IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

KEITH A. JAMES CASE NO: 50-2022-CA-011909-XXXX-MB

Plaintiff,
v

RODNEY BRIAN MAYO and WENDY

SARTORY LINK AS PALM BEACH COUNTY
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, and THE CITY
OF WEST PALM BEACH
Defendants.
______________________________________/

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY

INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on January 10, 2023, upon the request for an

emergency temporary injunction contained in the Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Injunction,

as amended, filed by Plaintiff KEITH A. JAMES (“JAMES”) against Defendants RODNEY

BRIAN MAYO (“MAYO”), WENDY SARTORY LINK AS PALM BEACH COUNTY

SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS (“LINK”) and the CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH (“THE

CITY”). All parties were present and represented by counsel. The hearing was conducted in open

Court, and all parties had the opportunity to present documentary evidence and testimony. JAMES

offered testimony and documentary evidence through Alison Novoa, LINK’s Public Information

Officer and Jacquelin Mobley, THE CITY’s Interim City Clerk. MAYO testified and offered

documentary evidence on his own behalf. He called no other witnesses. Based upon the evidence

presented and argument of counsel, the Court hereby makes the following findings of fact and

conclusions of law, and enters the following Order:

 FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This matter arises out of and pertains to a dispute concerning whether or not

MAYO is qualified to be a candidate for the position of Mayor of THE CITY in an election to be

held on March 14, 2023. It is the position of JAMES in his Complaint and Motion that MAYO is

not qualified to be a candidate due to the fact that MAYO has not satisfied the requirement that

he continuously be a permanent legal resident of THE CITY for the period of six-months prior to

the scheduled election and that the address of the permanent legal residence that he stated in his

filings as a candidate as being in effect on September 14, 2022 was false; and therefor he is

disqualified from seeking the position of Mayor.

2. The applicable portions of THE CITY’s ordinance which deal with the six-month

residency requirement state as follows:

§ 2.01. City commission; district boundaries established for

residency to qualify for candidacy; reappointment.

The city commission shall consist of five (5) city commissioners and a mayor
who are elected at-large on a nonpartisan basis. Each city commissioner shall be
a qualified elector of the city and shall be a resident of the district from which he
or she is elected. The mayor shall be a qualified elector of the city and may reside
in any district within the city. City commissioners and the mayor shall be elected
by a citywide vote. The boundary for each of the five (5) districts for the office
of city commissioner is described in Appendix B of this Charter. The district
boundaries may change by annexation, contraction and reapportionment in
accordance with this charter.

A candidate for the office of mayor shall have continuously resided in the city
during the six-month period immediately prior to the date of election. A
candidate for the office of city commissioner shall have continuously resided
during the six-month period immediately prior to the date of election in the
respective district from which the candidate seeks to qualify for election. The city
commission by ordinance may provide for evidence acceptable to establish
domicile or legal residence.

2
 The mayor shall reside continuously in the city during the mayor's term of office.
Each city commissioner shall reside continuously during the commissioner's
term of office in the district from which the commissioner was elected.

[emphasis added]

3. THE CITY’s ordinances which contain certain definitions are also directly relevant

to this matter:

Sec. 7.01. - Definitions.

Unless qualified in the text the following definitions and rules of construction
shall apply hereto:

(11) the term "resident" or "residing in" refers to domicile or permanent legal
residence as distinct from temporary residence and from physical presence at
any given time.

(17) the term "vote of the electors" means the vote of the majority of those city
electors actually voting on the matter in question in an election, general or
special, and the term "elector" or "qualified elector" means a resident of the city
registered with the supervisor of elections to vote in city elections.

[emphasis added]

4. Based upon the cited sections of THE CITY’s ordinances it is clear that for MAYO

to be a candidate qualified to run for Mayor in the March 14, 2023 mayoral election he would have

had to have been a permanent legal resident and have a permanent legal residence in THE CITY

since at least September 14, 2022.

5. The greater weight of the evidence established and the Court finds that MAYO did

not and has not met this residency requirement for the following reasons:

A. MAYO owns a substantial water-front house in the Town of Lantana,

Florida which this Court finds to have been his permanent legal residence for at least several years

addressed below. As of September 14, 2022 it was established that MAYO does not meet the six-

month CONTINUOUS residency requirement. Based upon the entirety Of MAYO’s testimony

3
regarding the Lantana house and its use as well as the documentary evidence presented by JAMES,

the Court does not find his testimony that the Clematis Street apartment was his permanent legal

residence for the purpose of meeting the six-month residency requirement to be credible. Rather,

the facts surrounding the Lantana house are consistent and supportive of the position of JAMES

that this Lantana home was MAYO’s domicile and permanent legal residence at the time that the

six-month residency requirement commenced and continued at least to the dates he changed the

address listed on his driver’s license on November 10, 2022 or when he changed his voter

registration address with LINK’s office on December 29, 2022.

B. At the hearing, MAYO presented a newly-issued driver’s license which

showed on its face that it was not until November 10, 2022 that his domicile and permanent legal

residence listed on the license was changed from the address of the home which he owned in

Lantana to a West Palm Beach address. This date was well beyond the September 14, 2022

commencement of the qualifying date.

C. Documentary evidence presented through, and the testimony of, Alison

Novoa, Public Information Officer of the Supervisor of Election’s Office, clearly established that

MAYO did not in fact legally change his domicile or permanent legal residence address for voting

purposes until December 29, 2022, less than two-weeks prior to the hearing. This date was well

beyond the September 14, 2022 minimum permanent residency qualifying date.

D. Despite MAYO’s statement that numerous people knew about his use of the

Clematis Street apartment as his residence, he did not call a single person to corroborate his

testimony as to his use of the apartment as his permanent legal residence. The only statements of

intent contemporaneously submitted for the deadline at issue were statements MAYO made in his

voters registration, his driver’s license and various other official statements listing his current

4
address. The Court finds that while Mayo may well have intended to change his residence upon

determining his intent to run for election, his actions and prior statements acknowledged residence

in Lantana. It is notable that the ordinance requires CONTINUOUS (“as distinct from

temporary residence”), residence. Mayo may have lived at his apartment TEMPORARILY from

time to time but it is clear that he did not live there continuously for 6 months. Indeed a passion

of Mayo’s are his 7, soon to be 8, dogs which he cares for in their Lantana home. Mayo counters

and relies heavily upon case law that states that the best evidence of residence is the individuals

stated intention. The Court agrees but many of Mayo’s contemporaneous statements of intent (in

official documents), showed his residence, in September, to be Lantana not West Palm Beach.

E. JAMES called Jacquelin Mobley, the interim City Clerk of THE CITY who

presided over the proceeding where MAYO registered as a candidate on November 14, 2022. Ms.

Mobley testified that her role was to serve as a clerk to intake MAYO’S election registration

documents, and that her role and responsibilities do not include the verification of the information

provided by MAYO or the information placed by him in the forms which he completed at the time

of his registration as a candidate. Therefore, MAYO cannot rely on the fact that Mobley accepted

the forms on behalf of THE CITY as proof that he met all of the requirements, such as the six-

month residency requirement, to be considered a legitimate candidate.

F. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that MAYO chose the form

of identification which he provided to Ms. Mobley at the time that he registered as a candidate.

He did not provide his driver’s license or other paperwork that reflected Lantana as his residence.

He offered his passport which does not contain an address of the owner of the passport.

G. Additionally, MAYO’s suggestion that he had available his driver’s license

as identification to prove his Clematis Street address at the time that he registered as a candidate

5
is unconvincing. Had it been necessary, he could not have used his old driver’s license since it

would have shown his Lantana address. He also could not have used the new license which bore

the Clematis Street address since the documentary evidence introduced at trial established that on

or about November 10, 2022 MAYO first purposely applied for a new driver’s license which did

not bear his address in Lantana but instead contained the Clematis Street address to conceal his

then-true residential address in Lantana. However, the Driver’s License Check admitted into

evidence as JAMES Exhibit 15 specifically states that the new license was not mailed until

November 16, 2022, two days after he registered as a candidate.

H. The documents identified and admitted into evidence by MAYO such as his

federal income tax forms and bank statements do not support his position that the Clematis Street

address was his permanent legal residence. The documents at best are inconsistent and,

significantly, some are completely contrary to his position. For example, with regard to the federal

tax forms MAYO admitted into evidence, several of them bear his Lantana address. The same is

also true with regard to the bank statements. The most glaring example is the Truist Bank

statement for MAYO’s personal bank account which at times contained a substantial amount of

funds which shows that the address he used and has been using for this important personal bank

account was and is his Lantana address.

6. As MAYO stated at the hearing, all of the changes he made after deciding to enter

the election such as changing the address on his driver’s license and on his voter registration were

made so he could run for office. Mayo was asked the following questions and gave the following

answers:

Q. Without any question you changed your driver’s license and voter registration
to be able to run and that was all after September 2022 –September 14, 2022;
is that correct, sir?

6
 A. Yes. I became conscious about it; yes.

Q. And the reason you did it, that you made the changes was so you could run,
correct?

A. To have all my T’s crossed and I’s dotted.

The Court cited this testimony during closing argument and opined:

“What I thought I heard him [MAYO] say was that at some point someone
told him he needed to change these things if he wanted to get his ducks in
order, dot the I’s, cross the T’s … That speaks to me as a late change in the
game to try to qualify for the election.”

In this Court’s opinion that is what occurred. As JAMES has argued, MAYO sought to

turn back the clock and “reinvent himself” realizing he did not have proof of continuous residency

to establish his ability to run for election.. MAYO had more than a decade to change his

“permanent legal residence” (as described in the Section 7.01 “Definition” section of THE CITY’s

ordinances described above), and had he done so prior to the required six-month residency it could

have been viewed by this Court as a factor to be considered in his favor. To the contrary, MAYO

did little until he was advised by one or more individuals that he needed to do something to change

his “permanent legal residence” to the Clematis Street address in order to qualify as a candidate

for mayor.

During closing argument this Court questioned MAYO’s counsel regarding MAYO’s

attempted “reinvention”, Among other things, MAYO’s counsel stated that MAYO:

“Apparently has a variety of different places where he receives different

mail. Has a variety of different businesses. Has cars registered at a variety
of different addresses Has cars registered at a variety of different. This is
an individual who never gave any thought to those things. And the only
reason he even made those changes is precisely why he testified. Somebody
else told him that those I’s needed to be dotted and the T’s needed to be
crossed.”

7
 While this Court believes that MAYO’s intention to get involved in the election was good,

the rules governing eligibility for an individual to qualify as a candidate for Mayor of West Palm

Beach require that MAYO have had continuous permanent legal residence in West Palm Beach

for six months prior to the election. MAYO did not. The greater weight of the evidence presented

to the Court established that on the date that he registered as a candidate for Mayor, MAYO did

not qualify under the residency requirements and his candidacy must be terminated.

CONCLUSION

A. In this litigation, JAMES seeks to have this Court issue a declaratory

judgment (1) holding that MAYO was not qualified as a candidate for the position of Mayor of

THE CITY in the election to be held on March 14, 2023, (2) a temporary injunction which would

halt any activity by any of the Defendants with regard to MAYO’s candidacy, and enjoin the

distribution of any absentee ballots by LINK’s office which include MAYO’s name as a candidate

for Mayor of THE CITY; (3) a declaratory judgment adjudicating the fact that MAYO is not a

proper candidate for Mayor in the election presently set for March 14, 2023; and (4) a mandatory

injunction requiring that Link take those steps necessary to eliminate MAYO as a candidate in the

upcoming election.

B. JAMES further asks that THE CITY be required to remove MAYO as a

candidate in THE CITY’s records and from taking any other acts indicating that MAYO is a

qualified candidate.

C. Lastly, JAMES has requested that MAYO and anyone on his behalf be

temporarily and permanently enjoined from any further action intended to further his improper

candidacy for Mayor of West Palm Beach.

8
 D. The Court finds, by a preponderance of the competent, substantial and

persuasive evidence submitted to the Court, that JAMES has demonstrated that MAYO is not

qualified to be a candidate for the upcoming election for Mayor of the City of West Palm Beach by

virtue of his failing to satisfy THE CITY’s residency requirements set forth in its Charter and

Ordinances.

E. The Court finds and concludes that JAMES has demonstrated by competent,

substantial, and persuasive evidence that he is likely to prevail; that he has a substantial chance of

success in this litigation; and that he lacks an adequate remedy at law if MAYO’S candidacy is

permitted to continue.

Based upon the above, it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

A. The request for emergency temporary injunctive relief as set forth in the Complaint as

amended for Declaratory Relief and Injunction by Plaintiff KEITH A. JAMES is

1) GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of a temporary injunction

without the necessity of a bond on the terms and conditions further set forth herein. As such, the

Court in furtherance of its injunctive powers and in furtherance of the temporary injunctive relief

being ordered herein, further orders and directs by way of temporary mandatory injunctive relief

that in connection with the upcoming election for Mayor of the City of West Palm Beach:

i. WENDY SARTORY LINK as Supervisor of Elections for Palm Beach County

shall cease to take any further steps that she would normally be taking if RODNEY BRIAN

MAYO was a candidate authorized to seek election for the position of Mayor of the City of West

Palm Beach.

ii. The City of West Palm Beach shall take the appropriate steps to eliminate

9
Defendant, RODNEY BRIAN MAYO as a candidate for the office of Mayor of the City of West

Palm Beach and notify members of the electorate of this fact.

iii. Defendant, RODNEY BRIAN MAYO, and anyone acting on his behalf are

hereby enjoined from taking any action in furtherance of his seeking in the upcoming election for

the office of Mayor of The City of West Palm Beach.

2) DENIED without prejudice as to Plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment, as

well as a mandatory and permanent injunction pending further proceedings in this matter.

B. This Court reserves jurisdiction to enter any further orders or take any further action

should it be necessary to enforce this Order and further this matter.

C. The Court reserves jurisdiction to enter such other and further relief as may be just

and proper to the circumstances.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida.

10
COPIES TO:

GERALD F. RICHMAN 515 North Flagler Drive grichman@fphlegal.com

Suite 800 eservice@fphlegal.com
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 martina@fphlegal.com

KENNETH SCHERER 515 North Flagler Drive kscherer@fphlegal.com

Suite 800
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

WILLIAM N. SPICOLA P.O. Box 664 William@KomisarSpicola.com

Tallahassee, FL 32302

11