Magistrate delays ruling in mobile-home park case after dispute over who is responsible under Florida law

A May 13 special magistrate hearing in Daytona Beach turned into a procedural and legal contest over whether the city may pursue enforcement against a mobile-home park owner for violations that the Florida Mobile Home Act assigns to individual mobile-home owners.

Sean Cornell, attorney for Daytona Beach MHP LLC, told the magistrate that Florida Statute chapter 723 (the Florida Mobile Home Act) preempts local enforcement in some circumstances and that fines or liens for conditions on individual lots should be directed at the mobile-home owner, not the park owner. “There is a statute that preempts a local government from assessing fines, liens, violations of this nature against the mobile home park owner,” Cornell said. He argued the city’s notice and the underlying photographs focus on Lot 180, which Cornell said is a tenant-owned lot, and that the city should pursue the lot owner instead.

City Code Inspector John Stinson reported the complaint began as a police complaint and that common-area issues remain, including damaged fencing and outside storage. Stinson described work already completed — the shed had been removed and a majority of outside storage addressed — but said fencing and wiring problems persist in common areas at the mobile home park located near 622 North Beach Street (between Madison and Fairview/Riverview).

The city attorney present said the city’s packet contained an argument invoking Florida Statute 723.024 (cited in the hearing packet) and noted that statute limits bringing lien penalties or civil proceedings against park owners for duties that the statute assigns to mobile-home owners. The city attorney also noted the city is not alleging the issues are the responsibility of mobile-home owners if the evidence shows common-area responsibility.

The magistrate directed the parties to supply documentation demonstrating where the lot boundaries fall and whether the outstanding violations are confined to a tenant’s lot or to the park’s common areas. He continued the matter to the June 10, 2025 hearing and asked the park owner to provide lease documents or other evidence showing allocation of maintenance responsibility. The magistrate said he may find the park owner liable in other cases where tenants’ behavior creates violations that affect common areas, but he asked for clearer evidence before deciding in this instance.

Cornell said his client had worked with the tenant to address many items and that most of the items in the original notice were specific to Lot 180. Property manager Dion Cucel said the shed had been removed, the fence repaired and outside trash removed; she said staff and the property owner had contracted for cleanup after an eviction. The magistrate asked that the parties produce leases, lot demarcations or a survey before June 10 so he could decide whether the citation against the park owner should stand or be refiled against the mobile-home owner.