

“Normal people don’t necessarily understand the gravity of what’s going on,” said Christina M. Martin, a senior attorney at the organization who filed the request for Supreme Court review. “You have to have an opportunity to protect your constitutional rights against excessive fines.”

Largo code officials had initially told Bourgeois, the property owner, that the city would ultimately forgive or drastically reduce the $250 daily fines first imposed in 2015 if he made required improvements to his property, a small, multi-unit house, the court filing says. Bourgeois, who purchased the property in 2013 for $260,000, spent thousands on renovations and obtained numerous permits from the city to improve the property, the filing said.

But in 2021 the city filed a foreclosure suit against Bourgeois, seeking to recover the full amount.

As the Herald previously reported, cities and counties across the state ramped-up foreclosures on properties with outstanding fines after signing contracts with a private attorney named Matthew Weidner.

The city began working in 2019 with Weidner, who told cities that pursuing lawsuits against properties with outstanding property fines could produce “much needed municipal revenue.” Under the terms of his contract with Largo, Weidner was entitled to recover a portion of whatever the city recovered in each suit, ranging from 25% to 40% depending on what work was required to resolve the case.

Since 2019, Weidner has filed 49 foreclosure lawsuits on behalf of the city and has been paid more than $470,000 in fees and expenses for his work, according to public records obtained by the Herald. Overall, Weidner, who once worked to defend homeowners in the throes of foreclosure, has been paid more than $3 million by cities and counties across the state.

While the Herald’s reporting found that property owners in 70% of the cases brought by Weidner have not had a defense attorney, Bourgeois was represented in his case and his subsequent appeal by attorney Benjamin Hillard. A judge originally ruled in Largo’s favor in 2022 and the house was sold in October 2023, after Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal upheld the original decision. The appeals court found that because Bourgeois had not appealed the order authorizing the initial fine within 30 days of it being issued in 2015, he had forfeited his ability to do so.

The Supreme Court filing by the libertarian-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation argues that this appellate decision requires owners to “predict the future … to foresee excessive fines” and that it is in conflict with rulings by other Florida appeals courts.

The Florida Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to choose whether to review appeals court rulings that are in conflict with rulings by other Florida courts or in which the lower court has interpreted the state or federal constitution, among a handful of other scenarios.

Martin, who wrote the filing, successfully brought the case Tyler v. Hennepin County before the United States Supreme Court earlier this year. In that case, the group argued that Minnesota’s Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis, had violated the constitutional rights of Geraldine Taylor when it sold her condominium over unpaid taxes and refused to give her the amount it earned from the sale beyond what she owed the county. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Hennepin County.

In Largo, Bourgeois’ property was sold in October for $99,000, far below the property’s current market value of $480,000 as assessed by Pinellas County this year.

After the sale, Largo took the unusual step of filing a motion asking that Bourgeois make up the difference between the money brought in by the sale and the $590,000 he was determined to owe the city in fines and additional fees. It is the only case Weidner filed on behalf of Largo in which he has filed such a request, known as a motion for a deficiency judgment.

Largo and Weidner did not respond to multiple requests for comment about the case and why they had filed the deficiency judgment motion.

Miami Herald staff writer Joey Flechas contributed reporting.