MAYRA JOLI, etc. v. TODD B. HANNON, etc.
21-2068
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Nov 5, 2021Background
- Mayra Joli sought to run for Mayor of the City of Miami in the November 2, 2021 election.
- The City of Miami Charter requires mayoral candidates to be residents of the city for at least one year prior to qualifying.
- City Clerk Todd Hannon, invoking a Miami ordinance authorizing the clerk to seek judicial determinations of candidate qualifications, filed an action in circuit court challenging Joli's qualifications.
- The trial court held Joli was not a qualified candidate because she failed to meet the one‑year residency requirement; the factual findings were supported by the evidentiary record.
- On appeal Joli argued only that the City Clerk lacked standing to commence the action; she did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence below and had expressly told the trial court she had no objection to a judicial determination.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding Joli waived the standing argument by failing to raise it in the trial court and by acquiescing at the hearing; the court also noted Joli failed to provide a record on appeal while the City supplied a full appendix.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City Clerk had standing to file the qualification action | Hannon lacked standing to commence the suit | Clerk was authorized by city ordinance and Joli waived any standing challenge by not raising it below and by consenting in court | Waived: appellant failed to raise standing in trial court and cannot raise it for first time on appeal; claim unpreserved |
| Whether Joli met the one‑year Miami residency requirement | (No substantive challenge on appeal) | Trial evidence showed Joli did not satisfy one‑year residency requirement | Affirmed: trial court’s factual findings supported by competent, substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Krivanek v. Take Back Tampa Political Comm., 625 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1993) (standing is an affirmative defense and is waived if not raised before the trial court)
- Republic of Ecuador v. Dassum, 255 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (standing must be asserted as an affirmative defense to avoid waiver)
- Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2005) (issues must be presented to the lower court and specifically argued to be preserved on appeal)
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985) (preservation rule for appellate review)
- Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (claims not raised in trial court will not be considered on appeal)
- Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981) (appellate courts generally will not consider issues not presented to the trial judge)
- Rose v. Hansell, 929 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (appellant bears duty to prepare and transmit an adequate record for meaningful appellate review)
- Underwater Eng'g Servs., Inc. v. Util. Bd. of City of Key West, 194 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (bench‑trial factual findings are presumed correct and reviewed for clear error)