Sanford delegates settlement authority in foreclosure case involving Chantelle’s restaurant

The Sanford City Commission on April 28 voted unanimously to give City Manager Norton Bonaparte authority to negotiate and, if appropriate, accept a settlement in the foreclosure action involving 501 and 503 Sanford Avenue, properties associated with Chantelle’s restaurant. The commission’s vote followed an extended public-comment period in which the property owners and community supporters asked the city to rescind the foreclosure and allow the owners to pursue lien amnesty.

Shantel Williams, who identified herself as the property resident and business operator, told the commission she and her family have operated on Sanford Avenue for 13 years and that the parcel has been in the family since 1958. “We are in compliance. We have no fines, violations, or anything,” Williams said, and asked commissioners to “rescind the foreclosure so we may do our lien amnesty and pay what we need to pay thereafter.”

Her request was supported by several speakers who described the property’s family history and the restaurant’s role in the community. Carbon McGee told the commission, “We are in compliance… The goal of code enforcement is not to take people’s property. It is compliance,” and urged officials to stop the foreclosure to allow the owners to pursue financial remedies.

City Attorney Lonnie Grute told the commission that a long-delayed summary-judgment hearing in the foreclosure is set for May 9. “On May 9, there will be a hearing… The judge will hear the city’s motion for summary judgment,” Grute said, adding that if the judge grants summary judgment the court could enter a foreclosure judgment. Grute and Development Services staff described settlement terms they would recommend as a minimum: payment of the city’s legal fees and costs related to the litigation and a “complete absolute plenary total release” of claims between the parties.

Development Services Director Tony Ramondo provided figures related to available administrative remedies. “Lien amnesty is $5,000 per case plus a $400 administrative fee,” Ramondo said, and staff estimated the multiple lien-amnesty cases on the property would total about $15,000. A city staff estimate discussed during the meeting put the building’s accrued fines at approximately $140,000; attorney fees were estimated in the discussion at roughly $10,000 to $30,000 depending on updated records.

Commissioners debated options including pausing the court action, negotiating a settlement before the May 9 hearing, or proceeding to the scheduled hearing. Several commissioners said they supported trying to negotiate a settlement but were cautious about dismissing the court date without clarity on unintended consequences for other enforcement efforts. Ultimately a motion to delegate to the city manager the authority to approve a settlement negotiated by city attorneys (to include payment of fees and an absolute release as described by legal staff) passed unanimously.

The commission’s action does not itself rescind the foreclosure or remove the liens. City staff said a negotiated settlement and payment would still leave any outstanding liens in place until lien-amnesty procedures are completed; staff said the lien-amnesty application can be considered once the property achieves and maintains compliance. The next procedural step remains the May 9 summary-judgment hearing unless a settlement is reached and finalized before that date.

The commission’s decision directs city legal staff and the city manager to pursue settlement discussions with the property owners’ legal representatives and, if the negotiated terms conform to the parameters outlined at the meeting, to execute an agreement before May 9. Commissioners said they would be informed of any final agreement and any forthcoming lien-amnesty application brought to the commission for approval.