Special magistrate hears first compliance case for hurricane-damaged home tied to Deborah Ann Nifong life estate

A special magistrate for the City of Daytona Beach Shores heard a first compliance proceeding concerning a hurricane-damaged property tied to the Deborah Ann Nifong life estate and accepted the city's evidence into the record.

The city presented a chronology of inspections and communications dating to a July 2022 notice of violation, said Herstein, the city code enforcement officer who handled the case. Herstein told the magistrate that the property was found in violation at an initial hearing held in June 2024, and the owner had been given seven months — until Jan. 20, 2025 — to bring the property into compliance or face fines of $250 per day. Herstein said a reinspection on Jan. 24, 2025, found that a construction crew had begun work under four permits issued by the building department but that the property nevertheless remained noncompliant.

The magistrate accepted the documents the city provided into evidence. "Alright, then I will accept the, the information in the code enforcement magistrate's packet dealing with this case into evidence," the special magistrate said on the record.

Why it matters: The city argues the structure remains unsafe and open to the elements and that the continuing noncompliance could trigger daily fines and further enforcement action if the property is not brought into compliance.

City testimony and evidence Herstein summarized the city's inspections and photographic evidence and read the violation list the city considered outstanding. The city identified multiple categories of noncompliance, including a roof missing or destroyed on parts of the structure, open storage of materials at the site, discolored and unfinished exterior walls, a roofing system that was not being maintained to prevent damage, and landscaping and tree maintenance issues. Herstein said four permits, including a roof permit, were recently issued by the building department (the permits were issued in December, per Herstein's testimony), but the property remained in violation when inspected on Jan. 24, 2025.

Herstein described the facts to the magistrate: "This, Your Honor, is a first compliance hearing for property damage from late, late 20 22 hurricane, and that's all." She also said she had spoken with Jonathan Miller — who identified himself in the hearing as the property owner's son and the owner's representative — the day before the hearing about whether demolition would stop the fines and what steps to submit for the second compliance hearing.

Jonathan Miller, representing the property owner, spoke briefly. Miller identified himself on the record: "I'm representing Deborah Nifo. She's also my mother," he said when asked to state his name and relationship to the owner.

Site status and details Herstein said the building was not legally occupied. The city noted that part of the structure had no roof and that other roof sections showed damage consistent with the 2022 hurricane event. The officer observed open storage of construction materials at the site; she said some materials might be associated with ongoing repairs but that final inspections and permit approvals would be needed to resolve several cited violations. A dead tree on the west portion of the yard was cut down and the stump removed between inspections; Herstein confirmed the stump was gone when the site was reposted on Feb. 10, 2025.

City recommendation and next steps At the end of the city's presentation, Herstein said the city recommended "an order number 11 that we find that the property, remained in violation." The transcript excerpt ends after that recommendation; the magistrate did not announce a final written order in the provided portion of the hearing.

The hearing record therefore contains the city's requests, the accepted packet of evidence, and the city's recommendation; the magistrate's final disposition or any follow-up schedule was not recorded in the provided transcript excerpt.

Ending No final enforcement order appears in the excerpted record. The magistrate accepted the city's packet into evidence and the city requested an order that the property remain in violation; the matter may return to the magistrate for a subsequent compliance action or written order not included in the excerpt.