Tampa property owner faces jail time over ‘absurd’ real estate dispute ruling

A Judge is threatening jail time for a Tampa property owner because he hasn’t demolished three structures on his property, a ruling stemming from a case that has dragged on since 2023 regarding property first purchased more than 10 years ago.

A local expert on zoning and land use, Dennis Johnson, told Florida Politics the case is “the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen.” Johnson argued Circuit Judge Christopher Nash’s order to demolish the structures should have never been made, adding that the threat of jail time for noncompliance is “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of.” He further called the case disposition so far “absurd.”

At issue is a large piece of land purchased by automotive sales expert Michael Martin in the South Tampa neighborhood of Beach Park. Martin, on Aug. 31, 2015, purchased property through a company he controls, Panacea Enterprises. After the purchase, in 2017 and 2020, Martin had the property reconfigured into three buildable lots. He was planning to use the largest for his own home, to include a guest house, pool and pickleball court.

Martin began construction only after obtaining all required permits and meeting all city of Tampa requirements. Simply put, Martin entered into construction on his property following all applicable guidelines laid out for him by the city through its code.

But since then, neighbors — Barbara and Gordon Babbit — challenged the guest house on the lot, arguing the portion of Martin’s property that it was built upon did not follow proper protocols that should have required the property to have first been replat, because the original plat listed the area of land as a nonbuildable easement. Replatting a property is a more legally and legislatively complex process that requires City Council approval.

The city maintained at the time of permitting that a replat was not necessary.

Barbara Babbit testified that looking out her window or going into her backyard consistently made her upset.

Ultimately, the 2023 ruling found that the structure “is illegal and violates the Plat, the City Code, and Florida law.” The court ordered Martin to “remove the structure and appurtenances thereto.” The order was eventually modified to include not just the guest house, but the pool and pickleball court as well. The Babbits had not sought removal of the additional property features.

Estimates for demolition alone came to between $600,000 and $800,000. Added to costs already incurred for construction and legal fees, if demolition is required, Martin expects the entire process to cost him about $2 million.

The Babbits have filed several motions for contempt because structures remained undemolished as attorneys for Martin were attempting a series of appeals. Nash, the Judge, did not grant the motion for contempt, but required Martin to take steps to remove the structures at issue from his property.

Martin, through his counsel, moved to modify the court order requiring demolition, allowing Martin to seek a Plat Amendment with the city of Tampa. That argument was based on Nash’s ruling that “Mr. Martin needed to seek a Plat Amendment with the City to convert Block E into a buildable portion of a residential lot.

The motion was necessary because, instead of allowing Martin to seek a replat of the property, the city took “the position that Mr. Martin must remove the accessory structure, pool, and pickle ball court from Block E to make the parcel a ‘non-buildable block’ before Mr. Martin can apply to try to convert his privately owned land into a buildable parcel.” The motion argued the city was taking that position “despite the absence of any such requirement or language in the Final Judgment.”

Martin’s argument, which was rejected summarily, was that if the city considered a replat — which officials have since indicated a willingness to do — and granted it, the court’s final judgment ordering demolition would become moot.

The court has now issued a Writ of Bodily Attachment, which allows law enforcement to take the person found in contempt into custody, and ordered another status conference.

A hearing is scheduled for Friday.

Johnson, the local land use and zoning expert who spoke with Florida Politics about Martin’s case, is not currently affiliated with the proceedings, but did help with the initial real estate transaction. Johnson has owned and run numerous title companies and has extensive experience with platting, configuring and reconfiguring property.

Asked whether the court’s consideration of a Writ of Bodily Attachment is either common or proper, Johnson said he didn’t believe it was.

If there’s an appeal to a property dispute involving demolition, Johnson explained, “there’s usually a stay because the financial repercussions are so prevalent.”

That’s especially true now given demolition costs that are likely to exceed $600,000 and sunk construction costs cannot be recouped.

At the same time, Johnson wonders whether the Judge in this case, Nash, had been properly briefed on zoning and land use.

Nash, Johnson believes, was wrong to have said in his original 2023 order that a replat had been required to build on the portion of property where the structures in question are located. And even still, Johnson argued an appeal would likely be successful based on precedent.

“If they get a Judge who understands this part of the law, there’s no way they rule the way this Judge ruled,” Johnson said.

For example, Johnson offered, there are two houses to the north of Martin’s property in the same neighborhood where walls and pools were constructed in the ’90s in the same vacated easement as Martin’s property.

Nash’s reasoning for his 2023 order centered on the original plat, created in the 1920s. He argued the Babbits and other neighbors purchased their properties under those plats believing the easement was not buildable land. Since construction has been approved and remains in other areas of the easement today, it “totally deletes what the Judge said,” according to Johnson.

If Martin is held in contempt at Friday’s hearing, he “faces fines, imprisonment, or any other measures deemed necessary by the court” to compel him to comply with the existing order — not to mention a financial hit of some $2 million or more.