[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]
[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]
[B. Property Address: 622 Texas Court Owner Name: Shirley Diane Lancaster]
[D. Property Address: 427 N 15th Street Owner Name: Zakari Valsant]
[00:20:57]
[00:20:58]
>> I DID, TOO. >> OKAY, HERE I GO.
[00:22:11]
[00:22:12]
>> YES. WITH THE STUFF THAT YOU HAVE ON THE PROPERTY AS FAR
[00:22:18]
AS THE UNSAFE BOARD ON THE WINDOWS, WHEN YOU TOLD US TO REMOVE THAT BOARD, WE REMOVED THAT BOARD. THE PROPERTY WAS CLEANED UP. THE ONLY THING I COULD SAY WAS NOT DONE ON THE PROPERTY YET WAS THE DRAINAGE IN THE FRONT. I TALKED TO SOMEBODY YESTERDAY AND THEY WERE STICKING CARE OF THAT. WE NOTICED THAT A BUNCH OF YOU SENT THE PAPER TALKING ABOUT THE FORECLOSURE, SO WE HAD SOMEBODY WORKING TO GET ALL THE PERMITS AND THE ENGINEERS LETTER SO WE CAN GET THAT CLOSED OUT. AS FAR AS MY COUSIN COMING IN TO DO A LOT OF STUFF, HE HAS BEEN DEALING WITH DIALYSIS AND TRYING TO GET A NEW KIDNEY AND STUFF. IT'S HARD FOR HIM TO TRY TO GET IN HERE TO DO THE STUFF HE HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO. I HAD TOCOVER FOR HIM. >> ANYTHING ELSE?
>> NO, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. SHORT CLOSING
MAGISTRATE? >> ONE SECOND. WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY?
>> DID YOU GET NOTICE OF THESE HEARINGS, THESE PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE BEING CONDUCTED BY THE CITY?
>> NO, MA'AM. THEY GET ALL OF THE PERSONAL MAIL AT HOME.
HE'S GOT HIS OFFICE TO GET THAT STUFF. HIS MOM WAS DEALING WITH THAT STUFF. SHE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MAIL UNTIL HE CAN GET
TO IT. >> DOES HE CHECK ON HIS MAIL ON
A REGULAR BASIS? >> OBVIOUSLY NOT LATELY WITH HIM DEALING WITH HIS DIALYSIS.
>> THESE ISSUES STARTED IN 19 --
>> THEY STILL HAVE 18. THE BOARD IS NOT ENOUGH THE WINDOW
SINCE 18. >> ALTER RESPECT, THE ISSUE OF THIS HEARING AS WHETHER OR NOT THE NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER? WHETHER THE VIOLATIONS THERE WERE FIXED TO, IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS PROCEEDING.
[00:25:17]
THE PROPERTY TO BRING IT UP TO CODE?>> THERE IS A LOT OF WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE ON THE PROPERTY.
THAT IS WHY WE ARE TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF THAT NOW. THAT PROPERTY IS FROM NIGHT AND DAY. FROM WHEN WE FIRST GOT IT FROM THEN TO NOW, IT IS COMPLETELY NIGHT AND DAY.
>> DID YOU CALL THE CITY TO COME OUT TO INSPECT IT?
>> NO, MA'AM. THIS IS REALLY OUR FIRST TIME DEALING WITH IT.
I FIGURED WE FIXED THE STUFF AND IT WAS GOOD. WE DID NOT KNOW WE HAD TO REACH OUT OR ANYTHING .
>> YOU DID NOT GET ANY OF THIS IN THE MAIL?
>> I DID NOT PERSONALLY GET IT. >> YOU SAID THAT YOU ARE IN
CHARGE OF THE PROPERTY NOW? >> I AM THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. I AM JUST GETTING INTO HELPING HIM OUT. I WAS NOT DOING IT BEFORE. HIS MOM WAS GETTING ALL OF HIS LETTERS AND HOLDING IT UNTIL HE COULD GET TO IT.
>> UNTIL HE COULD GET TO IT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
>> HE DOES NOT LIVE WITH HIS MOM. ALL OF THE MILL WAS GOING
TO HER HOUSE. >> HE IS THE PROPERTY OWNER?
>> YES. >> HOW MANY UNITS ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT? >> JUST ONE UNIT.
OF THIS HEARING IS THIS MORNING?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> WHAT IS THAT?
>> FORECLOSURE. >> YOU SAY THAT IT IS ONE UNIT? HOW MANY APARTMENTS IN THAT UNIT?
>> IT IS A HOUSE, A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
>> WHAT CONCERNS ME, THE NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT THE CITY MADE TO GO OUT THERE SAYING THAT YOU NEED TO REPAIR THIS
AND THAT. >> THE ONLY THING THAT WAS NOT REPAIRED ON THE PROPERTY, WAS THE DRAINAGE ON THE FACE.
THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE TO BE REPAIRED. THEY WANTED US TO REMOVE A BOARD OFF THE WINDOW, IT WAS REMOVED OFF THE WINDOW
IN 2018. >> DID YOU CALL THEM TO COME
OUT AND INSPECT? >> I CALLED THE CITY. I TOLD THEM THE BOARD WAS REMOVED. I DID NOT TELL THEM TO COME AND INSPECT IT.
YOUR SCREEN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THAT DEFINES HIS STOP ACCRUING AT SOME POINT. THE LIEN IS FOR THE 2018 CASE, IT IS $2000.90.
WAS $112,830. THE OTHER ONE IS 46,000 $930 FOR
>> WHAT ARE THOSE TWO FROM? >> ONE IS FROM A CASE THAT ORIGINATED IN 2020. ONE IS FROM A CASE THAT ORIGINATED IN 2022
PER >> BOTH OF THOSE ARE THE SAME
ONE. >> SIR, I DON'T KNOW? WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL HEARINGS ON THIS CASE FR THE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED AT THOSE HEARINGS, SHOWING THE VIOLATIONS AND THE ORDERS WERE ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. GIVING TIME TO CORRECT. I DO NOT KNOW WHEN YOU CAME ONTO THIS JOB, BUT THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN RECEIVING NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS, NOTICE OF HEARINGS AND LIENS, SINCE 2018.
>> OKAY. WHAT IS THE LIEN FOR? WHAT WAS NOT DONE? THE ONLY THING I SEEN THAT WAS BAD ON THE HOUSE, THE DRAINAGE ON THE FRONT. OTHER THAN THAT, CAN YOU SHOW ME PICTURES OF WHAT YOU
HAVE? >> THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THAT WAS AT THE HEARING THAT WE NOTICED BACK IN 2020. THAT WAS WHEN YOU WERE TO COME IN AND SAY, WE FIXED THIS AND WE FIXED
[00:30:02]
THAT. THOSE HEARINGS ALREADY OCCURRED. IT'S LREADY BEEN ISSUED AND THE LIENS HAVE BEEN ACCRUING.>> IT LOOKS LIKE HE RECEIVED NOTICES THAT THIS ACTION WAS BEING TAKEN WITH REGARDS TO THE PROPERTY. HE DID NOTHING.
ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?
>> YES, MA'AM. ALL THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE EXCEPT FOR THE LITTLE DRAINAG, THE DAMAGE ON THE FRONT FACES SOMEBODY IS AT THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW FIXING IT. OTHER THAN THAT, THE ONLY THING THAT IS LEFT IS THE PERMIT THAT IS REQUIRED TO GET
IT TAKEN CARE OF. >> WHAT WORK HAS BEEN DONE? I AM LOOKING AT SEVERAL ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.
SEE WHAT WORK THEY ARE SAYING HAS TO BE DONE? THERE IS NO WORK THAT HAS TO BE DONE ON THE PROPERTY EXCEPT FOR THE FACIAL.
NOT RELEVANT TO THIS PROCEEDING.
>> YOU GOT A NOTICE ON ONE CASE , HE GOT CERTIFIED MAIL. OKAY?
HE DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. >> IT WAS TAKING CARE OF ON THE PROPERTY. YOU HAD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT SENDING SOMETHING IN THE MAIL ABOUT A TREE STUMP THAT WAS ROTTED BY THE FENCE. YOU SAID WE HAD TO CUT IT DOWN. WE CUT THAT DOWN.
THERE WAS A LOT OF STUFF YOU ASKED TO BE DUE BUT IT HAS BEEN DONE. EVERYTHING YOU ASKED HAS BEEN DONE. THE ONLY THING THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE WAS HIM ACTUALLY COMING HERE TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT, YES, HE DID THIS AND THAT. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN GOING BY THAT YOU TOOK THE FIRST PICTURES, YOU COULD SEE THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE.
>> THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE HEARINGS --
>> YOU SAY THE WORK HAS NOT BEEN DONE BUT IT HAS.
>> NOBODY SAYS IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE, SIR.
>> MAGISTRATE, IF I MAY? >> WOULD YOU LET THEM TALK A
LITTLE BIT, PLEASE? I AM SORRY. >> I AM SORRY. PER THE RULES, EVIDENCE REGARDING THE NATURE , BECAUSE OF THE VIOLATIONS IS NOT THE TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION TODAY. THIS IS AN MAGISTRATE OF REVIEW TO MAKE SURE THE CITY TOOK ALL OF OUR ACTIONS REQUIRED. SUCH AS NOTICE AND DUE PROCESS STEPS READ ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN DONE AND IT IS ACCURATE. THE ONLY TESTIMONY REALLY THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT, IS IF THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT THEM RECEIVING NOTICE. THE NATURE OF THE VIOLATIONS IS NOT WHAT IS THE ISSUE TODAY. WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND THAT THE LIENS THAT WERE LISTED ABOVE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE AND ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO AUTHORIZE THE LIENS. THE NATURE THAT GENERATED THE LIENS IS NOT THE TOPIC. IT'S A DUE PROCESS REVIEW ONLY. THERE WAS NOTICE GIVEN AND WASN'T ACCURATE? DID WE DO ALL THE STEPS WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO? UNLESS THIS GENTLEMAN HAS EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED, WE ARE ASKING THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND THAT THE LIENS ARE ELIGIBLE.
YOU HAD TO DO WAS REPLY TO WHAT THE CITY WAS TRYING TO GET
DONE. >> THE ONLY THING I COULD DO , YOU CAN RESCHEDULE TO HAVE HIM GIVE HIM SIDE OF THE STORY. I CANNOT GIVE HIS SIDE OF THE STORY. IF HE RECEIVED EVERY LETTER OR WHAT HE RECEIVED. I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY LETTER. I CANNOT SAY THAT HE RECEIVED EVERY LETTER LIKE SHE WAS SAYING. I CANNOT GIVE IT TO YOU AND SAY THAT HE RECEIVED EVERY LETTER, I CANNOT VOUCH FROM THAT. I TOLD YOU FROM THE BEGINNING THAT I DO NOT RECEIVE LETTERS. HIS MOM RECEIVES WHATEVER THEY GIVE AND HE GETS IT WHEN HE GETS IT.
>> YOUR HONOR, IN EACH OF THE ORDERS, THE VIOLATIONS, THEY WERE GIVEN 30 DAYS TO APPEAL. WHEN THEY DID NOT APPEAL, THAT BECAME THE FINAL ORDER.
[00:35:11]
SOMEBODY NAMED HEATHER ON THERE, WE USED TO REACH OUT TO HEATHER EVERY TIME SHE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE TREE STUMP AND THE BOARD ON THE WINDOW. SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO WHATEVER SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO. I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT IS BUT THAT WAS ON THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AT THE TIME. BEING THAT WE DID NOT COME HERE TO STAND IN FRONT OF YOUR, I DO NOT KNOW IF HEATHER WAS SUPPOSED TO GET US HERE AFTER WE REPORTED TO HER TO TELL HER THE WORK WAS DONE? OR WERE WESUPPOSED TO ELICIT >> ARE YOU ASKING ME? I AM NOT
TESTIFYING TODAY. >> ALL RIGHT.
>> IT SEEMED LIKE YOU TOTALLY IGNORED WHAT THE CITY ASKED YOU TO DO. TO BRING THE PROPERTY TO COMPLIANCE.
>> IT IS IN COMPLIANCE. THE ONLY THING, IS HIM NOT BEING ABLE TO STAND IN FRONT OF HER TO TELL HER HE DID THE JOB.
EVERYTHING IS IN COMPLIANCE. >> IS IT AN COMPLIANCE NOW?
THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE. >> THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE.
THE ANSWER IS, NO. THERE ARE TWO LIENS CONTINUE TO ACCRUE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. ONE WAS ISSUED FOR THE PERMIT AND ONE WAS BY CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR VIOLATIONS OR THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE FOR THEIR CONTINUING TO ACCRUE.
TODAY IS A DUE PROCESS REVIEW. NOT A EVIDENTIARY REVIEW OF THE
SUBJECT OF THE CASES. >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
THEY WERE OUT THERE TOO MANY TIMES TO GET YOU TO BRING IN WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS ONE STRUCTURE --
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THEY WERE OUT THERE, BUT WE DO NOT LIVE ON THAT PROPERTY. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THEY HAVE BEEN THERE.
>> DIDN'T YOU SAY YOU WERE THE PROPERTY MANAGER?
>> IT IS A RENTAL PROPERTY. >> DIDN'T YOU SAY YOU ARE THE
>> OKAY. >> BUT I DID NOT MANAGE PAPERWORK. I'M MORE LIKE A MAINTENANCE MAN. IF THERE IS DAMAGE, I DEAL WITH THAT. NOT MANAGING THE PROPERTY LIKE PROPERTY WORK. NO PAPERWORK TO MANAGE ON THE PROPERTY. YOU COLLECT THE RENT AND ANY DAMAGES OR SOMETHING, YOU FIX IT. YOU CHANGE THE FILTERS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THERE WAS NO PAPERWORK AND ALL OF THAT STUFF.
>> HOW COME MR. -- IS NOT HERE.
>> HE HAD TO GO TO DIALYSIS THIS MORNING.
>> WHEN WILL HE BE AVAILABLE? >> I CAN TALK TO HIM WHEN I LEAVE TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THAT WHEN I GET OUT OF HERE.
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE WOULD OPPOSE A CONTINUANCE OF THIS HEARING. HE RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE HEARING AND HE DID NOT REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. THIS IS A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THESE LIENS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE THEY IGNORED EVERYTHING YOU TRIED TO DO TO
HELP THEM. >> EXCEPT FOR NOW THAT WE ARE ASKING TO PROCEED WITH THE FORECLOSURE. NOW THEY HAVE
SHOWN UP >> THE ONLY THING IGNORED WAS THEM COMING IN. AS FAR AS I WORK BEING DONE, THE COURT ENFORCEMENT AND CITY DEPARTMENT THAT WRITES IN THE TRUCKS EVERY DAY, THEY ARE DOING THEIR JOB TO KNOW THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. THEY SEE EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DONE EXCEPT FOR THE FRONT FACE AT THE REQUIRED IN 2020.
>> WHAT YEAR ARE WE IN NOW? >> 2024.
>> THEY HAVE FOUR YEARS TO GET IT RIGHT?
>> THE DRAINAGE ON THE FACIAL, YES. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DONE. LIKE I SAID, THEY JUST RENTED THE HOUSE OUT EIGHT MONTHS TO 10 MONTHS AGO. BEFORE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS EMPTY FOR THE LAST THREE O FOUR YEARS. THE WHOLE TIME THEY HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT CODES AND ALL OF THAT, THE PROPERTY
WAS EMPTY. >> NOBODY CONTACTED THE CITY TO SAY, WE ARE WORKING ON THE PROPERTY. CAN YOU GIVE US TIME? HIS DEATHBED, WE WERE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME. NOW THAT HE GOT DIALYSIS, EVERYTHING IS GETTING BETTER FOR HIM. NOW WE CAN MOVE AROUND A LITTLE BIT MORE. BUT HE HAD DIALYSIS THIS MORNING. THAT IS WHY I SHOWED UP FOR HIM. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE HIMSELF.
[00:40:01]
>> YOU TOLD ME THAT SEVERAL TIMES. I HEARD YOU.
>> YOU COULD RESCHEDULE AND I COULD HAVE HIM COME AND HE CAN
SPEAK HIS TESTIMONY. >> MAGISTRATE, WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST THAT YOU FIND THE LIENS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE. THE CITY MET ALL OF ITS DUE PROCESS, BURDENS, AND REQUIREMENTS. THAT YOU ISSUE TO FORECLOSE ON THE
LIENS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE RULE 16 REQUIREMENTS. TO DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS
>> RULE 16. IT WAS DESIGNED FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO CONFIRM WHETHER A LIEN IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE. SUB PART A SAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 162.09, AFTER THREE MONTHS FROM THE FILING OF A LIEN WHICH REMAINS UNPAID, THE CITY MAY INITIATE A FORECLOSURE ACTION. THE LIENS HERE WERE FILED IN 2019 . 2021. 2023. MORE THAN THREE MONTHS HAVE ELAPSED. WE HAVE SATISFIED SUBPAR CAPITOL A. THE MATTER WILL BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THIS IS A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AND THE ITEM WAS PLACED ON THE AGENDA. SUBPART ONE, ENFORCEMENT LIENS THAT PROPER NOTICE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFYING THEM OF THE VIOLATIONS EXISTING. THE HEARING IS REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE. THIS IS A GENERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN AS TESTIFIED TO . PROPER NOTICE WAS PROVIDED AS SHOWN IN EXHIBITS, THREE, SIX, AND NINE. THOSE EXHIBITS AND COMBINED WITH HER TESTIMONY SHOW THAT THE OWNER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE VIOLATIONS. THAT EXISTED AND THE INITIAL HEARING WAS SCHEDULED AND WHEN THE INITIALS WAS SCHEDULED. SUBPART THREE, YOU NEED TO FIND THE OWNER WAS PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT A HEARING AS OUTLINED IN RULE 14. PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE POSITION OF THE LIEN. EXHIBITS, 47 AND 10 COMBINED WITH TESTIMONY SHOW THAT THE OWNER WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT THE HEARING . EXISTENCE FIVE, EIGHT, 11, GAVE NOTICE OF THE POSITION OF THE LIEN. SUBPART FOUR, THE COURT MUST FIND THE PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY HOMESTEADED.
TESTIFIED AND IT SHOWS THE PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY HOMESTEADED. PART FIVE, THE LIEN REMAINS UNPAID. MISSA RAYS TESTIFIED REMAINS UNPAID AND THE WITNESS TODAY DID NOT TESTIFY THAT THE LIEN WAS PAID OR ANY OF THE LIENS WERE PAID.
SUBPART SIX, THE CITY'S INTENT TO FORECLOSE ON THE LEAD HAS BEEN PROVIDED THROUGH A PROCESS SERVER. IN THIS CASE, THE PROCESS SERVER SERVED THE OWNER AS ESTABLISHED BY EXHIBIT NUMBER 13. WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU FIND THAT THE LIEN IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE. HAVING SATISFIED ALL PARTS OF OUR ROLE AND ISSUE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY
TO FORECLOSE ON THESE LIENS. >> DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT,
SIR? >> YES. SO BASICALLY THE 112 AND 46 , IS BASICALLY THE SAME CASE? ON THE LIENS?
>> 112 IS CASE 20 03 0840. ONE LOOKS LIKE IT WAS ORIGINATED IN 2020. CONTINUES TO ACCRUE FINES OF $100 PER DAY. THE SECOND CASE ORIGINATED IN 2022. ALSO CONTINUES TO ACCRUE FINES AT $100 PER DAY.
>> THE 2022 IS THE ONE WITH THE FACIAL BOARD. THE 2020 IS THE
PERMIT? >> I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU
REMOVED THAT BOARD? >> I AM SAYING THE FACIAL BOARD. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BOARD ON THE WINDOW.
>> MAGISTRATE, IF HE NEEDS INFORMATION ON THE VIOLATIONS AFTER THE HEARING I AM SURE STAFF WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE HIM WITH COPIES OR INFORMATION THAT HE NEEDS REGARDING THE
EXISTING VIOLATIONS. >> ON THE TWO THAT WAS READ
INTO THE RECORD. OR ALL FOR? >> THREE. READ READ THREE INTO
[00:45:06]
THE RECTOR. >> I SEE IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED I FIND THERE IS A VIOLATION AND IN CASE NUMBER 18 1787 2830 AND 2215 11, THE OWNER IS NOT PRESENT BUT HE HAS A REPRESENTATIVE WHO IS HERE INSTEAD WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE IS ABLE TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF OF THE RELATIVE. I WILL ADOPT A RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
>> I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THE FINDING WOULD BE , NOT THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION, THAT THE LIEN IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE. UPON FINDING THAT THE MANDATE IS TO ISSUE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FORECLOSE ON THE LIEN, THIS IS NOT AN APPEALABLE ORDER.
>> I WILL ADOPT THOSE FINDINGS.
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THAT IS IT.
>> YOU SAID IT IS NOT APPEALED?
>> ACCORDING TO THE CITY STATUTE.
>> IT'S AN AUTHORIZATION TO -- WE DID NOT JUST FORECLOSE ON YOUR PROPERTY. IT'S AN AUTHORIZATION FOR US TO COMMENCE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS.
>> WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NOW IN ORDER FOR US TO NOT HAVE A FORECLOSURE? SEAM IN ORDER TO AVOID FORECLOSURE? YOU WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE OUTSTANDING ORDERS IN THE TWO CASES THAT WE DISCUSSED. YOU NEED TO PAY THE LIENS.
>> IS THERE A WAY TO GET THE LIENS REDUCED?
>> YOU ARE WELCOME TO TALK TO PEGGY AFTER THE HEARING . WE HAVE GOT SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE WAITING FOR THEIR CASES
[E. Property Address: 1405 N 15th Street Owner Name: Josette Mathieu Marie Joseph]
TO BE HEARD. SHE MET THE NEXT PROPERTY ADDRESS WILL BE.JOSEPH MATTHEW AND MARY JOSEPH.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELVES FOR THE RECORD?
LIKE. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. MR. REYES, DID YOU PREMARK THE EXHIBITS IN THIS MATTER?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A SERIES OF QUESTIONS AND THE SERIES OF QUESTIONS RELATES TO EACH AND EVERY PREMARKED EXHIBIT ONE THROUGH TWELVE. ARE THESE RECORDS TRUE AND ACCURATE COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS MADE AND KEPT IN THE COURSE OF THE REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE CITY?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> WERE THESE RECORDS MADE OR FROM THE TRANSMITTED FROM A PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THERE IN, ACTING WITHIN THE COURSE OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> WERE THESE RECORDS MADE AND KEPT PURSUANT TO THE REGULAR PRACTICE OF THE CITY'S BUSINESS AND ARE REGULARLY RELIED UPON BY THE CITY'S IN
CONDUCTING ITS BUSINESS? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> WERE THE RECORDS MADE AT OR NEAR THE COURSE SET FORTH IN
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, BASED ON MS. ARIAS TESTIMONY,
>> IT WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH. >> THANK YOU. REFERRING TO
[00:50:04]
EXHIBIT 1, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY ID CARD. WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY?>> CURRENTLY IN THE NAME OF MARIE JOSEPH.
>> WHAT IS HER ADDRESS? >> 301 NORTH 19TH STREET, FORT
PIERCE FLORIDA. >> WHAT DID SHE ACQUIRE THE
>> ALL RIGHT. AND IS THE PROPERTY HOMESTEADED?
>> NO , MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO EXHIBIT 2. DID THE CITY SEND MS. JOSEPH NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> HOW WAS THE NOTICE SENT?
>> NOTICE WAS SENT BY BOTH CERTIFIED MAIL AND REGULAR U.S.
POSTAL. >> ALL RIGHT. HOW MANY LIENS HAS THE CITY RECORDED ON THIS PROPERTY?
>> CAN YOU ALL PULL THIS UP ON MY SCREEN?
>> LET ME PULL UP. WE'RE HERE. >> OKAY.
>> THAT'S NOT THE ONE. I'LL PULL THEM ALL UP. LET ME GET THEM ALL. HERE'S THE HEARING NOTICE FOR TODAY. OKAY. IS THAT
CORRECT? I APOLOGIZE. >> ALL RIGHT. I APOLOGIZE.
OKAY, SO MOVING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER 3. I'M SORRY. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE FIRST VIOLATION, WHICH IS 172251, IS
THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> ALL RIGHT. AND CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHAT EXHIBIT 3 IS,
PLEASE? >> EXHIBIT 3 IS THE PROPERTY ID
CARD FROM 2017. >> FROM 2017. AND WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME?
>> JOSETT MATTHEW AND MARI JOSEPH.
>> WHAT WAS THE ADDRESS FOR THE OWNERS AT THAT TIME?
>> MOVING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER 4. WHAT TYPE OF LIEN WAS LIEN NUMBER 172251, WAS THAT A GENERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. DID THE CITY PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE VIOLATION AND NOTICE OF THE INITIAL
VIOLATION HEARING? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> AND WHAT WAS THE DATE FOR THAT HEARING?
>> DECEMBER 6, 2017. >> HOW WAS NOTICE SENT?
>> NOTICE OF THE VIOLATION HEARING WAS MAILED VIA
CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE OWNER. >> AND WAS IT SENT TO THE OWNER AT THE ADDRESS ON FILE AT THE TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN WAS THAT
NOTICE SENT? >> THAT NOTICE WAS SENT ON
NOVEMBER 6, 2017. >> YOU HAVE PROOF OF DELIVERY?
>> YES , MA'AM, WE RECEIVED THE CERTIFIED MAIL CARD RETURN
SIGNED. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO EXHIBIT 5. DID THE VIOLATION PROCEEDING -- DID THE VIOLATION HEARING
PROCEED ON DECEMBER 6, 2017? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND A VIOLATION AND ORDER
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> WAS THAT ORDER MAILED TO THE OWNER?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> WHAT WAS THE DAY OF THAT
ORDER? >> THE DATE OF THE ORDER, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SIGNED IT ON DECEMBER 12, 2017.
>> THANK YOU. >> AND WHEN WAS THAT MAILED T
TOTHE OWNER? >> ON THE SAME DAY.
>> DID THE OWNER APPEAL THE ORDER?
>> NO , MA'AM. >> DID THE OWNER CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE ORDER?
>> NO , MA'AM. >> DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER THAT THE VIOLATIONS -- THAT IF THE VIOLATIONS NOTIFY T OWNER THAT THE VIOLATIONS -- THAT IF THE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT CORRECTED AND THAT VIOLATIONS WERE NOT CORRECTED AND THAT
FINES HAD STARTED TO ACCRUE? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> AND HOW WAS THAT NOTICE SENT?
>> A MASSEY NOTICE WAS SENT REGULAR U.S. POSTAL.
>> WHAT'S THE DATE OF THE MASSEY NOTICE?
>> JANUARY 5, 2018. >> DID THE OWNER CONTEST THE FINES OR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDINGS OR
>> DID THAT LETTER GIVE THE OWNER NOTICE THAT A LIEN WOULD BE FILED IF THEY DID NOT CONTEST THE FINDINGS OR FINES?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> WHAT DAY THAT WAS LETTER
>> ALL RIGHT. WAS A SECOND LETTER SENT TO THE OWNER IN THIS CASE? IT'S THE THIRD PAGE OF EXHIBIT 5. I'M SORRY.
>> YES , MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS THE DATE
[00:55:02]
OF THE SECOND LETTER? >> THE SECOND LETTER IS DATED
MAY 21, 2018. >> AND WAS THAT SENT VIA U.S.
>> AND DID THE OWNER AFTER RECEIVING THE SECOND LETTER CONTEST THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATES OR FINES?
>> NO. >> DID THAT LETTER GIVE THE OWNER NOTICE THAT A LIEN WOULD BE FILED IF THEY DID NOT CONTEST THE FINDINGS OR THE FINES?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> AND THAT LETTER WAS SENT, I THINK YOU TESTIFIED MAY 21, 2018, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO EXHIBIT 6. ORDER ASSESSING FINE AND IMPOSING LIEN. DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THEREAFTER ENTER AN ORDER ASSESSING DAILY FINES AND
IMPOSING A LIEN? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> AND WHAT DAY WAS THAT ORDER ENTERED?
>> IT WAS SIGNED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AUGUST 9, 2018.
>> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO EXHIBIT 7. WHICH IS A LETTER DATED JULY 8, 2019. DID THE PROPERTY THEREAFTER COME INTO
>> AND WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF TH NOTICE OF THAT LIEN?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> WHAT WAS THAT? WHEN WAS THAT
>> WHAT WAS THAT? WHEN WAS THAT SENT?
>> JULY 8, 2018. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO THE SECOND VIOLATION ON THIS PROPERTY. WHICH CASE NUMBER 182361. WE'RE LOOKING AT EXHIBIT 8 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE NOTICE OF VIOLATION HEARING. WHAT TYPE OF LIEN IS THIS
182361? >> IT'S A GENERAL CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIEN. >> ALL RIGHT. DID THE CITY PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH NOTICE OF THE VIOLATIONS AND NOTICE OF
THE INITIAL VIOLATION HEARING? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> WHEN WAS THE INITIAL VIOLATION HEARING?
>> FEBRUARY 19, 2019. >> HOW DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE
OWNER? >> NOTICE OF VIOLATION HEARING WAS MAILED VIA CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE OWNER.
>> AND WAS IT SENT TO THE ADDRESS ON FILE AT THE TAX
COLLECTOR' OFFICE? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> WHEN WAS THE NOTICE SENT? >> IT WAS SENT JANUARY 22,
2019. >> AND WHEN THAT NOTICE CAME BACK UNDELIVERED, DID YOU THEREAFTER MAIL THE NOTICE BY
REGULAR U.S. MAIL? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> AND WHEN WAS THAT SENT? >> THAT WAS SENT ON FEBRUARY 8,
2019. >> AND DID THE CITY ALSO POST
>> AND WHEN WAS THE PROPERTY POSTED?
>> ON THAT SAME DAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2019.
>> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO EXHIBIT 9. STARTS WITH THE LETTER DATED AUGUST 26. DID THE VIOLATION HEARING PROCEED ON FEBRUARY 19,
>> DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND A VIOLATION AND ORDER
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> WHAT IS THE DATE OF THAT ORDER?
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SIGNED THAT ORDER ON FEBRUARY 20,
2019. >> WAS THAT ORDER MAILED TO THE
>> ON WHAT DAY? >> ON FEBRUARY 21, 2019.
>> ALL RIGHT. DID THE OWNER APPEAL THAT ORDER?
>> NO , MA'AM. >> DID THE OWNER CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE ORDER?
>> NO , MA'AM. >> DID THE CITY SEND A LETTER TO THE OWNER NOTIFYING THEM THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT CORRECTED AND FINES HAD STARTED TO ACCRUE?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> HOW IS THAT NOTICE SENT?
>> IT WAS SENT REGULAR U.S. POSTAL.
>> DID THE OWNER THEREAFTER CONTEST THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDINGS OR THE FINE?
>> NO , MA'AM. >> DID THE CITY GIVE THE OWNER NOTICE THAT A LIEN WOULD BE FILED IF THEY DID NOT CONTEST
THE FINDINGS OF THE FINE? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THAT LETTER?
>> AUGUST 26, 2019. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO EXHIBIT 10. STARTS WITH THE LETTER DATED OCTOBER 27. DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THEREAFTER ASSESS THE FINE AND ENTER A
>> ON WHAT DATE? >> THE ORDER WAS SIGNED ON
SEPTEMBER 28, 2020. >> AND DID THE CITY SEND THE OWNER A COPY OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S ORDER ASSESSING
THE FINE AND IMPOSING THE LIEN? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> WHAT DAY DID THE CITY SEND THAT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER?
>> IT WAS SENT OCTOBER 27, 2020.
>> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO A JANUARY 16, 2024 LETTER. DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER OF ITS INTENT TO FORE CLOSE ON
[01:00:03]
>> IS THAT LETTER DATED JANUARY 16, 2024, EXHIBIT 11?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO EXHIBIT 12. RETURN OF SERVICE. DID THE CITY USE A PROCESS SERVER TO TRANSMIT TO THE OWNER THAT JANUARY 26 LETTER ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE ORDERS IMPOSING THE LIENS?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> DID THE PROCESS EXECUTE
RETURN OF SERVIC MA'AM. >> HAS THE OWNER PAID THE LIENS
>> EITHER OF THE LIENS? >> NO , MA'AM.
>> ALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES THE CITY'S PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE. WE HIRE CONTRACTOR SINCE 2021 FOR THE WINDOW AND ALL THE WORK THAT NEED TO GET DONE ON IT. HE IS STILL NOT DONE CLOSING THE PERMIT. AND MY MOTHER HAVE THE RECEIPT. THE
MONEY HE PUT DOWN. >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO LOOK AT THE EXHIBITS OR CAN I PASS THEM TO
THE GENERAL MAGISTRATE? >> YOU CAN PASS THEM.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. HAVE ANY OF THE LIENS BEEN PAID ON THIS
>> I'M SORRY, I'M ASKING THE WITNESS.
>> HAVE YOU PAID THE LIENS ON THE PROPERTY?
>> NO, BECAUSE WE HIRED GENERAL MANAGERS, CONTRACTOR IS SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING ON THE HOUSE SINCE 2021, AND WE GIVE HIM $29,000 DOWN. HE IS STILL NOT FINISHED WITH THE WORK. AND WHEN I RECEIVED THE LETTER IN JANUARY, I CALL HIM. HE SAID YEAH, HE HAS THE CITY, BECAUSE THE PERMIT WAS CLOSED SO HE TRIED TO REOPEN THEM AGAIN. ANYTHING ELSE?
>> ALL RIGHT. PURSUANT TO RULE 16, THE CITY IS ASKING THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO FIND THAT THIS LIEN IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE AND ISSUE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FORE CLOSE ON THIS LIEN. SUB PART A REQUIRES THAT THE STATES THE CITY MAY INITIATE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER THREE MONTHS AFTER THE FILING OF THE LIEN. THE LIENS IN THIS CASE WERE FILED IN 2018 AND 2022. THAT IS EXHIBITS 6 AND 10.
THREE MONTHS HAVE ELAPSED. THIS MATTER HAS BEEN PLACED ON A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. SUB PART B1 FOR GENERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS, PROPER NOTICE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, NOTIFYING THEM OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT EXISTED AND THE INITIAL HEARING AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE. EXHIBITS 4 AND EXHIBIT 8 TOGETHER WITH THE TESTIMONY SHOW THAT PROPER NOTICE WAS PROVIDED. SUB PART B3, THE OWNER WAS PROVIDED WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT A HEARING AS OUTLINED IN RULE 14, WHICH MASSEY HEARING, AND PROVIDED NOTICE OF IMPOSITION OF THE LIEN. EXHIBITS 5 AND 9 ESTABLISHED THAT THEY WERE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND EXHIBIT 6 AND 10 ESTABLISH THAT THEY WERE PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE
[01:05:03]
IMPOSITION OF THE LIEN. ALL TOGETHER WITH MS. ARAYS TESTIMONY. THE PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY HOMESTEADED. THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 TOGETHER WITH MS. ARAY'S TESTIMONY, AND SUB PART 5, THE LIEN REMAINS UNPAID. THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE TESTIMONY OF BOTH WITNESSES TODAY. AND SUB PART 6, NOTICE OF CITIES INTENT TO FORE CLOSE WAS PROVIDED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THROUGH USE OF THE PROCESS SERVER. THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY EXHIBIT NUMBER 12. SO, THE CITY WOULD ASK THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ISSUE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FORE CLOSE ON THE LIEN UPON HAVING CONFIRMED THAT THE LIEN IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE. THANK YOU.>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> YEAH, MY QUESTION, HOW COME WE HIRE CONTRACTOR? HE SAID HE PULLED PERMIT SINCE 2021, AND HE IS STILL NOT DONE WITH THE WORK AND WE STILL GETTING CHARGED FOR THE LIEN. ON THE PROPERTY.
>> YOU OWN THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? >> YEAH.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHY. I CAN'T GIVE YOU ADVICE FROM UP HERE, BUT -- WHEN DID HE START WORKING ON THE PROPERTY?
>> 2021 AND WE HAVE THE RECEIPT.
>> I BELIEVE YOU WITH THAT, BUT -- I CAN'T GIVE YOU ADVICE FROM HERE. HAVE YOU TALKED TO ANYBODY AT THE CITY?
>> A COUPLE TIMES. I CALLED AT THE CITY. THAT'S WHEN THEY TOLD ME THE PERMIT WAS THE ONE HE PULLED IN 2021 WAS CLOSED AND WHEN I CALLED HIM, WHEN I GET THE LETTER IN JANUARY, HE SAID THE CITY RIGHT NOW, TRY TO PULL THE PERMIT AGAIN FOR THE WINDOW, THE DOOR, AND ALL THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO GET DONE
WITH THE HOUSE. >> DID YOU EVER REACH OUT TO
THE CITY? >> YEAH, I REACHED OUT TO THE CITY, WHEN I GOT THE LETTER. THAT'S WHEN THEY TOLD ME THE PERMIT WAS CLOSED. BECAUSE THEY TOLD ME AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, THE PERMIT GOT CLOSED AND THEY TOLD ME I HAVE TO CONTACT HIM. THAT'S WHEN HE TOLD ME HE WAS AT THE CITY.
>> IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT FOR THESE VIOLATIONS IN CASE NUMBER 172251 AND 182361, THAT YOU HIRED A CONTRACTOR IN 2021?
>> SOME OF THE WORK AT THE HOUSE, I DON'T BE HANDLED THEM. MY MOTHER SAID THE ONE ON THE 2018, WHEN THEY SAID THE PIPE NEEDED TO GET FIXED. SHE SAID SHE HIRED SOMEBODY WITH A PERMIT TO DO THE PLUMBING WORK, WAS SUPPOSED TO GET DONE. SHE SAID SHE HIRED SOMEBODY AND SHE PAID HIM MONEY AND THEY SAID THEY PULLED THE PERMIT. AND THE GUY SAID ALL THE WORK WAS DONE AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAD TO BE THE ONE WHO CALLED THE CITY TO COME LOOK AT IT?
>> IT LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THESE WAS EVENTUALLY COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND THE LIEN THAT HAD ACCRUED BY THE TIME IT CAME INTO COMPLIANCE WAS $80,000. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> ALL RIGHT, AND THE SECOND CASE, CASE 2018, IS STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE. AND THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN ON THAT IS $167,140 AND CONTINUES TO ACCRUE AT $100
A DAY. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU. >> IF I COULD ADD ONE EXTRA ITEM. WHAT IS NOT LISTED HERE IS THERE'S ALSO IN 2020, THE CITY CONDEMNED THE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS WHAT GENERATED THE ORIGINAL PERMIT IN 2021. BUT BECAUSE NO WORK WAS DONE, THE PERMIT CLOSED. SO THE BUILDING ALSO HAS AN ACT OF CONDEMNATION, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A MONETARY PENALTY. THE MONETARY PENALTY BELONGS TO THE CASE 182361.
[01:10:03]
>> YOU WERE SENT CORRESPONDENT FROM THE CITY TELLING YOU WHAT STAGE THE PROPERTY WAS AT IN SO FAR AS IT NOT BEING IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY CODE. >> MOST OF THE WORK ON THE HOUSE, USUALLY MY MOTHER HANDLED IT, BECAUSE WE BOTH OWN THE HOUSE. I HAVE LITTLE CHILDREN I'M TAKING CARE OF.
WHEN I GET THE LETTER, I READ IT TO HER AND SHE FIND CONTRACTOR AND PEOPLE TO WORK ON IT.
>> I'M LOOKING AT A LETTER FROM THE CITY SIGNED BY THE CLERK AT THAT TIME, COLLEEN GREER, WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT YOU MUST RESPOND IN WRITING, STATING A DETAILED REASON AS TO WHY YOU DISAGREE WITH WHATEVER THEY WERE DOING.
AND THEN SHE STATES IN THE LAST SENTENCE, IF YOU SHOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE AND SHE LEAVES A TELEPHONE NUMBER. AND THAT LETTER IS DATED MAY 21, 2018.
IT IS LIKE YOU ALL DID NOTHING. AND THE PROPERTY IS STILL NOT
IN COMPLIANCE. AM I CORRECT? >> BECAUSE THE CONTRACTOR, HE STILL GOT THE MONEY AND HE SAID HE PULLED A PERMIT. HE HAVE TO
PULL THE PERMIT ON IT. >> SINCE 2018, 2017? I'M ASKING YOU A QUESTION. AS OF JULY 8, 2019, THE LIEN ON THE PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED AT 80,890. $80,890. AND THERE WAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING AND AN ORDER ISSUED AND THAT CASE IMPOSING THE LIEN BY ME. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> WHAT WAS THE DESIRE OF THE CITY?
>> THE CITY ASKS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CONFIRM THE LETTER IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE AND FORECLOSE ON THE LIENS.
THE HOUSE ALREADY GOT A PERMIT? A CONTRACTOR WORKING ON IT.
WHAT ABOUT IF HE'S DONE WITH THE WORK, IF THE HOUSE IS GOING
TO BE IN FORECLOSURE? >> WE'RE ASKING THE MAGISTRATE TO FIND THE LIENS AND THAT WE'RE AUTHORIZED TO COMMENCE
FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS. >> BUT THE HOUSE GOT A CONTRACTOR AND WORKING ON IT. HOW LONG WE HAVE -- HOW MANY DAYS CAN WE GET SO WE CAN FINISH THE WORK ON IT?
>> AS SOON AS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ISSUES THE ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROCEED WITH FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS. IT'S A TOTALLY SEPARATE PROCEEDING IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT. >> EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A
CONTRACTOR WORKING ON IT? >> THE ISSUE TODAY IS THE NONPAYMENT OF THE LIENS. NOT THE STATUS OF THE WORK ON THE
PROPERTY. >> WHO CAN I TALK TO ABOUT THE
LIEN? >> YOU MEAN THE AMOUNT OF THE
>> LIKE CAN THE DECREASE ON THE- LIEN?
>> YOU CAN TALK TO PEGGY AFTER THE HEARING IF YOU LIKE.
>> OKAY. >> BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO
AFFECT THE PROCEEDINGS TODAY. >> OKAY.
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE ORDER I'M ASKING THE COURT TO ISSUE, WHICH IS THE LIEN IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO , MA'AM.
>> THERE WERE A COUPLE OF LETTERS THAT WENT OUT TO YOU
[01:15:02]
ASKING IF YOU NEED SOME HELP, CONTACT THE CITY. AND YOUDIDN'T. >> ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> NO , MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED, I'M NOT DONE YET.
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS ON THE SCREEN. ON THAT SCREEN. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS ON THE
SCREEN. >> OH. OKAY. I'M USED TO THE
>> I HAVE TO GO BACK TO PAPER. ALL RIGHT, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED, I FIND THAT RULE 16 OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULES AND PROCEDURE HAS BEEN VIOLATED AND THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE. AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FORECLOSE ON THE LIENS. YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO
APPEAL. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU CEDE RULE 16 HAD BEEN VIOLATED. RULE 16 WAS SATISFIED?
>> OKAY, I STAND CORRECTED ON THAT THEN.
>> THANK YOU. AND ALSO, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM THIS
ORDER. >> OKAY. NO RIGHT TO APPEAL.
>> SHE CANNOT APPEAL IT? >> NO. SHE SAYS LISTEN, SHE SAYS THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO. YOU MIGHT WANT TO TALK TO A LAWYER, SOMEBODY WHO DOES REAL ESTATE. WE OFFERED TO HELP YOU SOME TIME AGO. IS THAT THE LAST CASE?
>> THERE'S ONE MORE. >> WE HAVE TWO MORE, ACTUALLY.
>> TWO MORE. >> OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO
[F. Property Address: 1826 Orange Avenue Owner Name: Willie C Smith Jr L C Smith Pinkie Smith]
TO 8A OR GO TO 8F? >> WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE
WITH F. >> WITH F, OKAY. PROPERTY ADDRESS 1826 ORANGE AVENUE. WILLY C. SMITH, JR., AND PINKY
SMITH. >> GOOD MORNING. YOU CAN STEP UP TO THE PODIUM WHEN YOU'RE READY. WERE YOU SWORN IN THIS
>> THANK YOU. >> CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME,
>> WILLY SMITH, JR.? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> OKAY. YOU'RE THE PROPERTY OWNER?
>> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT IF YOU'D LIKE. WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT THE CITY'S
EVIDENCE. >> HOLD ON A SECOND. YOU DOSEC'T
OWN WILLY'S CAR CARE, DO YOU? >> YES.
>> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS ONE. GO AHEAD.
>> IF SHE SAYS SHE NEEDS TO RECUSE, IF SHE FEELS THERE'S A CONFLICT, IT'S HER DETERMINATION.
>> GOT YA. >> THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WILL RECUSE HERSELF FROM YOUR CASE. WE'LL NOTICE THIS CASE FOR ANOTHER HEARING BEFORE A DIFFERENT MAGISTRATE. DO YOU
>> ALL RIGHT. SO CONTINUE THAT, WE'LL PUT IT ON THE OTHER MAGISTRATE'S DOCKET AND SEND THE NOTICE OF THE NEW HEARING.
>> YES , MA'AM. >> THANK YOU, SIR.
[A. Property Address: 535 S 7th Street Owner Name: Ermith Lazare]
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> OKAY, PROPERTY ADDRESS 535 SOUTH 7TH STREET. IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN.
>> HOLD ON. ANOTHER RECUSAL. >> OKAY.
>> I HAVE DONE -- I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS.
>> OKAY. SO MS. LAZIER, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IS GOING TO RECUSE HERSELF FOR THIS CASE AND WE'LL NEED TO BE HELD IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. YOU WILL RECEIVE ANOTHER LETTER IN THE MAIL TELLING YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT, SO YOU WILL RECEIVE ANOTHER -- DID WE SEND THOSE CERTIFIED AND U.S. MAIL, THE NOTICE OF THE HEARING?
[01:20:04]
>> WE DID. >> YOU WILL RECEIVE ANOTHER ONE. CERTIFIED TO COME BEFORE A DIFFERENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> OKAY, I GUESS WE'LL MOVE FORWARD FOR THE CITATIONS. WHAT HAPPENED TO 1301 DELAWARE?
>> WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT AFTER.
>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO
DO SOME PARKING VIOLATIONS. >> MICHAEL IS GOING TO DO --
>> PEGGY IS GOING TO TAKE A BREAK, AND I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE HERE, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE BACK TO 4A. IS THAT RIGHT?
[A. 23-2780 PK JettyPark Cynthia Klass Michael Rabenecker]
>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT CASE IS 23-2780. JETTY PARK, CYNTHIA
KLASS. >> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
>> GOOD MORNING. >> MY NAME IS MICHAEL RABENECKER AS A PARK AND ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST. BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING IS CASE NUMBER 23-2780. PARKING VIOLATION AT JETTY PARK. THE CASE WAS INITIATED ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2023, THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE CAME BACK AS A CYNTHIA KLASS. THE VIOLATION, THE CITATION NUMBER WRITTEN IS 20344 PARKING VIOLATION, CITY VIOLATION. NO PARKING ON THE SIDEWALK. THE CITY IS ASKING A $50 BE ASSESSED. ADMINISTRATION OF $10, AND LATE FEE OF $18. THE CITY REQUEST OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE FOLLOWING BE ORDERED. THE VIOLATOR BE ASSESSED TO FINE THE AMOUNT OF $78 AND FAILURE TO PAY SUCH A FINE RESULT IN CITATION TO THE COURT SYSTEM. DATE AND TIME STAMPED. AND THEY ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE VIOLATIONS, I WITNESSED IT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THESE PHOTOS INTO EVIDENCE, THE
CITY'S COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> IT WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.
>> NO, YOUR HONOR. >> THIS IS A POPULAR SPOT. ALL RIGHT. I FIND THAT CYNTHIA KLASS IS NOT PRESENT, HOWEVER, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED, I FIND THAT SHE IS VIOLATING PARKING VIOLATION LOCATED AT JETTY PARK. AND THAT IS THE CODE SECTION, NO PARKING ON THE SIDEWALK. I WILL IMPOSE A $50 FINE, $10ADMIN FEE, TOTAL OF $78. FAILURE TO PAY THE FINE WILL RESULT IN THE CITATION BEING FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COURT SYSTEM.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> 14 DAYS TO PAY?
>> 14 DAYS TO PAY. >> THANK YOU.
>> 30 DAYS TO APPEAL? >> MAGISTRATE, 30 DAYS TO
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT.
[B. 23-2709 PK 100 Blk Marina Way Marqueshia Dean Michael Rabenecker]
>> I DIDN'T REMEMBER EITHER. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS 23-2709.
100 BLOCK MARINA WAY. MARQUESHIA DEAN.
>> OKAY . >> YOUR HONOR, THE NEXT CASE BEFORE YOU IS 23-2709. A PARKING VIOLATION THAT OCCURRED AT THE 100 BLOCK OF MARINA WAY. THE CASE WAS INITIATED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2023. THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE CAME BACK AS A MARQUESHIA DEAN. 20500 PARKING VIOLATION OF FORT PIERCE ORDINANCE, PARKED FACING THE WRONG DIRECTION. THE CITY IS ASKING A $50 BE ASSESSED. ADMINISTRATION OF $10, AND LATE FEE OF $18. TOTAL OF $78. THE CITY REQUESTS FINDS THE BE ASSESSED. THE FINE OF $78, AND FAILURE TO PAY SUCH A FINE RESULTS IN CITATION BEING FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COURT SYSTEM. PHOTOS TO INTRODUCE, DATE AND SOMETIME STAMPED AND
THEY PORTRAY AS I WITNESSED IT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THESE PHOTOS IN EVIDENCE AS CITY COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1.
>> WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH. ANYTHING FURTHER?
[01:25:07]
>> NO, YOUR HONOR. >> ANOTHER FAVORITE SPOT. ALL RIGHT, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED, I FIND THAT MARQUESHIA DEAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION OF PARKING FACING THE WRONG DIRECTION. CODE 63431 PARAGRAPH N. ASSESS A $50 FINE, A $10ADMIN FEE, $18 LATE FEE FOR A TOTAL OF $78. SHE HAS 30 DAYS TO APPEAL AND 14 DAYS TO PAY
[C. 23-2473 PK 200 Blk North Indian River Drive James Chalmers Michael Rabenecker]
THE CITATION. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> NEXT CASE WILL BE 23-2473.
200 BLOCK NORTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, JAMES CHALMERS.
>> YOUR HONOR, THE NEXT CASE BEFORE YOU IS CASE NUMBER 23-2473. A PARKING VIOLATION THAT OCCURRED AT THE 200 BLOCK OF NORTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. THE CASE WAS INITIATED ON AUGUST 20, 2023. THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE CAME BACK AS A JAMES CHALMERS. THE CITATION NUMBER WRITTEN IS 20313, PARKING CITATION OF CITY ORDINANCE 34-31L PARKING ON THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. THE CITY IS ASKING A $50 BE ASSESSED AND ADMINISTRATION OF $10 AND LATE FEE OF $18 FOR A TOTALOF $78.
THE CITY REQUESTS IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS IT EXIST, THE VIOLATOR BE ASSESSED IN THE FINE OF 78 AND FAILURE BEING FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COURT SYSTEM. PHOTOS TO INTRODUCED ARE DATE AND TIME STAMPED.
>> CITY WOULD MOVE THESE PHOTOS INTO EVIDENCE AS CITIES
COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1. >> ADMITTED AS SUCH.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, YOUR HONOR.
>> ALL RIGHT, I FIND THAT JAMES CHALMERS IS NOT PRESENT.
HOWEVER, I FIND HE IS IN VIOLATION OF CITATION NUMBER 20313PK, CODE 6-3431 PARKING ON THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. HE IS NOT PRESENT THIS MORNING, BUT I WILL IMPOSE A $50 FINE, $10ADMIN FEE, LATE FEE OF $18, FOR A TOTAL DUE OF $78. FAILURE TO PAY SUCH A FINE COULD RESULT IN A CITATION BEING FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COURT SYSTEM. 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> HOW MANY DAYS TO PAY?
[C. Property Address: 1301 Delaware Avenue Owner Name: Lareste Justin]
>> 14. >> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT AND LAST CASE WILL BE PROPERTY ADDRESS 1301 DELAWARE AVENUE. LORESS
>> LOST THE WHAT? >> I TOOK THE MOUSE WITH ME.
>> OH. OKAY. WE FREE MARKED EXHIBITS IN THIS CASE, 1 THROUGH 10. I BELIEVE. YES. 1 THROUGH 10, AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS THAT APPLY TO EACH OF THESE EXHIBITS. WHICH I WILL REFER TO AS RECORDS. ARE THESE RECORDS TRUE AND ACCURATE COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS MADE AND KEPT IN THE COURSE OF THE REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS
ACTIVITY OF THE CITY? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> WERE THESE RECORDS MADE BY OR FROM INFORMATION TRANSMITTED BY A PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THERE IN, ACTING WITHIN THE COURSE OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS
>> WERE THESE RECORDS MADE AND KEPT PURSUANT TO THE REGULAR PRACTICE OF THE CITIES BUSINESS AND ARE THEY REGULARLY RELIED
UPON BY THE CITY? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> AND WERE THESE RECORDS MADE AT OR NEAR THE TIME OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE MATTER SET FORTH IN THE RECORDS?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, I WOULD MOVE THE CITY'S EXHIBITS INTO EVIDENCE AS BUSINESS RECORDS.
>> THEY WILL BE ADMITTED AS SUCH.
[01:30:06]
>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. REFERRING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER 1, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY CARD. WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE CURRENT
OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY? >> LORESS JUSTIN.
>> WHAT IS THE ADDRESS OF THE CURRENT OWNER?
>> 1110 COLONIAL ROAD FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.
>> ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN DID MR. JUSTIN ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY?
>> ON JANUARY 14, 2020. >> IS THE PROPERTY HOMESTEADED
>> MOVING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER 2. WHICH IS NOTICE OF INTENT TO FORECLOSE LETTER. DID THE CITY SEND THE CURRENT OWNER NOTICE
OF TODAY'S HEARING? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> HOW WAS THAT NOTICE SENT? >> THAT WAS SENT BOTH CERTIFIED
MAIL AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL. >> AND HOW MANY LIENS HAS THE
CITY RECORDED ON THIS PROPERTY? >> TWO.
>> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER 3. WHICH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE NOTICE OF VIOLATION HEARING. SO THE FIRST LIEN ON THIS PROPERTY IS IN CASE NUMBER 2103- I'M SORRY. 21-0342. IS
>> AND IS THIS A GENERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> DID THE CITY PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH NOTICE OF THE VIOLATION AND NOTICE OF THE
INITIAL VIOLATION HEARING? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> WHEN WAS THE INITIAL VIOLATION HEARING?
>> JULY 7, 2021. >> HOW DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE
OWNER? >> THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION HEARING WAS SENT CERTIFIED MAIL.
>> WAS THAT CERTIFIED MAIL SENT TO THE OWNERS ADDRESS ON FILE
AT THE TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> WHEN WAS THAT NOTICE SENT? >> THE NOTICE WAS SENT ON JUNE
7, 2021. >> AND DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF
DELIVERY? >> YES , MA'AM. THE GREEN
CARD WAS RETURNED SIGNED. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO EXHIBIT 4. STARTS WITH THE LETTER, SEPTEMBER 21, 2021. DID YOU WANT TO FIND IT FOR THE SCREEN OR NO?
>> THE VIOLATION PROCEED ON JULY 20, 2021.
>> YES , MA'AM. >> DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND A VIOLATION AND ORDER CORRECTIVE ACTIONS?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> WAS THAT ORDER MAILED TO THE
>> AND WHAT DAY WAS THAT ORDER MAILED TO THE OWNER?
>> JULY 9, 2021. >> ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S RECORDS, DID THE OWNER APPEAL THE ORDER?
>> NO , MA'AM. >> ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S RECORDS, DID THE OWNER CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE TIME
ALLOWED BY THE ORDER? >> NO , MA'AM.
>> DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER THAT THE VIOLATIONS NOT CORRECT THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT CORRECTED AND THAT
FINES HAD STARTED TO ACCRUE? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> HOW WAS THAT NOTICE SENT? >> THAT NOTICE WAS SENT REGULAR
U.S. MAIL. >> DID THE OWNER CONTEST THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDINGS OR FINE?
>> NO , MA'AM. >> DID THE CITY GIVE THE OWNER NOTICE THAT A LIEN WOULD BE FILED IF THEY DID NOT CONTEST
THE FINDINGS OR FINE? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> AND WHAT IS THE DATE OF THAT LETTER?
>> SEPTEMBER 21, 2021. >> MOVING TO EXHIBIT 5. DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THEREAFTER ASSESS THE FINE AND ENTER A
>> AND ON WHAT DATE? >> IT WAS SIGNED BY THE SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE NOVEMBER 16, 2021. >> DID THE CITY SEND THE OWNER A COPY OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER ASSESSING THE FINE AND
IMPOSING THE LIEN? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> WHAT DAY WAS THAT SENT? >> THAT WAS SENT DECEMBER 15,
2021. >> ALL RIGHT. ADDRESSING THE SECOND VIOLATION. SECOND VIOLATION WAS CASE NUMBER 21-2803. LOOKING AT EXHIBIT SIX, WHICH IS NOTICE OF
VIOLATION HEARING. >> CAN YOU GIVE ME ONE MOMENT? IT'S NOT COMING UP ON THE SCREEN. I APOLOGIZE. I HAVE MY
HARD COPIES TO REFER TO. >> ALL RIGHT. YUP. TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, BUT I HAVE THE HARD COPIES. ALL RIGHT. SO LOOKING AT EXHIBIT SIX, WAS THIS A GENERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT
>> ALL RIGHT. DID THE CITY PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH NOTICE OF THE VIOLATION AND NOTICE OF THE INITIAL VIOLATION HEARING?
[01:35:03]
>> YES , MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. ACCORDING TO EXHIBIT SIX, WHEN WAS THE INITIAL VIOLATION HEARING
>> ALL RIGHT. DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER -- I'M SORRY, HOW DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER?
>> MAILED VIA CERTIFIED MAIL. >> WAS THAT SENT TO THE ADDRESS ON FILE AT THE TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> WHEN WAS THE NOTICE SENT?
>> THE NOTICE WAS SENT ON FEBRUARY 11, 2022.
>> AND DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF DELIVERY OF THAT NOTICE?
>> YES , MA'AM. THE GREEN CARD WAS RETURNED SIGNED.
>> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO EXHIBIT SEVEN. NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE.
DID THE VIOLATION HEARING PROCEED ON MARCH 15, 2022?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND A VIOLATION AND ORDER CORRECTIVE ACTIONS?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> WAS THAT ORDER MAILED TO THE
>> ON WHAT DAY? >> ON MARCH 16, 2022.
>> DID THE OWNER APPEAL THE ORDER?
>> NO , MA'AM. >> ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S RECORDS, DID THE OWNER CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE TIME
ALLOWED BY THE ORDER? >> NO , MA'AM.
>> DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT CORRECTED AND FINES STARTED TO ACCRUE?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> AND HOW DID THE CITY NOTIFY
THE ORDER? THE OWNER OF THAT? >> A MASSEY NOTICE WAS SENT
REGULAR U.S. POSTAL. >> ALL RIGHT. DID THE OWNER THEREAFTER CONTEST THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDINGS OR
>> DID THE MASSEY ORDER GIVE NOTICE A LIEN WOULD BE FILED IF THEY DID NOT CONTEST THE FINDINGS OR THE FINE?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> WHAT DAY WAS THE MASSEY
NOTICE LETTER SENT? >> MAY 23, 2022.
>> MOVING TO EXHIBIT EIGHT. DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THEREAFTER ASSESS THE FINE AND ENTER A LIEN?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> ON WHAT DATE?
>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SIGNED THE ORDER ON JUNE 22, 2022.
>> DID THE CITY SEND THE OWNER A COPY OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER ASSESSING THE FINE AND IMPOSING THE LIEN?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> AND ON WHAT DATE DID THE
CITY MAIL THAT? >> JUNE 24, 2022.
>> THANK YOU. >> MOVING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS A JANUARY 16, 2024 LETTER.
>> YES , MA'AM. >> DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER OF ITS INTENT TO FORECLOSE ON THESE LIENS?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> AND IS THAT WHAT IS SHOWN IN
THAT JANUARY 16, 2024 LETTER? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> ALL RIGHT, MOVING TO EXHIBIT 7.
>> DID THE CITY USE A PROCESS SERVER TO TRANSMIT TO THE OWNER THAT JANUARY -- I'M SORRY, THAT JANUARY 16, 2024, LETTER ALONG WITH A COPY OF EACH ORDER IMPOSING THE LIEN?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> DID THE PROCESS SERVER
EXECUTE A RETURN OF SERVICE? >> YES , MA'AM.
>> DOES THE RETURN OF SERVICE SHOW THAT THE OWNER WAS SERVED OR WAS SERVED BY SUBSTITUTE SERVICE?
>> YES , MA'AM. >> HAS THE OWNER PAID THESE
>> THE LIENS REMAIN UNPAID. >> YES , MA'AM.
>> ALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
>> OKAY. HANDING YOU THE EXHIBITS.
>> THANK YOU. >> GIVE ME A MOMENT TO LOOK THROUGH THEM IF YOU'D LIKE, AND A BRIEF.
GOING THROUGH THEM. >> YOU KEPT UP WITH THEM.
>> ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY PROCEED. >> ALL RIGHT. SO UNDER RULE 16, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IS ASKING, IS ASKING TO ISSUE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FORE CLOSE ON THE LIEN UPON CONFIRMATION THE LIEN IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE.
UNDER RULE 16, SUB PART A. THE FORECLOSURE MAY NOT BE INITIATED UNTIL AFTER THREE MONTHS FROM THE FILING OF THE LIEN. THESE LIENS WERE FILED IN 2021, AND 2022. WHICH ARE YOUR EXHIBITS FIVE AND EIGHT, SO THREE MONTHS HAVE ELAPSED SATISFYING 16A. 16B, THE MATTER PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WHICH
[01:40:04]
TODAY IS A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. SUB PART B1, FOR GENERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS, PROPER NOTICE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, NOTIFYING THEM OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT EXISTED AND FOR THE INITIAL HEARING AS REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE. EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE AND EXHIBIT NUMBER SIX ALONG WITH TESTIMONY, ESTABLISH THAT THE PROPER NOTICE WAS PROVIDED. AND ARIAS TESTIFIED TO THE MANNER OF SERVICE. SUB PART B3, THE OWNER HAS BEEN PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT A HEARING AS OUTLINED IN RULE 14, A MASSEY HEARING AND PROVIDED NOTICE OF IMPOSITION OF THE LIEN. THE EXHIBITS FOUR AND SEVEN SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT THE HEARING, EXHIBITS FIVE AND NINE SHOW THE PROPERTY OWNER RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE LIENS. THAT ALL ALONG WITH MS. ARIAS TESTIMONY. SUB PART B4, THE PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY HOMESTEADED. EXHIBIT 1 ALONG WITH MS. ARIAS TESTIMONY SHOW ESTABLISHES THE PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY HOMESTEADED AND SUB PART B5, THE LIEN REMAINS UNPAID. MS. ARIAS TESTIFIED THAT THE LIENS IN THIS CASE REMAIN UNPAID. SUB PART B6, NOTICE OF THE CITY'S INTENT TO FORECLOSE ON THE LIEN HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THROUGH THE USE OF A PROCESS SERVER. EXHIBIT 10 ALONG WITH MS. ARIAS TESTIMONY, ESTABLISHED THAT THE CITIES INTENT TO FORECLOSE ON THE LIEN WAS PROVIDED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THROUGH THE USE OF A PROCESS SERVER. HAVING ESTABLISHED ALL OF THE ELEMENTS IN RULE 16, THE CITY ASKS THAT THIS COURT ISSUE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FORECLOSE ON THE LIEN AND FINDING THE LIEN IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE. THAT CONCLUDED. THANK YOU.>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?
PERSON'S NAME? >> LARESTE JUSTIN.
>> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED I FIND THAT LARESTE JUSTIN IS THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRIMES, IF YOU WILL, COMMITTED IN THIS CASE. HE WAS NOTIFIED OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE HEARING. PROPERLY SERVED. SO, PURSUANT TO RULE 16 OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULES OF PROCEDURE, I WILL CONFIRM THAT THE LIENS LISTED ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE AND ORDER AUTHORIZE BY THIS CITY TO ENTER INTO FORECLOSE ON THE LIENS. HE HAS 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
>> NO, HE DOES NOT. >> HE DOESN'T?
>> HE DOESN'T HAVE 30 DAYS. >> IT'S A LIEN.
>> IT'S A FORECLOSURE. >> YES, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. FOR CASES REQUIRING A HEARING 162.12, A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE VIOLATOR CERTIFIED MAIL. IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED SIGNED, IT'S PLACED IN THE FILE. IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED OR UNCLAIMED, AN AFFIDAVIT, REGULAR U.S. MAIL. TEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A NOTICE OF HEARING IS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD IN CITY HALL. AND WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING. IF THE GREEN CARD IS NOT RETURNED TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, THE POSTING IS COMPLETED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IF THE CARD WAS RETURNED UNCLAIMED. FOR CASES NOT MANDATED BY STATE STATUTE, MAILING ARE HANDLED IN THE SAME MANNER DATED PRIOR. IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED, UNCLAIMED, OR NOT RETURNED WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE HEARING, A NOTICE OF HEARING IS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD IN CITY HALL.
>> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO , MA'AM.
>> NO. >> WE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.