Daytona Beach special magistrate orders widespread compliance, levies fines and sets deadlines in code-enforcement docket

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. — The City of Daytona Beach special magistrate on Sept. 9, 2025, reviewed more than 40 code-enforcement cases and issued a series of orders requiring property owners to correct violations by Oct. 8, 2025, or face renewed magistrate hearings and fines; several owners were instead assessed daily fines that in many cases commence Sept. 4, 2025, with statutory caps applied.

Why it matters: The rulings affect dozens of residential and commercial properties across Daytona Beach and illustrate the magistrate’s active use of compliance deadlines and per-day fines—measures the city uses to enforce property maintenance, zoning and safety standards.

The magistrate opened the special proceeding by announcing the docket and moving through individual cases. For many properties without respondents in the courtroom, the magistrate formally found noncompliance and ordered owners “to come into compliance by 10/08/2025 or be returned to the special magistrate for consideration of a fine of up to $1,000 per day thereafter,” language the magistrate used repeatedly. In several matters the magistrate instead imposed fines that had already begun accruing and set per-day rates and caps.

Representative decisions and fines included: - Case No. 1 (RMJN Holdings II, LLC): magistrate ordered compliance by Oct. 8, 2025; failure to comply would return the case for possible fines. - Case No. 2 (Daytona Beach Golf and Country Club condo apartments): compliance ordered by Oct. 8, 2025. - Case No. 3 (Darlene Brand Estate; field-generated): found noncompliant; compliance due Oct. 8, 2025. - Case Nos. 9–11 (pallets/storage violations at properties including Daytona Universal Trucking, Inc.): found noncompliant; compliance due Oct. 8, 2025, or possible fines. - Case No. 12 (R and J Estates LLC): continued/held over for further review because owner had applied to the Elevate Florida program; magistrate asked the city to provide the denial date before imposing fines and continued the matter to the next hearing. - Case No. 13 (Sot Wahe LLC): inspector reported a permit application for an awning was submitted Aug. 20; magistrate amended the order to allow compliance by Oct. 8, 2025. - Case No. 15 (433 Marion Street Land Trust): based on inspector testimony and photographs, magistrate imposed a fine of $250 per day commencing 09/04/2025 with a cap of $15,000. - Case No. 16 (Christopher R. and Joy Loudon): magistrate amended an earlier order to allow compliance by Oct. 8, 2025 and stated that, failing compliance, a $100-per-day fine (cap $20,000) would apply. - Case No. 17 (Whitney Sadeh Atkins): magistrate amended the order to allow compliance through Oct. 8, 2025; failing that, a $100-per-day fine (cap $10,000) would commence. - Case Nos. 20–21 (First Premier Management Holdings LLC): inspectors reported no contact and no progress; the magistrate imposed fines in the range of $100–$250 per day (specific orders in the record set $250 per day commencing 09/04/2025 in at least one matter) with caps at $15,000 in several cases. - Case Nos. 22, 25, 29, 32–33 and others: where inspectors reported ongoing progress or city interest (including the city’s pending purchase of properties), the magistrate amended orders to allow additional time—commonly to the Oct. 8 or Nov. 5 cutoff dates—rather than imposing immediate fines. - Case Nos. 23, 24, 30–31, 34–37: the magistrate imposed per-day fines ranging from $100 to $250 per day (many commencing 09/04/2025) with caps most commonly set at $15,000. - Case Nos. 38–40 (including Deborah Harvin, Sean Harvey, Covington): magistrate found noncompliance and imposed higher per-day fines in two matters of $500 per day commencing 09/04/2025, with caps at $15,000.

On Case No. 42 (Daytona Beach MHP LLC), counsel appeared by Zoom and told the court the remaining work was the installation of fencing; Inspector John Stinson confirmed the parties were coordinating bids. "At this point, the only thing that's remaining is the installation of the fencing," Stinson said, and the magistrate amended the order to allow compliance by Oct. 8, 2025.

On a lien review, Melissa R. Ross told the magistrate the city and the property owner had agreed to reduce an outstanding lien. The magistrate approved the parties’ stipulation and reduced the amount due under the order imposing the fine and lien to $2,500, conditioned on payment within 30 days. Ross confirmed the agreement on the record: "I agree," she said.

Several cases were continued so the city could verify permit approvals, the timing of applications (for example, an owner’s application to the Elevate Florida program), or because the city reported active steps such as reinstating demolition permits, pouring sidewalks or starting permitted remodel work. The magistrate frequently stressed that a case could be returned for consideration of fines if paperwork or final inspections were not completed.

What was not decided: the magistrate repeatedly amended orders to allow additional time rather than automatically imposing maximum fines where inspectors reported ongoing work or an active application for relief; in at least one matter (R and J Estates LLC) the magistrate specifically postponed imposing a fine until the city confirmed the date an Elevate Florida application was denied.

Next steps: most cases were set for the next cutoff (Oct. 8, 2025) or, in a subset tied to the city’s property acquisition or extended permitting timelines, for Nov. 5, 2025. Owners who are ordered to correct violations were repeatedly reminded to contact the city to schedule final inspections once work is complete.

The special magistrate adjourned the proceeding after completing the docket.