Apr 03, 2024 Special Magistrate Hearing

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:15]

TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING IS CALLED TO ORDER.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

[A. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH TO DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES]

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>> IF YOU CAN PLEASE REMAIN STANDING. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. I WILL GO AHEAD AND START WITH

[B. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES IN COMPLIANCE OR RESCHEDULED]

[C. 23-2868 CE 901 S Ocean Drive OASIS TOWNHOUSES LLC Heather Debevec]

>> WHAT IS THE DOCKET NUMBER, PLEASE?

>> 5C. >> THANK YOU.

>> I BELIEVE THE RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TODAY?

>> DAVID LEWIS ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENTS, OASIS TOWNHOUSES LLC.

FIRST AND THEN ASK FOR YOUR INPUT.

>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THIS IS CASE NUMBER 23-28 -68 THE OASIS TOWNHOUSES LLC. IT WAS FOR I PMC 304.7 PROTECTIVE TREATMENT. THE CITY IS REQUESTING THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ORDERED, 60 DAYS TO PRESSURE WASH AND PAINT THE WALLS, COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS, FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN A FINE BEING ASSESSED. I DO HAVE PHOTOS TO SUBMIT.

>> ARE THE PHOTOS DATE AND TIME STAMPED?

>> YES. >> HAS THE COUNCIL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PHOTOS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE

THOSE? >> PLEASE.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH?

>> NO OBJECTION. >> WE WILL MOVE THESE INTO EVIDENCE AND SEE COMPOSITE EVIDENCE ONE.

>> THE PHOTOS WILL BE ADMITTED AS CITY COMPOSITE ONE.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> I HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS COMPANY AND THEY WERE APPLYING FOR PERMITS ON SPECIFICALLY ONE PARCEL, I DO NOT KNOW IF IT WAS SPECIFIC TO 1001, THEY WERE TRYING TO UNIFY THE PARCELS.

THEY WERE PUTTING IN A PLAN TO BUILD TOWNHOUSES HERE AND IN PART OF THAT PLAN WAS TO REMOVE THIS WALL AND REPLACE IT WITH OTHERS. HOWEVER, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PERMIT APPLICATION WAS DENIED. THEY ARE IN PROCESS OF UPDATING THAT TO RESUBMIT. I HAVE NOT HEARD IF THEY ARE RESUBMITTING OR IF THE PARCELS WERE UNITED. AT THIS TIME, I HAVE NOTHING.

>> THIS CASE WAS COMMENCED IN NOVEMBER 3RD, 2023. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD FROM ANYBODY?

>> IT WOULD'VE BEEN YESTERDAY, WHEN I SPOKE TO MR. LEWIS AND

[00:05:02]

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

>> I CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE UNITY OF TITLE. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT, WHEN I LEAVE HERE, I WILL DROP OFF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION TO GET THAT SET UP AND ONGOING. WE DO HAVE TO RECORD THE UNITY OF TITLE DOCUMENT WHICH SHOULD BE RECORDED THIS WEEK OR NEXT WEEK AT THE LATEST. I BELIEVE THAT IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO DO TO SATISFY THE NEED OF TITLE. WE ARE WORKING ON THAT. I KNOW THAT THEY ARE SOME ISSUES WITH THE BLOCKS. IT IS THE INTENTION TO UNIFY THE PARCELS AS ONE AND GET THEM UNDER ONE PARCEL I.D.

NUMBER AND ONE TAX NUMBER. I SEE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND WE APPRECIATE IT. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDER SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND REVIEW. ONCE THAT PROCESS IS OVER WITH, THOSE WALLS, I BELIEVE ALL OF THEM, WILL BE KNOCKED DOWN. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR THAT REVIEW PROCESS TO TAKE PLACE, WHEN IT DOES, WE WILL APPLY FOR THE APPROPRIATE PERMITS TO TEAR THESE WALLS DOWN. WE ARE ASKING FOR, RATHER THAN 60 DAYS, THIS PROCESS SHOULD TAKE 90 TO 120 DAYS TO GET APPROVAL AND PERMITS, WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION OF 120 DAYS AT MOST, 90 DAYS AT LEAST, TO GET THROUGH THIS SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS AND APPLICATION PROCESS SO THAT WE CAN KNOCK THE WALLS DOWN. MY CLIENTS WOULD HATE TO PAY THE MONEY TO GET SOMEONE TO PRESSURE WASH THEM, CLEAN THEM UP, PAINT THEM, AND PUT THEM IN GOOD REPAIR ONLY TO DEMOLISH THEM A FEW WEEKS OR MONTHS LATER. THIS INITIATIVE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF, WE ARE ASKING FOR A LITTLE MORE TIME THAN 60 DAYS. THEN WE CAN DETERMINE IF WE DO GET APPROVAL FOR THE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE WALLS, WE CAN DO SO. IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE HAVE TO GET THEM PAINTED, WE CAN DO SO. WE ARE ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME, 120 DAYS IS WHAT I WOULD ASK.

>> MR. MAGISTRATE, THE CITY WILL AGREE TO AMENDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROVIDE 30 DAYS TO PAINT THE WALLS. AND 120 DAYS TO FIX THEM OR 90 DAYS? OKAY.

>> I'M NOT SURE THAT WE NEED TO PAINT. WE DO NEED TO GET THEM PRESSURE WASH. WE ARE RECEIVING COMPLAINTS ABOUT THEM. IF YOU CAN GET THEM PRESSURE WASHED TO IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE, WE ARE REQUESTING 30 DAYS FOR THE PRESSURE WASH.

PERMIT? >> 120 TO DECIDE WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO WITH THEM AND GET IT DONE, FIX THEM, OR DEMOLISH

THEM. >> PERFECT.

>> THAT IS WHAT THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS.

>> ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? >> YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> IS THE CITY FINDING A VIOLATION OR NOT AT THIS TIME?

>> YES PLEASE. >> I WILL FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS 30 DAYS TO PRESSURE WASH THE WALL TO MAKE IT LOOK BETTER AND 120 DAYS TO DO IT. EITHER TEAR IT DOWN OR SOMETHING.

>> WILL THERE BE ANOTHER HEARING IN 30 DAYS OR A STATUS

CHECK? >> THERE WILL BE AN INSPECTION TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER. THERE WILL BE A

LETTER. >> AN INSPECTION WILL HAPPEN IN 30 DAYS UNLESS IT IS DONE EARLIER AND YOU CAN CONTACT MS. HEATHER TO INSPECT THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT PAR IS COMPLIED. EACH PART IN THE SAME ORDER, THEY ARE INDEPENDENT. FINES COULD BE INITIATED FOR THAT. THE SECOND CLOCK IS STILL TICKING ON THE

OTHER PART. >> THE FINES ARE $100 PER DAY?

MAGISTRATE IMPLIED. >> THANK YOU.

[D. 23-2870 CE 1001 S Ocean Drive OASIS TOWNHOUSES LLC Heather Debevec]

>> THANK YOU. >> 30 DAYS TO APPROVE.

>> YES, 30 DAYS TO APPROVE. >> OUR NEXT CASE WILL BE 23-28 1001 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE 5D WHICH IS ALSO WITH OASIS TOWNHOUSES

[00:10:07]

LLC. >> THIS IS CASE NUMBER 23-21 001 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, OASIS TOWNHOUSES LLC. 302.7, PROTECTIVE TREATMENT, THE CITY IS REQUESTING THAT IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO PRESSURE WASH THE WALLS, AND COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS TO REPAIR THE WALLS. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE OTHER PROPERTY. I ALSO HAVE PHOTOS.

>> WE WOULD AMEND OUR RECOMMENDATION TO MATCH THE

OTHER ONE. >> 30 DAYS TO PRESSURE WASH,

120. SAME AS THE OTHER. >> WE WILL ASK FOR A FINDING OF VIOLATION. ARE THE PHOTOS DATE AND TIME STAMPED?

>> YES MA'AM. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THESE

PHOTOS AS WELL? >> NO MA'AM.

>> MOVING INTO EVIDENCE AS THE CITY EXHIBIT 101.

>> THANK YOU. >> PHOTOS WILL BE ENTERED AS THE CITY EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING

ELSE? >> NOTHING ELSE FROM ME.

>> THE SAME TERMS THAT WE DISCUSSED. 30 DAYS TO APPEAL AS

[D. 22-2237 510 N 6th Street Cruickshank, Cephus Logan Winn]

WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK

YOU ALL. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS 22-2237, 510 NORTH SIXTH STREET. SEE THE CORRECTION. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THIS IS IT A MAYOR REQUEST, THE SECOND REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION WITH AN EXCEPTION TO RULE 13. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE A COPY OF

THE RULE? >> SURE. NEWLY I'M JUST

ASKING. >> IT IS 13 B, THAT IS WHERE WE

ARE. >> WE HAVE A COPY. WE WILL HOLD

IT RIGHT THERE. OKAY. >> GET AFTERNOON. I AM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. TODAY WE HAVE 510 NORTH SIXTH STREET. IT WAS INITIATED JULY 14, 2022, THE OWNER OF 23 NORTH 14TH STREET, FORT PIERCE, FLORDIA, THE VIOLATIONS, A PERMIT IS REQUIRED. THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE ROOF BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY AGREES TO A 60 DAY EXTENSION TO COMPLY WITH ALL PERMITTED CONDITIONS. A FINE OF $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED.

I DO HAVE SOME NOTES ON THIS AS WELL. THE REALTOR REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY HAS COORDINATED WITH THE COMPANY TO OBTAIN A NEW PERMIT. EIGHT THE PCR APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED. IT WAS REJECTED SINCE IT NEEDS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.

TO DATE, NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE ORDER OF DETERMINED VIOLATION MUST REMEDY WITHIN 60 DAYS. 1128 THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION. 11-30 OF 23 THERE WAS A NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 20 DAYS. 2-29 OF 24, A SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION. I DO HAVE A COMPOSITE EXHIBIT FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR THE ORDER DETERMINING VIOLATION. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE COMPOSITE EXHIBIT? IT CONTAINS THE INITIAL ORDER CONTAINING VIOLATION AND EXTENSION NEED NOTICE OF THE FIRST EXTENSION IN YOUR SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THAT?

>> I AM FINE. >> THE CITY WOULD MOVE THIS EXHIBIT INTO EVIDENCE AS COMPOSITE ONE.

>> THIS WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY COMPOSITE ONE.

>> IN ADDITION TO THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE SPECIAL

[00:15:09]

>> NO MA'AM. >> I AM THE REAL ESTATE BROKER, MY OFFICE IS THE OFFICE IN CHARGE OF THE PORTFOLIO. THIS

PARTICULAR FILE -- >> CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR

THE RECORD? >> MY NAME IS JACQUES CHESHIRE . THIS FILE IS COMPLEX. WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A REAL ESTATE

TREND. >> YES, I WAS.

>> WE ARE JUST DOUBLE CHECKING. I'M SORRY.

>> NO WORRIES AT ALL. >> ON THIS PARTICULAR FILE, IN THE MIDDLE OF A PENDING REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. THE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY FOR THIS FILE, IS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRE ME TO PRACTICE REAL ESTATE, AGAIN, I AM THE BROKER, I DON'T PRACTICE. WHEN FILES ARE COMPLEX, I HAVE TO TAKE OVER.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE ARE WORKING WITH THE CITY TO NAVIGATE THIS TRANSACTION THROUGH THE SPREAD OF LEANS AND THE BANKRUPTCY, SO ON AND SO FORTH. THE ORIGINAL HEARING I REQUESTED ABOUT A YEAR TO GET IT DONE BASED ON WHAT I WAS SEEING IN THAT PARTICULAR TIME AND AT THAT POINT THEY PROVIDED 30 OR 60 DAY , AGAIN, FROM THAT DAY, I WAS CONFIDENT THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE ABOUT A YEAR TO NAVIGATE THIS PARTICULAR FILE.

THE FIRST TIME AROUND, THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE HERE, WAS GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT IS A PENDING REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION, THE PERMITS NEEDED TO BE PULLED BY THE OWNER. THE OWNER IS CURRENTLY BEING REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY. THAT OWNER IS ALSO A PART OF A BANKRUPTCY. WITH THEM BEING A PART OF A BANKRUPTCY, THE OWNER DOES NOT HAVE ANY ACCESS TO DISCRETIONARY FUNDS OR SUSPENDING BECAUSE EVERYTHING SHOULD BE PAID TO THE BANKRUPTCY. THIS PRESENTS THE OWNER FROM PAYING FOR THE PERMITS TO BE PULLED. ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, YOU HAVE THE BUYERS OF THAT TRANSACTION WHO HAVE NOT COMPLETELY PURCHASED A PROPERTY AS OF YET DO THE SPREAD OF LEANS AND THEY HAVE NOT TRANSFERRED. HEY, WE ARE WILLING TO DO THIS, WE CANNOT SPEND, AT THE TIME, $7000, FOR A NEW PERMIT. THAT NUMBER WAS THE FIRST QUOTE FROM THE ROOFER WHO GAVE THE QUOTE AND IN ORDER TO PULL THE PERMIT, THEY HAVE TO RECEIVE HALF OF THE DEPOSIT UP FRONT. THAT IS A BIG ASK FOR THE BUYER OF THE TRANSACTION. I WAS WORKING WITH ELIZABETH BACK INSIDE OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THAT IS WHEN SHE INFORMED ME OF ROB WALLER, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR THAT PULLED THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT. I DO KNOW ROB AND SO I REACHED OUT TO HIM, TO ASK IF HE COULD PULL THE CONTRACT. THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM WE WERE HAVING WAS THAT WE DID NOT KNOW WHO WAS THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, ELIZABETH WAS KIND ENOUGH TO PROVIDE ME WITH THAT INFORMATION. AFTER SPEAKING TO ROB, WE WERE ABLE TO START GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE PERMIT WHICH WERE COMPLETED. IT WAS DENIED BECAUSE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE LINCOLN PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THERE FOR, IT REQUIRES A SPECIAL APPROVAL. I HAVE THE EMAILS HERE FROM BRIDGET ROMER WHO IS THE COORDINATOR AT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. THE NEXT STEPS FOR US TO DO OUR TWO FILL OUT THE APPLICATION THAT WAS PROVIDED HERE FOR ME, TO GET THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WE NOW HAVE THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR WHO IS ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. HE UNDERSTANDS THE PROCESS. I EXPLAINED THE PROCESS TO HIM AND HE IS ABLE TO DO IT AT A MUCH MORE REDUCED PRICE THAT IS NOT A BURDEN TO THE BUYER OR TO THE SELLER.

>> OKAY. >> THAT IS A LOT.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUBMIT ANY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS INTO IT AS

IT IS? >> LOGAN HAS THE SAME

INFORMATION THAT I HAVE. >> HAS THE EMAIL YOU ARE REFERRING TO. DO WE HAVE THAT, LOGAN? IT IS THE DATE ON THE

EMAIL. >> THAT IS FEBRUARY 29TH.

[00:20:10]

>> THAT WAS THIS MORNING. THANK YOU, SORRY ABOUT THAT. I HAVE COPIES, YOU CAN FILE THOSE INTO EVIDENCE.

>> THIS IS EXHIBIT ONE, THERE IS NOTHING LEFT.

>> FOR THE PURPOSE OF TODAY TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION, I DO FEEL VERY CONFIDENT THAT WE HAVE THE PIECES AND PEOPLE IN PLACE TO GET THIS PARTICULAR PERMIT PULLED.

>> OKAY. >> I DON'T HAVE YOUR YOUR SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION, HOW LONG ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?

>> 90 DAYS SHOULD BE FINE. I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT THAT WE SEE A PATHWAY TO COMPLETING EVERYTHING.

>> THE CITY WILL REJECT YOUR 90 DAYS.

>> IT'S NOT -- >> THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION WAS 60, IT IS WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION TO GRANT ANYTHING.

>> THOSE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> HE PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO SHOW THAT IT CAN BE DONE IN 90, NOT 60. I WILL GO WITH 90.

>> ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO MA'AM. >> THE PERMIT IS NOT OBTAINED WITHIN 90 DAYS. $100 PER DAY WILL BE ASSESSED.

>> CORRECT. >> THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO

APPEAL. >> FOR CLARIFICATION, IT WILL BE 90 DAYS FROM THE ORDER OF ISSUE, IS THAT CORRECT? THE ORDER WILL BE MAILED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. 2312 NORTH 14TH STREET. IF YOU NEED IT EMAILED SOMEWHERE ELSE, LEAVE YOUR

EMAIL ADDRESS. >> FANTASTIC, I WILL. THANK YOU

ALL FOR YOUR TIME. >> THE NEXT CASE WILL BE

[A. 24-567 PK 100 S 2nd St David Wheaton Charmaine Kirkland]

>> I'M SORRY. PLEASE EXCUSE THE TYPO. THAT IS 4A, RIGHT?

>> YES MA'AM. >> YOU WERE SWORN IN, CORRECT? THANK YOU. THE BIG AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR, CASE 25 567 IS A PARKING CITATION DISPUTE WHICH OCCURRED ON THE 100 BLOCK OF SOUTH SECOND STREET TO DAVID WHEATON , MARCH 1ST, 2024.

CITATION NUMBER 20152 , CODE 34 MINUS 1E, PARKING ON A CROSSWALK, THE FINE OF $50, ADMIN FEE OF $10 WHICH IS A

[00:25:03]

THE COUNTY COURT SYSTEM. >> DO YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS? DO

THEY DEPICT THE VIOLATION I YOU >> HAS THE RESPONDENT SEEN THE

PHOTOGRAPHS? >> I DON'T NEED TO SEE THEM.

>> WE WILL MOVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN NEW EVIDENCE. AS COMPOSITE

ONE. >> PHOTOS WILL BE ENTERED AS

COMPOSITE ONE. OKAY. >> YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN IN?

>> YES MA'AM. >> OKAY, IF YOU WANT TO ADD.

>> MY NAME IS DEVON WHEATON. I AM A CONTRACTOR. WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING A COMMERCIAL BUILDOUT BETWEEN SUNRISE THEATER AND THE NEXT STOREFRONT THERE. IT IS A RESTAURANT CALLED HAPPY GARDEN CAFE. YOU CAN PROBABLY SEE IN THERE THAT MY LIGHTS ARE ON MY TRUCK. WE WERE UNLOADING MATERIALS. I GOT THE TICKET IN THERE BETWEEN ME BEING INSIDE OF ME BEING OUT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT. I HAVE BEEN HERE MY WHOLE LIFE. WE HAVE MATERIALS THAT WE HAVE TO DELIVER AND PEOPLE HAVE TO STOP FOR FOOD VENDORS AND THINGS. I WAS NOT THERE THAT LONG. IF SHE HAD COME TO THE FRONT DOOR, I WOULD'VE MOVED. THE DOORS WERE OPEN.

>> MY TRUCK WAS RUNNING. YEAH. WE WERE UNLOADING MATERIALS. WE WERE GETTING READY TO LOAD SOME IN. I DID NOT SEE HER COME OUT.

IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET MATERIALS IN AND OUT OF THERE, YOU KNOW. WITHOUT STOPPING OUT IN FRONT. I DO THE THIRSTY TURTLE DOWNTOWN, SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO PULL IN THERE. WE TRY NOT TO BLOCK TOO MUCH. SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS.

>> THE TRUCK IS PARKED DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF WHERE YOU WERE

UNLOADING? >> IF YOU LOOK RIGHT BEHIND THE TAILGATE OF MY TRUCK, THAT IS THE ENTRANCE TO THAT SPACE.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, WE HAVE LOADING ZONES SCATTERED THROUGHOUT DOWNTOWN FOR BUSINESSES TO USE. IN THE ORDINANCE IT ALLOWS FOR CONTRACTORS TO OBTAIN A CONTRACTOR PERMIT FOR SPECIFIC PARKING TO EXCEED TWO HOUR PARKING AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THAT COULD'VE BEEN OBTAINED.

NOT ONLY IS HE IN THE CROSSWALK, HE IS BLOCKING HANDICAP ACCESS TO THE SIDEWALK WHICH IS RIGHT HERE.

>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 10 MINUTES. I DROPPED AND LEFT.

>> AS WAS POINTED OUT, IT COULD'VE BEEN AVOIDED IF YOU ARE DOING THIS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

>> IS THERE A LOADING ZONE NEARBY THERE?

>> THAT LOADING ZONE IS DOWN AND AROUND THE CORNER.

>> I CANNOT DO THAT WITH WHAT WE WERE UNLOADING.

>> IF YOU OBTAINED A PERMIT THROUGH THE CITY, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET THERE IS TWO HOUR PARKING THAT HE COULD'VE UTILIZED NEARBY. WE HAVE ORDINANCES IN PLACE FOR A SPECIFIC REASON. THIS IS A SAFETY HAZARD FOR ANYONE WHO MIGHT HAVE WANTED TO USE THAT CROSSWALK.

>> DOES U.P.S. AND CHENEY BROTHERS, DO THEY OBTAIN A

PERMIT? >> I WOULD THINK THAT THEY

WOULD. >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> I PERSONALLY HAVE STOPPED AND ADDRESSED SOMEONE WHO WAS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR. MAYBE THE TIMING WAS BETTER BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL IN THEIR VEHICLE AND THEY MOVED ON. YES, WE DO ADDRESS THESE PARKING ISSUES ROUTINELY.

>> TRUST ME, I WOULD NOT BE HERE IF I DID NOT THINK THIS WAS WRONG. THIS IS MORE OF A WASTE OF A TIME THAN PAYING

$50. IT IS JUST NOT RIGHT. >> YOU ARE OBSTRUCTING THE CROSSWALK, THAT IS A SAFETY ISSUE.

>> WE ARE WORKING THERE, OUR GUYS ARE THERE. IT'S NOT LIKE WE CANNOT SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING AROUND US. I WILL NOT CONTINUOUSLY BE THERE FOR HOURS. WE ARE MOVING MATERIALS

IN AND OUT. >> 10 MINUTES IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME. IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE DOING THAT, YOU NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT SHOWS WHAT YOU WERE UNLOADING

[00:30:02]

>> NOT REALLY, I CAN PULL FORWARD, THERE ARE PEOPLE PULLING OUT AND GETTING TICKETS RIGHT THERE AND STUFF. PAST THAT, THERE IS PARKING, IT IS FULL.

>> I THINK THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND THE FINE IS $60 DUE IN 14 DAYS. IF NOT, IT WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COURT SYSTEM. THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL.

[B. 23-3142 PK 100 Block Melody Lane Jason Mendez-Marrero Heather Debevec]

>> LET'S DO IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE NEXT CASE WILL BE 4B. 42 100 BLOCK MELODY LANE. JASON

MENDEZ MORENO. >> HELLO, JASON MENDEZ.

>> HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN IN? >> NO. HE IS MY WITNESS.

>> THE QUESTION WAS, HAVE YOU BOTH BEEN SWORN IN?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> THIS IS CASE NUMBER 31-32 THE 100 BLOCK OF MELODY LANE.

JASON MENDEZ MORENO. DECEMBER TALKING, 2023. THIS IS A PARKING CITATION FOR SUBSECTION A, CONTINUOUS PARKING. THE CITY IS REQUESTING IF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS THE VIOLATION EXISTS, THE VIOLATOR WILL BE'S ASSESSED A FINE OF $78. I DO HAVE PHOTOS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT.

>> OKAY. HAVE YOU ALL HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS?

>> I SAW THEM, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TRAILER AND STUFF LIKE

THAT. >> OKAY, BEFORE YOU PUT UP THE PHOTOGRAPHS, ARE THEY DATE AND TIME STAMPED?

>> YES MA'AM. >> DO THEY ACCURATELY REFLECT

THE VIOLATION YOU WITNESSED? >> YES MA'AM. CAN YOU GO THROUGH THE DATE AND TIME STAMPS FOR THE ONES THAT

DEPICTED THE VIOLATION? >> AND INITIATED DECEMBER 21ST, 9:45 A.M. THE NEXT ONE IS DECEMBER 22ND, 10:38 A.M.

>> NO PARKING FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS?

>> THE CITY MOVES THESE PHOTOGRAPHS INTO EVIDENCE AS

CITY COMPOSITE ONE. >> PHOTOGRAPHS WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY COMPOSITE ONE. THE TIMESTAMPS DO INDICATE THAT THE VEHICLE WAS THERE FOR OVER 24 HOURS.

>> ANYTHING ELSE, OFFICER? >> NOT AT THIS TIME.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> AT THE TIME I WAS INCARCERATED AND I WAS RELEASED 2016 AND I COULD NOT GET A TRUCK TO PICK THE TRAILER UP.

HE WAS USING IT AT THE TIME. >> THE CITY MARINA ON A BOAT, THAT IS WHERE I PARK MY TRUCK. THAT IS WHERE EVERYBODY LIVES AT THE MARINA PARKS THEIR VEHICLES, PARKS THEIR TRAILERS, SOME COMING OUT OF STATE WITH MOTORCYCLE TRAILERS AND THEY ARE PARKED THERE FOR MONTHS. SOMETIMES WEEKS, DAYS, MONTHS, I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS A TIMEFRAME AND HONESTLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTO THAT YOU ARE SEEING RIGHT NOW, THAT SQUARE, I ACTUALLY WROTE A NOTE AND TAPED IT ON TO THAT TRAILER SAYING IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE TO CALL. OVER TIME, THE SUN FADED IT. QUITE HONESTLY, I HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE TRAILER. IT'S NOT MINE, I DID NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. I PARKED IT LIKE A BUDDY ASKED ME TO DO. KNOWNG THAT HE WAS GOING TO PICK IT UP AS SOON AS HE WAS DONE WITH HIS TIME. THAT

[00:35:07]

IS IT, YOUR HONOR. >> CAN I ASK FOR YOUR NAME, PLEASE? CAN YOU SAY IT IN THE MICROPHONE?

>> AL KIRBY. I HAVE MAIL THAT IS PROOF THAT I LIVE ON A BOAT AT THE CITY MARINA. I HAVE LIVED THERE FOR THE LAST SIX

YEARS OR SO. >> OKAY. YOU DO NOT LIVE THERE.

>> RIGHT. HE DID NOT HAVE ANYWHERE ELSE TO GO AT THE TIME. WE DO HAVE A STORAGE UNIT. HE HAS HIS AND I HAVE MINE. I ASKED THE OWNER OF THE STORAGE UNIT IF WE CAN KEEP THE TRAILER THERE AND HE WOULD NOT ALLOW IT. I HAVE SEEN TRAILERS AND PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THEIR VANS THAT STAY THERE SOMETIMES FOR MONTHS AT A TIME. IT IS ANNOYING, HONESTLY.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, YES, THE NEW ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED LAST YEAR WAS IN DIRECT RELATION TO THE MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS WE HAD REGARDING THE VEHICLES THAT STAY THERE FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME, THE MARINA, IF YOU WILL STAY THERE OVERNIGHT YOU CAN GET PERMITS FROM THE MARINA OFFICE AND ANYTHING LONGER THAN THREE WEEKS HAS TO BE MOVED OFF.

THERE IS A LIMIT FOR THAT AND IT HAS TO GO TO THE PARKING GARAGE. IF FOR RESIDENTS OF THE MARINA, THEY DO ISSUE PERMITS TO ALLOW FOR AN EXTENDED STAY WHICH WAS NOT OBTAINED. THE RULES REQUIRE THINGS TO BE MOVED AFTER 24 HOURS BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD A HISTORY OF PEOPLE LIVING IN VANS AND SO WE HAVE ADDRESSED THAT PROBLEM THROUGH ORDINANCE.

>> THERE WERE OTHER MARINA TENANTS THAT WERE FRIENDS OF MINE THAT HAD THEIR VEHICLES PARKED IN THE PARKING GARAGE AND SEVERAL OF THEM GOT BROKEN INTO WITH THEIR TOOLS STOLEN OUT OF THE BACK. MAN, I WOULD NOT PUT IT IN THE PARKING GARAGE AGAIN. THAT IS FOOD FOR THOUGHT. THAT IS WHY IT IS WHERE IT IS. OR WHY IT IS THERE.

>> OKAY. >> LET ME ASK, PEGGY, WHEN DID

THE ORDINANCE COME INTO EFFECT? >> I WANT TO SAY IT WAS

DECEMBER OF 2022. >> ONLY A YEAR BEFORE THIS

VIOLATION. >> YES MA'AM.

>> WHEN DID YOU PARK THAT TRAILER IN THAT SPOT?

>> WHEN WAS HE INCARCERATED AND YOU TOOK CUSTODY OF THE

TRAILER AND PARKED IT THERE? >> I DON'T REMEMBER. NOVEMBER?

>> DECEMBER? >> DECEMBER, YEAH. I GOT OUT ON THE 16TH. DECEMBER 1ST, AROUND THERE.

>> NOVEMBER 25TH BECAUSE WHEN I GOT NOTIFIED IT WAS BY MAIL AND I CALLED HIM, DID YOU GET ANY TICKETS OR ANYTHING SAYING THAT? WHEN I CALLED, THEY SAID I HAVE TO SHOW UP FOR COURT.

THERE WAS NO ACTUAL TICKET. >> ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE WERE GOING TO HIM. I HAD NO CLUE THAT THERE WERE TICKETS ON THE TRAILER. AGAIN, I HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE THING BEING THERE UNTIL HE HAD CALLED. HEY, DID YOU SEE TICKETS ON THE TRAILER? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

>> RIGHT NOW YOU ARE TALKING IN DEFENSE TO A SECOND TICKET THAT WAS ISSUED? OR THE ORIGINAL TICKET?

>> THE CASE THAT IS CALLED UP RIGHT NOW IS FOR THE TICKET THAT WAS ISSUED DECEMBER 22ND. WHAT YOU SAID WAS THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THAT TICKET BEFORE?

>> NO, I DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT A TICKET UNTIL TWO WEEKS AGO I STARTED GETTING MORE MAIL AND MORE TICKETS. ON TOP OF THEM. I DID NOT SEE NONE OF THAT UNTIL JUST NOW. WHEN I JUST WENT TO COURT. THE FIRST TIME, I WAS LATE AND THEN I PICKED UP THE TRAILER THAT DAY AND MOVED IT OUT OF THE WAY.

>> WHEN THE FIRST TICKET WAS ISSUED THE TRAILER HAD BEEN

PARKED THERE FOR A MONTH? >> ALL RIGHT.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY. >> THERE IS A VIOLATION OF CONTINUOUS PARKING, SUBSECTION A. YOU CANNOT RUN A CLEANUP

[00:40:05]

I WILL FIND THE VIOLATION AT $50 WHICH IS PAYABLE IN 14 DAYS BEFORE IT GOES TO THE COUNTY COURT SYSTEM AND YOU CAN REPEAL. YOUR 20 DAYS TO REPEAL.

>> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> GENTLEMEN, YOU CAN STAY UP HERE. THAT WAS THE FIRST TICKET, THERE IS A SECOND

TICKET. >> YES, I HAVE TO GO WITH THE

ONE LETTUCE ON THE 16TH. >> MADAME CLERK WILL CALL THE SECOND TICKET AND THEN WE WILL MOVE FORWARD.

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 4C, THE NORTH 100 BLOCK --

>> IT SAYS 100 BLOCK NORTH INDIAN DRIVE. INITIATED JANUARY 4TH OF THIS YEAR. A CITATION 18 340, A PARKING'S ROTATION.

WITH A FINE BEING $100 THE CITY IS REQUESTING OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDS A VIOLATION EXISTS, THE FOLLOWING WILL BE IN ORDER. CITATION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COURT SYSTEM. I DO HAVE PHOTOS TO SUBMIT.

>> THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE WOULD BE $128.

>> THANK YOU. >> I APOLOGIZE.

>> WE HAVE PHOTOS THAT ARE DATE AND TIME STAMPED. IS THIS AT THE SAME LOCATION AS THE PREVIOUS VIOLATION?

>> THERE ARE ACTUALLY THREE CITATIONS. THIS ONE HAD GONE TO COUNTY COURT AND THEY CONTINUED IT BASED UPON THESE NOT GOING THROUGH MAGISTRATE YET WHICH IS THE DATE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT

FOR THE 16TH. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE

PHOTOGRAPHS? >> THAT IS THE SAME SPOT.

>> CORRECT. >> HE WAS GETTING HIS THING, I

DID NOT KNOW. >> WHEN I CAME TO COURT, THEY SAID, YOU HAVE TWO MORE TICKETS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THESE PHOTOS INTO EVIDENCE AS

COMPOSITE ONE. >> OKAY. THESE ARE ENTERED AS THE CITY COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. OKAY.

>> CAN YOU CLARIFY? THIS VEHICLE RECEIVED THREE SEPARATE PARKING TICKETS. AND THE FIRST ONE, DID THAT COME BEFORE THE

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE? >> OKAY, YOU HAVE CITATION ONE, TWO, AND THREE. THIS ONE IS AN AUTOMATIC TO THE COURT SYSTEM.

IT WAS SCHEDULED BEFORE OURS WAS.

>> THE THIRD CITATION HAS NOT COME BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE? IT WENT STRAIGHT TO THE COUNTY COURT?

>> CORRECT. >> WE ARE NOT HEARING THAT ONE.

THREE, WE DON'T HAVE. >> THE COUNTY COURT HAS IT

ALREADY. >> THAT IS COUNTY COURT

MANDATORY. >> OKAY. AGAIN, THIS ONE IS $100, BECAUSE THE SECOND ONE IS A VIOLATION.

>> CORRECT. >> WE UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYONE HAS A JOB TO DO. WE ARE JUST HOPEFULLY ASKING THAT WE CAN WORK THINGS OUT. AND TO BE KIND.

>> HAVING TO PAY IN FULL, 1.5 TICKETS.

>> WE SERIOUSLY HAD NO IDEA. WE UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYBODY HAS A

JOB TO DO. >> IF IT WAS NOT MOVED BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE TO MOVE. HE WAS NOT AWARE.

>> I DID NOT HAVE A VEHICLE TO PICK IT UP.

>> RIGHT, IF I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU WERE INCARCERATED SO YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE THE TICKETS.

>> YOUR HONOR, THE TESTIMONY THAT HE HE WAS INCARCERATED UNTIL DECEMBER 15TH WHICH IS BEFORE ANY OF THESE TICKETS WERE ISSUED. THE FIRST ONE WAS ON THE 22ND.

[00:45:07]

>> OKAY. >> FROM WHERE THE CITY STANDS, THE VEHICLE WAS ABANDONED FOR OVER A MONTH.

>> THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THREE TICKETS ON IT.

>> YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THEM? YOU COULD NOT HAVE.

>> WHEN I GOT OUT ON WEDNESDAY, THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY. I STILL WAS NOT ABLE TO GET OUT FOR A HOT MINUTE.

>> CONTINUING VIOLATIONS. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS THE ON WENT TO COUNTY COURT BECAUSE THESE HAD BEEN

DEALT WITH. >> COUNTY COURT HAD BEEN CONTINUED BECAUSE THEY HAD IS SCHEDULED BEFORE OURS WAS.

>> OKAY. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> WE FIND THAT THE VIOLATION DOES EXIST.

>> THE VIOLATION EXISTS. THE FINE IS $100 AND I AM WAIVING THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE AND LATE FEE WHICH DOES NOT APPLY. THE TOTAL WOULD BE $100. PAYABLE IN 14 DAYS OR WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COURT, YOU DO HAVE 30 DAYS TO REPEAL.

>> CAN YOU TELL US THE TOTAL? >> THE TOTAL OF THIS ONE IS 100 ON THE OTHER ONE WAS 50. $150 TOTAL.

>> YOU ON THE SAME DATE, 14 DAYS FROM NOW?

>> RIGHT. >> I WILL PAY RIGHT NOW. I CAN

PAY RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANK

YOU. >> I AM SENDING HIM UP TO DANA

RIGHT NOW. >> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, IF YOU CAN GIVE US A MOMENT, WE ARE HAVING THE STIPULATION SIGNED.

IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE US A MOMENT.

>> ARE WE READY? OKAY. >> I APOLOGIZE.

[B. Property Address: 622 Texas Court Owner Name: Shirley Diane Lancaster]

>> ALL RIGHT, WE WILL JUMP TO 8B WHICH IS 622 TEXAS COURT.

SURELY DIANE LANCASTER. >> PENNY WILL BE OUR WITNESS, WOULD YOU LIKE HER TO SIT DOWN HERE? I'M GETTING SOME DOCUMENTS, AS LONG AS YOU CAN SEE, MS. LANCASTER.

>> OKAY. MS. LANCASTER, YOU WERE HERE LAST MONTH, IS THAT CORRECT? DO YOU REMEMBER HOW THE PROCESS GOES? SHE WILL TESTIFY FIRST AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS

[00:50:02]

>> YES MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. I WILL ASK THAT EVERYONE SPEAKS INTO THE MIC WHILE ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS,

PLEASE. >> THIS IS A RULE 16 FOR CLOSURE. AND I WILL HANDLE THE EXHIBITS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY AS THERE ARE BUSINESS RECORDS THAT I WILL HAND TO YOU ONE AT A TIME AS SHE TESTIFIES FROM THEM. YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A STACK OF DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRE-MARKED AS EXHIBITS IN THIS CASE AND I WILL ASK YOU QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE ENTIRE STACK. 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.

>> WERE THESE RECORDS MADE BY A PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE CONTAINED THEREIN UNDER THE COURSE OF REGULAR BUSINESS CONDUCTED

ACTIVITY? >> YES.

>> WHERE THEY KEPT IN PURSUANT WITH REGULAR PRACTICE OF OUR

BUSINESS? >> YES.

>> ARE THEY REGULARLY RELIED UPON BY OUR BUSINESS AND WERE THEY MADE AT OR NEAR THE TIME OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE MATTERS SET FORTH IN THE RECORD? THE CITY WILL MOVE THE EXHIBITS WHICH SHE HAS JUST CERTIFIED OUR BUSINESS RECORDS INTO EVIDENCE, ONE AT A TIME. ALL RIGHT. REFERRING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE, CAN YOU TELL THE COURT WHAT THAT

DOCUMENT IS? >> THIS IS A PROPERTY I.D.

CARD. >> ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE THIS IS A COMPOSITE EXHIBIT, WHO IS THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY?

>> WHAT IS HER ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY

APPRAISERS? >> 622 TEXAS COURT.

>> WHEN DID SHE ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY?

>> MARCH 15TH, 2023. >> IS THE PROPERTY HOMESTEADED?

>> PRIOR TO MS. LANCASTER ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY, THE LEADS IN THIS CASE ARE FROM 2008, CAN YOU TELL US ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY RECORD IN 2008 TO OWN THE PROPERTY AT THAT

TIME? >> OWNED BY RUBEN FERNANDEZ.

>> ALL RIGHT, WHAT WAS THE ADDRESS FOR THOSE OWNERS?

622.5 TEXAS COURT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAND THIS DOCUMENT IN AS EXHIBIT ONE. MS. LANCASTER, HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS? WOULD YOU LIKE

TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS? >> I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OF THE

DOCUMENTS. >> ONCE I MOVE THEM INTO EVIDENCE, THEY WILL BE SCROLLING ON YOUR SCREEN THERE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT ANY OF THEM, LET

US KNOW. >> I CANNOT REALLY SEE THEM.

>> OKAY. AT THIS TIME, WOULD YOU LIKE US TO HAND YOU THE STACK OF DOCUMENTS AND LET THEM BE LOOKED THROUGH?

>> LET'S LET HER TAKE A LOOK AT THEM.

>> YEAH. >> THANK YOU.

>> LOOKING AT WHAT WE HAVE MARKED AS EXHIBIT TWO, THE CITY SENT MS. LANCASTER A NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING, WHAT DAY WAS

[00:55:07]

THAT SENT? >> SORRY, IT IS SMALL. IT WAS

SENT ON MARCH 12TH. >> ALL RIGHT. HOW WAS THAT SENT

TO HER? >> WAS MAILED VIA CERTIFIED MAIL WITH A RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED FROM U.S. POSTAL.

>> HOW MANY LANES HOW IS THE CITY REPORTED ON THIS PROPERTY?

ALL RIGHT. ISAAC, THANK YOU. >> EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO ARE

ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE. >> ARE THESE CODE ENFORCEMENT LEANS? LOOKING AT THE CITY EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE INITIAL VIOLATION IN 2008, DID THE CITY PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH NOTICE OF THE VIOLATIONS AND NOTICE OF THE INITIAL VIOLATION HEARING?

>> YES MA'AM. >> ONE WAS THE INITIAL

VIOLATION HEARING? >> TH INITIAL VIOLATION

HEARING WAS ON JUNE 18TH, 2008. >> ALL RIGHT. FROM THOSE DOCUMENTS, HOW DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER?

>> THE HEARING NOTICE, BEAR WITH ME, THE HEARING NOTICE WAS SENT CERTIFIED MAIL, IT WAS RETURNED UNSIGNED AND UNCLAIMED AND FOLLOWING THAT IT WAS SENT U.S. POSTAL AND THERE IS NOTICE OF THAT AND IT WAS POSTED AT THE PROPERTY AND WE HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING TO THAT AS WELL.

>> WHAT DAY WAS IT POSTED ON THE PROPERTY?

>> IT WAS POSTED ON JUNE 5TH, 2008.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHOW THAT DOCUMENT TO THEM?

>> YOU ARE SAYING THAT WE POSTED A NOTICE ON THE HOUSE?

>> THE LAST PAGE OF THE DOCUMENT. THE LAST PAGE IS THE

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING. >> I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER. ANY OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW.

>> YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TESTIFY. >> EXHIBIT THREE IS ENTERED BY

THE CITY. >> ALL RIGHT. LOOKING AT EXHIBIT NUMBER FOUR. THE SECOND PAGE IS AN ORDER. CAN WE TURN TO THE SECOND PAGE? ALL RIGHT. DID THE VIOLATION HEARING PROCEED IN 2008? AND DID THE OWNER STIPULATE TO THE VIOLATIONS AND THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS?

>> YES MA'AM. >> DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ENTER AN ORDER FOR THE STIPULATION ORDERING THE

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS? >> YES MA'AM.

>> WAS THAT ORDER MAILED TO THE OWN

>> ACCORDING TO YOUR FILE, DID THE OWNER APPEAL THE FILE? DID THE OWNER CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS IN THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE ORDER? DID THE CITY THEN NOTIFY THE OWNER THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT CORRECTED AND THAT FINES HAD STARTED TO ACCRUE ? HOW WAS THAT NOTICE

SENT? >> WAS SENT REGULAR MAIL.

>> DID THE OWNER CONTESTED THE FINDINGS OR FINE?

>> NO MA'AM. >> DID THE CITY GIVE THE OWNER NOTICE THAT ALENE WOULD BE FILED IF THEY DID NOT CONTEST

THE FILE? WHEN WAS THAT SENT? >> DECEMBER 31ST, 2008. THAT IS

[01:00:01]

EXHIBIT FOUR. >> EXHIBIT FOUR WILL BE ENTERED

ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. >> MOVING ON TO EXHIBIT FIVE.

DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ASSESS THE FINE AND ENTER A

LEAN? >> YES MA'AM.

>> ON WHAT DAY DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE?

>> JANUARY 26, 2009. >> DID THE CITY SEND THE OWNER

A COPY OF THE MAGISTRATE ORDER? >> YES MA'AM.

>> WHAT DAY WAS THAT SENT? >> FEBRUARY 25TH, 2009. GOING BACK TO EXHIBIT FIVE, WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE OWNER THAT RECEIVED THIS FROM CERTIFIED MAIL? THE ADDRESS?

>> THAT WAS TO THE OWNER WHICH WAS RUBEN FERNANDEZ AND ANGELS FOR US. THE ADDRESS. 622.5 TEXAS COURT.

>> THIS WILL BE ENTERED AS THE CITY'S EXHIBIT FIVE.

>> DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE CURRENT OWNER OF ITS INTENT TO

FORECLOSE ON THESE LEANS? >> YES MA'AM.

>> CAN YOU HAND EXHIBIT SIX TO THE RESPONDENT? WHAT IS EXHIBIT

SIX? >> THAT IS THE CITY'S NOTICE

OF INTENT TO FORECLOSE. >> OKAY, THIS WILL BE ENTERED

AS CITY EXHIBIT SIX. >> DID THEY USE A PROCESSOR TO TRANSMIT THAT LETTER TO THE OWNER? WAS THE PROCESSOR ABLE

TO SERVE THE OWNER? >> NO MA'AM.

>> HAS THE CURRENT OWNER PAID THE FINES?

>> NO MA'AM. >> WAS THE CURRENT OWNER AWARE OF THE CONTINUED COURT HEARING LAST MONTH?

>> MS. LANCASTER WAS NOTIFIED AT THE HEARING THAT WILL BE CONTINUED TO TODAY'S HEARING I NOTICED WAS ALSO SENT. BEFORE THAT, HAD MS. LANCASTER COME IN TO DISCUSS THE FINES AND THE FORECLOSURE WITH YOUR OFFICE?

>> THAT WAS THE DAY BEFORE THE HEARING LAST MONTH. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DAY BEFORE THE HEARING THAT SHE HAD COME IN.

WE HAD POSTED THE PROPERTY BECAUSE WE HAD FAILED SERVICE AND SHE RECEIVED A POSTING AND CAME INTO CITY HALL THE DAY BEFORE THE HEARING LAST MONTH.

>> DO YOU HAVE EXHIBIT SEVEN IN FRONT OF YOU?

>> I DO. >> CAN YOU HAND EXHIBIT SEVEN TO THE RESPONDING? PEGGY, REFERRING TO EXHIBIT SEVEN, AFTER THE PROCESSOR WAS ABLE TO SERVE HER, DID THEY SEND THAT

[01:05:06]

LETTER TO HER ANOTHER WAY? >> WE DID. UPON RECEIPT WE SENT THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO FORECLOSE BY REGULAR U.S. MAIL.

SEVEN. >> THANK YOU. THE AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING AND THE LETTER WILL BE INTRODUCED TO EXHIBIT SEVEN.

>> THAT CONCLUDES THE CITY'S PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.

>> OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?

>> SHE IS SAYING THAT SHE IS IN THE? I NEVER GOT A LETTER.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER LETTERS THAT SHE HAD SENT? I NEVER GOT ANY OF THEM. I DID NOT KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT. THAT WAS THE FIRST THING I KNEW. I GO IN THE STATE AND TALK TO HER, AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HEARD ABOUT IT. I DID BOARD THE HOUSE UP BECAUSE THE KIDS HERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE BREAKING THE WINDOWS. THE HOUSE HAS A LOT OF STUFF IN THERE FROM WHEN WE FIXED THE OTHER ROOF. THERE IS ONLY ME THERE, I CANNOT DO A LOT OF THE WORK MYSELF. YOU KNOW. MY DAUGHTER WANTS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT ANYMORE. THEY LET ME DEAL WITH IT AND I DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THERE WERE LEANS AGAINST THE HOUSE.

BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE, I WON THE HOUSE IN A COURT SETTLEMENT. MAKING SURE THAT I DID NOT GET THAT EITHER.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A BRIEF CLOSING. UNDER RULE 16, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE TESTIMONY REVEALED THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE HOME IN 2008 RECEIVED ALL NOTICES AND MS. LANCASTER WAS NOT THE OWNER AT THAT TIME. NOT ON THE PROPERTY CARD WHICH IS EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE WHICH IS WHY SHE MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN WHAT WAS GOING ON. SHE WAS NOT THE OWNER SO SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED UNDER THE STATUTE TO KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. THE HOUSE IS NOT CURRENTLY HOMESTEADED AT THE TIME. UNDER RULE 16, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 162.09 AFTER THREE MONTHS FROM FILING OF A LEAN, WHICH REMAINS UNPAID, THE CITY CAN INITIATE FORECLOSURE ACTION.

ALENE WAS FILED IN 2009, THREE MONTHS HAVE ELAPSED. IT WILL BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THIS IS NOT A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IS TO REVIEW THE FOLLOWING. FOR GENERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT LEADS, A NOTICE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFYING THEM OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT EXISTED FOR THE INITIAL HEARING AS REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE. THE TESTIMONY IS THAT THE GENERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT LEAN IS EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE WITH SHOWING NOTICE TO THE OWNER OF VIOLATIONS AND THE VIOLATION HEARING. IT WAS SENT AS REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE CERTIFIED MAIL AND THEN REGULAR MAIL AND THEN THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED. THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IS SUPPOSED TO REVIEW THAT THE OWNER HAS BEEN PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT A GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE LEANS AND EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE SHOWS THE NOTICE OF THE ORDER IMPOSING THE LEAN GIVEN TO THE OWNER. THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MUST FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY HOMESTEADED. THE TESTIMONY IN EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE WAS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT HOMESTEADED. THE MAGISTRATE MUST FIND THAT THE LEAN REMAINS UNPAID WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE TESTIMONY. THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE NEEDS TO FIND NOTICE OF THE CITY'S INTENT TO

[01:10:01]

>> THANK YOU. I FIND THAT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND THE EXHIBITS PRESENTED IN EVIDENCE THAT THE LEAN IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE AND I AM ISSUING AN ORDER ISSUING THE CITY

ATTORNEY TO FORECLOSE. >> THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES

THIS CASE. >> NEXT CASE.

>> THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HAS ISSUED THE ORDER. IT WILL BE MAILED TO HER, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES MA'AM. >> YOU WILL RECEIVE A COPY OF THE ORDER IN THE MAIL. THE PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FORECLOSE ON

THE LEAN. >> HOW CAN YOU FORECLOSE ON THE HOUSE THAT I DID NOT KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, THAT IS NOT FAIR. YOU HAVE ALL THE PAPERS. I HAVE MY DIVORCE PAPERS FROM

WHEN I GOT THE LAND. >> WE DID NOT EVEN KNOW.

>> THAT IS NOT FAIR. THAT WAS NOT FREE AND CLEAR.

>> YOU NEVER SEND ME NO NOTICE. >> YOU RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF

TODAY'S HEARING. >> MA'AM, WHEN WE SPOKE, I BELIEVE THAT I GAVE YOU A RECOMMENDATION TO CALL 211 AND SPEAK WITH THEM. THAT IS THE ONLY ADVICE I CAN GIVE YOU.

CALL 211 AND TALK TO THEM, THAT WAY THEY CAN PROVIDE YOU TO WHAT YOU NEED MOVING FORWARD.

>> THAT IS WRONG OF YOU ALL, I'M SORRY. I DID NOT HAVE

NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. >> GIVE 211 A CALL AND EXPLAIN THE SITUATION TO THEM AND THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU

[A. 24-76 CE 619 S 6th St Affordable Housing of Fla LLC Isaac Saucedo]

WITH SOME ASSISTANCE. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE NEXT CASE IS 5A, 24-76, 619 SOUTH SIXTH STREET.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING FLA LLC. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS CASE NUMBER 24-26 SOUTH SIXTH STREET. THE CASE INITIATED ON JANUARY 19TH OF 2024. THE OWNERS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FLORIDA LLC WITH PO BOX 1506 LOCATED HERE IN FORT PIERCE.

THERE IS A REGISTERED AGENT WITH AN ADDRESS OF 122 QUEEN THE GUENEVERE COURT. VIOLATIONS ARE SECTIONS 24 DASH 19 SUBSECTION ONE AND FIVE FOR STORAGE. PROTECTIVE TREATMENT SECTION 123-27 SUBSECTION 12, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AND 302.7, UNSAFE STRUCTURES. IF THE MAGISTRATE FINDS THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS, THE FOLLOWING BE ORDERED, GIVEN 10 DAYS TO REMOVE ALL LOOSE TRASH THROUGHOUT THE YARD AND PRESSURE WASH THE HOME WHERE DETERIORATION HAS OCCURRED.

GIVEN 10 DAYS TO CUT OVERGROWN SHRUBS AND GRASS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $150. I DO HAVE PHOTOS THAT

[01:15:11]

SHOW THE VIOLATIONS. >> ARE THEY DATE AND TIME

STAMPED? >> THEY ARE.

>> DID THE PHOTOGRAPHS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT YOU

WITNESSED ON THESE DATES? >> THEY DO. NEWLY THESE WILL BE ENTERED IN THE COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE. OKAY, THE

RESPONDENT IS NOT HERE. >> I SPOKE TO HIM THIS MORNING HE WAS REQUESTING 10 ADDITIONAL DAYS AS A RECOMMENDATION TO FINISH BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. THE VIOLATIONS ARE CURED. THERE IS SOME WORK THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE, VERY MINOR. THEY ARE WORKING ON IT. THEY SHOULD BE DONE WITHIN

THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS. >> WHEN YOU SAY THAT THEY ARE MOSTLY CURED, IS THAT A REPRESENTATION THAT HE MADE TO

YOU? >> TOWARDS THE END WHEN YOU MOVE THROUGH THESE PHOTOS, YOU CAN SEE THAT SOME WORK HAS BEEN DONE. THE HOUSE HAS BEEN PAINTED. THE ONLY THING LEFT WHEN IT COMES TO THE VIOLATION IS AROUND THE TRIM WHEN IT COMES TO PRESSURE WASHING AND PAINTING. THAT PINETREE STILL NEEDS TO BE TRIMMED DOWN A LITTLE BIT. A MAJORITY OF THE DEBRIS AND TRASH THAT WAS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REMOVED. THAT SHOULD BRING INTO COMPLIANCE WITHIN

THAT TIME PERIOD. >> THAT IS ASKING TO REMOVE LOOSE TRASH THROUGHOUT THE YARD.

>> THERE ARE STILL SOME ITEMS. THE MAJORITY WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUAL TRASH ITSELF, THE FIRST PHOTO SHOWS ALL THE DEBRIS THROUGHOUT THE YARD. THERE ARE SOME THINGS I NEED TO BE

REMOVED. >> DESPITE YOUR LATEST VISIT TO THE PROPERTIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> I WANT TO KEEP EVERYTHING THE SAME, YES. UNLESS THE REMAINING ITEMS ARE NOT COMPLETED.

>> THE VIOLATIONS EXIST AND THE VIOLATOR WILL BE GIVEN 10 DAYS TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE. THERE IS A FINE OF

$150 PER DAY. >> THANK YOU.

[E. 23-3033 CE 3110 S US Highway 1 AREMENTO FAMILY LLC Heather Debevec]

>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT CASE IS 5E 23-33 .

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THIS IS CASE 23-3033. THE CASE WAS INITIATED ON NOVEMBER 30TH OF 2023 AND FIRST SECTION WITH A DEAD OR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

VIOLATIONS EXIST IN THE FOLLOWING WILL BE ORDERED.

GIVEN 30 DAYS TO REMOVE THE DEAD OR DISEASED TREE AND FAILURE WILL RESULT IN A $120 FINE. I DO HAVE PHOTOS.

>> ARE THE PHOTOS DATE AND TIME STAMPED?

>> YES MA'AM. >> DO THEY DEPICT THE PROPERTY AND THE VIOLATION I YOU WITNESSED?

>> THEY DO. >> MOVE THIS INTO EVIDENCE AS

THE CITY COMPOSITE ONE. >> HAS THERE BEEN ANY

COMMUNICATION? >> NO. OKAY. THE PHOTOGRAPHS WILL BE ENTERED AS THE CITY COMPOSITE ONE. WE FIND THAT THE

[01:20:01]

FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN A FINE OF $100 PER DAY BEING ASSESSED. THERE IS A 30 DAY RIGHT TO APPEAL.

[A. Property Address: 535 S 7th Street Owner Name: Ermith Lazare]

>> THANK YOU. THE NEXT CASE IS 8A, SOUTH SEVENTH STREET.

>> SPECIAL MAGISTRATE THIS IS ANOTHER FORECLOSURE CASE. THE

WITNESS WILL BE PEGGY. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE PRE-MARKED -- DO WE NEED TO TAKE A RECESS?

>> SHE HAS TO LEAVE THE ROOM IF SHE'S GOING TO TALK.

>> WE HAVE PREMARKET EXHIBITS IN THIS CASE AND I WILL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STACK OF EXHIBITS THAT HAVE BEEN PRE-MARKED. 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. >> WORTHIES MADE BY INFORMATION TRANSMITTED BY A PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR WITHIN ACTING IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY?

>> YES. >> WORTHIES MADE AND KEPT PURSUANT WITH THE REGULAR PRACTICE OF BUSINESS? AND RELIED UPON BY HER BUSINESS? WERE THE RECORDS MADE AT OR NEAR THE TIME OF THE MATTER PUT FORWARD BY THE RECORDS?

>> YES. >> OKAY. STARTING WITH EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE, WHO IS THE CURRENT OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY? WHAT IS THE ADDRESS FOR THE CURRENT OWNER? IS THE PROPERTY

HOMESTEADED? >> NO.

>> THIS IS EXHIBIT ONE. TO CLARIFY EXHIBIT ONE IS WHAT YOU

CALL THE PROPERTY CARD? >> YES MA'AM. IT IS GENERATED BY THE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE?

>> YES MA'AM. >> OKAY, MOVING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER TWO, WORD -- HOW MANY LANES ARE THERE ON THIS

PROPERTY? >> THAT IS IT FOR EXHIBIT TWO.

TO STATE THAT THEY RESPONDED NOT HERE. LOOKING AT EXHIBIT THREE, WHAT TYPE OF LEAN IS THIS? A CODE ENFORCEMENT LEAN?

>> YES MA'AM. >> DID THE CITY PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE INITIAL VIOLATION HEARING?

>> WHEN WAS THE INITIAL VIOLATION HEARING? HOW DID THE

CITY NOTIFIFY THE OWNER? >> WAS SENT CERTIFIED MAIL. THE CERTIFIED MAIL WAS RETURNED UNCLAIMED. IT WAS SENT U.S.

MAIL AND THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED WITH AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED

TESTING TO THAT. >> TO CLARIFY, WAS THE CERTIFIED MAIL SENT TO THE ADDRESS ON FILE AT THE TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE? WHEN WAS THE PROPERTY POSTED?

>> JUNE 23RD, 2021. >> OKAY. THAT IS IT FOR EXHIBIT

THREE. >> THE NOTICE AND VIOLATION WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY EXHIBIT THREE.

>> THAT IS THE COMPOSITE EXHIBIT.

>> IT IS ATTACHED. >> LOOKING AT EXHIBIT FOUR, DID THE VIOLATION PROCEED ON JULY 7TH, 2021? DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND IT IN ORDER WITH CORRECTIVE ACTIONS? WAS

[01:25:01]

>> YES MA'AM. >> WHAT DAY WAS IT SENT TO THE

OWNER? DID THE OWNER APPEAL? >> NO MA'AM

>> DID THE OWNER CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS? DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT CORRECTED AND THAT FINES HAD STARTED TO ACCRUE. HOW WAS I NOTICE SENT?

>> IT WAS SENT REGULAR U.S. MAIL.

>> DID THE OWNER CONTEST AFTER THE NOTICE WAS SENT? DID THE OWNER CONTEST TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDINGS WERE

FINE? >> NO MA'AM.

>> DID THE CITY GIVE THE OWNER NOTICE THAT AILEEN WOULD BE FILED IF THEY DID NOT CONTEST THE FINDINGS?

>> WHAT DAY WAS THAT LETTER SENT?

>> DECEMBER 15, 2021. >> MOVING THAT INTO EVIDENCE AS

EXHIBIT FOUR. >> SORRY.

>> GO AHEAD. >> IT IS A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE ENTERED AS THE CITY EXHIBIT FOUR.

>> LOOKING AT THE CITY EXHIBIT OF FIVE, DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ASSESS THE FINE AND ENTER THE LEAN?

>> YES MA'AM. >> WHEN WAS THAT ORDER ENTERED?

>> DID THE CITY SEND THE OWNER AN ORDER IMPOSING THE LEAN?

WHAT DAY WAS THAT SENT? >> APRIL 5TH, 2022. THAT IS THE

CITY EXHIBIT FIVE. >> THE LETTER WILL BE ENTERED

AS CITY EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE. >> DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER OF THE INTENT TO FORECLOSE ON THESE LANES?

>> YES MA'AM. THIS IS THE CITY'S NOTICE F THE INTENT TO

FORECLOSE. >> THE CITIES LETTER OF INTENT TO FORECLOSE WILL BE ENTERED AS EXHIBIT SIX FOR THE CITY.

>> DID THE CITY USE A PROCESS SERVER TO TRANSMIT TO THE OWNER THAT LETTER, EXHIBIT NUMBER SIX, WITH A COPY OF THE ORDER IMPOSING THE LEAN'S? DID THE PROCESSOR EXECUTE THE RETURN OF

SERVICE? >> YES MA'AM.

>> DOES THE RETURN OF SERVICE SHOW THAT THE OWNER WAS SERVED BY SUBSTITUTE SERVICE? THAT IS CITY EXHIBIT NUMBER SEVEN.

>> RETURN OF SERVICE WILL BE ENTERED AS CITY EXHIBIT SEVEN.

>> HAS THE OWNER PAID THESE LANES?

>> NO MA'AM. >> THAT IS IT FOR THE PRESENTATION OF ORDINANCE, THE CITY WOULD ASK THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WILL AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY TO FORECLOSE ON THE LEAN. THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THREE MONTHS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE FILING OF THE LEAN AND THAT IT REMAINS UNPAID. THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROPER NOTICE WAS PROVIDED TO THE OWNER NOTIFYING THEM OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT EXISTED AND FOR THE INITIAL HEARING, THAT WAS EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE. THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE OWNER WAS PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AS THE HEARING AND PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE POSITION OF THE LEAN. EXHIBITS FOUR AND FIVE. THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY HOMESTEADED TOGETHER WITH MR. RAY'S TESTIMONY. EXHIBIT 10 SHOWS THAT THE CITY SERVED THE OWNER VIA A PROCESS SERVER THE INTENT

TO FORECLOSE ON THIS LEAN. >> I FIND THAT THE LEAN IS ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE AND I AM ISSUING AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO FORECLOSE ON THE LEAN. THANK YOU.

[C. Property Address: 1826 Orange Avenue Owner Name: Willie C Smith Jr L C Smith Pinkie Smith]

>> THANK YOU. >> THE LAST CASE TODAY WILL BE 8C WHICH IS 1826 ORANGE AVENUE. GEORGE AND PINKY SMITH.

[01:30:13]

>> DO YOU WANT TO TRY AND TESTIFY?

>> IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WISH. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE EXHIBITS IN FRONT OF YOU THAT HAVE BEEN PRE-MARKED AND FOR EACH OF THESE RECORDS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, ARE THEY TRUE AND ACCURATE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS KEPT IN THE COURSE OF THE REGULAR CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE CITY? WERE THESE RECORDS MADE BY OR FROM INFORMATION TRANSMITTED BY A PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN ACTING WITHIN THE COURSE OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY?

>> YES. >> WERE THESE RECORDS KEPT PURSUANT ANY REGULAR PRACTICE OF OUR BUSINESS AND ARE THEY REGULARLY RELIED UPON BY OUR BUSINESS? WHERE THE RECORDS MADE AT OR NEAR THE OCCURRENCE IN THE MATTERSSET FORTH WITHIN

THE RECORDS? >> THE CITY HAS PRE-MARKED EXHIBITS ONE THROUGH 12 IN THIS CASE. WE WILL MOVE THAT INTO EVIDENCE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ALONG.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> THIS WILL BE ENTERED AS THE CITY'S COMPOSITE, THERE ARE SEVERAL COMPOSITE EXHIBITS. ONE

THROUGH 12. >> ONE THROUGH 12. OKAY.

>> OKAY, REFERRING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE, WHO IS THE CURRENT

OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY? >> WILLIE C THE SMITH JUNIOR.

HOMESTEADED? >> NO MA'AM.

>> ALL RIGHT. REFERRING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER TWO, DID THE CITY SEND THE CURRENT OWNER NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING?

>> YES MA'AM. >> HOW WAS NOTICE SENT?

>> CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED AND U.S.

POSTAL. >> DID WE RECEIVE A CERTIFIED

MAIL CARD BACK FROM THE OWNER? >> YES MA'AM, SIGNED.

>> ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE OWNER IS NOT PRESENT. HOW MANY LANES HAS THE CITY RECORDED ON THIS PROPERTY?

>> TWO. >> THE NEXT SET OF QUESTIONS AND REGARD TO THE FIRST LEAN. IS THIS LEAN A GENERAL CODE

ENFORCEMENT LEAN? >> YES MA'AM.

>> WE ARE LOOKING AT EXHIBIT THREE. DID THE CITY PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH NOTICE OF THE VIOLATIONS AND NOTICE OF THE

VIOLATION HEARING? >> YES MA'AM.

>> WHEN WAS THE INITIAL VIOLATION HEARING?

>> MAY 1ST, 2019. >> HOW DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE

OWNER? >> THE NOTICE WAS SENT CERTIFIED AND REGULAR MAIL, TO THE BUSINESS. THE CERTIFIED MAIL WAS RETURNED UNCLAIMED. THE NOTICE WAS SENT U.S. MAIL AGAIN AND IT WAS POSTED AT THE PROPERTY. THE AFFIDAVIT HAS

BEEN SUBMITTED. >> THOSE ARE ATTACHED TO

EXHIBIT THREE? >> YES MA'AM.

>> WHEN YOU SAY CERTIFIED MAIL, THAT WAS SENT TO THE OWNER'S ADDRESS AT THE TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE?

>> YES MA'AM. >> WHEN WAS THE PROPERTY

POSTED? >> IT WAS POSTED ON APRIL 18TH, 2019. REFERRING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER FOUR, DID THE VIOLATION HEARING PROCEED ON MAY THE FIRST, 2019, DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FILE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS?

>> ON WHAT DAY WAS THE ORDER MAILED? DID THE OWNER APPEAL THE ORDER? DID THE OWNER CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS IN THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE ORDER? DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER THAT VIOLATION IS NOT CORRECTED AND THAT FINES HAD STARTED TO ACCRUE? HOW WAS THE NOTICE SENT?

>> REGULAR U.S. MAIL. >> DID THE OWNER CONTEST THE

FINDINGS OR THE FINE? >> NO MA'AM.

>> WAS THERE NOTICE THAT AILEEN WOULD BE FILED IF THEY DID NOT CONTEST THE FINDINGS? WHAT DAY WAS THAT LETTER SENT?

>> MAY 21ST, 2019. >> OKAY. DID THE OWNER COME

INTO COMPLIANCE? >> YES.

>> WHAT WAS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE LEAN?

[01:35:05]

>> THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE LEAN CAME TO $650.

>> ALL RIGHT. WHEN WAS THAT IMPOSED? EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ORDER. WHAT IS THE DATE THAT LEAN WAS IMPOSED? DID THE CITY SEND A COPY OF THE ORDER THAT

IMPOSED THE LEAN? >> YES MA'AM.

>> DID THE CITY INFORM THE OWNER HE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE

LEAN? >> YES, IT IS IN THE NOTICE.

>> ALL RIGHT. EILEEN HAS BEEN PAID?

>> NO MA'AM. >> WE ARE MOVING TO THE SECOND VIOLATION IN 2020. AGAIN, WAS THIS A GENERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT LEAN ? DID THE CITY PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH NOTICE OF THE INITIAL VIOLATION? HOW DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER?

>> IT WAS SENT CERTIFIED MAIL.

>> OKAY. THAT WAS SENT ON WHAT DAY?

>> IT WAS SENT ON DECEMBER 28TH, 2020.

>> DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF DELIVERY?

>> WE DID GET THE GREEN CARD BACK BUT WE WERE NOT RECEIVING SIGNATURES ON THE CARDS. THERE FOR, WE DID SEND A U.S. POSTAL AND POST TO THE PROPERTY JUST IN CASE.

>> WHAT WAS THE DAY THAT THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED?

>> JANUARY 20TH, 2021. >> DO YOU WANT TO CHECK THAT DATE ONE MORE TIME? WHAT DAY WAS THE PROPERTY POSTED?

>> I'M SORRY. >> THAT WAS JANUARY 20TH, WE

POSTED IT 2021. >> THANK YOU.

>> I APOLOGIZE. THERE ARE A LOT OF DATES ON THIS.

>> I KNOW. >> ALL RIGHT, MOVING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER SEVEN, DID THE VIOLATION HEARING PROCEED ON JANUARY THE

20TH, 2021? >> YES MA'AM.

>> DID THE MAGISTRATE FIND THE ORDER AND ISSUE CORRECTIVE

ACTIONS? >> YES MA'AM.

>> DID THE OWNER APPEAL THE ORDER?

>> APPEAL THE OWNER, NO. DID THE OWNER CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE COURT?

>> NO. >> DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT CORRECTED AND THAT FINES

HAD STARTED TO ACCRUE? >> YES MA'AM.

>> HOW WAS THAT NOTICE SENT? >> THE NOTICE WAS SENT BY THE

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. >> DID THE OWNER CONTEST THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OWNER FINE?

>> YES MA'AM. >> AND TURNING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER NINE, WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF CONTESTING THE

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FINDINGS? >> THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DENIED HIS REQUEST FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE FINES.

>> WAS HE GIVEN 30 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO

COMPLIANCE? >> THAT WAS WHAT THE ORIGINAL

ORDER WAS I THINK. >> ON THE ORIGINAL ORDER HE WAS GIVEN 10 DAYS TO COMPLY. THE FUNDS WERE INITIATED. AND NO,

IT WAS A 30 DAY TO REPEAL. >> 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.

>> OKAY, READ ME THAT LINE AFTER WHAT HAPPENS. READ ME THE NEXT LINE, IF IT IS NOT BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE?

>> YES MA'AM. >> WHEN WAS I MAILED TO HIM?

>> JUNE 25TH, 2021. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO EXHIBIT NUMBER 10, DID THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ASSESS THE FINE AN ENTRY LIEN? WHAT DAY DID THAT OCCUR?

>> NOVEMBER 16TH, 2021. >> DID THE CITY SEND THE OWNER A COPY OF THE ORDER ASSESSING THE FINE AND INFORMING HER OF

THE LIEN. >> WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?

[01:40:03]

>> DECEMBER 15, 2021. >> MOVING TO EXHIBIT 11, DID THE CITY NOTIFY THE OWNER OF THE INTENT TO FORECLOSE ON

THESE LANES? >> YES MA'AM.

>> EXHIBIT 11 IS THE LETTER THAT THE CITY WOULD'VE MAILED

TO THE OWNER NOTIFYING HIM? >> THAT IS THE NOTICE OF THE

INTENTION TO FORECLOSE. >> MOVING TO EXHIBIT 12, WAS THERE A PROCESS SERVER TO TRANSMIT TO THE OWNER THAT LETTER ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE ORDERS IMPOSING THE LIENS?

>> YES MA'AM. >> DOES THE RETURN OF SERVICE SHOW THAT THE ORDER WAS SERVED?

>> WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST ONE, IN REGARDS TO THE SECOND LIEN, HAS THE SECOND LIEN BEEN PAID?

>> NO MA'AM. >> THE CITY IS ASKING THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO FIND THAT THE TWO LIENS IN THIS CASE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE AND WERE ISSUED AND ENTERED IN 2019 AND 2021 WHICH IS MORE THAN THREE DATES. MORE THAN THREE MONTHS FROM TODAY. THIS IS A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. THE OWNER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE VIOLATIONS AND OF THE INITIAL HEARING AS SHOWN IN EXHIBITS THREE AND EXHIBITS SIX. THE OWNER WAS PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT THE HEARING OUTLINED IN RULE 14 AND PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE IMPOSITION OF THE LIEN . HIS OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IS SHOWN BY EXHIBIT FOUR AND EXHIBIT SEVEN AS TO THE SECOND LIEN, HIS NOTICE OF IMPOSITION OF THE LIEN IS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT FIVE AND AS TO THE SECOND LIEN IN EXHIBIT 10. EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE, SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY HOMESTEADED TOGETHER WITH TESTIMONY. THE TESTIMONY ESTABLISHES THAT BOTH REMAIN UNPAID AND THE EXHIBIT NUMBER 12 ESTABLISHES THAT THE CITY'S INTENT TO FORECLOSE ON THE LIEN WAS PROVIDED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THROUGH THE USE OF A PROCESS SERVER.

>> THANK YOU. >> I FIND THAT THE CITY HAS COMPILED EVERYTHING FOR THE LIEN TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FORECLOSURE AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FORECLOSE.

>> OKAY, FOR CASES REQUIRING A HEARING FOR STATE STATUTE, A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE VIOLATOR VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, IT IS PLACED IN THE FILE AND IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED OR ON CLIMBED, THERE WILL BE A NOTICE OF HEARING ENCLOSED SENT TO THE VIOLATOR WITH REGULAR U.S.

MAIL. THE HEARING IS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD IN CITY HALL. A NOTICE OF HEARING IS POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IF THE GREEN CARD IS NOT RETURNED TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING THE POSTING IS COMPLETED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IF THE CARD WAS RETURNED UNCLAIMED. IF THE GREEN CARD IS RETURNED UNSIGNED, UNCLAIMED, OR NOT RETURNED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE HEARING A NOTICE OF THE HEARING IS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD AND CITY

HALL. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. IS THERE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.