All right. Oh, good signal. We're live. >> All right. Good morning, everyone. I'm going to call to order the Martin County Code Enforcement Hearing for um January 21st, 2026. And um if you'll
please rise, join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
>> Okay, thank you. Be seated and get our technical stuff done here. All right, your honor, before we begin the docket, do we have uh some applications for you? >> Okay. >> All right. Um, in reference to case uh
ENF202590767, Jackson Rosa Ford continued from last uh property has come into compliance and uh we wish it removed from the doc. >> Oh, it has. Okay, great. That's that's really good news. >> Okay. And the second case, ENF 202510346
Johnson Clifford M estate. >> Yes. >> Also uh come into compliance. >> Oh, all right. Great. Okay. >> And that's what we have. >> Okay. That's that's uh good news. I I know as we left the hearing uh last month, we had
um basically said that if they came into compliance, we could remove them and that's the end of those cases. Good. Okay. Um, the first case I understand is uh specially said as well. It's uh ENG
2025 040039 Jeffrey Freeman Freiedman and Michelle uh Hanner. >> Good morning, Magistrate. Sebastian Papowrowski uh from the county attorney's office. >> Good morning. I asked that this case be
brought in uh front of you uh for a clerical uh error on our part. Um this is a property with a single PCN uh that came before you in August. However, it is in Palm City on a corner lot. Uh so
it has two physical property addresses uh Cherokee Street and Citrus Boulevard. We opened up one case under the Cherokee Street address. uh same violation, same owner, same property. However, uh we closed that case and then reopened a new
case uh citing the Citrus Boulevard property. We went we proceeded forward on the Citrus Boulevard property. Uh that order that was signed uh by yourself was concerning the Citr was that case number, the case number before you ending in 39. However, on one of the
notice of violation that we sent out in July of 2025, we mistakenly um cited the Cherokee Street address. The owners of the property um rightfully believed that the
Cherokee case had been closed. So, they did not show up for the August uh I believe the hearing was on August 20th and they they weren't here um thinking that that case that they previously received notice that the Cherokee case was closed. So therefore, we'd ask just
in an abundance of caution to vacate the August order. Um the property will either be in compliance or a subsequent case will be filed against it. >> Okay. All right. Yeah, I see that the um the
order finding violation does carry the 4700 Southwest Cherokee Street address. >> Yes. >> And and let me understand this had one PCN or two >> one PCN as I understand I >> how
>> it's an anomaly. Strange. >> It is very strange. >> So the PCN was correct. >> Absolutely. >> And the and the respondents were correct. It was just the street address that was incorrect. >> The reference street address. Yes. And
technically it had two addresses, Citrus Boulevard and a a Cherokee. I I've never seen this before. Um nor have I. Um, I would I would think getting that straightened out is probably
paramount to anything that happens next with the property appraiser. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. All right. So, um, based on your representations, I'm going to go ahead and vacate the order. And uh
and of course that's um knowing that the county can bring a case if if they need to. Again, >> thank you, manager. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Next time All right. Um, and we've got uh someone
here for this next case. It's the Harris case. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And it's ENF20251000536. Uh, James B and Susan R. Harris are the respondents >> and excuse me sir are you Mr. Harris? >> Yes sir.
>> Okay great you can uh you can watch up on that monitor and then uh we're going to hear from the county first >> and then I'll call you up and you can respond basically to uh their testimony and if you have anything you need to
present you can do it at that time. I'll swear you in first and then we'll we'll go from there. So, right now we're going to hear from Mr. Shanahan and assuming that the county makes what the law calls a primmaaccia case, meaning if
everything he says is is accurate and is enough evidence for me to find you uh guilty to find you responsible, then uh the burden then shifts to you to either disprove it, refute it, somehow mitigate
whatever present whatever evidence you you need to. Okay. So, we're going to hear from Officer Shanahan, and I'm going to swear him in first, then I'll call you up later. All right. Do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I'll help you guide me.
>> I do. >> Okay. Whenever you're ready, my name is Michael Shanahan and I've been sworn in. I am a code enforcement or code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent James B. Harris and Susan R. Harris are pre are
present. This case concerned the property at 8100 Southeast Eagle Avenue, Pope Sound, Florida 34 or 33455 in Martin County, Florida. This case was not generated from anonymous complaint. According to the official records, the property appraiser of Martin County, the
property owner is James B. Harris and Susan R. Harris. >> A copy of the property appraisers. Yeah. >> Turn the mic. Sorry. Copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is county's exhibit one.
>> Okay. Okay. On October 21st, 2025, I inspected the property. At the time, I observed trash, debris, and boats in the Martin County rightway. At the time I photographed the property, the photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked as
counties exhibits two, three, four, and five. Two is the door tag. Three is the Sorry, trash and debris. Four is the boats in the rightway.
and five more boats in the runway. A door tag was left giving the owner homeowner 14 days to clear up the violations. After 14 days, I reinspected the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and are marked as counties exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9.
It's more of debris boats u over 25 ft. >> Okay. >> And the right away there. >> Okay. >> And more again. Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to James B. Harris
and Susan R. Harris on November 13, 2025. Marked as exhibit counties exhibit 10. In the notice, I cited the filing Martin County code violations. Section 67.201B, nuisance, declared trash, etc. General ordinances, Martin County code. Section
91.33, abandoned and rightaway, general ordinances, Martin County code. and the notice of violation. The respondent was given until December 1st to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. Upon further investigation of this
property, I found an additional violation. The additional violation includes an accessory use by zoning. Therefore, I issued an amended notice of violation to the owners on December 2nd, 2025 marked as county's exhibit 11. In the amended notice of violation, I
cite the filing Martin County Land Development Regulation section 3.201 C.2H accessory uses by zoning district land development regulations county code. In the amended in the amended notice of violation, the respondent was given
until December 16th to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. compliance was not achieved and the notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on December 19th and is marked as county's exhibit 12.
>> Okay. Tell me about the amendment um that was um >> that was adding uh the land development regulation uh for setbacks for the boats. >> Okay. >> So uh 20 anything over 25 ft has to meet a certain setback in Martin County.
>> All right. And then what about the number of the of boats? >> It it the number of boats doesn't matter as long as they're not over 25 ft in the setbacks. >> Okay. All right. Uh the return receipt was not received.
Therefore, on January 2nd, 2026, I posted the property and the Martin County Administration building. The affidavit is marked as county's exhibit 13. A photograph of the posting is marked as county's exhibit 14. I spoke with the property owner who
advised he would comply prior to the January 21st uh hearing. Therefore, I went to the property again on January 20th and saw that the cited violation had not been corrected. At that time, I photographed the property. The photograph accurately shows what I saw
then and are marked as county's exhibits 15, 16, 17, and 18. more of the debris. The boats have been moved, but now they're kind of in still kind of in the um side here. Side setback.
Um this boat has been moved um according to the respondent uh to the side. It's not 25 ft, so it can be on the side. It can't be in the rightway here underneath the power lines. And 18 is just more trash and debris.
I request that all the county's exhibits be received into evidence based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent James B. Harris and Susan R. Harris be ordered to comply with the cited by provisions of Martin County Code by February 27th, 2026.
Excuse me. And if not compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 per violation per day, the violation continues thereafter. The county has incurred a cost of amount of $575 conducting this investigation and request that the county be
reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. That's my case. >> Okay, Mr. Harris, come on up to this podium if you will. If you're right at your right hand, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
to help you go? >> Yes, sir. >> And your full name? >> James B. Harris. And your address? >> This address here, 8100 Southeast Eagle. >> No. Where you can be contacted? >> My address, 1223 North Community Drive,
Jupiter, Florida. >> Okay. All right. Different than what the property appraiser shows. Do >> Correct. And and that's a little bit of some of the problem is we got a letter dated
on December 19th. Mhm. >> And we didn't receive it because it had our 2-year-old address in it. >> Okay. >> For until January. So, it took about two to three weeks for
it to get there. >> All right. So, let me see if I understand. you lived or live still live in Palm Beach County, but didn't notify the Martin County property appraiser of the change of
address basically. >> Uh yeah, three times, but he he let me know I got to go down to the office. We changed it online line twice >> and then we wrote him letters and called. >> Okay. All right. So, it's done now. And
>> well, I got to go do that. I just found that out in the last uh >> week. >> Okay. All right. So, um you've seen the county's evidence. Uh the photos seem fairly dispositive of the case,
>> right? But to to see uh some of those things, you got to actually get out of your car, go back and walk around to the backyard because uh there's there's a
boat that's right in front of that. Okay. In the back. >> This is a rental property, I'm assuming. >> Uh my son lives there. >> Okay. Um, do you >> So, in other things under the garage, there's
a van and trucks that are parked out front and that's just where his his workspace is underneath there. >> So, I didn't take a picture of that. I didn't know that was part of this case,
but underneath. >> All right. Well, your son has >> See, none of that right there is is there anymore. Everything is under that garage part there. >> Well, even even so, if it's under the
carport, you mean? >> Right. Right. Even so, I mean, there are outdoor storage rules in Martin County and what I'm looking at doesn't comport
with the code. So, um I think your son's got a lot of stuff that needs to be stored properly. >> Yeah. I'm not sure what the date is on these things. A lot of this has changed.
uh January 20th >> that was that was yesterday. Yeah. >> Is the the date of uh 15 16 17 and 18. And listen, while we're at it, I'm unless you've got some objection, I'm going to go ahead and enter the county's
exhibits 1 through 18 into evidence so we can use them and talk about them. And it looks to me like um you know I mean even the ones that were taken yesterday
18 shows a lot of a lot of material just kind of strewn around in the area. 17 shows a boat in the easement um utility easement. 16 shows.
>> Yeah, there's not any utility easement anymore. That was all fixed last night. >> No, I'm Well, >> the great boat. >> Okay. And you and and your son may have cleared up some of this. I'm just looking at what occurred yesterday, >> right?
>> And I mean, that's the latest evidence that I've got. >> Yeah. Well, I got one from this morning for where the boat is moved over. >> All right. Would you show that to officer Shanahan and then and then to the county? I >> think I showed him earlier. >> I saw it.
>> I think I just showed him that. >> See, that's right. Johnny was here. Now we going to be able to put it up on the >> See, it's not under the power lines anymore.
>> Well, >> can you see? >> I'll note for the record that the the um angle of photo is taken from. It's really hard to see what ex what part of the property this is on compared to the county's exhibits. That being said, county has no objection to it. >> All right. So, let me just see it more.
Is it cuz stationary it doesn't show but you hit it and video is over to show you the end of the trailer. >> I said no objection with >> Okay. >> All right. I can't tell even if it is the same boat but assuming that it is. Looks like it's closer to the house.
That's >> Yeah, it's it was back in the back under power lines. >> Yeah. And then looking at uh exhibit 15. Yeah, I got it. >> Um I mean there's there's a whole lot of
all those coolers and and um buckets and there's a >> Right. See, he's he's a commercial fisherman. >> Okay. >> So those when he goes out go right on the boat. >> Yep. >> And they take off. >> All right. And I I >> he comes in
out there. But um how they get stored and where they get stored and >> and that can't be seen from the street. There's two trucks, big F-150s like this in front >> in front of it.
>> I even that is not going to allow him to do this. Uh I'm I'm What's the story with all the boats? Um >> I mean he can only fish off one boat at
a time. So >> but he's got he's got one boat for gigging in the inter coastal. >> Okay. >> And the the two big ones uh he's just gotten and one just needs a new transmission
which he's working on and the other one is uh ready for new engines that it's it's just the hole. So once he gets those up, they'll be for windy days like today when the seas are 4 to 6 feet, 6
to 8. So that's what those are for. That gray boat is a fellow supposed to pick that up. He sold that, so it's not even there, but it's still there. He's supposed to pick it up. >> Okay. >> So that won't be there. >> So basically, he's going to wind up with
three boats. >> Correct. And I look at 16 obviously it's a corner property and I I would tell you that chances are very good
that um at least the the boat closest to us in that photo is probably in the rightway. I mean, just because of the way the rightway, it's not in the street. I get that part, >> right?
>> But it's probably in the public right away, which >> this uh not per >> in front of it going in front of it. That rightway is all clear. >> On the front there, there's really not
too much easement to have to >> stay in code of. >> Yeah. What does it cost? He's been six feet all the way around >> in the front to the side. Yeah. And he he's got he's got plenty of six feet
>> there. There is a the there's an additional six feet off of the street. Is that what you're telling me? That's part of the public rightway. >> Yes. Right. It has though. >> Okay. >> I can't tell if the one boat's on it or not. >> Hi. Your honor, if you just might ask a
question. In this picture, where is the front of the house? Is the front of the house where the driveway where the two cars are parked? >> Uh, that's the driveway and then just where the boats are is the front of the house. >> Let's reference a photo if you will so
that so that we everybody can understand what we're talking about. Does 16 help? That's the one that's up right now. Well, that's what we're trying to do because if if the front if this if those boats in 16 if we can go back to 16. >> Oh, sorry.
>> If we go back, >> if they're in front of the house, then they don't they don't run into the um the RV. Um even though they're over 25 ft because they're in front of the house, not the side or the back. But if that's the side of the front of the house is where the driveway is. If
that's where the address is, if that's considered the front of the house, then they're in the side uh yard side setback and being over 25 ft, they can't be there in any case whether they're in the right way or not. So, it's very critical to say you to get the understand the orientation of the house.
>> Yeah. >> Let's go. Um >> behind that driveway is just a work room. There's no trailer. >> Yeah. The trailer starts right about where the back the boats are. >> We're going to pull up the GIS map so we
get a little bit more clarification. So, is the address Thrush Terrace? >> Yeah. >> No, it's >> it's Eagle Avenue. >> It's Eagle Avenue. So >> even though the the bulk of the building faces Thrush, the street address where
the driveway is is Eagle Avenue. Okay. And and Mr. Tui, what you're saying is that just using this photo that's up now, the the boat that's in the photo at the top of the picture
>> Mhm. >> is on the sideyard. side setback and being over 25 ft, it can't be there in any case. >> But I would, this puzzles me, your honor, because there's appears to be the same boat with the fly bridge that's in
the other picture. And in the other picture, the bow of the boat is facing Thrush Avenue. And looking at this, if you turn that boat around, there's no way it would fit in that little piece of grass. So, can we hold this up and go back to 16? Let's >> make sure we're looking at the same
piece of property. You see what I'm saying here? That 25 that the that 25 foot boat has it stirring up against the house and the the bow of it that the end of the trailer isn't out into the street. And you go to the GIS thing and from the
appearance of that, there's no way if you turn that 90 degrees that it would be able to fit there. It looks like a maybe a different boat. >> No, that's the same boat. >> It's got the fly bridge. It's
>> You can see the fly bridge there. >> Yeah, you can take a look. The car that's parked in front of it, the car bases hardly fits. So, the boat that's over two times longer than that car is so Now I one thing that I observe too is
that um the rightway line is very close to the building. >> Mhm. >> Now and and honestly these maps these county maps may not be precise but it's
close enough to show you. You see the black lines? Those are the property lines basically. You see those in the in the >> right >> aerial. And you see that it's a it's a tight site.
Um, and it and it looks like some of those boats are off the off the property and either on the next door property, the the ones that are on the side there
between 10 and 11. >> Yeah. Now, these boats in the back, that farthest one there is no longer even there. >> The little one >> and the other one is no longer there. All that's there is that one little one.
>> Yeah. And and based on the photos that we've seen, that's accurate. I I don't >> But but the boat that's at the top of the photo, Mr. Tui is opining that that
is the boat with the fly bridge. And I >> the the fly bridge one is is uh this this uh middle br middle middle boat in the back of the property.
>> Well, actually that fly bridge one in that photo >> Mhm. >> is uh not even there. That was before it was purchased. >> Okay. And I it's not going to be really
possible to know dispositively which boat's which boat, but I I can tell you even based on the county's historic record, the the use of the rightway existed and looks like based on the
photo that is 16 Uh actually all of those exhibits 16 still shows votes in the rightway. So maybe your son just needs to work with
the county >> staff. >> I don't think >> to find out what he can and can't do, >> right? I don't think that one is sticking out far enough past the trailer. It's hard to tell from that
view. If we had one straight on like this, we could see how much is sticking out. I may be, but but I would tell you the aerial uh that we did just look at, which is a county aerial and and can be relied upon,
uh shows a rightway line that is very close to the house. Um and therefore would make it almost impossible to park a boat on the thrush terrace
side. So, I think what's going to have to happen is maybe maybe you dig out a survey of the property. You probably have one of those somewhere
and and actually make sure uh that your son can comply with the code because what I based upon the photos that I'm seeing I I don't see it. So,
I mean, unless you've got something else to tell me, I'm I'm going to rule and um and order your son to comply and and you obviously because you own the property, but >> Yeah.
>> All right. >> And we've had I mean, he's one inspector and then there was another inspector a little bit >> Mhm. >> Uh that came out. He said, "Move this. That looks good." And then he came out
and had something more that he wanted done to it. So, >> okay. What I'm telling you is based on what I'm looking at from the aerial map, >> right? >> Uh and and obviously your survey would be better evidence than this aerial map.
But based upon the aerial map, which we can rely on, it's we're allowed to do that. >> I got a survey right here. >> Okay. Um, >> no objection. >> Okay. So I unless you object, I'm going
to add this aerial map as as uh counties 19 and add your exhibits as respondents one and two. Um and let's just see what this is. Yeah. See, I I think generally speaking,
it's going to show the same the same thing. >> So you got the sharp cuts on it >> on the side. Yep. >> That's a real setback, huh? >> Yeah. But, um, your property line is
is pretty tight. Um, to actually get these entered into evidence, we are going to need copies of them. So, if you can take even screenshots and and then send them to
the county, we we'll enter the into this file of both the exhibits. Okay. >> Y >> All right. All right. I u based on what I'm seeing, Mr. Harris, I'm going to rule that u that based upon the evidence and your
testimony and officer Shanahan's that uh that violations do exist on the property. And I'm going to order compliance on or before February 27th, which ought to be enough time to clean up the trash and move things around, storage, boats, whatever you need to do,
>> right? >> Failing which there'll be a fine in the amount of $100 per violation per day. >> Um, and and I am going to award cost to the county in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county uh at the
conclusion of the hearing. So, I I think your son's got a little bit of work to do there, but I hopefully he can figure out how to squeeze everything in and clean everything up so that >> so that you don't have a continuing
issue. But I would stay stay in touch with uh county staff because I mean they've got to come out and inspect it anyway. >> Right. Right. Once once you're done and uh even in between if you've got
questions about can it go here, can it go there, they'll be able to help you. Um and it's certainly not up to me to tell you how to comply just to see that the violation exists and then order you to comply. So So that's what I've done.
I've I've gone ahead and uh signed this uh proposed order. It it basically says everything I just said. And um I um I you can actually have a copy of
this before you leave. That way we don't have to worry about the mail. Make sure they've got a good mailing address for you and a good if you have email, you can give it to them. Don't have to say it uh on TV, but but make sure that they
can contact you. >> Oh, yeah. He's got my number. Okay, good. All right, here's the order and um Miss Bradley will give you a copy of that before you leave. Okay. >> I got a picture of that one with the the black border line going around it.
>> Yeah, >> one of those is in what she's got to give me a copy of. >> Um you can have a copy of of all the evidence of >> Yeah. No, just this one picture. See, then I can check uh copy that off the property appraisers website. You're
talking about this this number 16 that we're looking at that I've got a um >> the aerial >> the aerial photograph. >> Oh, the aerial. Yeah, sure. Of course. And you can you can actually pull that up yourself. >> I'll check that with that that uh survey and see. >> Yes. Yeah, exactly.
>> Close. >> It looked It looked pretty close to me, but you know, as I say, it's it's uh just me looking at two different documents. So, okay. All right. Um, have a seat and wait for Miss Bradley and
make sure that we get those two uh two photos, the survey and the or the other one >> that you had. >> You'll email those to >> Officer Shanahan. >> Okay. Uh, let's see. Miss
>> Switzer. >> All right. This is the Geico Men Diaz case. It's um ENF 202510233 Denise Aetta Geico and Raphaela Diaz and Officer Switzer if you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the
testimony about to give will be the truth, all truth and nothing but the truth. So hope you got it. >> I do. >> All right. What have we got? My name is Kelly Switzer and I've been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent Denise Zapida Geico and
Raphael Diaz are present. This case concerns the property at 578 Southeast Madrid Street, Stewart, Florida 34994. This case was not generated from an anonymous complaint. According to the official records of the Martin County of of the property appraiser of Martin County, the property owners are Denise
Zap Zapeda Geico and Raphael Diaz. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is counties exhibit one. On October 6, 2025, I inspected the property and at the time I observed overgrowth, a damaged fence, and trash and debris. At
the time, I photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what I saw then and is marked as counties exhibits two through four. So this is the front of the property. There's some over overgrowth. There's some trash in the front and this is part of the
damaged fencing. And then there's another angle of the damaged fence on the side along with some more um vegetation. >> Okay. Based upon the investigation, I issued a notice of violation to Denise Zapeda Geel and Raphael Diaz on December 9th,
2025 and is marked county's exhibit 5. In the notice, I cited the following Martin County code violations. Section 67.201B, nuisance declared trash, etc. General Ordinances Martin County Code and section 67.201A 2011A nuisance declared
weeds undergrowth general ordinances Martin County code and section 21.99 accessory structures general ordinances Martin County code which are both now in compliance in the notice of >> I'm sorry both which >> the last two the second two the uh weeds
and >> so we're down to trash >> correct >> got it go ahead >> in the notice of violation the respondent was given until October 30th 2025 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. Compliance is not achieved and a notice
of hearing was issued by certified mail and on December 2nd, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 6. The return receipt was not received. Therefore, on January 6th, 2026, I posted the property and at the Martin County Administrative Building. The
posting and the affidavit of posting are marked as counties exhibits seven and eight. That's um the vehicle that was in one of the first couple exhibits and that's the uh my affidavit posting. No caller letter from the property owner
was received within the time allowed. Therefore, I went to the property again on January 20th, 2026. And since the removal of the fencing and clearing of the overgrowth has occurred, it shows that the cited violations have not been corrected. At that time, I photographed the property and the photograph
accurately shows what I saw saw then and is marked as county's exhibit 9. So, this has all been cleared out. The fencing has been removed. Um, but it now shows in front of the the the home itself there's a
>> some more trash and debris. >> Yeah, I see it. I request that all the county's exhibits be re received into evidence and based upon the testimony and evidence I request that the respondent Denise Sap Zapeda Geico and Raphael Diaz be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of Martin County
Code by February 27th, 2026 and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 for each violation for every day the violations violation continues thereafter. The county has incurred a cost in amount in the amount of $575 conducting this
investigation and request that the county be reimbured this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. This concludes my testimony. >> Okay. And did you have contact with the owners before? >> Not I have not heard from them until today. >> Okay. Ma'am, come on up to the podium.
>> Um I'm going to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the old truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. >> And your full name? >> Well, I changed my maiden's name, so it's Denise Maldonado now. And then >> Maldonado. >> They had corrected Sapeta cuz they had
spelled it wrong when I bought the property. So, it spelled wrong now. >> Um, the owner that I bought it from had corrected it. So, it's Denise Maldonado now. So, I have to go and fix that. >> All right, Miss Maldonado. Um,
what do you have to tell me? I mean, I I'm looking at these photos. Looks like a lot of work has actually been done. >> Well, I when we received the letter, I didn't know about this letter. My mom got the mail, so she told my brother about this letter. So, I never knew about this first letter that came in to
be warned about cleaning and everything. >> My brother had mentioned it to me uh a little bit after. And then one day before I went to work, it was when that paper was on the car. That's when I saw the notice. That's when I called my mom and I was like, I got a paper, a notification that the property has to be
clean. She never mentioned about the first letter. So, to reality, I never knew about the first letter until my brother had told me, but I didn't know what the letter said cuz he never said anything about it. >> Okay. >> Um, the reason why I know about the property being that needed to be cleaned was because of that notice that was in
the car. >> So, be between January 6th, which was when the posting occurred, and yesterday, you actually did clean up some of the property. >> She's been cleaning up. It's technically her stuff. I did had to call her and let
her know that I had been scheduled to come in for a meeting at 9:00. >> When you say her, >> my mom, which is Raphaela Diaz Gomez, we both bought the property together. >> Got it. Okay. All right. So, so your mom lives there? >> Yes, we both live there.
>> Oh, you do? Okay. All right. Um, all right. So, you've been cleaning it up, but you didn't contact the code enforcement. >> I didn't know I had to contact anybody. All I know is that I saw that notification that I had to be here at 9:00. When I saw that notice that same
day, I had to be at work in the evening. So, I didn't see until before I was going to work. I called her on my way to work. She didn't answer. She called me back and that's when I told her that I got a notification about the property that had to be cleared up and had to be cleaned up. So, she started a few days after she started cleaning up and trying
to organize and do whatever she needed to do. >> I Let me ask Officer Switzer along with the posting of the notice of hearing, isn't there also a copy of the notice of violation? >> Um, as far as when we post it? Yeah, I'm
looking at it looks like there's something behind the violation. >> We don't usually post a notice of violation um >> along with the notice of hearing. >> Uh no, not generally. >> Okay, >> your honor, the notice of hearing contains the uh the violation just exactly as the notice of violation does.
>> It does. And it it also um it also advises the respondent to contact um let's see, let me just see. Yeah, if you have any questions regarding this notice, please call the
number and ask for the co- compliance investigator handling this violation. Maybe that needs to be in bigger print or something. But um basically it advises you to to do that
so that you can avoid this hearing. >> Okay. Um but by now I mean it's like too late for that. So we're here but um All right.
I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that it looks like you've done some work, which is good. And the countyy's asking that you do the rest of the cleanup by uh February 27th, which
seems doable to me. Um and unless unless there's some objection, I can't imagine what it would be. >> I'm going to accept into evidence the Kenny's exhibits one through nine in this case. Do you have anything else you need to tell me?
>> Not that I know of. >> Okay. All right. So based upon that evidence and your testimony and officer Switzers, I'm going to find that uh one remaining violation, the 67201B, which is trash,
still remains on the property and order uh you and your mom to comply on or before February 27th, 2026, failing which there'll be a fine in the amount of $100 per day starting on the 28th.
So, um, but I am going to award costs in the amount of $575 to be paid to the county and, um, that's basically the cost of the hearing and all the admin stuff that goes along with it. So
uh I with better communication you really could have maybe saved yourself some money and not found yourself having to attend today. >> All right. Um
All right. Good luck. I you can get a copy of this if you want to take it with you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Miss Bradley, if you will, and make sure we've got good contact, good contact information for you before
you leave so that officer Switzer can get a hold of you and you can get a hold of her. >> Okay? >> Because once it's cleaned up, it's still your obligation to contact her and and ask her to come out and inspect.
>> Okay? >> So, that'll hopefully prevent any any further issues. Okay. All right. So, why don't you just have a seat and Miss Bradley will give you the copy of the order. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Good luck. All right. Um, next case is KCNF2025110 367. Raymond W. Hoffman. Um, not seeing anybody here on that, but go ahead, Miss Switzer. Whenever you're ready.
>> My name is Kelly Switzer and I've been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. This case is a repeat violation case. The respondent Raymond W. Hoffman is not present. This case concerns a property at 8152 Southeast Sky Skylark Avenue,
Hopetown, Florida 33455. This case was not generated from anonymous complaint. According to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County, the property owner is Raymond W. Hoffman. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership is counties exhibit one.
This property was previously brought before the Martin County code enforcement magistrate on January 19th, 2022 for an order finding violation was an order fighting violation was issued to Raymond W. Hoffman for Martin County
code violation section 67.201b nuisance declared trash, etc. General Orin's Martin County code. On March March 4th, 2022, an inspection was conducted and all violations were corrected. A copy of the original order from 2022 and an affidavit of compliance
are marked as county's exhibits two and three. The original order. >> I don't see page two, but maybe on your copy, do you have page two? >> Um,
nope. I do not. >> Okay. All right. Well, I'm not gonna worry about it. I'm assuming that either I signed it or >> uh >> Magistrate Worb signed it. >> Yeah, I do believe that you signed it. >> Okay.
>> Um on March 4th, I'm sorry. Um on December 9th, 2025, I inspected the property and at the time I observed trash and debris that were stored outside. At the time I photographed the property, the photograph accurately shows what I what he saw or what I saw then and is marked
as county's exhibits four and five. So here's more trash underneath the carport along the side in the front the tires and then this is another angle of the front of the house towards the side and there's just uh
stuff laying around, trash and debris. Based upon the investigation and previous history of the property, I issued a repeat notice of violation to Raymond W. Hoffman on December 17, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 6.
In the notice, I cited the following Martin County code violation as a repeat section 67.201b, nuisance declared, trash, etc. General ordinances Martin County code. In the notice of viol in the notice of repeat violation, the respondent was informed to comply with all violations
immediately and also informed the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. A repeat notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on December 29th, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 7. >> Okay. The notice to appear was also
handd delivered by Rachel Sprdley, nuisance abatement coordinator on December 29, 2025 to William Hoffman. The affidavit of hand delivery is marked as county's exhibit 8. On December 30th, 2025, Michael Shanahan, co- compliance investigator for Martin County, went back to the
property and found that the property was in compliance. At that time, he photographed the property. The photograph accurately shows what he saw then in his marked county's exhibits 9 and 10. This is um another angle of the side of the yard.
It's all cleaned up and there's the front. >> Okay. And was that at the call of Mr. Hoffman or >> uh the son is taking over pro uh the maintenance of the properties and he was in the office to let them know that he
was comp, you know, in compliance. And that's when they he was given the notice to appear and they went out the following day to take pictures. >> So basically you've got from the 9th to the 30th >> from um well we started from the date of
the signed the notice of violation >> which was >> which was the December 17th. Um there was a violation 17th. Okay. All right. That's not going to track this order, the draft order, because
what it basically says is that on December 9th, an inspection of the property was performed and continuing until December 30th, the respondent did maintain conditions. Um, and I I'm going to just interineate I'm going to add language that says that
the notice of repeat violation when out on the 17th. Do we know when it was received? >> No. >> Well, let's see. We do know
that was the 29th. Um, okay. So, this violation goes out on the 17s, 18, 19, 20, 3 days mail. >> Your honor, I'd point out that the county ordinance says that the service
is effective upon mailing. So, that's why it's the 17th. The notice the notice is sent. Service the service was served on the 17th. There's no way we can speculate as to when it got there. Might have got there the 18th. It might have got there yesterday. It's the post office is completely unreliable that we
have to go by what the ordinance says. 17th is the day. Might also point out for the court's information that this uh responded this is their third repeat violation in three months. >> Okay. And and be that as it may, and
actually uh chapter 162 says it's go it's the date it was discovered, >> which is the 9th. >> Yes. >> So I mean I I'm trying to figure out what's what's the appropriate date, I guess.
And and your contention is that the 17th actually works because that's what the code says. >> Yes, that's what the UN is a section 100, I believe. 100.1. All right. All right. So, I'm going to just add a
note um at number three in the findings of fact that uh the county's notice of violation was mailed on uh December 17th. I don't And I have I have one other question I
need to to just clarify something roer. Um in your testimony about the um notice of appearance that the mot notice of appearance was hand delivered. Correct. >> Correct. >> In your testimony, did you say that it was sent by certified mail? Can you just
check your script to see if >> uh say I'm sorry, say that again. say in in in your testimony from the script, did did was it was a mention of certified mailing made? >> Uh, no, no it was not. >> Okay. So, so just clarify that the notice of the notice of hearing was
delivered by hand delivery, >> correct? Thank you. >> Yeah. And that's how I understood it. >> Okay. >> Which is fine. >> Um Okay. All right. So, basically with mail December, >> it's corrected now. Wait a minute. Now
I'm Now I'm more confused. >> 17. >> All right. All right. So, basically, you're asking for >> I I had a Do you want me to finish? >> Yeah, you can finish. >> All right. I I request that all the counties exhibits be received into
evidence and based upon Oh, I didn't finish my Oh, I did the compliance. Okay. So based upon a testimony evidence, I request that the respondent, Raymond W. Hoffman, be found as a repeat violator and be ordered to pay the fine in the amount of $250 a day for the 13
days that the property was in violation for a total cost of $3,250. And the county has also incurred the cost amount of $575 conducting this investigation and request that the county be reimbured this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. This
concludes my testimony. >> All right. And um and based on on what um county attorney's saying is that um Mr. Hoffman has appeared and has other repeat violations too. So I could take that
into consideration as well. >> All right. So uh without objection, Mr. Hoffman is not here. Nobody here on his behalf. I'm I'm going to accept into evidence the Kennedy's exhibits 1 through 10 in this case. Based upon that evidence and your testimony, I'm going
to find that um a violation as charge uh does exist or did exist on the property for the number of days cited in the in the case. It was how many days? >> 13 days.
>> 13 days. And um and I am going to find that a fine of $250 per day is appropriate. And therefore a fine in the amount of $3,250
plus costs of $575 uh will be levied against Mr. Hoffman in the total amount of $3,825 uh to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing. And and
while um that may seem uh somewhat steep, if you're listening at home, you understand that um that Mr. Hoffman's got other cases and that u apparently he is a frequent flyer. So,
>> serial violator. >> Okay. All right. So, and it's still ordered. All right. >> Thank you. >> Next case. Um, >> your honor, can we go to uh the Graham case next, please? >> Graham case.
>> All right. This is KCNF2025110537. The respondent is Jquel and Graham. Anybody here on behalf of Miss Graham? Nope. Okay. And Officer Shanahan, you've been sworn in. So, >> yes, sir.
My name is Michael Shanahan and I've been sworn in. I'm a code compliance investigator for Martin County. The respondent, Jacqueline M. Graham, is not present. This case concerns a vacant lot located in Dixie Park in Martin County, Florida. This case was not generated from an anonymous complaint. According
to the public record or official records of the property appraiser of Martin County, the property owner is Jacqueline M. Graham. A copy of the property appraisers record of ownership counties is counting exhibit one. On December 1st, 2025, I inspected the
property. At that time, I observed a vacant lot with trash, debris, and high grass. At the time I photographed the property, photographs accurately show what I saw then in our Marxist counties exhibits two, three, and four.
Two is the trash here as well as high grass. >> Mhm. >> Three again, you see the higher grass. >> Okay. >> And then four, again, high grass. Based upon my investigation, I issued a notice of violation to Jacqueline M. on
December 2nd marked as county's exhibit 5. In the notice of violation in the notice violation, I cited the following Martin County code violations. Section 67.201A, nuisance declared weeds, undergrowth, general ordinances, Martin County code.
Section 67.201B, nuisance declared trash, etc. General ordinances Martin County code. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until December 16th to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so.
Compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail on December 19th and is marked as counties exhibit 16 or six, sorry. The return receipt was not received. Therefore, on January 2nd, 2026, I posted the property and the Martin
County Administration building. The affidavit is marked as county's exhibit 7. A photograph of the posting is also marked as county's exhibit 8. I spoke with the property owner who advised this is an ongoing issue with
the neighbor dumping trash into her yard and asked for an extension of the hearing. I informed her we would not be able to move the hearing to next month's docket because it only involved high grass and trash debris. Therefore, I went to the property again on January 20th, 2026 and saw that the pro the
cited violations had not been corrected. I request that all county's exhibits be received into evidence. On January 19th, I spoke with the homeowner, Jacqueline M. Graham, regarding the violations, and she indicated she would wouldn't have time to clear up the pri prior to the
hearing. Therefore, the respondent entered into a stipulation agreement paying $350 and agreed to come into compliance on or before April 15, 2026 based based upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent Jacqueline M.
be ordered to comply with the cited provisions of Martin County Code by April 15, 2026 and if not in compliance by then be required to pay a fine in the amount of $100 per day per violation for the viol continues thereafter. This
concludes my presentation. All right. Um, so, uh, let's see. Without objection, I'm going to accept into evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 8 in this case.
And, um, know for the record that I have a stipulation and proposed agreed final order in front of me. The stipulation recites uh the facts as as u officer Shanahan has
described them and that uh Jacqueline M. Graham has signed on behalf of herself and officer Shanahan, you've signed on behalf of the county. Uh the stipulation and the $350 in cost have been paid to the county.
>> Yes, sir. And uh therefore I'm going to find it is appropriate to enter the agreed order order in compliance on or before uh April 15, 2026. Okay. All right. And let's see
where are we now? You got two of Miss Espott's cases >> or just once. >> One you've already disposed of. >> Oh yeah, that's right. Johnson cases compliance. >> All right. So you've got the Darthy Gorilla case. >> Yes.
>> And that's um case number ENF 2025110133-01. And officers Bradley, you have not testified yet. >> Yes, sir. >> If you raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth. So,
I'll help you. >> I do. >> Okay. What have we got? >> My name is Rachel Sprdley and I've been sworn in. I'm a nuisance abatement coordinator for Martin County. The respondent, Dorothy Gerilla, is not present. This case concerns a property
located at 4536 Southeast Windsor Court Stewart in Martin County, Florida. This case was not generated from an anonymous complaint. According to the official records of the property appraiser of Martin County, the property owner is Dorothy Grella. A copy of the property appraiser's record of
ownership as county's exhibit 1. On November 13th, 2025, Officer Espott inspected the property and at that time she observed high grass and a broken glass on the uh side door. At that time, she photographed the
property. The photographs accurately show what she saw then and are marked county's exhibits 2, three, and four. So, exhibit two is the high grass. Good lord. Exhibit three is just another >> same >> Yep. Same photo. And then exhibit four
is the broken glass in the door here. So that's all shattered. Um, based upon the investigation, Officer Espott issued a notice of violation to the owner on November 17, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit
5. In the notice, she cited the following Martin County Code violations. Section 67201A nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general ordinances Martin County code and section 21.121.1 glazing general ordinances Martin County
code. In the notice of violation, the respondent was given until December 1st, 2025 to correct the violation and was informed of the need to contact Martin County code enforcement upon doing so. Compliance was not achieved and a notice of hearing was issued by certified mail
on December 12th, 2025 and is marked as county's exhibit 6. Um, the return receipt was not received. Therefore, on January 5th, 2025, Officer Espot posted the property and the Martin County Administration building. the affidavit of or the posting at the
property and the affidavit of posting are marked as county's exhibits six or seven and eight. So this was the posting at the property. Exhibit 8 is the affidavit of posting. Uh no caller letter from the property owner was received within the time
allowed. Therefore, officer Michael Joseph went to the property again on January 20th, 2026 and saw that the cited violations had not been corrected. At that time, he photographed the property. The photographs accurately show what he saw then and are marked as count as exhibits
9 and 10. So, number exhibit nine is the overgrown yard. Okay. >> And then exhibit 10 is the broken glass in the door. I request that all of the county's exhibits be received into evidence based
upon the testimony and evidence. I request that the respondent be ordered to comply with the cited provision of the Martin County Code by February 27th, 2026, and if not in compliance by then, be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $100 per violation for every day the
violations continue thereafter. The county has incurred a cost in the amount of $575 conducting this investigation and I request that the county be reimbursed this amount at the conclusion of today's hearing. And that concludes my testimony. >> Uh looking out, anybody here on behalf
of Miss Grella, Dorothy Grella? Seeing none, um without objection, I'm going to accept into evidence the county's exhibits 1 through 10 in this case. And um based upon that evidence and testimony,
I'm going to order compliance on or before February 27th, 2026, failing which a fine in the amount of $100 per violation per day will occur and I'll further award cost in the amount of $575
to be paid to the county at the conclusion of this hearing. Okay. And now we've got uh some steps, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I have three fine reductions.
>> All right. Uh, the next case is Scholman, Gary Schulman at CNF2022 090269-01 and this is a request for fine uh reduction. >> Yes, sir. >> And what have we got here? >> My name is Rachel Spradley and I've been
sworn in. I'm the nuisance abatement coordinator for Martin County. This fine reduction stipulation and agreed recommend order involves a property located at 5212 Southeast Fairlane Avenue in Martin County, Florida. On November 23rd, 2022, an order finding
violation was issued by the code enforcement magistrate to Gary Schulman for section 67.201.8 weeds nuisance declared weeds under growth general ordinances Martin County code. Section 91.34A
generally inoperable vehicles general ordinances Martin County code and section 21.99 accessory structures general ordinances Martin County code um exhibit one does show that the property has changed hands so it is now in Martin
uh forward land trust with Melissa as the trustee compliance was required by December 30th 2022 on December 26th 2025 An affidavit with of a compliance with acred fines was issued reflecting an outstanding
fine in the amount of $294,600 plus cost in the amount of $575. Pursuant to section 1.98B general ordinances Martin County code no code enforcement lean shall be reduced to the value less than 10% of the total fine amount or 10% of the value of the
property whichever is less. The portion of the lean attributed to cost shall not be subject to reduction. So exhibit two is the original order that was put in place >> and then exhibit three is the affidavit of compliance with fines that was
recorded. >> Okay. >> Uh Martin Forward Land Trust Melissa Rass as trustee are the current owners of the property pursuant to a tax deed recorded in official records book 3492
page 2885. Martin County, Florida public records. The respondent has no remaining interest in the property. Staff has determined that determined that a lean reduction is warranted. The current owners were not responsible for the violation. However, they brought the property into compliance and have
offered to pay $0 to resolve the outstanding fine which have occurred. The current owners purchased the property through the taxdeed process and Martin County received a surplus payment in the amount of $84,64753. And exhibit 4 is their reduction
request. So with this one, Mr. Nicolleti, we're just trying to finish out the rest of the fines because we did receive the overage payment from the tax deed sale in the amount of 84,64753 >> which exceeds the 10%.
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. Um, and I'm looking at a fine reduction stipulation and proposed agreed order uh indicating
the items that we discussed. Without objection, I'll accept into evidence the county's exhibits one through four in this case and find that the
overage received by the county uh of $84,64753 exceeds the the 10% requirement that's in the county code and find that it is appropriate therefore to
agree to reduce the fine to zero. And note that the stipulation is signed by Melissa Rees, trustee for the Martin Forward Land Trust electronically and um and Miss Bradley by you on behalf
of the county. So, I'm going to go ahead and um and sign the agreed final order in this case. Okay. All right. Uh, let's see. The Borges case is next. ENF2023
>> 1200071. Um, Elizabeth Dara Borges and Diane Borges are the owners here. >> And whatever you write. >> Okay. My name is Rachel Sprdley and I've been sworn in. I'm the nuisance baitment
coordinator for Martin County. This case concerns the property located at 8500 Southeast Eagle Avenue, Hope Sound in Martin County, Florida. On May 15th, 2024, an order finding violation was issued by the code enforcement magistrate to Elizabeth Dera Borges and
Diane Borges. So, the property appraiser, just to let you know, the property has changed hands. The new owner is Puzzle Solving Real Estate LLC. >> The original order that was put in place for the property
>> is exhibit two. >> Yes, sir. Um on May 15th in order or I'm sorry for sections 21.121.1 glazing general ordinances Martin County code compliance was required by June
28th 2024 on December 22nd 2025. An affidavit of compliance with acred fines was issued reflecting an outstanding fine in the amount of $52,900 plus cost in the amount of $575. Pursuant to section 1.98B
general ordinances Martin County Code, no code enforcement lean shall be reduced to the value less than 10% of the total fine amount or 10% of the value of the property, whichever is less. The portion of the lean attributed to cost shall not be subject to reduction.
Puzzle solving real estate LLC are the current owners of the property pursuant to a warranty deed recorded in official records book 3533 page 2725 Martin County Florida public records respondent has no remaining interest in the property staff has determined that a
lean reduction is warranted. The current owners were not responsible for the violation. However, they brought the property into compliance and have offered to pay $5,295 to resolve the outstanding fines which have accured plus cost in the amount of $575.
So, exhibit 4 is the affidavit of compliance with fines that was recorded and put in place. >> Okay. >> And then exhibit four is their reduction request. And that concludes my testimony for this one. All right. So without objection, I'll
accept into evidence the county's exhibits one through four in this case. And um based upon that evidence and the fine reduction stipulation in front of me which indicates
um all of the facts as had been just testified to. I'll note that the stipulation is executed by Anthony Kaufman for puzzle solving real estate LLC and by Miss Bradley on behalf of the
county indicating um the payment the willingness to pay within 30 days of $5,870 which is a fine reduction from 52,900
to 5295. 5 uh $5,295 plus cost in the amount of $575. We'll find that that comports with the code. And I'll go ahead and execute the agreed
order. Okay. And one more. George M. Waters. It's case ENF 2024 070346-01 and this is also a fine reduction. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. What have we got?
>> My name is Rachel Sprdley and I've been sworn in. I'm the nuisance abatement coordinator for Martin County. This case concerns the property located at 18211 Southeast Federal Highway to Questa in Martin County, Florida. On August 21st, 2024, a repeat order finding violation
was issued by the code enforcement magistrate to George M. Waters Jr. for and just so we're on the same page. Exhibit one is the property appraiser showing that um Mr. Waters was is the property owner. Okay.
>> Exhibit two is the original order that was put in place. And it was put in place for section 91.34.8 generally inoperable vehicles general ordinances Martin County code and section 67.201A
nuisance declared weeds undergrowth general ordinances Martin County code. Compliance was required by November 30th, 2023. On September 19th, 2024, an affidavit of compliance with acred fines was issued reflecting an outstanding fine in the amount of 13,500 plus cost
in the amount of $575. And exhibit 3 is the affidavit of compliance with fines. >> Did he ever pay the additional 575? >> Um, I believe that case is closed. >> I believe the original one was closed.
Okay, >> I'll look for you. Oh, actually, no. He still owes the 575 on that one. Yeah, he still owes the balance on that one. Okay. It's going to go here. >> Okay.
>> All right. Um, you may need to get it re re-executed, but if it hasn't been paid, it hasn't been paid. >> I believe the title company is aware of it, your honor, but I will double check. I think they're trying to sell the property because it came from a law office.
>> Okay. All right. So, go ahead. I I interrupted you. Um, staff has determined that a lean reduction is warranted. Respondents were responsible for the violation. They brought the property into compliance and have offered to pay $1,925
to resolve the outstanding fines which have occurred. So, exhibit 4 is the reduction request that was put in place. >> Okay, let's see what we got here. So there's
they paid the 575 for this case in the9 $1,925. >> Okay. >> And then I will make them aware of the other one. >> All right. I guess um what I may do is just make that as a
footnote rather than screw up the stipulation. You know, in other words, if I if I amend the order to add the then they'll have to go back. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Sign the stipulation again.
Um, and since you've already got got the stiff, um, I'll just make it as a note. So, all right. So, without objection, I'll accept evidence counties exhibits one through four in this case. >> Yes, sir.
And based upon that evidence and the stipulation in front of me, which recites the testimony that was just given, I'll find that it is appropriate uh to accept $1,925 um to resolve the outstanding fines
and um and let's see, which were $13,500 cost in the amount of $575. So,
I'm going to go ahead and approve the agreed order and just make a >> So, my understanding is we're not going to give a lean release until the additional 575 is paid.
>> They're two separate cases. >> So, are they going to have to bring a second? No, because you can't reduce reduce the 575. It's >> just need to pay that. >> That's all they owe is the admin fee. >> Okay. >> But they are two separate uh cases on
the property. So >> once they pay that, it can be clear. >> Yeah, >> that should be easy. >> Yeah. I'm just want to make sure that the property can't get transferred without that being I mean it's so if there's not a lean
>> there's two leans >> there's two so >> one for $575 from the original >> so we're not going to that that's okay so there'll be there'll have to be a lean release for that second one when they paid so that the countyy's protected I'm fine >> and all I'm saying this is below my
signature note there is an additional amount of $575 5 owed to the county. >> That'll be fine. >> Okay. So, let's see. One through four. 1925.
So owed. Okay. Good. Anything else to come before us? >> No, sir. >> All right. And let's see. Our next hearing is February 18th. here in chambers.
>> Yes, sir. >> Great. Hope to see you all then. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.