HB 1343 revises Florida’s public nuisance abatement law, section 893.138, to expand the tools local governments may use against properties associated with nuisance activity. The bill authorizes county and municipal ordinances to impose additional penalties, including daily fines for public nuisances and recurring public nuisances, and it removes the existing cap on the total amount of fines that may be imposed under this section. It also preserves and clarifies authority for local governments to recover reasonable costs and attorney fees connected to nuisance investigations and hearings.
The bill further addresses how nuisance orders may be recorded and enforced against real property. It allows recorded nuisance orders to become liens, provides for foreclosure of unpaid liens after specified time periods, and requires foreclosure in some cases if nuisance activity remains unabated for two years. The bill also creates a limited protection for certain multi-tenant retail properties involved in stolen-property nuisance cases, where the property owner evicts the offending tenant within 90 days after notice. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend s. 893.138, F.S., by expanding local government authority to assess fines, recover costs, record nuisance orders, and foreclose liens tied to public nuisance abatement. It would remove the current $15,000 total-fines limit, potentially increasing financial exposure for property owners and operators subject to nuisance proceedings. It also defines “legal assistant” for purposes of awarding attorney fees, which could affect how fee awards are calculated in nuisance cases. The bill would leave intact local governments’ ability to pursue public nuisances by other legal means.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong support in committee, with unanimous or near-unanimous approval in the House Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee and the House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate opposition or concern in the materials supplied. Overall, the bill appears to have been received favorably by the committees that considered it.
Contention
The main policy tension in the bill is between stronger nuisance enforcement and property-owner protections. Supporters appear to favor giving local governments more leverage through higher fines, liens, and foreclosure authority to address persistent nuisance properties. Potential concerns center on the removal of the total fine cap, the expanded ability to encumber property with liens, and the foreclosure provisions, which could be viewed as harsh for owners whose properties are tied to nuisance activity by tenants or others. The bill partially addresses that concern with a narrow exception for certain multi-tenant retail properties when the owner acts promptly to evict a tenant after notice of repeated stolen-property convictions.