MICHAEL HAYES AND DEBRA FERRAGAMO-HAYES v. MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 21-0632

Petitioners Hayes purchased an elevated Cudjoe Key home with a downstairs enclosure and garage built under permits issued in 1977.
Years later they applied for a siding permit; the County issued a permit prohibiting work on the lower enclosure, but petitioners replaced siding on the entire house under County oversight and the project passed final inspection.
Seven months after final inspection, Monroe County declared the downstairs siding unauthorized, deemed the lower enclosure an illegal expansion under the County Code, and ordered removal/demolition.
Hayes sought a hearing before a County-designated special magistrate; the magistrate issued an order finding Code violations but provided no factual findings or conclusions and limited development of estoppel/laches defenses.
The Sixteenth Judicial Circuit affirmed the magistrate’s order; petitioners sought second-tier certiorari review arguing the circuit court departed from essential requirements of law by affirming an order lacking required findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the magistrate was required to issue factual findings and conclusions	Hayes: magistrate failed to make required findings; order noncompliant	Monroe: affirmance was acceptable; circuit court could consider the record	Court: Magistrate must issue findings; absence of findings is legal error requiring relief
Whether estoppel and laches were considered or could be raised	Hayes: defenses were asserted and may be dispositive; magistrate curtailed them	Monroe: enforcement may proceed; defenses were not controlling here	Court: Because findings are missing, it’s unknown if defenses were considered; that uncertainty requires reversal
Whether the circuit court could cure magistrate’s omission by making its own findings	Hayes: circuit court cannot perform magistrate’s statutory duty	Monroe: circuit court’s review cured deficiencies by assessing equities	Court: Circuit court cannot substitute its own findings; that departure from statutory procedure is reversible
Whether the circuit court departed from essential requirements of law	Hayes: affirmance without findings violates statutory/regulatory mandates	Monroe: court was attuned to equitable issues and correctly affirmed	Court: Affirmance without enforcing written-findings requirement departed from essential requirements of law; certiorari granted

Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086 (sets second-tier certiorari standard for departure from essential requirements of law)
Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (framework for certiorari review of circuit court decisions)
Castro v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Code Enf’t, 967 So. 2d 230 (recognizes estoppel/laches can be dispositive in code-enforcement context)
Sarasota County v. Nat’l City Bank of Cleveland, 902 So. 2d 233 (distinguishes Part I/Part II enforcement schemes under Chapter 162)
Massey v. Charlotte County, 842 So. 2d 142 (describes hearing and findings requirement for code-enforcement proceedings)
Borges v. Dep’t of Health, 143 So. 3d 1185 (connects findings requirement to due process)
Gentry v. Dep’t of Prof’l & Occupational Reguls., 283 So. 2d 386 (requires specific findings in quasi-judicial administrative orders)
McKeegan v. Ernste, 84 So. 3d 1229 (orders lacking required findings are facially deficient)
State v. Jones, 283 So. 3d 1259 (failure to apply controlling law is a classic departure from essential requirements)
Gonzalez v. State, 15 So. 3d 37 (misapplication of plain statutory language can be a departure from essential requirements)
Just. Admin. Comm’n v. Peterson, 989 So. 2d 663 (circuit court must apply plain statutory language or else depart from essential requirements)