Magistrate finds Sansusi condominium association guilty, gives 60 days to comply after engineer deems building unsafe

Special Magistrate Jose Smith adjudicated the Sansusi Condominium association guilty of failing to meet the city’s 40‑year re‑certification requirements and for unsafe‑structure conditions at a hearing on June 3, 2026. The magistrate set a 60‑day compliance deadline — Aug. 13, 2026 — and ordered a $500 daily fine to begin if the association does not present an acceptable re‑certification plan and evidence that necessary emergency repairs have been made.

The city presented an engineer’s letter and photographs showing that units 2 through 27 had been deemed unsafe by a structural engineer after an inspection in May; six units were identified as exempt from the unsafe designation. Building inspector Charles Evers and city compliance officer Shaunie Pressie said the building had been evacuated last month and that no complete 40‑year re‑certification had been filed or approved for the affected building. Smith said he would adopt the building official’s determination that re‑certification had not been complied with for enforcement purposes.

Maria Amira, who said she is part of the condominium board but lacks formal authorization, told the magistrate that owners have paid for re‑certification reports via special assessments and are seeking contractor bids. She said association leaders expect two assessments (one for repairs) and that preliminary estimates for repairs could be as much as $750,000, but added that detailed cost plans were “not on paper yet.”

“Based on the testimony I’ve heard and the file I’ve reviewed, I find in favor of the city,” Smith said, announcing the 60‑day compliance date and the $500‑per‑day penalty that will be imposed if the association does not satisfy the building official. The magistrate cautioned that he was not optimistic full compliance would happen quickly given the documented conditions.

Smith also ratified prior adjudications and fines on related items: he confirmed a prior magistrate’s order that began accruing a $500 daily fine as of May 18 for one related 40‑year re‑certification matter, and he ratified a previously imposed $1,000 per day fine (plus a $100 cost assessment) in a separate case addressing cracks, loose handrails and other structural defects. All fines were ordered to continue until the city’s building official accepts the association’s corrective plan and the required repairs and permits are in place.

The magistrate urged the association to have an authorized representative or a court‑appointed receiver appear before him for consolidated discussion; he noted receivership or demolition are possible long‑term outcomes if compliance cannot be achieved or funded.

The magistrate’s orders adopt the building official’s findings under city and county code and set deadlines and penalties for noncompliance. The association’s representative said the owners are communicating and pursuing engineering quotes; the building official and the magistrate said formal, acceptable plans and permits will be required to halt fines.

The next procedural step is the compliance period: if the association presents an acceptable re‑certification plan and evidence of immediate emergency repairs before Aug. 13, fines may not be imposed; otherwise the city will begin daily fines as ordered and the association may pursue mitigation or appeals under the administrative process.