Item #06 Approval of Code Enforcement Reduction of Fine/Lien for SuntrustICI e Cente r of Good L
� g
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Meeting Date
March 19, 2013
Item # ( 0
Contact Name: Doug Gaines
Contact Number: 407 - 905 -3100 ext 1503
Review By:
De Director:
City Manager: Robert Frank
0, T
Subject: Code Enforcement Reduction of Fine /Lien for Sun Trust Bank re: 600 Lyman Ave.
(District 3 Commissioner Rusty Johnson)
Background Summary:
This property was cited on April 17, 2009 by Officer Robert Siegrist as a nuisance to the public health, safety
and welfare. Officer Siegrist observed a trailer / shed behind the house in sub - standard condition and further
described as a non - conforming structure. The code violated: 108 -35. On July 28, 2009, the Code Enforcement
Board issued an order to comply by August 07, 2009 or be fined $250.00 per day. On September 01, 2009 the
Code Enforcement Board imposed the accruing fine and lien for non - compliance. On September 29, 2009 the
city recorded a code enforcement lien. On October 12, 2009 Sun Trust filed / recorded a Lis Pendens suit. The
location was routinely checked and documented by Officer Siegrist November 2009 — November 2011 and
documented as non - compliant with ten signed affidavits. On February 3, 2012 the violations were observed,
corrected, and an affidavit of compliance was issued.
Issue:
SunTrust Bank, the original mortgage holder, appeared before the code enforcement board on February 26,
2013 and requested not a revision, but a cancellation of the fine / lien amount of $227,000.00 and the city's cost
of $1,098.27. SunTrust Bank claims that they were not noticed about the code enforcement violation or hearing.
Recommendations
The Code Enforcement Board is recommending the fine /lien be reduced to $10,000.00. The discussion by the
board to reduce the amount was based on testimony and answers from an attorney representing Sun Trust
Bank.
Attachments:
Case Photos
CEB Minutes Excerpt
Financial Impact:
Receipt of $10,000.00 in revenue.
Type of Item (please mark with an `k')
Public Hearing
Ordinance First Reading
Ordinance Second Reading
Resolution
Commission Approval
For Clerk's Dept Use:
Consent Agenda
Public Hearing
Regular Agenda
Discussion & Direction
Original Document/Contract Attached for Execution by City Clerk
Original Document/Contract Held by Department for Execution
Reviewed by City Attorney N/A
Reviewed by Finance Dept. N/A
Reviewed by () N/A
2
•J
Q
1
J
K
U 1>
f 1
V
O
0
[ V /
V
�1 it
t
=-o
CT'
I
,v
(J
C�
l�
J
2
�J
r ' "ter
w
J
r
i
J
0
r
mi
V
V
f
1
V
'4
C )
1
rr
9'4
3
�i
U
f
7t
�l
l ��...�
lEAjA
L
V
3
�i
U
f
7t
�l
l ��...�
lEAjA
L
13 -012 SANTANA LUIS ALBERTO
BLVD.
OFFICER
DELGADO
13 -015 DARREN K. BRADT
AVENUE
OFFICER
SIEGRIST
13 -016 FEDERAL NAT'L MTG ASSOC.
STREET
OFFICER C -O LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL C
SIEGRIST WATSON P.A.
3128 KENTSHIRE
805 FLEWELLING
468 LITTLE ROCK
Member Kelley, seconded by Member Carrington moved that the consent agenda be accepted
as presented. The motion carried unanimously.
COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
None.
HEARINGS OF STATEMENTS OF VIOLATIONS
PURSUANT TO THE HEARING RULES ADOPTED BY THIS BOARD ON JUNE 27, 1995, VARIOUS DOCUMEN "CS ARE USED BY THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN EACI1 CASE AND ARE REPORTED IN TIIE CASE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY TIIE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. IN
THESE MINUTES THE TITLES TO THOSE DOCUMENTS WILL 13F, ABBREVIATED AS FOLLOWS:
ACED - AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE FOR DEMOLITION, AOC - AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE, AONC - AFFIDAVIT OF NON - COMPLIANCE, ATF-
APPLICAI ION TO FORECLOSE, CO - COMPLIANCE ORDER, CMED — COMMISSION MEETING FOR DETERMINATION, CS — CONTINUED STAY,
CTR - COPY TO RESPONDENT, ECO - EXTENDED COMPLIANCE ORDER, EX- EXHIBITS, FS- FEES STAYED, LDC — Land Development Code, NOCV -
NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATION, NCH - NOTICE OF HEARING, NS -No Service, OAF - ORDER AUTHORIZING FORECLOSURE, OIF -L- ORDER
IMPOSING FINE -LIEN, ONC - ORDER OF NON - COMPLIANCE, OOC - ORDER OF CONTINUANCE,, ORE — ORDER REDUCING FINE, PDFS - PER DAY
FINE. SUSPENDED, POS - PROOF OF SERVICE, RFR - REQUEST FOR REHEARING, RFRDUC- REQUEST FOR REDUCTION DENIED UN "CIL
COMPLIANCE, ROF- REDACTION OF FINE, SFI l SUBPOENA FOR II FAR ING, SOV - STA "CEMENT OF VIOLATION (S) and WD - WITHDREW.
Vice - Chairman Lowery, seconded by Member Carrington moved that the board agenda order be
changed to Case 909 -194 first, then Case 912 -119, and then revert back to the agenda. The motion
passed unanimously.
Vice - Chairman Lowery, seconded by Member Kelley, moved to re -hear Case 909 -194 for possible
reduction of fine. The motion carried unanimously.
HEARINGS ON STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICES OF
HEARINGS
Case No. 09 -194 Carlton and Linda J Snyder
600 Lyman Avenue
Officer Siegrist
Violation Cited:
115 -3, 108 -35, 108 -19, 108
-22, 108 -24
Observation:
Public nuisance.
04 -17 -09
Notice Of Code Violation
Re- Inspection date: 06- 232009
07 -09 -09
Statement Of Violations
07 -09 -09
Notice Of Hearing
Meeting date: 07 -28 -09
07 -09 -09
Proof Of Service
Reg. & certified mail
07 -28 -09
Order Of Compliance
To comply by 08 -07 -09 or be fined
$250.00 per day, also authorize city to demolish
structure
(Abate).
08 -06 -09 Proof Of Service Reg. & certified mail
08 -18 -09 Affidavit Of Non - Compliance
09 -1 -09 Order Imposing Fine /Lien
09 -1 -09 Proof Of Service Reg. & certified mail
11 -2 -09 Affidavit Of Non - Compliance
01 -4 -10 Affidavit Of Non - Compliance
03 -1 -10 Affidavit Of Non- Compliance
5 -10 -10 Affidavit Of Non - Compliance
7 -12 -10 Affidavit Of Non - Compliance
9 -14 -10 Affidavit Of Non - Compliance
11 -16 -10 Affidavit Of Non-Compliance
7 -27 -11 Affidavit Of Non - Compliance
9 -27 -11 Affidavit Of Non - Compliance
11 -28 -11 Affidavit Of Non - Compliance
02 -3 -12 Affidavit Of Compliance
02 -6 -12 Order Imposing Fine -Lien Total Due $227,000.00
02 -6 -12 Proof Of Service Reg & certified mail
02 -26 -13 Request For Reduction Meeting 02 -26 -13
02 -26 -13 C.E.B. Recommendation Fine Of $10,000.00. To be heard by commission for
final decision.
Officer Loeffler (on behalf of Officer Siegrist who was out of town) presented the case and gave
its history. Photos were presented to refresh the board's memory. There was a trailer / shed of
some sort on the property. The nuisance was re- inspected approximately nine times between the
original code board case and the affidavit of compliance filing in February 2012. Chairman
Godek asked if there was more. Officer Loeffler answered that there was an interior closet and
a lease in the case files containing a landlord /tenant stipulation. A trailer / shed was discovered
behind the house in substandard condition which constituted a non - confirming structure. The
remedial action of the original case was to remove the trailer / shed and contents from the
property. Officer Loeffler guessed that the lease was for someone to occupy the trailer. Further
discussion ensued. The photographs showed sewage on the ground.
Member Amey asked if the sewage was from the washing machine. Officer Loeffler answered
that he had no idea. Chairman Godek asked if someone was there to speak on the case.
Mr. David Ashley, 7442 Lake Marsha Drive, Orlando, FL of SunTrust Mortgage Company,
thanked the board for allowing him to appear. He testified that the mortgage company had no
idea what was going on with the property. Mr. Ashley stated that the fines accrued for
approximately three years. He added that the owners had a responsibility to make corrections to
the property, but failed to do so. SunTrust took the property back with the foreclosure sale
having happened on November 30, 2012, with the title being recorded on December 28, 2012.
Since the ownership changed, the mortgage company contacted the City to establish utilities and
to make repairs, for which they have bids out at this time. He testified that he felt the most
important fact was that SunTrust did not take ownership until December 28, 2012. Since then,
Mr. Ashley added, SunTrust Mortgage Company has shown as much goodwill as they could,
making the property look suitable for Ocoee and for SunTrust Mortgage. Based upon that fact
and the mortgage company not knowing about the violation, Mr. Ashley asked for the board to
cancel the fine.
Member Carrington asked if it was his understanding that the representative was asking the
City to not only cancel the fine but to also cancel the 1098.61 in the City's cost. Mr. Ashley
answered affirmatively because, he said, the mortgage company was not served during the time
of the fine's accrual and therefore could not correct the problem.
Member Carrington asked if the mortgage company did not assume that risk when they write a
mortgage in the first place and pull that security instrument, and why SunTrust felt that the City
should invest money in this and that SunTrust should not have to pay anything. The member
continued by saying that there should be some sharing of the risk in his opinion. Mr. Ashley
answered by saying that if there was service and there was awareness of the lack of compliance
with the issues of the property, then he would agree with the board member, but given that they
acquired the property in December 28, 2012, and their position now is to make everything right
as is incumbent upon them as the mortgage holder.
Member Kelley asked how the company could buy something without research whether or not
there was clear title. Mr. Ashley answered that as the fines were accruing, it was not as though
SunTrust could go and do things to the property (prior to their purchase in December 2012).
Member Kelley said that he was not saying that they could, but Mr. Ashley had said that they
were not aware of the public record showing the lien. It is common practice, the member said,
that they let these things wait until the last minute before it is corrected even though there was a
lien. Member Kelley asked if SunTrust had the mortgage prior to the sale. Mr. Ashley
answered affirmatively. But as the lien was recorded against the Snyders, SunTrust Mortgage
was not served. Member Carrington asked again how is it that SunTrust did not know that the
property to which they hold the mortgage had a lien. Mr. Ashley replied that likely when the lis
pendens occurred, the due diligence was done to understand the liens against the property. He
added that it is difficult to understand when the liens go back so far, and that they generally do
not make corrective actions to the property until they are the owners.
Member Kelley said that if he understood correctly, the property still is not in full compliance, it
is in compliance with this current violation. Mr. Ashley replied that during the inspection to
start utilities, other issues were revealed, and they are in the process of bidding out the work so
that the repairs can be done. Member Kelley countered by saying that this is the case despite
the fact that the SunTrust has had the property for sixty days. Mr. Ashley said that his office
contacted the City on January 7th, just a few days after they obtain ownership as of December
28, 2012.
Member Amey clarified that new problems with the house were discovered when the inspection
was done. Officer Loeffler clarified that the inspection was probably a building department
generated minimum standard housing inspection, not code enforcement.
Vice - Chairman Lowery asked how long the bidding process was. Mr. Ashley said they have
the bids out last week and should hear back about them shortly. The vice - chairman said that
given that SunTrust had possession of the property since January, he wondered why they only
started the bidding process last week. Mr. Ashley repeated that they took ownership as of
December, and that they were not able to make the board's January meeting. Further discussion
ensued.
Chairman Godek asked for a motion.
Member Carrington moved that the board delay action until the property was in compliance
Board Attorney Sneed replied that the property is in compliance. Staff does not bring the case
to the board unless it is non - compliant.
Member Carrington withdrew his motion.
Member Kelley moved that the board table the matter until there is a CO on the property and it
is sellable.
Asst. Support Services Director / Code Enforcement Manager Gaines said that there are two
separate issues: the inspection and the lien. They have brought the code violation into
compliance, but the inspection is a separate matter.
Board Attorney Sneed said that the commission wants the board to make a decision rather than
defer matters to them.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Ashley asked if it would help if the company agreed to pay the City's costs. The chairman
responded `no, but thank you'.
Further discussion ensued.
Vice - Chairman Lowery, seconded by Member Kelley moved that in Case 409 -194 the board
recommends to the city commission that the fine be reduced to $10,000. The motion passed by a
roll -call vote of 5 to I with Member Amey dissenting