All this hearing to order, I have a statement to read. Welcome to the November 2026 meeting of the Alachua County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to hear alleged code violations filed by various departments of Alachua County, Florida. The Code Enforcement Special Magistrate was established by Florida Statutes Chapter 162 and Alachua County Ordinances to obtain compliance with various county ordinances and regulations. I do not have the authority to change the ordinances or any of the regulations we will be addressing today. That can only be done by the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners. The Code Enforcement Magistrate can determine if a violation has occurred, set a date for full compliance, and levy a fine for noncompliance. My decisions can only be appealed to the courts and not to the Board of County Commissioners. Procedure will follow today as the Secretary will call the case. County staff will present the case. The respondent shall have the opportunity to present its defense to the case. I will make a decision at a future date and the respondent will be notified by mail of that decision. All persons testifying today do so under oath by swearing or affirming that they will tell the truth. Any evidence in the form of documents or photographs must be submitted to the Secretary or Clerk for inclusion in the record. Please, if you have a cell phone, please put it on silent or turn it off so it doesn't interrupt the proceedings. Also, I would like anybody who's planning on testifying today to stand and be sworn in. So if you plan on testifying, please stand and raise your right hand. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this case is the truth and the whole truth? Thank you. Please be seated. All right. Let's go ahead and call the first case, if you would, please. First case. We're going to start with number five on page two. Which one? Number five. Number five? Yes. So is someone here representing Alexander Swanson? Somebody here representing Alexander Swanson? Not County. Please proceed. Case number 26-004150. Alachua County versus Swanson Alexander-William. Morning. Case 26-004150. County received a complaint on May 5th regarding five pine trees with pine beetle infestation. Property is located at 3621 Southwest 18th Street, Gainesville, in Alachua County. Identified by parcel number 027273-000-000. Owner of the property is Swanson Alexander-William. Code administration initiated enforcement proceedings and found there to be a violation of the following section of Alachua County Code. 7-4.29. Prohibited. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations. Notice of violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted to date have determined the respondent remains in violation of the said Alachua County Code section. Last inspection on the property was yesterday. I have good service of notices and statements of violation to the respondent sent by certified mail, receipt, or postings. Copies have been provided to the magistrate and a request to be entered into evidence. I have had contact with the respondent regarding the violations, which was by email back on July 22nd. The owner has also been in contact with our senior forester as well. Photographs being presented were taken by the senior forester and I, which actively reflect the violations and ask they be admitted into evidence. County recommendation is the respondent to be found in violation of the said section of the code. Order the respondent to be found in compliance within 15 days by complying with the corrective actions listed in the notice of violation. And if not in compliance, then fines will continue to accrue at $50 per day until in compliance. County has incurred $350 in cost and bringing the action to hearing and the senior forester will continue with the case, your honor. Okay. Good morning. Good morning. Andrew McGill, senior forester with Alachua County. Last time we were before you, you gave the respondent 45 days to get a letter from a certified arborist. Right. They submitted this report to the county, but this is not, in our county's opinion, an appropriate report or a good report because the assessment was done remotely with photos. So the forester, as far as you can tell, never actually came to the site? Never actually, yeah, the arborist that wrote this report never actually visited the site. He did his assessment remotely using photos. And I also have, so I personally have seen the trees, and also I have here to give their testimony, the forest health expert from the Florida Forest Service, Jeffrey Aguart. And he can, he's also personally visited the site and can attest to the condition. So there were still five dead trees there? Oh, well, now there's more dead trees, but yes, the, uh, that's what's before us right now. That's what is before us right now. Okay. So if I could call up Mr. Aguart. Go ahead and call him. Good morning. If you'd just identify yourself for the record. Good morning. My name is Jeffrey Aguart. I'm the, uh, the forest health, uh, section supervisor and forest entomologist with the Florida Forest Service. Okay. Here. So what can you tell me about the trees? Uh, I, I first, uh, checked the trees in, uh, June, uh, June 5th, 2026. Uh, they were dead at that time. Uh, and I, it was called to recheck the site, um, on October 14th. And, uh, they were dead. And at this point, uh, in advanced deterioration. Okay. Um, and there were also other trees dead, as, as Andrew mentioned. Because I know at the last hearing, there was some question about whether they were regrowing and, and going to come back to life or not. So, no, unfortunately, it's not, not an option for this species of tree. Uh, once they reach that point, they're, they're, they're unable to re-sprout with new growth. Okay. All right. Again, is somebody here representing the respondent? Seeing none. Do you have any additional tellings to money? Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yes. Go ahead and call the case. Case number 26-006252. Alachua County versus Garcia, Henel, and Amanda. There's somebody here representing the respondents. There's somebody here representing the Garcias. Seeing none. County, please proceed. And further, you're free to go if you, if you don't have any more testimony. My name is Natasha Washington, Code Officer for Alachua County. In code case 26-006252, the property located at address 1910 Northwest 55th Street in Alachua County. And identified by the partial number 06352-029-00. The owner of the property is Hansel and Amanda Garcia. Code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following section of the Alachua County Code and Ordinance. 402.140B, improvement of property prior to issuance of a building permit. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violation. A notice of violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective action. Ongoing inspection conducted to date have determined that the respondent remains in violation of the said Alachua County Code section. My last inspection of the property was on November 3, 2026. I have good service of the notice and statement of violation to respondent sent by certified mail, receipt, or posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate and I request they be entered into evidence. I have spoken to the respondent, the property owners, regarding the violation. The photographs being presented was taken by myself and accurately reflects the violation and asks that they be admitted into evidence. The county recommends respondent be found in violation of the said section of the code. Order respondent come into compliance within 90 days by complying with the corrective action listed in the notice of violation. And if not complied, then pay a fine in the amount of $100 per day until the violation continues to pass as forced date set forced compliance. The county has occurred $350 costs in bringing this action to hearing. And I also like to say I've spoken to the owners. They have applied for a permit as far as for the metal building. And they are still needing information to be submitted to the building department because they have to wait on the company to send them the information. It has been a delay, but they have shown as far as that they're trying to take care of the issue. Okay, and you think the 90 days is sufficient for them to get the information needed? Yes, speaking with the building department, that should be as far as sufficient time for them. So I'm glad to hear you're working with them. That's great. Okay. Anything else on that? No, sir. All right, let's go on to, I believe it'll be, are we into the penalty hearing now? Yes, we are. Okay, so I'm going to change gears here. Let me read a statement. Moving into the penalty hearing. Noncompliance hearings are strictly to evaluate if an order that has been created by a special magistrate has been followed or not been followed. I will not rehear the case as the special magistrate has no authority to revisit its previous action. The policy is for conducting a noncompliance hearing as follows. Determine if the respondent is in compliance or noncompliance. Give the county and the respondent an opportunity to speak on the compliance or noncompliance. And make a decision regarding compliance or noncompliance and a found in noncompliance placement of a lien. So if you call the first case on the penalty. Case number 23-012687. Alachua County versus Shigo Thomas, Jr. Trustee. Okay. See there, Representative. Do you want to come to the podium over there? If you could just, for the record, identify yourself before you have the county start. Michael Olander. I'm Thomas Shigo. I'm a former trustee, the trustee, land trust number 17601 for this case. I'm just here transitioning out. Mr. Olander is the primary beneficiary of that trust. So I understood, just the record, you're a former trustee, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. I was a trustee at the time of these alleged violations. Yeah, so are you acting as a counsel now, our attorney, or what's the, because we had this issue before. I would say both, because, and to qualify, if there's something I have personal knowledge of, I'll get that. Sure, but if we just make clear, when you're speaking as the trustee versus acting as counsel, that would just be helpful on the record. We will try as best we can. Okay, all right, thank you. Your Honor, I need to get something addressed real quick. I'm out of here due to respect, but we had a continuance on the last hearing. You can roll back your film from this court. That was never continued. There was a stay that was never answered. Before moving forward, we need to go back and get this other stuff cleared up, because it all pertains to this. But that's a separate case, if I remember correctly. No, they, it's the same property, but it was a separate case, separate entity. With all due respect, Your Honor, you've made it very clear you can only hear code cases in here. These are all violations of the comp plan. And we asked, one, to get our cases reconciled from previous May 7th. You gave us continuous. You never heard our continuous. You never heard my stay. And it's all related to the same incident. So how do we start this? Because we need to go backwards before we can keep going forward, Your Honor. I'm here out of respect. Your Honor, I don't know if there's a complation of the appellate cases where a stay was granted. Those cases have now been resolved. No. So that's why we're here on penalty. No, no, no, no. I would ask. Wait a second. Do not interrupt. Go ahead. That we're here for the penalty phase, which is not to relitigate, but to state, and the court is aware of the appellate rulings. The only reason, the other case, a lien has already been placed. We didn't have proper notice to Mr. Olander, which is why this one's been continued a few times. That's why this one's behind the other one. Okay. Okay. Where's the rest of the county staff, Corbin, Ms. Daniels? Because we need the record played back. No, my due process is being violated. Okay. It cannot be abused by a court system. The appellate court has already ruled. No, no, no. The last court within this court. And that was only for a penalty? It was, no. It was penalties. No, you signed penalties on June 15th during a continuance. That's a violation of my rights, sir. That needs to be addressed. But we're here today for the penalty phase of this. Okay. Then with all due respect to the court, I ask for a continuous until we can get the other one that was set for the document, part of this, heard. Okay. We're going to go forward so we can get the testimony since everybody's here. So the county would proceed, and then I'll let you respond. Yes, Your Honor. Case 23012-687, Latchewall County v. Shigo. Guilty, not in compliance. Prosecution cost is $420. Daily fine, $100 a day. Irreversible fine is $15,000. And I'll let the legal continue with the total accrued fines, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. In calculating the accrual, we went to the date that the appeal was resolved in our favor on May 8, 2025, which is 546 days times $100 a day, plus $420 in prosecution costs, and the $15,000 in irreversible fines, which I believe comes out to, as of today, $70,020, and then ask that another $100 accrue every day after. Okay, so the fine they have here is way over. Yes, they were calculating it from the very beginning, not from the appellate decision. Correct, Your Honor. So you're asking for a lien of $70,020 with $100 a day until compliance is achieved. Yes, Your Honor. Okay. It's your opportunity to respond. Yeah, we completely object to that. Once again, we have a stay that needs to be heard. The county's out of compliance with their land development codes and their comp plans. They're violating our properties with stormwater. The whole tree and the walls is mitigation work. I need this case to be reconciled. I told you before, with all due respect, with the other attorney that was here and the county manager, their citizen portals do not reconcile. This court, from my understanding, from the way you identified, does not hear things outside of this ordinance. Well, these are outside it because it's the comp plan. We have water trespass. We have stabilization. It's been, we have four different hearings where the flooding has always been put on the record. So we're asking you to please put a stay and let us be heard in the proper court. You can file if you have, with a circuit court. Yes. And if that's a comp plan, I can't address the comp plan issue. It's not before me. Well, this is all it is, is comp plan issues. It's invalities of development of the facility and the infrastructure up and around it. So we've already asked the other court that they took us in because it brought us into parallel hearings. We asked the circuit court to be heard with this. So absolutely. So I'd like to once again present my stay, once again write my filings, and I need them to be heard and addressed. Well, they can't deal with it today because the only thing before me today is whether you're in compliance or noncompliance. Okay. Well, with all due respect, we're out of order. We're putting the cart in front of the horse. We cannot be in compliance, one, because the site does not allow it. The county and the predecessors, their owners that had that, put the site completely out of compliance. We have all that documentation in front of us. So I would, with all due respect of you, is to please, including these court proceedings, reconcile the record so we can get put in process to be able to be heard. Because we can't be heard about something that we can't put together. We have a structural impossibility. The comp plan does not allow us to comply. And the county has put this water burden on us, this stability property, as far as them and the previous owners. Can you have your response? Just since I know we don't normally go into this, but just to correct the record, Your Honor, there was a stay entered because these cases were first heard in November of 2023. A stay was entered. And it was dealt with at the appellate court, which took a while. It was 2025 for. Right. And later in 2025 for the next one. And that's, so I don't understand, he has had his appellate cases. And I don't know if he's not aware, sorry, of the outcome. But, Your Honor, a stay was given. And the court's been, you've provided me the copies of the appellate court's decision. That's why I'm asking the tapes to be re-written, listened to, and put in chronological order. She's absolutely correct on that. But there was another stay submitted. And it's mine. You heard it. You took it right here at this podium. And nobody ruled on it. Well, I think it did rule because I issued a lien, which, um, against the, uh, in the other one. Because we did sign. So, I did not grant the stay. I granted the lien. No, you didn't even address the stay, sir. You did, uh, Your Honor, you did address a lien. But you did never address either approve or deny a stay. The stay that was earlier granted was because of the appellate process. We were asking for a stay because we got an impossible situation in complying with, with your orders. And that's why, and I concluded that the lien was an answer to your request for a stay. I did not grant the stay. But, uh, but here we're, we're, they're asking for accumulation of continuing fines. Mm-hmm. And, and, and we want, we would, we're requesting a stay and abate those fines while we address the impossibility situation. You addressed one stay. There was two stays in question. So, let me explain. So, you have the ability, if you have an impossibility, you have the ability to come back when you come into compliance to ask for the fines to be reduced. Well, so that, so that's why, sir, we had the continuance. And the continuance you granted was never, we still haven't been hurt on it. Absolutely. Yeah, we, we, we all do respect to the court. We need our continuous. We still don't have the date. We had it July 2nd. You guys didn't want to see us that day. We had it July, or August 6th. The engineer was with us. Didn't want to see us that day. We're right here at this building, denied our continuance. So, I'm very, very baffled about all this. And I don't get baffled, Your Honor. I'm a businessman. Okay. Do you have anything else you want to add at this point? It's just that we, we have an impossible situation we can't comply with from an engineering and, and code compliance situation. And, and penalties are accruing. We would love to address them, but we're in a situation where we can't address the subsequent order on SM 42. And since we can't do that, we can't have a mitigation plan on it, on the, on the trees. Because we have no idea what the status of the property is to even start a mitigation plan. I mean, we had drawings were submitted to the prior attorney, Diana Johnson, back, I believe, in April of 23 when this started. And no discussions have been made from the county about mitigation because we had the subsequent issue come up. It's, it strikes me that what much of what you're talking about in terms of the conflict and can't get a result is an issue for the circuit court. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Completely, wholeheartedly deal with, agree with you. I don't know that you're prohibited. I don't understand. You're not prohibited to go to the circuit court. Oh, no, no. We, I was brought into circuit court and then I wasn't heard for three years. Yes, we're in the process of actually being heard to get this all under that court because that falls under their jurisdiction with the whole subject matter. The flooding and everything, it's an ongoing mass flooding situation that's been documented through the 119 request. I took your advice. I wasn't getting what I was needing from the county and I started getting it from the state library, started getting it from the state, started getting it from the court. So, yes, we, we, we definitely want to address all this stuff. Okay. Okay. Do I have anything else? No, Your Honor. Okay. Thank you for being here. I'll make a decision. How do I file these papers? You can file them with. Request for a stay in supporting documents. Right. You can file it with a card. Mm-hmm. Two copies of county. But I need them stamped. In the background, bother anybody. But where do we do that? Do we need to stamp for the date or? You need them. What do you need them? I need a record that they've been stamped of some sort. Oh, that you, they've been entered. Well, it's on the record here because it's being. Oh, that's why, that was my problem with the last one. My, my stay was on the record here and it was never heard. So I knew, I'm going to take the next step and make sure that they get signed off on, on this, at this point. So you can. I'm going to go double check my documents and make sure that it has any and all signatures. There's a couple places to get somebody in the county to sign. Okay. All right. We, we will, when they can, we can accept them then. And do you have copies for them or do they need to be copied? No. I prefer to have a copy of a stamp. Okay. At least one. They're the same document. One's for you, one's for the county. So yes, I would like a copy of them after they're stamped. Your Honor, I hate to keep, he keeps referring to the last one. Are you, is Mr. Olander talking about the one where the lien? Has already been, been put in place? I'm talking about both of them. Well, I need the clarity. Yes, ma'am. But the lien was put in place, but it was put in place while it was an ongoing, continuous going on. Your Honor, just for the record, because I am looking at your order imposing administrative fines from November. Sorry, it was from May 7th, 2026. You did address the stay that had been filed afterwards and did deny it in that order. No, there was two stays. He submitted a second stay, and I submitted a stay. My stay was never heard, for sure. I understand my case in this situation. Well, the record is what it is, so. No, the record is incomplete because there's only one stay that was addressed, not both. And we made it very clear on the record, just like you, thank God, told me a minute ago. This is on the record. I hit, he turned in his stay the day before. That was answered. I turned mine in during the hearing on May 7th, I believe it was, right up here. And no, it was never heard. And it needs to be addressed. There is a continuance on that. Once again, this is stuff that's out of my control. I'm being penalized for. The process needs to be followed. Please. Do your pick words. Okay, so I think that was the only penalty here in the case, was it? And now we're going to go do a reduction. Let me see if we have people. We're supposed to have two people on Zoom. Yes, my name is Eric Saladriguez. I'm on Zoom, but I've never done this before. Okay, well, hang on a second. I have a statement to read, and then we'll call the case, and then I'll let you speak. And you were, what's your name? Okay, my name is Eric Saladriguez. I'm going to be speaking on behalf of Omar Fernandez. Okay, all right. Hang on just a second. So let's go ahead. Let me read the statement. I will now hear requests for reduction of fines and rescission of liens. The decision to grant or deny your request is solely within my discretion. In making my decision, I may consider a recommendation from the Lachua County Code Administration. Please state precisely what you are requesting and why you believe that I should grant your request. You may present any information that is relevant to your request. The only purpose of this hearing is to consider a reduction of fine or rescission of lien. This is not an opportunity to discuss the original finding of guilt for the violations. Please refrain from commenting on the original proceeding since I have no authority to revisit the final action. The policy is to hear reduction requests a maximum of two times. If you request a hearing then fail to appear, that will be counted as a request. If this is your second request, you may present new information that has not previously been heard or compelling reason for making the request. So if you want to call the first case. Was he sworn in yet? Hmm? Was he sworn in? I'll have to. Okay. If he's an attorney, he doesn't get sworn in. Okay. Go ahead and call the case. Case number 23-014904. Alachua County versus Omar Fernandez. Okay. And go ahead and state who you are, sir. My name, first of all, can you hear me clearly? Yes. We can hear you clearly. Okay. All right. My name is Eric Saladriguez. That's E-R-I-C-S-A-L-A-D-R-I-G-A-S. And I'm going to be speaking on behalf of Omar Fernandez. This property was purchased- Wait a second. Eric, let me interrupt. I just want to state to the gentleman that I'm also listening in and hear. My name is Mark Cass. I'm Mr. Saladriguez's attorney with regard to the property. Okay. What's his relationship to the property? I am Omar Fernandez's business partner, and I helped him do the whole cleanup and do the whole – everything that had to be done to bring the property into compliance. Okay. So let's go ahead. If you're going to be testifying, get you sworn in because I don't know if you're here. So go ahead. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this case is the truth and the whole truth? I do. Okay. So let me explain. The procedure here is the burden is upon you. It's unlike the other cases where it burden is on the county. So your job is to give me evidence why I should reduce the liens or remove them from the property. So please go forward. Okay. This property was purchased in April of this year by Mr. Fernandez. The intention was to have a second home. He's getting ready to retire and wanted to have a place away from the city. He lives down here in Miami. And when the property was purchased, it was purchased at a tax deed sale, an Alachua County tax deed sale. The property we – or he knew that was – it had a violation. There was some pictures and we had somebody go to the property and take a look at the property and they let us know there was a lot of trash and stuff like that. But by any means, Mr. Fernandez did not have a clue the amount of trash and the amount of cleaning that it was going to take to clean the property. The property had been abandoned for years and apparently there was five or six living small like those mobile trailers that are like for camping. They had been there so long and people were living in them and their trash, I guess, when they – their trash was right out the front door. So it just accumulated over years. It was a massive amount of trash. We didn't anticipate it to be that way. But we were ready to clear it up as soon as it was purchased. We first hired somebody by the name of Sandin Garcia to go in and pick up anything like flammable, any kind of like car tires and things that you can't take to – you can't throw in a container. And he did that. And then we hired a professional to go in with heavy machinery because the trailers had been there so long that they had actually like sank into the ground. There was no way to move them. Originally, it was thought you could just connect them and have somebody tow them away and have them disposed of that way. But they actually had to be broken up in little pieces and put into containers along with all the other trash that was accumulated on the property. In the beginning, when Sandin went, he found a meth lab. I guess there was a meth lab there. He found hundreds, he says, of syringes on the ground. He picked up every single one by hand to make it safe. The total cost, it took over a month for them to clean it up, but the total cost came out to over $30,000 to clean the property. You have an owner who, in addition to cleaning the property, all the neighbors are very grateful and very happy. You have an owner who's going to take care of this property, obviously abandoned by the previous owner. And, you know, in addition to not only cleaning up the property, he had, he went a little bit beyond that and he paid the guy who was throwing away the trash to straighten out the street for the neighbors. So, you know, it's somebody who cares about his property, who wants to, well, the property, actually, if you look at the tax rule, it'll show that there's a trailer on it. That trailer was also had been vandalized by the people that were living there. And it was so deteriorated that even that was torn down. So that was demolished and torn down. So he has to bring a new trailer to make his second home. But you have a person who, you know, you have a person who is going to be an asset to the neighborhood, to his neighbors. He told me to tell you guys he's planting pear trees and persimmon trees, citrus trees, just bringing, going to better the property, a situation that he did not cause, but he did handle and clean it in a pretty, pretty quick way. I'm sure you can ask the Alachio County inspectors. They're probably aware of the amount of trash and the way that that property was kept for years. And Mr. Fernandez took care of it in, you know, just a little bit over 30 days after it was purchased. So he's asking the court to try to, you know, help him as much as possible. In addition to the cost of the cleanup, he now, he thought he had a trailer, but eventually that was demolished after it went in there. So he has additional expenses that he has to go through to be able to complete his plans. Okay. Let me hear from the county. Yes, Your Honor. The code administration director has reviewed the case, which contained all documents and circumstances pertaining to the case. The recommendation is no more than 80% reduction be granted for this case. Okay. And did you provide information to the county about the expenses you incurred? Did the county get any of that? Yes, we gave them all of the receipts, actual receipts that were paid to not only the contractor, but to the dumpster. The 40-yard containers, there was, let's see, there was 10 40-yard containers. You know, the big 40-yard containers? Yes. There was, there was, there was two 30-yard containers and there was two 20-yard containers. That doesn't count the one that Sandin, the three that Sandin took in the beginning. So, in the beginning, there was three containers. It was a different company. But, yes, we provided receipts, copies of all of the receipts and copies of the times and the dates that the containers were out there with a complete, like, history of the way that this went down. So, they, they should have a copy there, a detailed. They've acknowledged that they have the copies. Okay. In addition to that, when speaking to my attorney or Omar's attorney yesterday, the county has not applied for the surplus. There's over 50,000, or it's like $55,000 in surplus funds, which the county has first rights to. There is someone who has applied for it, and that person is, it's a wild deed. It's a bogus deed. They're not entitled. They were never owners to this property. But the county should be, well, they have first rights, but they just have not applied. And he was wondering why the county hadn't done that yet. But there is 55, there's like $55,000 in surplus that the county can absorb there. So, I'm going to let the county attorney speak. I'm going to respond. Okay. Mr. Saldriguez called code and asked to speak to the attorney because his attorney had questions. I didn't quite understand what was going on. I now have had the opportunity to look into it. They filed a complaint to quiet title and did not include us. So, we are not on notice. So, that's why we have not applied. We need to be included as a defendant so that we can do that. We had no idea that that's going on if we're not included in the complaint. So, I believe you need to amend the complaint and include us so that we can apply for that. Can I speak to that question? Because I'm actually the attorney handling the tax deed and quiet title. Okay. Go ahead. Identify yourself for the record, please. Yeah, sure. It's Mark Cass. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of Florida. I represent Mr. Saldriguez and Mr. Fernandez. The Florida Statute 197, which deals with tax deeds, specifically says that a county or municipality has first priority to surplus funds from a tax deed sale. The tax deed surplus is really not handled through the quiet title action. As a matter of fact, the purpose of the quiet title action is to clear the title and have the court validate the tax deed process. County and municipal liens, such as this one, are the types of liens that specifically are part of the very few interests or liens that don't get wiped out by a tax deed sale. So normally what happens is the county or a municipality will simply file a claim for the surplus with the clerk of court. There's a form that goes out after the tax deed sale pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 197, where the clerk of the court where the tax deed sale took place has to notify all parties that they have the right to make a claim for the surplus. And there are forms and procedures to do that, and it's usually normally routinely done in most counties. I don't think our naming of the county, first of all, I don't think it would be appropriate or proper. And secondly, it's not necessary for purposes of them to go after the surplus. It's something they can do with the tax deed. And I can give the county, I mean, the tax deed file number, it's there, and they just really have to go to the clerk of the court at the courthouse where they process the tax deed sales and the surplus to make that claim. But, you know, we're doing that kind of just, it's money that's there as a result of what my client bid on this property, that surplus funds, to take care of this lien. To my knowledge, we were not provided with this, so that is why we have not, but we will pursue that now. Yeah, so it sounds to me, because I think before in the past, we've had, we don't often get surplus, but every once in a while, usually it's just a form with the county putting the notes in, so. I have received those on other cases, but not on this one. Okay. All right. So, yeah, so, okay. Anything else from the county or Mr. Fernandez or his? Yes, yes. Okay, another problem that we had, which we encountered when we purchased the property, was when we received the deed, the tax deed from the county, and asked Mark to go ahead and file the suit to court title. In his legal findings, he found that the tax deed had, the legal description had omissions on it or errors on it. And so, in order for us to, so the legal description that's on file is, and that's a Shriver's error, it's fairly common, and he wanted it to be corrected so that when he finished the suit to court title, it would, going forward for the rest of time, this legal would be correct. So, we had to hire a land surveyor, let's see, her name is Terry Griffith from Myers Griffith and Associates, and she had to basically decipher the legal description. There was two or three omissions, but that was also a process. It took us over two weeks, Mark asking us to please get the correct legal description, and she had to decipher that by not measuring, just in the office, going all of the neighboring properties, and then realizing, like, you know, a certain run with a certain angle. And she did do that, so we now, in the suit to court title, have the correct legal description with the two omissions. But that was another problem, in addition to what came with the property. Even that was something that was a problem for Mr. Fernandez with the legal description. And Mark maybe can explain a little more on that, I don't know. I don't know that that's really critical to this right now, in terms of the reduction itself. I'm just saying, for the hardships that Mr. Fernandez has gone through, that was also an additional expense that he had to do to get the property, you know, to get everything right. Okay. Anything else from the county? No, Your Honor. Okay. All right. That'll conclude that case, and I'll make a decision. You'll get it in the mail. Do we have another reduction here? And is someone else on Zoom? It would be Stephen and Sheila Rodas. Do we have Stephen and Sheila Rodas on the Zoom? Judge Zinn. Okay, I guess I can leave this. We have someone else named Patricia on the Zoom, but they are not responding to any of my things to let them talk or anything like that. So I'm not sure if they're for the next case or not. Let's call it. That's for this. And because it was scheduled to be on, and this will be a miss, and then they can come back again. But to be clear, if that person is on there, they need to accept the invitation they're getting to talk. Otherwise, they can't participate. I've sent it four or five times, and they still haven't accepted it. So I'll try one more time, but I can't unmute them. Right. I understand. They have to participate. Yeah. Okay. Well, let's go ahead and call the case that was on the record. Case number 24-011018, Lattro County versus Rodas, Stephen M., and Sheila M. Okay. And if you're on, you need to accept the invitation so that you can speak. So we will consider this to not be here, and they can come back at another date. I think that concludes all of our cases. I did want to let you know, Mr. Swanson is here, the first case. He came in a little late, so I don't know if you want to. I don't promise you there are witnesses who are still here. We do still have a senior forester here. I don't know, Your Honor, if you want to. I will sit, and he came. Mr. Swanson, you want to come over there? And can I request that the respondent remove the hoodie so it could be a formal? Go ahead and state your name for the record. Alexander Swanson. Okay. So we called and heard your case. I apologize. It was late this morning. Yeah. So what we are missing, though, is the state forester who also came up. But I'm going to let the county repeat what they said for it. Good morning. Andrew Coniglio, senior forester. Just to reiterate, both on myself and Jeff Eichwert from the Florida Forest Service has visited the site previously multiple times and confirmed that the trees are dead. Okay. So that was the essence of the testimony is that they've come out several times. And last time you were here, we had some question about whether they would come back or not and regrowth, but they are now dead, at least on their visit. What can you say? On the last meeting, I believe you said, I don't know, are you the same judge? Yes. Okay. The judge stated, I would be found in compliance if I provided a letter from a certified arborist that stated the trees were still living. And they looked at that letter. The forester actually never came to the site. He just did photographs for that letter. And they did not find it to be suitable because... And video. And video. But he did not actually come to the site. The state forester and the county forester actually went to the site and determined, in fact, the trees are dead. Well, that letter is a valid legal document that says they're living. And he visited the site via video and photograph. I also have another letter from another certified arborist that states the same thing. So I have two of them. I just gave you one. Well, I've got testimony from them. Just recently, they were there and the trees are dead. Well, I have the same person that they are that says they're living. I have two letters from the same individuals. They are certified arborists stating that the trees are still living. Yeah, but they had not actually been on the site. No, one gentleman did. I did not provide you that letter because at the last meeting you stated you just needed one letter. So I just gave you the one letter. But I have multiple letters from multiple certified arborists stating the trees are living. No, no, I just wanted to remind – I don't believe he's been sworn in. I'm sorry. Thank you. Could you please state your name for the record? Alexander Swanson. And let her swear you in. Go ahead. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this case is the truth and the whole truth? Yes. Okay. All right. Well, what I've got is conflicting testimony. I mean, we don't really have much else to say other than the trees are shedding bark and they're dead. I mean, they're just dead and there's just nothing else to say. Based on the photographs I saw, too. Yeah. Okay. All right. I'll make a decision. Okay. So you have the letter. Would you like – do you need another copy of my certified arborist letter stating the trees are living? You have that copy letter. I have that. We have it. It's in the record. Okay. Great. All right. You'll e-mail me that then? That's it. We'll conclude. Will you e-mail me the results? Yes. We'll e-mail me the results. Thank you, sir. Thanks, Judge. According to that clock, but toward the correct time, clue to this hearing at 950.