Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Appellant claims that the owner did not act in good faith in accordance with section 723.021, Florida Statutes (2005), because the eviction notice required her to abandon her mobile home prior to rezoning and a finding by the governmental body that other suitable facilities exist for the mobile home owners, as required by section 723.083, Florida Statutes. We affirm the dismissal of her complaint, concluding that section 723.083 does not create any good faith obligation on the part of the park owner to forestall eviction until rezoning is accomplished....

...the City of Margate had not granted the rezoning so that no change in use was authorized at the time of the notice. She claimed that she would be forced to vacate the mobile home prior to the change in use and thus abandon the protection afforded by section 723.083, Florida Statutes (2005), which provided: No agency of municipal, local, county, or state government shall approve any application for rezoning, or take any other official action, which would result in the removal or relocation of mob...

...es that "[e]very rental agreement or duty within this chapter imposes an obligation of good faith and fair dealings in its performance or enforcement." § 723.021, Fla. Stat. (2005). In its pleading opposing the complaint, Celebration contended that section 723.083 did not apply to it and instead only applied to state action. It also pointed to section 723.061(3) which provides, "The provisions of s. 723.083 shall not be applicable to any park where the provisions of this subsection apply." § 723.061(3), Fla, Stat. (2005) (footnote omitted). The matter was referred to a magistrate who issued a report and recommendation to dismiss the complaint, as section 723.061(3) exempts the park owner from the application of section 723.083....

...Harris, 576 So.2d at 1296. In 1984, the legislature substantially rewrote and renumbered the mobile home statute. It continued, however, to permit a park owner to evict its tenants where a change in use was contemplated. In that rewrite, it also added section 723.083, regarding the duty of governments considering a rezoning petition to determine that "adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities existed for the relocation of the mobile home owners." § 723.083, Fla....

...The legislature also included a requirement that the park owner elect to either buy the mobile home owner's home, relocate it to another park, or pay the homeowner to relocate. § 723.061(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Where this purchase/relocation provision applied, "The provisions of s. 723.083 shall not be applicable....

...It reverted to requiring six months' notice of eviction for change in use of the park. § 723.061(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2001). It eliminated section 723.061(2), regardihg the purchase/relocation obligation of the park owner, except for subsection (2)(d) regarding the application of section 723.083, which it renumbered subsection (3). Thus, that subsection read, "The provisions of s. 723.083 shall not be applicable to any park where the provisions of this subsection apply." § 723.061(3), Fla....

...This statute was in existence when Celebration sent its notice of change of use eviction to Gallo. From this review of the statutes, it is apparent that the obligation of the government to consider the adequacy of parks for relocation, required pursuant to section 723.083, is independent of the park owner's right to evict a tenant for change in use, pursuant to section 723.061. Harris makes this clear, as a park owner does not have to specify what change of use it sought. 576 So.2d at 1296. Section 723.083 does not place any burden on the mobile home park owner; the park owner's only obligation upon filing an application for rezoning is to give notice of the application to the park tenants. § 723.081, Fla. Stat. (2005). It is the government's obligation to determine that adequate space is available for the mobile home owners or "other suitable. facilities." § 723.083, Fla....

...It provided assistance for relocation first by requiring the park owner to purchase or relocate and then, after that provision was declared unconstitutional, from a special fund it created. Where this relief was provided, the legislature did not require compliance with section 723.083 by the government....

...This makes sense, because where the tenants' mobile homes are bought or relocated by the park owner or through the assistance of the State Fund, it would affect the zoning authority's calculation of the adequacy of remaining facilities. The legislature continued this exemption from section 723.083 when it amended the statute again in 2001 and set up the trust fund. When the legislature revised the statute, it eliminated the subsections of the former section 723.061(2), except subsection (d), providing for the inapplicability of section 723.083....

...See Davis v. Florida Power Co., 64 Fla. 246, 60 So. 759, 765 (1913). Gallo's interpretation would render section 723.061(3) meaningless. The review of the history of the provisions makes it clear that the legislature did not intend to require compliance with section 723.083 where it had provided for alternative compensation to the mobile home owner for relocation. Because the legislature expressly rendered section 723.083 inapplicable to change of use evictions, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the statutory obligation Gallo asserted the park owner violated did not exist....

...that the eviction notices were invalid because the City had not met the statutory condition precedent of obtaining a study that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners as provided in section 723.083, Florida Statutes (2007). The City filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court found in favor of the City, holding that the City is not required to provide the housing study, as section 723.083 is inapplicable to it in its proprietary capacity. The trial court also found that sections 723.061 and 723.083 are facially constitutional. Upon entering summary judgment in favor of the City, appellants filed this appeal asserting that the City must comply with section 723.083, and that it must perform an alternative housing study before evicting residents from the mobile home park....

...days of the date of the notice or they will be barred from taking any subsequent action to contest the change in use. This provision shall not be construed to prevent any homeowner from objecting to a zoning change at any time. (3) The provisions of s. 723.083 shall not be applicable to any park where the provisions of this subsection apply. [footnote omitted]. Section 723.083 provides: 723.083 Governmental action affecting removal of mobile home owners.— No agency of municipal, local, county, or state government shall approve any application for rezoning, or take any other official action, which would result in the removal or relo...

...mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners. By its terms, section 723.061(3) specifically provides that section 723.083 does not apply when a mobile home park owner gives notice under section 723.061....

...This court has addressed these statutes in Gallo v. Celebration Pointe Townhomes, Inc., 972 So.2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and held: [I]t is apparent that the obligation of the government to consider the adequacy of parks for relocation, required pursuant to section 723.083, is independent of the park owner's right to evict a tenant for change in use, pursuant to section 723.061. Harris [v. Martin Regency, Ltd., 576 So.2d 1294 (Fla.1991),] makes this clear, as a park owner does not have to specify what change of use it sought. 576 So.2d at 1296. Section 723.083 does not place any burden on the mobile home park owner; the park owner's only obligation upon filing an application for rezoning is to give notice of the application to the park tenants. § 723.081, Fla. Stat. (2005). It is the government's obligation to determine that adequate space is available for the mobile home owners or "other suitable facilities." § 723.083, Fla. Stat. Gallo, 972 So.2d at 995. The fact that the mobile home owner is a municipality does not change the application of the statutes. Furthermore, section 723.083 is not applicable to the circumstances of this case....

...2d DCA 2001), the city passed an ordinance for the purpose of closing a city-owned mobile home park and evicting the residents without first determining that adequate facilities existed for relocation. After the trial court denied the residents' claim that the city did not comply with section 723.083, the Second District reversed, holding that the city "failed to *1129 comply with the statutory prohibition against official action that would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home residents without first determining that adequate facilities exist for relocation." Id....

...ation that "the relationship between landlord and tenant as treated by or falling within the purview of this chapter is a matter reserved to the state and that units of local government are lacking in jurisdiction and authority in regard thereto." 3 Section 723.083 , Florida Statutes, states: "No agency of municipal, local, county, or state government shall approve any application for rezoning, or take any other official action, which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners." The plain language of section 723.083 , Florida Statutes, requires an agency with zoning authority to make a determination that adequate facilities exist for the relocation of mobile home owners before approving any application for rezoning or taking any official action resulting in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners....

...s of Chapter 723 , Florida Statutes. Sincerely, Bill McCollum Attorney General BM/tals 1 See s. 723.002 (1), Fla. Stat. 2 Section 723.004 (1), Fla. Stat. 3 Section 723.004 (3), Fla. Stat. 4 See s. 723.061 (3), Fla. Stat., stating: "The provisions of s. 723.083 shall not be applicable to any park where the provisions of this subsection apply." A footnote explains that "this subsection" refers to subsection (2) [the provision addressing eviction for change of use] in which subsection (3) was contained prior to amendment by s....

...with the same state laws governing mobile home parks. We affirm, without discussion, the trial court’s finding that the charges for water, sewer and garbage were proper. We conclude, however, that the contested ordinance was passed in violation of section 723.083, Florida Statutes (1993), 1 and was thus unenforceable for the purpose of evicting these residents....

...That being the case, we conclude that the issue concerning the validity of the City’s ordinance is now moot, and we dismiss the appeal of this issue. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge, concur. . Section 723.083, Florida Statutes (1993), provides: 723.083 Governmental action affecting removal of mobile home owners....

...Before, SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.  FERNANDEZ, J. Plaintiff Barbara Falkinburg appeals the trial court’s order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss. We reverse because the plaintiff’s complaint alleged a meritorious cause of action under section 723.083, Florida Statutes (2015), thus the trial court erred in dismissing it. Falkinburg lives in a 240-lot trailer park in the Village of El Portal in Miami, Florida called “Little Farm Mobile Home Park.” Little Farm is located along Biscayne Boulevard, north of 79th Street. The complaint, filed by Falkinburg and two other co-plaintiffs who are also residents of Little Farm,1 alleges that the Village of El Portal, a municipality of the State of Florida, did not comply with the statutory requisites of section 723.083, Florida Statute (2015), when the Village entered into a Settlement Agreement with the defendants, who were the current and prospective owners of Little Farm....

...cayne Park Acquisition Group, LLC filed motions to dismiss. At the hearing before the trial court on the motions to dismiss, the issue before the court was whether the complaint and its attached Settlement Agreement stated a cause of action under section 723.083....

...well-pled allegations, including those that incorporate attachments, and to look no further than the complaint and its attachments.” Id. at 260. We agree with Falkinburg that the trial court erred in dismissing the pending complaint with prejudice. Section 723.083states: No agency of municipal, local, county, or state government shall approve any application for rezoning, or take any other official action, which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners. 4 Thus, in order to establish a violation of section 723.083, the following elements need to be satisfied: (1) official action by a municipality; (2) which action would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners; and (3) which action was taken without a prior determination that adequate facilities exist for relocation of the residents....

...As to the third element, the Village further admitted that no prior analysis of the relocation issue had been done, as no relocation study was conducted. Turning to the second element that Falkinburg must establish to support her claim of a violation of section 723.083, whether the removal or relocation of the mobile home owners would result from the municipality’s official action, the Settlement Agreement required the closure of Little Farm and indicated the need for the “demolition” of the mobile homes in the park....

...“removal 5 or relocation” of the mobile home residents of Little Farm. These allegations in Falkinburg’s complaint were sufficient as a matter of law to establish the second element required under section 723.083. Accordingly, the complaint should not have been dismissed. In sum, under section 723.083, the government agency – the Village of El Portal – before taking any action that would lead to the removal or relocation of the mobile home residents, had to determine if there existed adequate mobile home parks or other suita...