[00:00:02]
TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARINGS ON OCTOBER 18TH, 2023.
[CALL TO ORDER]
IT'S JUST AFTER 1:00 PM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT ONE HEARING, THE FIRST HEARING, SOMEBODY SUPPOSED TO APPEAR, BUT THEY'RE NOT HERE.THAT IS KB 1891718 AT 1354 HIGUERA STREET NORTHWEST.
ARE YOU? I'LL SEE YOU OVER AND WE'LL GRAB A AND.
[SWEARING IN]
HELLO. OKAY.GENE IS GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN.
THEN YOU'LL BE SPEAKING WITH A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
OKAY. CAN YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? AND DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO. SIR.
[PETITION FOR RELIEF (1 of 2)]
MY NAME IS JAMES BEADLE, AND I'M THE PERSON THAT WAS APPOINTED SPECIAL MAGISTRATE BY THE CITY OF PALM BAY TO CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF FROM THE LIENS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST PROPERTY.THEN THE CITY WILL RESPOND, AND THEN YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE CITY'S TESTIMONY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURE? NO. OKAY, THEN YOU CAN PRESENT YOUR CASE.
AND PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.
I'M A CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR FOR WEST.
LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY IN MAITLAND, FLORIDA, AND I AM ADMINISTERING THE CLAIM THAT WAS FILED BY OUR INSURED, MAXINE LAWSON, WHO? WHO HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, AND WESKER ENSURED THE TITLE, AND IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION THAT WAS IN THE PRIOR CHAIN OF TITLE.
THERE WAS A TAX DEED TO TO THE GRANTOR FOR MISS LAWSON.
AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WAS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD LOST THE PROPERTY TO THE TAX DEED, AND WEST INVESTIGATED THE. THE CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION AND CONTACTED THE CITY OF PALM BAY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE TO ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE THE FINE THAT HAD ACCRUED.
THE VIOLATIONS WERE RELATED TO A FENCE, A WOOD FENCE, I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN DISREPAIR, AND THERE WERE TWO SHEDS OR A LEAN TO OF SORTS ON THE PROPERTY THAT HAD WITHIN THEM DEBRIS AND SO FORTH.
AND WESKER'S RESEARCH DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER ADJACENT AT THE REAR OF THIS LOT, A VACANT LOT EXCEPT FOR THE SHEDS AND THE FENCE THAT
[00:05:03]
THE THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY, MR. STILSON, HAD APPARENTLY CONSTRUCTED THE FENCE AND THE.SHEDS AND LEAN TO AND WAS AFTER WE CONTACTED HIM.
THAT HE HAD CONSTRUCTED THAT AND THAT, YOU KNOW, HE HAD LET IT FALL INTO DISREPAIR.
AND SO IT WAS AFTER WE CONTACTED HIM, WE DEMANDED THAT HE REMOVE THE FENCE AND THE OTHER.
ITEMS THAT HE HAD ON THE PROPERTY THAT WERE CAUSING THE CODE VIOLATION.
AND SO, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF WESKER AND THE BUILDER THAT MISS LAWSON IS UNDER CONTRACT WITH TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE MR. SILFEN RELOCATED THOSE SHEDS AND THE LEAN TO TO HIS PROPERTY, AND SO THE THE VIOLATION WAS ABLE TO BE VERIFIED THAT IT IT COMPLIANCE WAS ACHIEVED.
AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE PRIOR OWNERS AND THE CURRENT OWNERS, UM, WERE INNOCENT, UM, AS BEST WE CAN TELL FROM OUR RESEARCH AND INQUIRY, UM, THAT THE CITY WOULD CONSIDER MITIGATION OF THE FINE TO TO SOME REASONABLE AMOUNT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER AT THIS POINT? UM, NO, THAT THAT PRETTY MUCH WAS, WAS MY SUMMATION OR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION.
OKAY. AND WHAT'S THE CITY'S POSITION? VALERIE PARSONS, CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION MANAGER.
THE CITY IS SEEKING 4% OF THE TOTAL LIEN.
THE LIEN ITSELF WAS $187,420.93, AND 4% COMES OUT TO $7,496.84. ADDING THE ADDITIONAL 750 BRINGS IT TO A TOTAL OF $8,246.84. MR. HARDEN, DID YOU HEAR WHAT THE CITY'S TESTIMONY WAS? OR WAS THAT THE TOTAL THAT EXISTED? BUT I'M JUST ASKING YOU.
DID YOU HEAR WHAT THE CITY'S TESTIMONY WAS? IT WAS. I DIDN'T COMPREHEND ALL OF IT.
OKAY. WHAT THE CITY TESTED FOR.
THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE TESTIFIED THAT THEY ARE.
THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO THE REDUCTION OF THE FINE.
THEN THE PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE.
THE CITY GENERALLY CHARGES $750 AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE COST, BUT THEY'RE ALSO SEEKING 4% OF THE OUTSTANDING LIEN, WHICH AS OF TODAY IS 187,420, $187,420.93.
AND THAT NUMBER FOR 4% IS 7496 84.
SO THE TOTAL THAT THE CITY'S SEEKING IS $8,246.84.
SO MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO WHAT THE CITY IS SEEKING? UM. WELL, WE WE WOULD LIKE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT LESS.
WOULD THEY BE WILLING TO ACCEPT $3,500? WELL, I'M THE ONE THAT MAKES THAT DECISION.
I'M JUST ASKING WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD AN ISSUE WITH THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY.
SO YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO PAY $3,500? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? AT THIS POINT? YES.
OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? UM, NO, NO.
THEN JUST AGAIN, I WANTED TO STRESS THAT THE REAL VIOLATOR WAS THE INDIVIDUAL MR. SILFEN, WHO OWNS THE LOT BEHIND THIS PROPERTY.
[00:10:06]
YEAH, SO I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT, SIR.THERE'S A COUPLE OF CONCERNS I HAVE.
ONE IS IS HOW LONG THIS VIOLATION WAS IN EFFECT SINCE 2018 CASE.
AND WHAT THE NATURE OF THE VIOLATIONS WERE ALSO.
BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, I'M GOING TO REDUCE THE FINE TO $4,000.
DO YOU HAVE AN ISSUE PAYING THAT WITHIN 30 DAYS? NO. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, THEN I'LL ENTER AN ORDER TO THAT EFFECT IN THE CITY WILL PROVIDE YOU A COPY OF THE ORDER.
AND THAT IS 2315222 AT 280 EDGE VALE ROAD SOUTHEAST.
AND I HAVE APPROVED THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.
[ADOPTION OF MINUTES]
YOU ARE THE ONLY JOKE TO.[PETITION FOR RELIEF (2 of 2)]
REGARDING CASE 23152 DASH 22 FKH SFR PROPCO LLP.I WAS GOING TO DISMISS THAT PARTICULAR CASE AND AS A RESULT, THAT CASE WILL BE DISMISSED.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE, THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 115.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.