Sarasota code magistrate hears dozens of property cases; fines imposed, many matters continued

Sarasota City Code Compliance Special Magistrate Richard Ellis on Nov. 6 heard more than two dozen enforcement cases ranging from unpermitted interior work and accessory structures to overgrown lots and short-term rental advertising. The magistrate continued many matters to give property owners time to obtain permits or complete corrective work, and he imposed or reduced civil fines in several contested files.

Why this matters: The magistrate docket is the city’s routine enforcement mechanism for neighborhood blight, unsafe structures and unpermitted construction. Outcomes affect property owners’ bills (assessed fines and inspection costs), the city’s ability to clear hazards, and how quickly properties return to compliance or proceed toward demolition or sale.

Major outcomes and scheduling

Votes at a glance — selected cases and orders (case number, short ruling, monetary outcome, next hearing):

- City of Sarasota v. Don Dinh Thai (202501133): Magistrate Richard Ellis found the property in compliance as of the city’s 11/3 inspection, assessed a reduced civil fine of $500 and costs of $3.90, and vacated a prior larger order. The city had recommended the reduced fine. (City rep: Mr. Spence; respondent: Don Dinh Thai.)

- City of Sarasota v. FTF Lending LLC (foreclosure purchaser represented by Michael Plumba/Plumbo/Palumbo) (file listed in transcript): The property was reported in compliance after foreclosure-related turnover. The magistrate reduced previously assessed large fines and imposed a $500 civil fine and costs of $9.90; prior large fines were vacated. (City rep: Mr. Spence; counsel: Michael Plumba.)

- City of Sarasota v. Betty Jean Blue et al. (202501017): The magistrate admitted the inspector’s affidavit and imposed a civil fine to date of $12,200, assessed costs of $3.90, started a $100-per-day running fine until corrected, and continued the matter to Dec. 18 at 10:30 a.m. (No respondent present.)

- City of Sarasota v. EB Airport Holdings LLC (202501135): Although the city reported the property had been brought into compliance on Sept. 25, the magistrate imposed a civil fine of $6,400 for the prior running fine period and assessed costs of $3.90. (No respondent present.)

- City of Sarasota v. Daniel S. Ferrell (202501112): The magistrate imposed a civil fine of $9,000 to date for a heavily overgrown lot, assessed costs of $3.90, and started a $100-per-day running fine; the case was set for Dec. 4 at 2:00 p.m. (No respondent present.)

- Multiple matters continued for permit or remediation work: Examples include City v. Mark L. Musser (202500488) continued to Jan. 8, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. for permit submittal and review; City v. Glencoe Properties (202500719 and 202501264) continued to Dec. 18 at 11:30 a.m.; several short-term-rental listings (owners and managers including Kevin Kadakia and Evolve) blocked calendars pending inspections and were set for follow-up (Nov. 20 or Dec. 4 depending on the file).

What the city said

Mr. Spence, the city representative on most dockets, routinely opened each matter with the inspector’s findings and the administrative record (inspection dates, mailing/service dates, and the city’s recommended disposition). In multiple files the city asked the magistrate to increase daily running fines to $250 for repeat noncompliance or to accept lower fines when property owners promptly corrected violations after service.

Respondent responses and context

Respondents and their counsel frequently told the magistrate they were working on transmittals, awaiting plan-review corrections, or had remediation under way following foreclosure or ownership changes. In several hearings owners asked for additional time because of holiday schedules, plan-review delays, or foreclosure/transfer timelines. Where respondents had taken action and the city confirmed compliance, magistrate decisions either vacated older, larger fines or imposed modest, reduced penalties.

Short-term rentals and advertising

A subset of the docket addressed short-term rental compliance: advertising without a certificate and minimum-night violations. Managers and listing platforms told the magistrate calendars were blocked pending inspection; magistrate follow-ups were set to verify inspections and certificates before reopening listings.

What’s next

The magistrate set multiple follow-up dates across December and January (common follow-ups set for Dec. 4, Dec. 11, Dec. 18, Jan. 8 and Jan. 15). For properties that remain out of compliance the city will continue daily running fines where already authorized; for files where the property has been corrected the magistrate either vacated prior large fines or imposed a modest one-time fine plus costs. Owners planning further work were directed to coordinate with the city’s permitting staff and to submit required transmittals and surveys.

Selected quotes

"This is a continued case we had for a violation of our city code… the property is now in compliance," said Mr. Spence when reporting corrections to the magistrate on multiple files.

"I'm gonna go with the $500 fine, cost of $9.90. I'll vacate the large fines that have accrued in the case already," Magistrate Richard Ellis said in explaining adjustments he made in one foreclosure-related matter.

End note

Owners and representatives who need the full order or payment link were told the city would email the order and include instructions on how to pay. Several cases remain active; the magistrate repeatedly advised owners that timely communication with permitting and code staff helps avoid the accrual of daily running fines.