Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rv Occupancy Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate: Warfield couple not shown to be living in RV after neighbor complaints
Summary
After reviewing photos, videos and testimony, Magistrate Ryan Fong found insufficient evidence that residents Ray and Sue Warfield were occupying an RV as a primary residence and ruled no violation of section 98-33, while cautioning about future use and noting ongoing neighbor complaints.
Get email alerts on the Rv Occupancy Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate Ryan Fong on Jan. 28 ruled that the evidence presented by the City of Ocala was insufficient to demonstrate that Ray and Sue Warfield were occupying an RV on their property at 1212 Northeast 24th Avenue for living purposes, and therefore found no current violation of section 98-33 of the city code.
Inspector Stephanie Smith presented the case based on three citizen complaints, including two earlier complaints (December 2024 and February 2025) and a third received in December 2025, and cited videos submitted by the complainant that depict an individual exiting the camper. The Warfields testified that their primary residence on-site is a mobile home and that the RV is used intermittently while they travel; Ray Warfield said they spend five to six months a year at the property and submitted photographs and receipts (propane usage) to support primary use of the mobile home.
Jessica Baker, a witness, provided printed photographs showing the mobile home and the camper. The city acknowledged its videos show someone exiting the camper but said they do not show extended overnight occupancy. Magistrate Fong said, "I don't see anything that shows that you're using it for living purposes," and ruled the evidence did not support a code violation at this time, but warned the Warfields to be mindful of how they use the RV because increased daily use (cooking, sleeping, sustained occupancy) could trigger enforcement.
Warfield raised concerns about neighbor harassment and a dangerous dog; the magistrate said the hearing could not resolve non-code civil matters and advised seeking legal counsel or other civil remedies for harassment claims. The magistrate noted that if circumstances change or new evidence appears, staff inspections could be expedited and enforcement revisited.
The order will be mailed to the respondents and the matter may be re-opened if further evidence of occupation is presented.
