5D08-1675 5D08-1678 Dept. of Trans. v. Baird

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2008 » 5D08-1675 5D08-1678 Dept. of Trans. v. Baird

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D08-1675

Case Date: 10/06/2008

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2008

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., Petitioner, v. CHRISTOPHER M. BAIRD, Respondent. __________________________________/ Opinion filed October 10, 2008 Petition for Certiorari Review of Decision from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Acting in its Appellate Capacity. Gregory G. Costas, Tallahassee, for Petitioner, Department of Transportation. Kimberly A. Ashby of Akerman Senterfitt, Orlando, and Joseph L. Passiatore, Orlando, for Petitioner, Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority. Wayne Culver of Mays & HendersonHarvey, PLC, Cocoa, for Respondent. CASE NO. 5D08-1675 & 5D08-1678

LAWSON, J. In this consolidated petition for writ of certiorari, the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority ("Authority") and the State of Florida, Department of Transportation ("DOT") seek review of a circuit court appellate decision. We find that

the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law by considering issues not raised by the parties below and granting relief not sought by the parties below and also violated due process by adjudicating rights and enjoining actions without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, we grant the petition in part, and quash the offending portions of the circuit court's decision. Background The underlying dispute in county court involved Christopher Baird's toll violations and resulting driver's license suspension. 1 Baird has an "EPASS" device which allows him to pass through tollbooths without physically having to pay the toll.2 Baird, his EPASS transponder was not working properly. Unknown to

Consequently, Baird was

assessed a toll violation each time his vehicle passed through the EPASS tollbooth. His wife and second listed owner of the vehicle, Candace Baird, was actually responsible for the toll violations, which numbered sixteen. Prior to the issuance of citations for these violations, the Bairds had moved to a new residence, provided notification to the tag office of their new address, and received a registration card from the State bearing the new address. However, the Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles failed to update Baird's address on its computer database from January 31, 2007 until after the toll violations were recorded in the

Baird is a firefighter/paramedic who stood to lose his job if he could not resolve the toll violations in a manner that allowed him to keep his driver's license. Evidently, Baird entered into a license and use agreement with the OrlandoOrange County Expressway Authority for the EPASS, a transponder which communicates electronically with the toll authority's computer system as it passes through a toll booth, resulting in the toll amount being deducted from the user's prepaid account.
2

1

2

summer and early fall of 2007. As a result, the traffic citations were sent to the older address and were never forwarded to the Bairds. Baird first received notice of the citations when he later tried to renew his vehicle registration and discovered that his driver's license had been suspended for failure to challenge or pay the sixteen citations. Baird then relied on erroneous information from a deputy clerk who told him that if he simply paid the citations he could have adjudication withheld, with no points assessed, and clear his license suspension. He paid the citations in full, at $90.50 per citation, only to then discover that he had thereby admitted his guilt as to each infraction, resulting in the assessment of forty-eight points on his license and a mandatory one-year license suspension. After determining that it had mailed Baird's citations to the wrong address, DOT's Office of Toll Operations attempted to dismiss them, but could not do so because Baird had already paid them. DOT and Baird then filed in the county court of Seminole County a stipulated motion for withdrawal of plea on February 15, 2008, and a stipulated motion for reduction of legal penalty on March 5, 2008. Hearings were held, but the county judge refused to consider testimony concerning the facts surrounding the citations and denied the joint motion (allowing the pleas and license suspension to stand). On appeal to the circuit court, Baird only challenged the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea and motion for reduction of legal penalty. Baird and the State were the only parties, and neither party challenged the enforcement of EPASS or SUNPASS toll violations pursuant to section 316.1001, Florida Statutes (2007), or sought any relief beyond correction of the county court's error in denying the stipulated motions.

3

In deciding the appeal, the circuit court issued a comprehensive written opinion that found the trial court error. In summary, the circuit opinion concluded that because of the admitted error of the Authority through its agent, DOT, Baird was not afforded his right of due process to contest the citations. The circuit court correctly found no legal ground justifying the county court's refusal to recognize DOT's confession of error, and reversed the county court's denial of the stipulated motions. The circuit court then, itself, entertained the motions and dismissed all causes of action giving r ise to the appeal against Baird; ordered the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of Florida to remove all suspensions from Baird's driving record; ordered the reinstatement of Baird's driver's license without restriction; ordered the removal of all points assessed against Baird's license; and, ordered the State of Florida and the Clerk of the Court for Seminole County to refund all paid fines, fees, penalties and surcharges assessed against Baird.3 The written appellate opinion then took an even more unusual turn as the circuit court attempted to fashion an injunctive remedy, never requested, for all EPASS and SUNPASS users who might face a similar situation in the future. The circuit court wrote: We note that the circuit court's granting of this relief in an appellate opinion reflects a degree of misunderstanding regarding the circuit court's role when exercising its appellate jurisdiction. Although it may have been more efficient for the circuit judge to treat the county court case as its own, and finally resolve it without remand, the circuit judge instead should have quashed the county court order on review and remanded the matter back to county court (which had jurisdiction over the underlying matter) for additional action consistent with its appellate opinion. See 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error

Download 5D08-1675 5D08-1678 Dept. of Trans. v. Baird.pdf