Tampa legal analyst shares how the backyard guest house dispute led to contempt charges and jail for homeowner

TAMPA, Fla. - There have been many questions and comments about the neighborhood dispute between Michael Martin and his neighbors, the Babbitts, over the two-story guest house, pool and pickleball court in his backyard.

Martin built those three things in his Beach Park backyard after receiving approved permits from the city of Tampa. After a lawsuit from his neighbors, the Babbitts, a judge ordered Martin to demolish everything. When Martin didn’t, he was found in contempt and remains in jail while his legal team appeals.

FOX 13 asked Tampa attorney and legal analyst, Anthony Rickman – who is not affiliated with this case — to review legal documents associated with this case and to offer his thoughts.

The backstory:

Hillsborough County Circuit Judge Christopher Nash signed his final judgment on October 29, 2023, writing that "the court finds that the Babbitts’ loss of enjoyment of their home and the loss in value that they have suffered outweighs the consequences to Mr. Martin as a result of the removal of the structure."

In that order, the judge declared that the guest house "being built on Block E is illegal and violates the plat, the city code and Florida law." The judge ordered that "Mr. Martin shall remove the structure and appurtenances thereto and restore Block E to the condition of a non-buildable block."

 Martin appealed and did not remove anything in his backyard as of May 5, 2026.

What they're saying:

"We took the position that the demolition could not go forward, because to do so would render his appeal moot. Because, if you destroy the property that is the subject of the appeal, there's nothing left to modify in terms of the injunction," Martin’s civil attorney, Sam Heller, told FOX 13.

Rickman issued the following statement:

"The judge brought [Martin] back to court on eight separate occasions on motions of contempt. He still refused to remove the property. They had nine separate contempt hearings — and he still refused to remove the property. He had seven extensions to remove the property. He still refused to remove the property. Five written orders by the court to remove property. And ultimately, the judge said, enough is enough. And he used the power to incarcerate Mr. Martin and ultimately put him in jail with the ability for [Martin] to have himself released by — in the court's mind, just simply, which really isn't that simple — taking down the property," Rickman said.

Why is there no bond?

The court found Martin in what’s called "indirect civil contempt."

 "Indirect civil contempt is designed to be coercive — not punitive and not to punish," Heller said. "And so, the point from the court's perspective is that the arrest warrant is designed to coerce compliance with the order requiring demolition."

Rickman said arrests and jail time can happen in civil cases. Child support cases are common examples. Bottom line: A judge can lock someone up for not doing what he or she is ordered to do.

"Basically, Mr. Martin has what the court calls the ‘keys to the jail.’ And he can get himself out of jail by complying with the court order and paying the purge by demolishing the structure, removing the pool and removing the pickleball courts," Rickman said.

Again, Heller told FOX 13 they did not go forward with demolition because it would "render his appeal moot." Heller said they planned to submit a renewed application to the city, asking them to move forward with an application for a replat of the area.

"We are still waiting to hear from the appellate court about the question of whether or not the trial court here had jurisdiction to find him in contempt and to have him arrested during the pendency of the appeal," Heller said.

"And what the judge is saying is that I've already ordered this. You've had your appeals. You’ve had your rights. And now, you can't thumb your nose at the judge, at the court," Rickman said. "And there has to be a time where your appeals are done."

Who is to blame?

Martin got valid city permits to build everything he installed in his backyard.

City of Tampa officials even acknowledged that in a statement they sent to FOX 13, which reads: 

"The city of Tampa approved the improvements, but neighboring residents challenged that decision in court. The court ultimately ruled that the area in question was not buildable — a decision that was later upheld on appeal. This is a legal matter between the litigants and the courts."

The other side:

"From the Babbitts' perspective, whoever carries the blame or shares the blame, it wasn't the Babbitts. And all they want is the block restored to the way the law requires it to be," Trae Weingardt, the Babbitt family’s attorney, told FOX 13 in April.

FOX 13 reached out to Weingardt, who said Wednesday that a media spokesperson will be reaching out shortly.

"Look, at the end of the day, I think the city does have fault. The city issued that permit. Michael Martin acted in good faith in building. I do think there's issues," Rickman said. "When you look at the claim itself, I think that Martin is in a bad position because he acted in good faith in building that property."