The Florida District Court of Appeal recently ruled against Jonathan and Marsha Javitt, who sought a second-tier certiorari review regarding a code enforcement order issued by North Bay Village. The court's decision, filed on June 24, 2026, means that the Javitts will not be able to challenge the enforcement actions taken against them by the local government. This ruling affects the Javitts directly, as they were contesting the enforcement order that they believed was unjust. The decision also highlights the limitations of certiorari review in Florida's legal system.
The dispute began when the North Bay Village Code Enforcement Division issued an order against the Javitts. Details about the specific nature of the enforcement action were not available in the court filing. The couple believed that the enforcement order was issued improperly and sought to have it overturned. They filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, aiming to challenge the decision made by the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Appellate Division.
The case moved through the legal system as the Javitts argued that their rights were violated by the enforcement actions taken against them. They contended that the lower court's decision did not properly consider their arguments or the facts surrounding the case. This led them to seek a higher court's review, hoping to overturn the previous ruling. The court filing did not provide additional context on the specific arguments made by the Javitts.
In its ruling, the court denied the Javitts' petition for certiorari. The judges, including LOGUE, GORDO, and LOBREE, stated that the petition did not meet the necessary criteria for second-tier certiorari review. The court emphasized that this type of review should only be used in cases where there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law that results in a miscarriage of justice. The court cited previous rulings to support its decision, stating, "We reassert that ‘second-tier certiorari should not be used simply to grant a second appeal; rather, it should be reserved for those situations when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’"
The court's decision reinforces the idea that not all cases are eligible for certiorari review, particularly when the lower court's decision is fact-dependent or lacks a written opinion. The judges noted that a circuit court's decision generally does not merit certiorari review if it is issued without a written opinion or is particularly fact-dependent. This ruling indicates that the court found no significant legal error in the lower court's handling of the case.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate case involving the Javitts. It sets a precedent regarding the limitations of certiorari review in Florida. The decision clarifies that individuals seeking to challenge local government actions through this legal avenue must demonstrate a clear violation of established law. This ruling may affect how future cases involving code enforcement and local government actions are handled in Florida's courts.
Going forward, the ruling may discourage other property owners facing similar enforcement actions from pursuing certiorari review unless they can clearly establish a legal violation. It emphasizes the importance of procedural correctness in local government actions and the challenges individuals may face when contesting those actions in court.
As for the Javitts, the court's ruling effectively ends their legal challenge regarding the North Bay Village enforcement order. They may have limited options for further appeal, as the court's decision appears to be final unless new grounds for appeal arise. There is no indication in the court filing that there are related cases pending that could impact this ruling.