Titusville magistrate imposes daily fines and records liens after multiple code-enforcement rulings

Magistrate Ryan Fong presiding over the City of Titusville's code enforcement hearings ordered daily fines and authorized lien recordings after finding continuing violations at multiple properties, while one property was found brought into compliance.

The hearings, held before a specially appointed magistrate, resolved several outstanding orders originally set at earlier hearings. ‘‘I will make a ruling, and my ruling will be reduced to writing and mailed to you,’’ Magistrate Ryan Fong said, issuing findings and formal orders on each case.

Why this matters: the magistrate’s rulings impose financial penalties that will accrue daily until properties are corrected and allow the city to record certified copies of orders in the public record, creating liens that can affect property owners’ title or sale prospects.

The magistrate approved a request to reschedule an appeals hearing for one case, moving the previously scheduled July 14, 2025, hearing to Oct. 13, 2025, at 12 p.m., after the respondent asked for more time to obtain information. The reschedule was approved with no city objection.

For multiple property cases the magistrate found respondents did not appear and imposed daily fines and administrative costs:

- Case 25-23 (C Cube Strip LLC, registered agent Tuan Li), 5155 S. Washington Ave.: Continuing violation of the International Property Maintenance Code subsection 505.3 (water supply). A $100-per-day fine was imposed commencing May 10, 2025; administrative costs of $234.19 remain due. A certified copy of the order will be recorded as a lien on the property.

- Case 25-30 (Vermont LLC), 1091 S. Elion Ave.: The magistrate found continuing violations and imposed $100 per day commencing June 7, 2025; administrative costs of $146.14 remain due; certified order to be recorded as a lien.

- Case 25-31 (Vermont LLC), 1545 Kings Court: Twelve violations were cited in earlier proceedings. The magistrate imposed $100 per violation per day commencing June 7, 2025; administrative costs of $146.14 remain due; certified order to be recorded as a lien.

- Case 25-32 (J L Miami Homes LLC), 990 Alfred St.: Continuing violations were found; fines of $100 per violation per day commence June 7, 2025; administrative costs of $128.53 remain due; certified order to be recorded as a lien.

- Case 25-33 (Robert Kirk and Crystal Kirk Cook), 925 Cleveland St.: The magistrate found one code provision (section 404.40) in compliance after an interior inspection but found the property remains in violation of city code section 12-23 (trash and debris). A $100-per-violation-per-day fine was imposed commencing June 7, 2025; administrative costs of $216.58 remain due. The magistrate noted a separate code section (3-04.14) will be returned for hearing in July.

- Case (Kohl’s Appliances by Danny), 3304 S. Hopkins Ave.: The business tax receipt violation remained uncorrected. The magistrate imposed a $200-per-day fine commencing June 7, 2025, and administrative costs of $216.58 remain due; certified order to be recorded as a lien. The magistrate also noted any business-tax fees that are eventually determined will be the respondent’s responsibility.

In one matter, case 25-61 (Elizabeth Olsen), 2767 Pine Ridge Drive, code enforcement staff reported the property had been brought into compliance before the hearing. The magistrate accepted the evidence, found that a violation of city code section 12-23 (junk and debris) had existed but was corrected as of the hearing, and warned that future identical violations would be treated as repeat offenses and could be recorded in the Brevard County public records. ‘‘It is so ordered,’’ Fong said when entering his rulings.

City staff repeatedly told the magistrate they had seen no corrective action, had not been contacted by respondents in several cases, and had observed no permits pulled for repairs where repairs were cited as outstanding. In a few cases staff noted conversations with property contacts (for example, a person identified as Mr. Lee said he was pursuing an insurance claim with FP&L before starting repairs), but staff reported no completed corrective work at the time of inspection.

The magistrate’s orders require respondents to notify code enforcement once properties are brought into compliance so inspections can verify corrections. Where administrative costs remain unpaid, the magistrate ordered certified copies of the orders recorded in the public records, which the magistrate said would constitute liens. The magistrate also noted that one outstanding compliance item would be returned for a later hearing.

Magistrate Fong closed the hearing and noted his rulings will be reduced to writing and mailed to the respondents; city staff confirmed no further items were on the agenda and the meeting was adjourned.