City charged property owner with violating city ordinances requiring properties to be maintained and kept in clean, safe, and sanitary condition.
The Municipal Court granted property owner’s motion to dismiss two of the six counts as unconstitutionally vague. City appealed. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, and certified conflict. Property owner filed notice of certified conflict and notice of appeal.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Alleged condition of owner’s property clearly fell within proscriptions of city ordinance requiring vacant structures and land be maintained in clean, safe, secure and sanitary condition, and
- Alleged condition of owner’s property clearly fell within proscriptions of city ordinance requiring exterior property be maintained in clean, safe and sanitary condition.