Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special magistrate to enter compliance order after Fort Myers Beach attorneys agree no fines are due
Summary
At a Fort Myers Beach special magistrate hearing, town and property-owner attorneys agreed that a previously recorded code enforcement order should be certified as in compliance, with no fines or liens due and a $100 administrative cost paid; the magistrate will issue a formal order after the parties submit proposed language.
At a Fort Myers Beach special magistrate hearing, Special Magistrate Monica Schmucker heard a town request to certify compliance with a recorded code enforcement order for property at 8124 Estor Boulevard and to confirm that no fines or liens remain due.
Nancy Stuprich, town attorney with the Vose Law Firm, told the magistrate that the town requested an order acknowledging compliance with the recorded code enforcement order and that only $100 in administrative costs remain due. Stuprich said the $100 payment was delivered the morning of the hearing.
Noel Davies, attorney for property owner Dennis Brock, said Brock obtained a title report during refinancing that flagged the previously recorded instrument (instrument no. 2023000213895) and that the parties wanted a magistrate’s order that “makes clear that there’s no monies due and owing” for title purposes. Davies asked that the magistrate reference the instrument number in the order.
Officer Yazo told the magistrate he had no additional matters to add. The parties agreed to provide proposed order language to the magistrate so she could prepare a written order. Special Magistrate Schmucker said she would review the submitted language and issue an order within the time permitted by the code and indicated that she would issue an order either at the conclusion of the hearing or within 15 days.
The record at hearing indicates that the town did not certify a lien after the original code enforcement order was recorded, and counsel said research suggested an error had been made in the prior recording process. Counsel for the property owner said funds had been escrowed by the title company and that resolving the recorded instrument would facilitate release of those funds to the owner.
No formal motion or vote was taken at the hearing. The parties agreed to provide joint proposed order language through the clerk; the magistrate will enter a written order reflecting compliance, the payment of administrative costs, and the absence of fines or liens if the submitted language is acceptable.
There were no other agenda items and the hearing was adjourned.
