FLORIDA APPEALS COURT RULES HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY UNLAWFULLY SEIZED TENANT’S $3,600
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Fla. – A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts violated a former tenant’s constitutional rights by seizing $3,600 he deposited during an eviction case without giving him adequate notice.
The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, partially overturned a lower court ruling in the lawsuit brought by Blake Warner.
The dispute began in April 2018 when Warner’s landlord filed an eviction case against him in Hillsborough County Court. Under Florida law, tenants contesting an eviction must deposit disputed rent into the court registry. Warner deposited $3,600.
After the case ended, Warner and the landlord reached an oral agreement allowing him to reclaim the money, but the case was dismissed in June 2020 for lack of prosecution before the funds were disbursed.
In 2021, the Clerk sought to forfeit the unclaimed registry money into the county fine and forfeiture fund under Florida Statute § 116.21. To notify Warner, the Clerk mailed a letter to an outdated address, despite previously receiving 13 return-to-sender notices from that location.
The Clerk also published a public notice in La Gaceta, a local, primarily Spanish-language newspaper serving less than 0.2 percent of the county. Warner did not receive the notices, and the county transferred the funds into its public accounts on September 1, 2021.
Warner sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the Clerk violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa ruled that while the Florida forfeiture statute itself is not unconstitutional on its face, the Clerk applied it unconstitutionally to Warner. The court noted that Warner had registered an electronic filing account accessible to the Clerk containing his active email address, phone number, and a functioning mailing address.
“The Clerk’s failure to use available alternative means of notice—and the continued mailing of letters to an obviously invalid address—demonstrates that the letters were sent in a mechanical manner, with little regard for whether Warner was actually informed of the impending escheatment,” Lagoa wrote.
The court further held that the county’s seizure amounted to an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment because Warner never intended to abandon the money.
“Because § 116.21 aims to determine whether property owners intended to abandon their property—and because the Clerk could not have presumed abandonment from Warner’s failure to respond to the Clerk’s unconstitutional notice attempts—there is no valid evidence that Warner abandoned his funds,” the opinion stated.
Circuit Judge Robert J. Luck agreed that Warner’s due process rights were violated, but dissented on the Fifth Amendment ruling. Luck argued that under established legal precedent, a property owner’s nonuse over time allows government entities to take custody of unclaimed funds without violating the Takings Clause.
The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case back to the federal district court for further proceedings.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
