Burns v. Tondreau
139 So. 3d 481
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Kevin Burns and Lucie Tondreau were the two finalists in the May–June 2013 North Miami mayoral election; Tondreau won, was certified, and sworn in.
- Burns filed a post-election suit under Fla. Stat. §102.168 and §86.021 seeking declaratory relief and ouster, alleging Tondreau failed to comply with City Code residency-document requirements and had not been a continuous City resident for one year prior to qualifying.
- Burns moved for summary judgment arguing Tondreau’s candidate packet lacked required proof-of-residency documents under §6-78(b)(2) of the City Code.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on McPherson v. Flynn and concluding courts generally cannot decide post-election challenges to a candidate’s qualifications to run.
- The district court affirmed dismissal to the extent Burns challenged pre-election “qualifications to run,” but reversed and remanded as to Burns’s post-election challenge under §102.168(3)(b) alleging constitutional ineligibility to hold office under Article II §5 of the North Miami Charter (continuous one-year residency).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-election challenges may attack a candidate’s statutory qualifications to run | Burns: statutory/documentary failures under City Code mean Tondreau was not properly qualified | Tondreau: post-election courts lack jurisdiction to inquire into qualifications to run; such challenges must be pre-election | Denied — post-election challenges to statutory qualifications to run are barred; they must be raised before the election |
| Whether §102.168(3)(b) permits post-election challenges to a successful candidate’s eligibility for office | Burns: §102.168(3)(b) authorizes post-election ineligibility challenges and his complaint alleged noncontinuous residency under the City Charter | Tondreau: McPherson and separation-of-powers principles preclude post-election challenges beyond ballot/counting issues | Granted in part — §102.168(3)(b) allows a post-election challenge to constitutional/charter eligibility (continuous residency), so dismissal was erroneous as to that claim |
| Whether City Code’s documentary proof requirement can add eligibility beyond the City Charter | Burns: Code’s one-year-document proof requirement is a valid ground to challenge eligibility | Tondreau: Code cannot add to Charter-set constitutional eligibility requirements | Court: City Code cannot expand Charter eligibility; eligibility is governed by City Charter Article II §5 |
| Whether Burns’ complaint was time-barred under §102.168(2) filing deadline | Burns: filed within 10 days of certification | Tondreau: (not a primary argument in opinion) | Court: noted Burns filed timely (filed June 17 after certification on June 7) but did not resolve merits; allowed amendment to pursue only charter-eligibility claim |
Key Cases Cited
- McPherson v. Flynn, 397 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1981) (statutory post-election election-contest rights do not extend to candidate qualification issues outside balloting/counting)
- Norman v. Ambler, 46 So.3d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (distinguishes constitutional eligibility to hold office from statutory steps to qualify to run)
- Levey v. Dijols, 990 So.2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (courts must exercise extreme care in post-election challenges to avoid disenfranchisement)
- Marina v. Leahy, 578 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (pre-election residency challenge upheld; administrative and pre-election remedies are appropriate)
- City of Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Inc., 261 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1972) (municipal charter is the paramount law of a municipality)