Okay. All right. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Uh, today is January 22, 2026, and this is the January uh, hearing before the special magistrate for the city of Ovida.
Uh, we have a couple of items on the agenda today. First item is a parking citation. It's citation number P 01770V. And the person cited apparently is Saferi
Musum. I'm not sure I'm pronouncing that quite correctly. At 1401 Barcelona Court, Winter Springs, Florida 32708. And the alleged violation is a violation of code 000.180
parking in a handicap space with no placard visible. Who is here to speak to that today? Yes, ma'am. Would you step step to the Is officer here to speak today? All right. Well, let let's hear from the officer then we'll hear from
you. Okay. So, if you'd have a seat, we'll hear from the officer and then we will hear from you. >> Okay. And what is your name, sir? State your name. You need to pull that mic up up for you. >> There we go. >> Please state your name for the record.
>> Officer Frank France. >> Give me Frank. >> Frank. F R K. >> And the last name >> France. F R N Z E. And just F R N Z >> E >> E also. Okay. >> Yes, sir.
>> All right. Tell us what you have for us, Officer France. >> On November the 29th, 2025 at approximately 1500 hours. I was on patrol in the area of the Ovito Mall. Uh approximate location of 1360 Ovita Mall Boulevard. Uh while on patrol, I
observed a white in color Lexus bearing Florida tag India whiskey 95 box papa parked in the handicap spot. Uh there was no handicap placard visible on the dashboard or hanging. There was no handicap placard visible on the plate. I have run the plate and saw that there
was no uh handicap eligibility to the registered owner. Uh I've issued them a citation for the uh parking in the handicap spot with no placard visible. >> Okay. And what was the date again, Officer France? >> Uh, it was November the 29th, 2025.
I have since sp >> This was at the Ovita Mall parking lot. >> Yes, sir. >> I have since spoken with the registered owner who had come into the police department. She advised me that her daughter has a placard, however, did not
have it visible on the day of. I have a picture of it I can show you of the vehicle of the day in question. Uh I basically am giving her the reason uh the benefit of the doubt and we have agreed that we can uh change this violation to improperly parking which
would turn it from the 256 to the $30 one. She's agreed that that would be more uh would be acceptable to her. >> Okay. So the placard was the daughter's placard. >> There was no Yeah. Her she said that her daughter was in the car the day of and that she did not have the placard
hanging on the day in question. >> Okay. So, you have agreed to reduce the violation to what? To what? >> To improper parking, which is a $30 uh violation instead of the $256 violation.
All right. Thank you, Miss Mesame. >> Right. We'll hear from you. >> Yes, your honor. My >> turn that microphone down so that we There you go. >> Yeah. My daughter is severe autistic and
uh that's the reason I have she cannot talk she cannot walk walk very well she cannot drive that's why I have the disability sign for her and that day the parking lot was packed with the car and
I just driving around and around and around for half an hour she was with my sister in the uh parking lot for some event was outside So I was very worried because she cannot stand with the crowd for a long time. So I was very worried
about her if she get angry and start to pinch herself or other people or do something uh to the people. That's why uh I was very worried and I probably forgot to put the sign uh disability
sign in the parking spot. I worked for the store in the mall for f four, five years and I know the mall and parking lot very well and even when I uh the parking is not very busy, I never parked
my car in the disability spot. But that day parking lot was packed and I couldn't find any uh space and I just forgot because I was very worried about her. >> Was she in the car with you? No, she wasn't. She was with my sister and I
just came to pick her up. >> Okay. All right. Well, you you heard Officer Fran say that uh that city was willing to reduce it to improper parking, which would be a $30 fine. >> Okay. >> All right.
>> So, that is the fine I will impose >> and I'll be sending out an order. When you get the order, it will tell you where to pay the fine. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, officer. >> Thank you. [Music]
>> Next item on the agenda is a continued item. It's case CE25-0000685. [Music] The respondent is 4H4R Properties LLC. Uh address is attention property tax
department 23975 Park Sarrento sweet 300 Calabasas California 91302. [Music] The property involved in the alleged violation is 623 Horseman Drive Ovita
Florida 32765. The partial number is 14- 21- 31- 515-0000y [Music] 2570.
Uh, who is going to be speaking to this today? Anyone who's going to be speaking, please come forward so you can be sworn in. Mr. Morero, you won't need to be sworn. You I assume you're you're here in your representative capacity. All right. Uh
would you each state your name uh for the record? >> Scott Douglas. and Miss Moyer. >> Yes, sir. >> Shakira Moyer. >> Yes, sir. >> And sir,
>> Daniel Dominguez. It's Dom I G. >> All right. Would you all raise your right hand? You solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, sir.
>> All right. We'll hear from the city first, then we'll hear from, uh, anyone else who needs to speak. >> Good afternoon, uh, special management Marcy. Uh again, we're here for KCE25- 00068
5 uh property address 623 Horseman Drive. Um of course it's in Avita, Florida, 32765. I have a package of 25 25 pages that I would like to uh present to you. May I approach the bench? >> Yes. And has it been shown to the
respondent? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. will be admitted into evidence at these 25 pages as the city's exhibit composite exhibit number one. >> All right. Go ahead, Miss Moyer.
>> Yes, sir. Pages 1 through 4 is a copy of the property records um card that shows 4 H I'm sorry, AH4R Properties LLC is still um the owners for 623 Horseman
Drive in Ovito, Florida. Pages 5, 6, and seven is a copy of your finding of facts. Page six, um I highlighted where you advise a hearing will a continuation hearing will be scheduled for today. Um section four
advises the tenant was uh to hereby advi he was hereby advised to make the rented property available for entry and repair prior to the 16th. Um the tenants must cooperate with the respondent and the respondents uh contractors to make the
repairs on the property. Page number eight is a copy of that status hearing um that was sent out on Janu uh December 9th for today's hearing. Page number nine is a uh certified mail receipt. This one was for the property
owner. Page 10 shows a signed uh green card for the tenant. I received the certified mail receipt back. No green card signed, but I did post the property advising him
of the notice. So page 12 is a copy of the affidavit for the um special mag special magistrate finding of facts and the status hearing for today. Page 13 is a copy showing that it was
posted to the property. Page 14 is a copy of the consent to inspect form. I went out to the property yesterday to um do the do an inspection to see if they had the proper locks on the windows. So, page 14 just shows that I
was given consent to come into the property. Pages 15 through 25 are all photos of the windows in each room where they have locks on that was functioning locks and
considered appropriate and meets the code per our building inspector. So, you're going to see for each room I went by and took photos and showed where the locks were installed. I took the locks off and put the locks back on. Made sure the
windows were able to open and close. There was a window in there that didn't need any locks, but that window worked fine as well. As far as the city is concerned, the property is now in compliance.
>> Okay. So, you did not find any nonfunctional locks. >> Yes, sir. That's correct. All locks were working properly. [Music] and this inspection was January 21. >> Yes, sir.
>> Right. I'll hear from the owner. Anything to offer? I don't I don't think there's anything for us to offer at this time. The property is brought into compliance. So, as far as we're concerned, there's nothing left for us to add.
>> Okay. And I have this that was left on my desk by Mr. Douglas. I have not read it. Don't intend to read it. It claims to be under oath, but it's not notorized. In any event, my order required Mr. Douglas
to attend in person. Are you here today? >> I'm going to return this to you unread. Mr. Douglas, in the future, please do not do this. Either show up in person or you can take the oath uh or just stay home, but don't send me anything else
like that. >> Okay, I fully understand, your honor. Um >> I misunderstood your initial assessment on December 4th that it was not given under oath. So this document was prepared under penalty of >> No, it was No, it wasn't. It isn't notorized.
>> Understood. >> Okay. Go ahead. But even if it had been notorized, I would not have read it because your attendance was required in person. >> So you're here. Tell me what you have for us. >> I have a lot to say.
Uh would you like copies of these that I'm going to submit for the record? >> Uh no. Let me ask you some questions. Maybe we can short circuit this. Are are are there any locks in the house that are not functioning now? >> Yes, sir. >> Which ones? >> All of them that are not the original
manufacturer locks. I dropped it in my pocket right here. This device that I hold in my hand is a vice grip lock. This is a non-permanent affixed lock that was presented to the property. It
works by inserting it into into the uh inner wall of the guide track for the window. It relies solely on torsion and friction. There is no stopping mechanism.
It is not a permanently attached lock. cannot be considered a valid substitute for a fully functioning lock any more than cementing the window shut would be concluded to be a sufficient way to secure the window. >> Okay.
>> This mechanism relies on the person knowing one how to operate it and two being able to exert enough strength to overcome the previous person who exhibit it. Miss Moyer was in my property yesterday and she asked me to demonstrate this lock for her and I
declined. I asked her to do it. Her colleague I I'm sorry I don't know your last name. Miss Irene >> Lock Miss Lockre video recorded Miss Moyer attempting the lock. It took her just nearly two minutes to undo two locks and that was
just to open the window. from one foot away myself knowing how to undo it. It still took me nearly a minute to a minute and a half to undo these locks to remove them to open the window. Miss Moyer struggled for a significant
portion of time just to get the lock to flip open to be able to untor it. After Miss Moyer had removed the lock, I asked her to place the locks back on the window in a secured fashion. She secured both of the locks in place. To her
understanding of this was secured, I simply reached with minimal force to the bottom of the window and I lifted it open. The window opened with zero problem. That's just one window, sir. In another instance when we were trying to demonstrate the locks, the locking
mechanism fell out of place, fell behind a couch and behind several toys and became lost. That cannot be considered a sufficient lock. if something can be uh removed from the window and and go missing uh in in such a fashion.
This particular mechanism was placed on my window on or about the 2nd of September, right about the time that I placed my initial call to code enforcement. This mechanism was put on the window by a vendor hired by the
owner to secure the windows. At this point in time, that that vendor, Construct Ohio, had made three, possibly four unsuccessful attempts to secure the window. And mind you, these attempts all occurred before the city became
involved. This mechanism was placed on the window and it was identified as an insufficient temporary measure that would at least let the window stay closed while the fourth or then fifth attempt parts were on order. I was informed that those parts would take 30
to 45 days to arrive, putting a potential completion of September 30th to October 15th. At that point in time, I asked the vendor to escalate to the uh the owner and said, "Hey, look,
we have made three attempts. There have been previous vendors who have made attempts. These windows can't be done." But they were insistent that by allowing this attempt of the parts that were going to be arriving end of September, mid-occtober, they would be able to make a definitive conclusion whether the
windows could or could not be repaired. That vendor was removed from the project or directed to no longer communicate with me. I have text messages with both the vendor and the vendor's uh fourperson andor scheduler in which they just stopped responding uh
approximately the 15th of September. However, the vendor did have the RCS feature turned on with their phone. So, the messages did go through and are marked as red. Okay. Okay. Anything else?
Oh, I have a lot to talk about. Well, the thing I'm interested in is whether the locks are whether they are functional locks or not. I don't need to get into a whole history of landlord tenant disputes. >> It's it's sir, it's not a landlord tenant dispute. Um I I would like to
speak and if I do step out of bounds, please please stop me and I will I will there were there were several things that I watched on the YouTube uh video of the hearing from December 4th that I felt absolutely needed to be uh corrected.
The first being the very first time the landlord reached out to myself or my wife in any attempt to correct the windows was November 14th. They were originally notified by the city starting September 15th. So from September 15th
until November 14th, the landlord had made zero movement, zero action, zero communication. They attempted to schedule it two days before the November 20th compliance deadline. That was November the 18th. Due to the Thanksgiving holiday and the way my work schedule works, I was pre-booked on that
particular date and I could not accommodate. I did offer an accommodation of November the 15th, the very next day, and I told them my availability would resume after Thanksgiving. AMH did not respond to that offer of
November 15th. In fact, Mr. Moyer and Mr. Dominguez testified. We did receive the 15th as an opportunity to make the correction, but we were not available on that date. I feel it's important to add that to the record because on December the 4th, it the impression was given
that my unavailability during a holiday uh weekend was considered obstruction and thwarting the landlord from per performing the duties that were required of them by the law and by the city. AMH did not make any attempt to reach
out after Thanksgiving. They did not immediately schedule after Thanksgiving. They did not reach out until approximately December 3rd or December 4th on or about the day of or before the next December 4th hearing to schedule December 10th. That was the first time
that they had reached out since November the 14th, 2025. On December 10th, we accepted that they ar there was some prompt and circumstance of a of a notice to enter on the door. Despite being granted confirmation of availability, they still
felt it necessary to put a notice to enter. That's fine. They can do whatever they want. They put a notice to enter on the door. December 10th, Mr. Dominguez showed up with a technician identified as Victor. They spent approximately an hour attempting to fix one window. And inside
of that hour, they determined the lock mechanisms that they believed were sufficient were insufficient. It is very important for me to note that because it shows had they been able to grant access to the uh property before November 20th, from November 14th before
November 20th, they were illprepared to complete the required corrections. On December 10th, upon the failure of that um repair, Mr. Dominguez requested a another date that they would order the parts. He said the parts would come in
on the 11th and requested the 12th. I gave him a 5-hour window in which I would be available due to scheduling or I told him I would be available all day at his at his convenience on December the 15th. He said, "I don't know how long this repair is going to take. I
will take the 15th." 15th was scheduled. December 11th comes, no parts. December 12th comes, no parts. 13,4 parts. 15, no parts. We're expecting AMH to arrive per the scheduled maintenance text between
8:00 a.m. and noon. 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:30. A message is sent to AMH requesting an ETA update. 30 minutes later, AMH responds with, "We'll cancel the appointment." So on December 10th, they failed to
complete the required correction. On December 15th, they failed to arrive at their at their requested maintenance date. Before I even get into the next year,
this is definitive proof that at November the 20th, AMH did not have a plan and could not have possibly completed the required uh corrections, the corrections required by the city. Even though it was marked as tenant
obstruction, they were given the 15th to arrive any date after Thanksgiving. The 10th there was a failure. The 15th was a failure. The next time AMH reached out was approximately the 13th or 14th of
January this year in which a text message was sent to them requesting a status update. They scheduled for today's the 20th. They scheduled for January the 20th. On January the 20th, technician Victor arrived once again and
installed these locks. He was apprehensive about installing these locks. However, through a phone call with his supervisor, it was confirmed that AMH was going to give them the blessing to put these locks on. I have a lot more to uh discuss.
It seems like the city is going to say that these are uh acceptable locks. I would disagree with that wholeheartedly. However, if the city does find that these locks are acceptable, I want it to be known that they were not installed
until January the 20th, 2 months after the November 20th deadline. >> All right, sir. Thank you, Miss Lawyer. As a result of your inspection, are you satisfied that the locks you saw uh meet
the city's code? >> Yes, sir. The locks were um in place. They were secured. They secured the windows. I initially asked um Mr. Douglas to open the windows. He wanted me to do it. So, I unlocked them. I was
able to unlock the windows under 2 minutes. Um, they were something that I didn't need a whole lot of information or instructions on how to open them. Um, and then I asked Mr. Douglas Douglas to unlock the windows as he's the tenant that's residing there to ensure he knew
how to unlock lock and lock the windows and also for time purposes even though it wasn't a requirement. I do have a video showing Mr. Douglas is able to unlock the windows and it took him approximately 24 seconds. That was from him standing maybe a feet or two away from the window, getting to the window
and unlocking them. So, as far as the city's concerned, the locks on the windows are functioning. They do lock the windows. I tried I locked every window, unlocked it, took the parts on, put the devices back on. All the windows that were non-functioning and as far as city is concerned, the locks are
functional. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Sir, may ask me again. >> Who was that? Oh, I apologize, sir. May I ask you again? >> Yes, but keep it brief. >> In regards to the testimony that Miss
Moyer has given both times in which it took her 2 minutes or less and myself under one minute from standing just a foot away from the windows. That is correct. An additional test was run. Unfortunately, the test was not thought of. From approximately 25 feet in the
bedroom, the bedroom has the original manufacturers's lock. From approximately 25 feet away, I was able to at a standard pace walk navigate across the room, open the properly functioning locks in under 10 seconds. When I attempted to recreate this by walking
faster, I did it in under 4 seconds. When I pretended to cause myself a panic, I was able to get to the window in under two seconds and have it open. The point of the matter is not whether the windows are locked. These locks cannot be considered functional. They do stop the window, but they only stop the
window from opening so much as putting a a stick or a brick. They cannot be considered functional permanent locks. This morning, I had my wife attempt to open it. She opened the window. It took her exactly 2 minutes as well. She's a tenant who lives in that property. When
she put the lock back on, I asked, "Do you believe this lock is secured?" My wife and also with Miss Moyer said, "Yes, that lock is secured." Once again, I was able to go up to the window with minimal force and open it. I I urge the court to consider these locks not sufficient.
>> All right. I'm going to find that uh the respondent has come into compliance and I'm going to dismiss the case. Anything else to come before us today? Yes sir. >> All right then we are joured.