We'll email the orders and stuff, so we won't even do those orders before. That one, just that one. Can I read this? Yes. Welcome to Pinellas County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearings. The special magistrate is charged with the conducting hearings to determine whether an alleged violation of the county code has occurred. In order to meet that obligation, all parties or their representatives will be allowed an opportunity to be heard on matters relevant to the alleged violation or violations. All witnesses offering testimony or presenting evidence will be required to swear or affirm that the testimony they provide is the truth. The order of presentation will begin with the county presenting their evidence of the alleged violation or violations. Then the respondent shall present his or her case. Both parties shall have an opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses. The special magistrate may question any witness. The clerk will announce the names of the cases from the agenda when you hear your case called. Please respond by coming to the podium with your representative and or any witnesses to be sworn in. When addressing the special magistrate, please speak clearly into the microphone. Any person who decides to appeal the decision of the code enforcement special magistrate with respect to any matter considered this hearing will need a record of the proceedings and for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made. Which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based? Such record is not provided by Pinellas County. Good morning. My name is Nicole Riley and I am the deputy clerk for Pinellas County Code Enforcement. Item number one, department code enforcement. Matter, respondent second request for an extension of time. Case number CCM-25-00019. Officer B. Hughes, owner, Driscoll Daniel D. Jr., trustee. Notice address, Driscoll Daniel D. Jr., trustee, 3043, 58th Avenue North, Land Trust, 5761, 75th Avenue North, Pinellas Park, Florida, 33781-3335. And law office of Jossick and Kulianos, PA, attention, Dan Jossick, Esquire, attorney for respondent, 2999-Alt-19 North, Suite A, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34683, Dan at J-O-C-I-C-L-A-W.com. And Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Deputy J. Holm, witness for petitioner, 10750, Almerton Road, Largo, Florida, 33778, J-H-U-L-M-E at P-C-S-O-N-E-T.com. Violation address, 3043, 58th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33714. Anyone here for their step up? And who do we have for the respondent? You have to come up to speak, please. Thank you. Director Nick Bochy standing in for attorney Jan Jossick. How do you spell your last name, sir? B-O-C-C-I. Thank you. Standing in for Jossick, right? And Officer Hughes for the county. Say it again? Officer Hughes for the county. Okay. Did you read some sort of agreement here? No, sir. Okay. So, this is, Mr. Bochy, this is your second request for an extension of time? Yes, Your Honor. Sorry, it's a habit. So, there has been a request now for a second time because since the last request, we've contended that there has been, and I think an agreement, that there's been substantial compliance with some of the zoning ordinances with regard to trash or debris removal and other things. However, Officer Hughes has represented that there are some additional things that she's seen recently that we're going to need to readdress. And Mr. Driscoll is aware of that. As a landlord, he has people there out as much as he can trying to get these things out. But obviously, he can't be there all the time to, you know, make sure that an attendant's not throwing garbage out in front. But as soon as it's realized, it's readdressed. Officer Hughes has agreed to that extension of an additional 45 days to remedy those. I think the only contention at this point is there has been another violation for an electric pole. At this juncture, there was a permit that was applied for by the permitting office. And as of yesterday, I believe, according to the general contractor, Mr. Joe Chavez, on this case, he or another gentleman by the name of Alex with the permitting department, I believe, talked about a site plan. A site plan has been since submitted to the office, and they are in the process of waiting for the county to issue permits so that they can move forward with that next step to remediate the last remaining. Well, if we once cleared the additional after another 45-day extension of the debris, then that would be the last violation that would still need to be completely remedied. And at this point, it's just in the process of the permitting. I understand where Officer Hughes is going to come from because this has been coming on since April, but we did want to represent today that this is something that we are in the process of working on. The general contractor represented something to me that the hearing today needed to occur first before that they were actually able to submit or get the site plan moved to the next step at the building department because this was still in play. Once this hearing is over with, apparently, according to the GC, the site plan will then go from its preliminary stage to then them saying these are the issues that you need to correct and remediate. They'll come to an agreement, and then from there, permits, I believe, will then be issued, and then they can move. But as we all know, these aren't quick processes. These are things that take some time. I know Officer Hughes is going to contend that these have been going on since April. It's our contention that Mr. Driscoll has been making reasonable and more than reasonable efforts with regard to remediating the other zoning efforts as well as this current zoning effort. And additionally, too, we've provided to Officer Hughes, there are currently four existing evictions for the four remaining holdover tenants that are on the property. We've provided Officer Hughes with a copy of those evictions. Those are being handled by a third-party office that was retained by Mr. Josick for Mr. Driscoll. 30-day notices were posted back in June. I believe two of those have since now been vacated, and there are still other people, but they are in the process of being out and, again, wanting to afford the legal rights to those tenants and doing the right thing by providing the proper amount of time and also just not wanting to keep these people out on the street. Mr. Driscoll has given them the time afforded to them by landlord-tenant law to do the right thing. So we would just be requesting for the additional extension of time for us to be able to go out and facilitate getting those permits and then clarifying the remaining zoning issues with regard to cleaning up the entirety of the property and making sure that by the next hearing everything is completely tied up. Did you say 45 days or did you not give me a date? How much time are you looking for? I didn't. I was going to say 45, but I'll defer just because I don't want to come back in another 45 days and then have this be the issue. So, I mean, generally in these situations I would say 90 to be safe, but I will defer. And you said this poll isn't part of this. So there are a total of four violations. I have them in front of me. Go ahead. The two violations that result according to the electric poll and the electricity is for – it's power that directly powers some of these units. Our contention is that after the hurricane there was damage. They should have been condemned by the county. They weren't. There was all of these things that have happened to where we're at now today. Long story short, Mr. Driscoll does not intend on keeping this a property for RVs. These tenants are going to be removed. So his contention is there shouldn't technically be a violation because these properties aren't going to be inhabited anyway once these tenants are kicked out. We understand that this is what the violations are as of right now, but theoretically in the next 30 to 60 days there may not be tenants there and there may not be a need for any code enforcement. I'm not sure I'd call that not a part of this, okay, but I appreciate it. Just to get to your position. Officer? So, yeah, so the first thing I'd like to do is I made a packet for the magistrate that duplicates yours exactly. Do you have any problems with me handing that to him? No, that's fine. Couch, are you seeing this, Rick? I have, yes. What am I looking at, officer? So those are the exhibits that were sent when it went to the hearing march. I didn't know if you cared to look at them just to be familiarized yourself. Yeah, this wasn't my case, was it? No, I don't believe so. So it was just to familiarize yourself with what the property looked like since you didn't hear it the first time. Okay, so that's back in February. Yes, that was back in... They're dated February, so the pictures. Yes, that was in preparation for the hearing on March 10th when they were found in violation. So go ahead. Okay, so basically this park has been operating as a nonconforming use RV park. They were given that a letter by the county back in 2019 allowing them to operate with 21 RVs. As a nonconforming use. So basically when the hurricane came through, Hurricane Milton in October, it did go ahead and take out the power. So all the tenants did not have power. So instead of restoring the power and bringing the park back to its state, Mr. Josh Yeager, who was the property manager at the time, pretty much told me that they had decided not to restore the power and that they had hoped that the tenants would just leave since they weren't restoring it. However, what happened instead was most of the tenants remained and a lot of squatters also showed up, hence the reason there was so much debris and so many vehicles in poor condition. So I'd like to briefly go through the timeline. I signed the extension on June. You realize that, right? Yes, sir. I thought I had seen something. Yeah, I don't think you, I don't believe you'd ever seen the original photos. No. So I'll try to go through this quickly. I just want to basically remind everyone that, you know, this, this happened October 9th, 2024, which is almost a year ago is when the hurricane happened. And on November 5th, the park residents received notice on their door that the park was closing. And again, that was when Mr. Yeager informed me that he didn't want to do legal evictions because they were difficult. They didn't plan on restoring the power and they were hoping it would make the tenants leave. On January 24th of 2025, the area officer, and again, this is nine months ago, mailed the notice of violations to the owner of record. On January 27th of 2025, the Department of Health did an inspection and gave an unsatisfactory report. On March 6th of 2025, Duke Power made a visit, spoke with Mr. Yeager and a private electrician that was six months ago to restore power. And on March 7th, I received a call from that electrician who had told me at that time that they would be the company to restore the power. They called me, left me a voicemail stating that the owner had demanded a letter saying that they would complete all the work, a quote, and before the hearing. However, they said with all the time that they had spent with Duke Energy and all the work that they had done, they would require compensation. So they were told that their services were not needed. On March 10th of 2025, five months ago, they were found in violation of Code Section 22-298, 22-299, 58-304, and 138-3220 with a deadline of April 24th. On April 17th, there was a permit request to restore power. However, it's still in a waiting plan status as of five months ago, and they've been told multiple times that it was still requiring more documentation. On June 16th, an extension of time was granted and the deadline of July 31st of 2025. On June 16th, which was the same date as the extension was granted, a notice to terminate the tenancy was posted on the tenant's doors. On July 30th of 2025, we received an extension of time request due to a need to evict squatters and submit plans. So again, that was after they'd already been given the extension of time request. No formal eviction had been started yet and no additional information for the electric permit. So on August 1st, I did complete a visit, and I will show documentation that all violations continued at that time. So that was the day after the extension of time request deadline. Power had not been restored, nor plans had been submitted. On August 4th, Duke Energy confirmed that no power was restored, and the only power that was available was to Site 15 had been turned off due to nonpayment, and it was under Mr. Driscoll's name. On August 8th of 2025, they posted again that the park had new owners and that they'd be taking steps to condemn the property, and that was placed on the tenant's doors. I'm sorry, you say the notice park had new owners. Help me here. Yeah, I'm sorry. The park placed a notice on the tenant's doors saying that the park was under new ownership. New ownership. Is that correct? What's the vote? I can't represent if that's correct or not. I don't know. It has not changed in property appraiser, and I can't find any change in the clerk of court documents. Okay. On September 9th of 2025, 10 units had been demolished, and only three demo permits had been issued. Mr. Josick, their attorney back in April, had been emailed that they required demo permits, and Mr. Rosenbluth had been working with getting the demo permits. Did obtain three, but 10 have been removed, and several of the trailers quite recently instilled no demo permits in the system, and none of them have been finaled. On September 16th, I completed a re-inspection. All violations continue. However, I don't want to misrepresent that the outdoor storage violation, the trash and debris violation, and many of the trailers in poor shape have been removed. However, again, many of those trailers have been removed throughout not using proper code by getting a demo permit, which is basically a plumbing demo. It's not a difficult permit to get, not like a, you know, building something. So they've done some work over there, but they didn't do it properly. Yes, sir. And actually, they've done a lot of work. I'm not going to discount that they haven't. So the trash and debris, a lot of the, they finally started doing trespass, no trespass, or trespassing people off the property that didn't belong there to the formal channels with the sheriff's department. So that has greatly improved. So I don't want to discount at all. I'm more than happy, as he said, to grant an extension of time for the remaining amount of trash and debris and outdoor storage. My only issue with the minimum housing violations is they are still present, and I'll show you the documentation. However, much improved. But because they haven't gotten the demolition permits, I don't feel like I can recommend an extension of time as far as the power. Their tenants that are there lawfully and have been there lawfully, excuse me, have been without power since the hurricane almost a year ago. Really? Yes, sir. They have not had any eviction notice until he just did send me the... He just said he... He just... Not to pick on you, Ms. Bochy. Yes, sir. He said he provided you with... This morning. These time stamped, you've seen they've been filed? They have not been filed. They haven't been. They don't have a case number assigned. He showed me the letters from Mr. Kaskutis, who is a law firm in Tarpon, that had sent me four notices intending to file the evictions, but I didn't see a case number assigned yet. They're all dated either September 17th, just two days ago, and one September 18th, one day ago, and I just received those this morning. And anything you could add to that? Do you know why... I can tell you it is general... I know you're in between, you're just coming here, right? On three days, case numbers are not generated on eviction notices overnight. So they're doing this at the last minute because they're up against the wall, right? Is that your best guess? I mean, they haven't filed it yet? If that's your representation, not mine. No, I got it. I'm just saying, but you have no answer for why they're just sending you a doctor... One thing that the legal process has been complied with so far as to when they chose to do it, if they did it three days ago or three months ago, it's been done, and it's in the process of being evicted right now. But there's been no proof that this has been filed, right? Other than representations from a barred attorney? Okay, so he said he filed it. He told you he filed it? He didn't tell me. He sent an email to Mr. Josick with copies of the eviction saying that they are going to be filed. Going to be filed. Going to be filed. Filed, I don't know how... You don't know. I don't know how splitting hairs we'd want to go, but when an attorney sends me an email and says, I'm going to file these, that usually is representing to me that they are going to be filed. Going to be filed. But he didn't say he had filed them. Correct. And even if they were filed on the 17th, I can assure you that there's not going to be a case number generated by the clerk's office to those cases by Friday. Got it. Got it. And the main point I'd like to make to that is, again, they haven't had power since October of 2024. The deadline that was extended was July 31st. Two months later in September is when the actual legal eviction process is being started. I got it. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. So, again, so basically the property still doesn't have power. However, as of this morning, I was finally shown that they are in the process of hiring Mr. Cascutis and is in the process of doing a legal eviction. And, again, the property still does not have power. The permit application has never gone any further than just an application number being assigned. They were sent an email on April 17th that basically plans needed to be received before it could be reviewed. Is this the demolition permit? Excuse me? You say the permit. What permit are you referring to? So the permit to restore the power. Restore the power. Never, has never been issued and has been in awaiting plans status from the owner, awaiting plans from the electrician and the owner of the park. They want the power restored for what purpose? Excuse me? Why do they want the power restored? That's a bigger picture I'm missing here. Are you telling me people who live in there with no power, they're trying to put the power on so they can live there? Help me what they're doing that you think they're doing. So, as the attorney, Mr. Bocci, said, I believe they never wanted to restore power. They wanted to remove the tenants but didn't start the legal process to do that until two days ago. Two days ago, they tried to restore power? No, sir. Let me start over. I'm not making myself clear. Everybody keeps saying power, but restoring power and shutting off power, I'm not – you keep saying power and I'm trying to follow it. Sure. So, in October 9th of 2024, with Hurricane Milton, power was turned off to the park from damage from the storm. Okay. So, no one has had power at that park since October of 2024, almost a year ago. Okay. They have done nothing to restore power, sincerely. The landlord. The landlord. Hasn't tried to restore power. Go ahead. Other than there is a permit number in the system that's been in awaiting plans from the owner, not from the county, since April. Okay. And they've done nothing to start the legal process for eviction, which would take away the requirement to have power. If no one's actually living there, absolutely, they would not need it. But that just started two days ago. Okay. So, at this point in time, I'm not sure I really understand. You know, I could see that they've been saying they want to get the power on so they can start to do work there. Now, they haven't done anything to do that and let it sit for a year. I got all of that. So, the point that I'm going to be making is that being that they haven't done anything to actually move forward. Either one way, either way, right. Right, so that the violation of having people living there without power still exists and should not get an extension of time. I am fine with giving an extension of time for the other ones. When you say the other ones. There are four violations. The minimum housing is not in complete compliance at this time, and I'd be happy to show you pictures as to why. Hang on a second. So, now, which one do you – just tell me the – I don't want to see the evidence yet. I'm just trying to follow. Sure. You say the other one. Okay, so I'm looking at a zoning, trash and debris, minimum – and two minimum housings, right? Yes. Okay, now, which ones are you willing to give an extension on and which ones aren't? So, the ones that I have no problem with an extension of time are the trash and debris, 58304, the outdoor storage, 138-3220, and the minimum housing of 22, 299, again, I'm going to say I don't have a problem with – I just – I want to point out that they haven't done anything to – there's basically seven trailers that still need demo permits, and the three that have been applied for need to be finished, but that's more of a building violation. So, I will even grant that I'm okay with an extension for 22, 299. Got it. So, it's the occupying of the dwelling that's the issue. So, no power is the issue for me. The 22, 298 – Oh, it's the technical idea. Right. That's the violation. That they've had tenants there who have not had power, and there's been no significant effort to either have those tenants removed through a legal process or to restore the power. I understand that. So, my opinion is that from July 31st, their deadline date, until either the tenants are legally removed or power is restored, that they should be in violation and pay a fine. Mr. Bochy. Yes, I have additional pictures, if you would like, that were taken on the 18th of the park that also – Sure, let's pick one. Have you seen these? I think I've seen all of them. And, Magistrate, can we put it on the seal there so it can be in the recording? Yes, show them on the screen. And, basically, I have no problems with these pictures. These are the violations that I've agreed to extend already. Well, they may be putting them on for other reasons. I don't know. And while I'm doing this, Your Honor, again, it's our position that, well, although we didn't want to have to go or the client didn't want to have to go through the extensive legal process of the eviction, hoping that it would have resolved itself. The legal process is still being taken. Evictions could theoretically be done within the next two weeks of these individuals that are still holding over in the premises. If there is going to be an inclination to not wanting to grant an extension, which, again, we would be asking for, we would just ask that the fine be minimal or de minimis at this point. It's going to be probably – I don't want to represent it's going to be less than 30 days. But once the eviction is signed by the court, they have 30 days in order, and it's good from the date that the order is signed. So regardless if they're holding over at that point, they'd still be granted physical possession of the property. You understand that there's a daily fine that's already been instituted. Correct. The amount of the fine is already determined. Okay, if the extension's not granted, it'll be a daily fine going back in time. Then at this point, we would have nothing to do, but then other – because of the fact that – I can't change the amount. Right, I understand that, but if we would be requesting the extension to avoid that rather large fine, especially for something that now is in the process. And we do understand that things have been going on since the hurricane, but, I mean, for argument's sake, there are still people waiting for roofs from Hurricane Ian. So if we want to talk about debris removal and stuff here in Florida with results to hurricanes, stuff doesn't happen overnight. Right, and these are things that are actually in the process of being worked on. The site plan's been submitted to the building committee. They're telling my general contractor that this hearing has to occur first before they can move forward. So in a sense, from our position, it kind of seems like the right hand doesn't know what the left's doing, or there's just an excessive amount of red tape that we're trying to get through at this point. When you say a site plan, a site plan to do what? That's what the GC said. The GC said that in order for their – I mean, I'm trying to follow this story here, Mr. Bochy. Look, you're either trying to evict the people and get them all out, or you're trying to get a site plan to do something else. And so – Well, I don't think evicting people is neither here nor there. I mean, the county themselves should know and understand that you don't obfuscate the rights to having people have power to their homes. And so Mr. Driscoll is attempting to do what he is legally supposed to do by getting power to these, but at the same time also trying to evict these people because he doesn't want to move forward as a landlord anymore. So it's – he's kind of getting faulted for doing something that he's trying to correct, but also at the same time remediate and remove. And for the record, this is the site plan that the GC is referring to. Yeah, let me see. I personally think the evictions are a moot point. Regardless if there are evictions or not, we're showing substantial efforts to try and move forward with remediating the zoning violation. Nothing in the zoning violation talks or contemplates anything about evictions. Therefore, anything about evictions shouldn't even be considered with regard to him trying to do the right thing, which is clearly what he's been doing so far, which is submitting. And if it's been sitting waiting for additional paperwork since April and we were told that the additional paperwork we needed to submit was the site plan and it was cited tomorrow, we've done what we needed to do to comply. Well, I understand all that. I guess you can't have both ways. Do you understand me? It's been one heck of a long time that these people have been without power. That's why it's a minimum housing violation. And we're now – your tenants in there haven't had power for a very long time, and now it's being dealt with now and you want more time on it and simultaneously, you know – But we want more time to be able to remediate and correct the violation. Again, whether or not there are people in there still does not obfuscate the fact that there is – if there's a trailer there and it's allowed to be inhabitable by somebody, if somebody's in there or not and there's no power going to it, correct me if I'm wrong, that's still a code violation, correct? A code violation that they were found in violation is not having power. And the park is the one that provided the power. What I'm saying is regardless of whether or not there is somebody in there, and that's the statement being made, that if the violation is not having power, it doesn't matter if there's nobody living there or if there's 10 people living in there. If he's trying to remediate it, which we're showing that he clearly is trying to do so, and we're asking for an extension of time because apparently they won't do anything until after this hearing is over, then we're showing to the county that we want to actually remediate this issue. Whether or not there's an eviction of these people should really not be the point at all. Whether there's somebody in there or there isn't, they could still come up as the county and cite our client for being in violation of this code. I mean, regardless if they've been without power since April, I mean, the question should also be asked, why would somebody want to stay in October without power at an RV? Just give me a second, Council. And whenever you're ready, I'd like to respond to that. The violation of 298 is no person shall occupy as owner, occupant, or let or sublet to another for occupancy. Any dwelling or dwelling unit designed or tend to be used for purpose of living, etc. I understand all that. Do you see what I'm saying? In other words, the purpose of the code violation is, you know, you can't own a property and let somebody occupy it if it doesn't have any electric. That's the violation. And what I'm saying is the whole point of all of this is we're trying to get people the electric, and we're also simultaneously trying to get them evicted. We need additional time to do so. It's arguing in circles. I mean, what came first, the chicken or the egg at this point? And you're entitled, but it's just that it's been so long now. And in light of all the details that I've been told, it sounds like, you know, they've changed their mind in what they want to do, and I'm fine with that. And, you know, if they want to get rid of it all now, what I'm not real happy about is they sent you down here, and they said we're getting, you know, they're about to file this on the 11th hour. You know, I'm willing to continue that 30 days. That's going to be my decision on that one in the years. May I speak one more time before you decide, sir? Yeah, go ahead. So, again, these people have been without power since October. A formal process to have them removed, which could have started from the time at the initial order back in March. Again, we're given more time. I don't think it's irrelevant whatsoever that, yes, they could either get power. I don't believe he's correct in his assertion that the county for the building permit is waiting for the code enforcement process to finish doing a new site plan and having them come into compliance because it's a non-conforming use. I believe it's true that they didn't want to redo the park until they were in compliance with their current violations. That had nothing to do with the electric permit. That only had to do with redoing the non-conforming use with the park and the new site plan, not the power. It had nothing to do with the electric. They could have easily, back in the initial order, if they didn't want to get power and go through the process of doing that, have started the legal eviction process back then. Two of the managers told me outright they didn't want to do the legal process, and this was Mr. Josh Yeager and the new manager, Mr. Chavez, because it was difficult evicting someone that they weren't providing power to that was illegally allowed to be there. So I don't feel like they should be given, they were already given an extension until July 31st. I think to allow them to finally do it the legal way after allowing people to live there since October of 2024 without having any power or doing the legal process of eviction, that they should be allowed any more time with that violation. The remaining violations, I have no problem giving 60 more days. Okay. And anything you want to respond to? At this point, we're beating a dead horse. I appreciate that argument, officer. You know, I think the county's goal and my goal is to get compliance here, and although they may have led you on to this point in time, we're going to find out in 30 days whether they filed these or not, okay? And in other words, these are filed, okay? In other words, we'll know they're intending and these people will be served. Now, I understand that'll take longer, do you understand what I mean? But at least we'll know whether they're filed or not and whether they're really intending to do this. And, you know, for a multitude of other reasons. I'm going to give them 60 days on the other three and 30 days on that, on the minimum housing. What is that? 22, 298. On the minimum housing, 22, 298, we're going to do 30 days, 30 days, and 60 days on the zoning, the 138, 3220, the trash and debris at 58, 304, and the minimum housing, 22, 299. Because if we just don't do anything, and Sarah, I mean, I want to see it progress to the next step, whether legal action's being taken or not. Yes, sir. You know, if somebody had to come back to me next month, that'd be fine. Okay, is this something that we're going to schedule a hearing for, or is this something that we're just doing the order for? Do I schedule it for a hearing? I prefer to set the hearing. Perfect. Let me just see what date we have. Well, you know, we could do the order. We could set the hearing for the first, you know, for the 30-day one on the evictions. I can do that now, too. The 30-day one for, your next hearing would be October 17th. Yeah, on my calendar, because I'll be hearing. On your calendar, October 17th. Yeah. Let's put that one on. And perhaps if they've been filed, you know, we'll have the... Once an actual file, I made a note, once an actual file copy with the case number is on the clerk's site, we will send a copy to the cops. Well, it's going to come back to me, and if you could just pass on how I'm looking at this to whoever's going to appear here, do you understand me? We're not going to keep doing this. Correct. It's going to be here, right? It's in every month, okay? And it's not going to go away. They need to make a decision what they're going to do here. Well, my next listing would be... Yeah, yours is a 17th. So October 19th is a Sunday. So October 17th is a Friday before that. Yeah, that's fine. Make it 28 days, whatever I have to, for the order. Okay, so we're going to have your hearing for the violation 22-298 in 30 days. So it's October 17th, and we're going to put it at 10 a.m. Okay. And then... What was the date for the other ones? The other ones, 60 days, Nicole? 60 days is Tuesday, November 18th, 2025. You could put that on my list for two months from now. Then why don't we just do that if it's 58 days, whatever it is, right? Make it easy. That one we want also a hearing, or is that one just a 60-day? All right, then just make it 60 days. You could set it. Yeah, just make it 60 days for compliance with the other one. Yeah, let's make the other one compliance and a set date on the 30. And the 30, okay. Okay. Got it. You understand that? Yes. I got lost on that one. I'm sorry. It's okay. Go ahead, Nicole. Tell them what we're doing. Yeah, we're going to do... Magistrate is we're having a hearing for October 17th for minimum housing 22-298. Yep. At 10 a.m. for the 30 days, and then for 138-322-0, 58-304, and 22-299, 60 days compliance date, which is Tuesday, November 18th, 2025. Okay. No hearing for that. Okay. Hi. I did have it, actually. I'm sorry. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We just... Okay. And we'll be sending that order. Thank you. All right. These papers here, we're not putting them in evidence or anything. Do I need... Do you need them back, the documents? I'm not... I didn't take them in evidence. No, those... I don't need a copy. Okay. And then... I made a little bit of a mess of it. Is that all right? There you go. The next item we have is the stipulation, Nicole. Magistrate, we're just going to go through this one. I'll do the order as we have the other hearing. We're going to go ahead with the stipulation one, which is item five, right? Yes. Who do we... Do you want to do who we have here, or do you want to do the stip? No, we're going to do the stip so we can... Oh, and they're here. Okay. Yeah. I want to get the people out. Yeah. We'll do that one first. Hold on. We're going to continue to... What was the date on that one? Yeah, continue to October 17th, 2025, which is a Friday. And we're scheduling it for 10 a.m. because we're going to have other cases there for stipulations. Oh, okay. Yeah. So that's why I put it at 10 a.m. All right. So now they've got to be 10 o'clock, right? Trying to figure that out. Yes, at 10 o'clock. Put a note on that one. And that's on the 22-298, right? Correct. Yes. And I'll make sure that the order shows that. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay. Item number five, continued from August 15th, 2025, Department Code Enforcement. Matter, minimum housing code violation, inoperable vehicle code violation, trash and debris code violation, zoning code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00052, Officer D. DeVall, Owner, Key Sandra Estate. Notice address, Key Sandra Estate, 11693-127th Avenue, Largo, Florida, 33778-1557. And Sandra Smith Cooper, 11693-127th Avenue, Largo, Florida, 33778. And Darian Key, Christopher Samuel, Carl Smith, 11693-127th Avenue, Largo, Florida, 33778. And Jasmine Cooper, and Jasmine Cooper, and Jasmine Cooper, Nicole Cooper, 3-0-7-4-1. And Nicole, Denise Cooper, 11693-127th Avenue, Largo, Florida, 33778. And Darian William Key, Darren W. Key, 3741-38th Avenue. Apartment B, Apartment B, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33771. And Darian Key, 5138, Foxbridge Circle North, Apartment 74, Clearwater, Florida, 33760. Violation address, 11693-127th Avenue, Largo, Florida, 33778-1557. Officer, just put your name on the record, please. Excuse me, Officer Duvall. And your name, sir? Darian Key. Dan what? Darian Key. Darian Key. K-U-I. Key? Mr. Key, how are you involved with the estate? That's my mother's own, and she had passed away, so. I'm sorry to hear that, sir. So you're the son? Yes. Is anyone, has an estate been filed? It's probate, so you said Julie. Oh, yeah, my sister, yeah. Well, say it again. Probate, yes. Maybe you can help me on that. I've spoken with his, one of the people that were listed also, that were read on the record. His sister, Julia, who lives over in the Lakeland area. She has been in charge of trying to get the estate settled, so she's filed probate, and it's still being worked through. Okay. And so we're here now? Well, we have a joint stipulation agreement for the violations that exist at the property. Are you satisfied that he's spoken with his sister or whatever? They've been in communication, and she's very reliant that he'll take care of things since he's local. All right. And we've talked through everything. The violations that continue to exist are pretty minimal. His biggest one that he knows he needs to take action on is getting the vehicle registered that's been sitting in the driveway for many months with an expired tag and now currently no tag. So we have entered into the agreement that we're going to give him 45 days to come into compliance for Code Sections 299, some minimum housing issues, 58304 for a little bit of trash and debris, 58270 for getting the vehicle properly registered, and 138-3703, getting a little bit of fencing repaired. Mr. Key, you've signed this. You've agreed to this, correct? Yes. Okay. And you have 45 days, which is until November 3rd. Let's see. Is that right? November 3rd? Yes. To get this done all right, and the fines will be abated, right, if they're done by that point in time. And there's a court cost of $633. Do you have any questions? No. Okay. I'm accepting the joint stipulation, and we'll enter an order. Yes. Are we going to do that now, or are we going to mail it to him? Yes, we're going to do that now. Well, Mr. Key, if you'd like, you can wait for your order, or we can go ahead and mail it. It's up to you. We're going to do it anyways. Everything that we just came to. Okay. Yeah, you can send it to me. We can send it. Okay. Perfect. Okay. Which is the best address to send it to you? Same. Same. At the house. Right? Okay. Very good. Yeah, you can communicate with her. Yeah. You can tell her. If you can take like 10 minutes. Communications, please stop recording. Yes, Magistrate. Thank you. Thank you, Austin. Item number two, continued from August 15, 2025. Department code enforcement, matter, minimum housing code violation, trash and debris code violation, zoning code violation, case number CCM-25-00048, officer B. Hughes, owner, technology development consultants, LLC, trustee, strategic trust holdings, 74th street north, land trust, notice address, technology development consultants, LLC, trustee, strategic trust holdings, 74th street north, land trust, P.O. box 752, Dunedin, Florida, 34697-0752, and technology development consultants, LLC, trustee, strategic trust holdings, 74th street north, land trust, 18167, U.S. highway 19 north, suite 250, Clearwater, Florida, 33764, and Hickson Law Group, P.L.L.C., registered agent for technology development consultants, LLC, trustee, strategic trust trust holdings, 74th street north, state trust, Florida, Florida, 33764, and international technology logistics, LLC, technology development consultants, LLC, trustee, strategic trust Holdings, 74th Street North, Land Trust, 18167, U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 250, Clearwater, Florida, 33764. Violation address, 5100, 74th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33709. Okay. Officer, if you could state your name for the record. Officer Hughes. Sir? Yes, Christopher Hickson, attorney for the landowner, the respondent. Do you have any witnesses here today? No, judges. Formally, we had to come up to announce the settlement. At this point, we didn't sign the stipulation. To give a little background, the house was condemned a year ago. Subsequent to that, there were notices being given. We had the hearing last time. It wasn't an official hearing. It was a request because I had just been retained. My client was actually in New York moving his daughter into college. I remember you. Your Honor allowed us. It was me. It was you, Your Honor. And you allowed us graciously until this time with the consent of Officer Hughes here, who I've been working with. We met the immediate hard job that needed to be done, which was eliminating the trash and debris, boarding up the house because there were squatters, alleged drug use. The people around the community were starting to get worried and call more complaints. That's all been remedied. It got remedied within two weeks. To illustrate that we are intending to comply now that I've kind of been involved and haven't. Subsequent, I've been able to learn why things didn't happen for so long because I know you were concerned about that. There was actually a deal to sell the property as is and the developer was going to buy up a majority of the houses in that location. That deal ended up going through and not going through. I'm sorry, it cancels, right? And so that's why things didn't happen. Now we're trying to fix it back up, obviously, to comply, but to try to put back onto the market, Your Honor. So we've, again, addressed a majority of the issues. We still have some fencing and stuff to do like that, but inherently, I always, as an attorney, want to ask for more time. But I know the court was very hesitant at the last time to do that, so we're not doing that. We're entering into an agreement to fix within 60 days with the understanding that if we show progress, we might be able to get more time in just consenting to the violation and fines today with them abated, obviously, the normal terms, Judge. I appreciate that, Frank, this minute, Mr. Hickson. So he gave a good summary. The House basically had been condemned a year ago and was unsafe in that it wasn't secure. So Mr. Hickson asked for the continuance last time with the promise that he would secure the doors and the windows and make sure that it wasn't accessible, which he did. So I appreciate that very much. So the property still is in violation of 22-299. There's a small amount of overgrowth for 58-304, and the fence still needs to be either repaired, removed for 138-3703. I'm more than happy, as I told Mr. Hickson, we don't like to give more than 60 days so that we can see actual progress, and that as long as we see progress, I would be more than happy to recommend a recommendation of extension without having to come here as long as we see forward movement. So, Officer, on all three violations, right? Yes, sir. Okay, so 22-299, 58-304, 138-3703 at $200 per day per violation. On each one of the three? On each one. Right. However, again, we continue to see progress just like we already have, and I don't anticipate a problem with just giving an extension without having to come here. And, of course, Mr. Hickson knows if, for any reason, we didn't approve it, he has the option to come before you and request more time. And the fine would be abated if there's compliance. Yes, of course. I just pointed it out for a reason. I appreciate that. And court costs, you're seeking court costs, right? Yes, sir. You know what that number is, Carolyn? Yes. The court costs. Not that they have to be paid today, just I'm not sure what the, you know. I don't know. Give me one second. Sorry. I don't know exactly how much that would be. The first time ever. I do not have it. If you just give me, like, two minutes, I can figure that out real quick. Let me just finish everything else. Finish everything else. Yeah. The numbers. It'll give me enough time. It'll give you a few, a couple hundred dollars. So, do you want to make this an agreement, or do you just want to make an agreed-upon order? Or how do you want to do this, Councilor? I can just. Paperwork-wise, whatever is more efficient for you. I'll let the order reflect that by agreement that we've done it this way. 60 days, we'll give you what that date is by 5 p.m. And you have a little contact information? Yes. Mr. Hickson, there's, you know, there's one thing left. Maybe she'll continue it automatically. Do you understand me? I do understand, and we're in good communication. Yeah, make it happen. Yeah, let's just take a break here for a second. Sure. We'll stay on the record. Okay. If you can give them that number. Yeah. And, Nicole, what is 60 days? 60 days is Tuesday, November 18, 2025. Okay. And the court costs are $470.60. Okay. Okay. We're going to make that, we're going to prepare an order that says by agreement. Okay. So, an agreement order. Do an agreement order. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And we'll do that now? We can do that now, yeah. Mr. Hickson, you okay to wait? Yeah. Okay. Perfect. You sure? Because we can send it to him, right? Yeah. Well, he'll also get a copy because we have it. Oh, it is coming in the mail as well? It will come in the mail as well. Okay. Then I'll just go ahead and take it in the mail. I have everything else written down. Thank you so much, everybody. Thank you. Have a good one. Have a great weekend. Thank you, officer. All right. Then we don't have anyone else in the hearing room. Is there any uncontested or anything here? So, what we have is the, what, we do? We've got some foreclosures, don't we, or something? We do. We can go in order number three. Number three? It's okay. Take your time. Two cases, right? Yeah. Two initiated foreclosure. You want me to continue with item three? Petitions, motion, initiate foreclosure. Yes. You want me to go ahead and start reading? I'm fine. I don't want to rush you late. You want to do that other order? You want to do it later? We're good. We're going to keep going. Okay. Yeah, what I'm saying is, as far as the order, are you going to do that while I'm here and sign it? Yeah. Okay. Yes. I'll be doing it. Meanwhile, the other cases are being heard. Okay. Yeah, let's do it. Yeah. Let's get the officers out of here. Item number three. Department code enforcement. Matter. Petitioners, motion to initiate foreclosure. Case number, CFC-25-00010. Officer, B. Hughes. Owner, Swearendenco Maria Estate. Notice address, Swearendenco Maria Estate. 4060 42nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714-4346. And all unknown spouses and heirs of Swearendenco Maria Estate, 4060 42nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714-4346. Florida 33714-4346. And Maria Swearendenco and Maria Swearendenco. 4060 42nd Avenue North, 4060 42nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714-4346. And Wassel Swearendenco and Maria Swearendenco 4060 42nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714-4346. And Anna Swearendenco Swann, 4060 42nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714-4346. And Maria Barth Swearendenco Maria B. Swearendenco 4060 42nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714-4346. And Tammy Lynn Swearendenco Tammy Dunkel Swearendenco 419 Davidson Avenue Northeast, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714-4346. And Tammy Lynn Swearendenco, Tammy Dunkel Swearendenco 6622, 18th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702. Email address tete1107 at aol.com. And Iwan Swearendenco 4060 42nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714-4346. And Iwan Swearendenco 3701 58th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714. And Tony W. Swearendenco 4060 42nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33713. Violation address 4060 42nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33713. Let the record reflect at the gallery empty and no one has responded to the call on the list. Officer, if you could state your name for the record, full name please. Officer Hughes. So Hughes, if you could raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the testament we'll give today be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. How would you like to do this, Officer? Do you want to put it in as a package or? Um, so I thought with our, um, Caroline, if you could, with our new process, I thought, um, Magistrate Matthew already had to pack it. I don't want to send it to you, did I? No. Then I will go ahead and, no problem, we'll take care of this. Thank you. Sorry. All right. So, um, let's see here. I'm going to give you a copy so you can follow with me as we go along. So, yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. So, um, I'll go through this real quick. We basically, um, um, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 8 of Pinellas County Code and Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes of Pinellas County, we are seeking a motion to initiate foreclosure against the following respondent, um, Maria Swarodinko Estate. The property in which the county is seeking foreclosure is located at 4060 42nd Avenue in, um, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33714. This property is a non-homesteaded property in unincorporated Pinellas County, and the county would like to submit evidence, um, for the motion to initiate foreclosure, which consists of the history of the case file and attached exhibits. I have the motion to proceed. So, basically, we've got the, uh, notice of hearing, um, that we did do an air search, so the notice of hearing went to, um, the owner of record, which is an estate, in addition to all the errors that were located. Um, we have had no response from anyone, no sir, so absolutely nothing, and, and that's including me going to the property and leaving a note, requesting a call, and putting my contact information, um, with, with no response from anyone. Um, the next document is basically the motion for foreclosure, um, which was signed by, um, our director, Officer Reason. Uh, the next document is basically Pinellas County property appraiser, showing it's a non-homesteaded property and still in the name of the estate. Uh, the next document is the, um, indenture deed back from 73. Um, both of the parties on the deed are deceased. So, Wazel and Marie are both deceased. Yes, sir. And which one passed away second? Um, Marie. Okay, and, and, yeah. And you know that how? Um, I have, and I don't know if I have a period. That's okay, if it's going to come up, that's fine. I had the death certificates, and I'm not sure. Okay, I don't need you yet. I'm just trying to get the bigger picture. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Um, so then, of course, we have the Notice of Violations back from 2014. Here's the zoning. Um, we have the Notice of Hearing for the 2015 case that was sent to, um, um, the owner of record at the time. 2015. Yes, sir. Okay. And the Affidavit of Violation and Request for Hearing, basically for the minimum housing and the zoning. Then the Notice of Posting, both on the property at the courthouse. Then we have the Order Assessing the Administrative Fine until Compliance is Achieved. Um, lastly, the, or not lastly, but then the Affidavit of Non-Compliance. And the lien that was filed in 2016, we have the, um, basically the, uh, lien letter sent showing that they owe over $20,000. That was as of 2016, right? The lien? Right. Yes, sir. Okay, I'm sorry. The lien was... So the lien was... Yeah, that lien's at $20,000 accumulated in a year. Okay, go ahead. Yeah. And, um, the lien letter that was mailed. And then lastly, uh, on June 30th, I was out at the property for, uh, the last time. It's basically, you've got where the roof on the garage is caving in, the, um, property is overgrown. I see it, I see it. Excuse me? I see it. Okay, it's better. Um, there is a lot of, um, uh, not a lot, but there is some debris on the outside. There is a lot of overgrowth. Um, this, the back of this property is along an alleyway. You can see the, um, just the sides, exterior sides are in poor condition. Again, the overgrowth is quite significant. Uh, it's hard to tell because of the overgrowth, but this is another, this is that building in the back that had the roof crushed in the front. It's, um, pretty much falling apart. And it's, the, the top right photo is that building that was erected without a permit that, which is, or the section of the property, which is pretty much just crumbling. Uh, the aerial photo, um, basically shows that, uh, that property that was erected without a permit or a zoning clearance, um, you can see from the satellite images that it's, it's pretty much falling apart. So, the property continues to be owned by the respondent, the, um, estate, um, we could not find ever that any probate of any kind has been entered. Um, the property has not been declared homesteaded by the respondent. The petitioner has an interest in the property by virtue of Pinellas Code Enforcement special lien in the amount of $20,253.93 of September 4th, 2025. The lien is accruing daily fines in addition to interest. The petitioner provided respondent with notice that the property was found to be in violation of the county's ordinance. Petitioner provided respondent with notice that the property remained in violation of the county's ordinances after respondent was afforded due process and given a period in which to cure or remedy the violations of the county's ordinance of the property. The respondent had actual or implied knowledge of the process and procedures employed by petitioner, its co-enforcement division, and special magistrate for imposition of the co-enforcement lien. Magistrate, based on the evidence provided in the motion, the county requests that you issue an order granting Pinellas County the ability to initiate foreclosure. Thank you, officer. Um, I have the motions, traditional notice of that, and all exhibits I'm granting an order to initiate foreclosure on the property. Anything else, officer? Uh, not for this, sir. Thank you. These, right? Yes. It's slightly less of a list to call out. It's not a little shorter for you? Yeah. I like that. Yeah, I bet. Okay. Um, I want to have the package here. Okay. Whenever you're ready, I mean, we can do the order when we're done, right? Yes. Call it. Item 4, Department, Code Enforcement. Matter, petitioner's motion to initiate foreclosure. Case number, CFC-25-00011. Officer B. Hughes. Owner, Burge Bryan. Burge Mindy Jean. Notice address, Burge Bryan, Burge Mindy Jean, 7800-46th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33709-2353. Violation address, 7800-46th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33709. I'm going to reflect that the gallery is empty. There is no one else here in the room. No one has answered for the respondent. Officer, if you could state your name for the record. Officer Hughes. Officer Hughes, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony I'll give today be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I understand this is your petition to initiate foreclosure, correct? Yes, sir, and I have a packet for you as well. I have it right here. Oh, you have it? Okay, great. I'm surprised that I can surface some time. You may proceed. Okay. So, again, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 8 of Pinellas County Code and Chapter 162 of Florida Statute, Pinellas County is seeking a motion to initiate foreclosure against the following respondent, Burge Brian and or Burge Mindy Jean. The property in which the county is seeking foreclosure action against is located at 7800 46th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709. The property is a non-homestead property in unincorporated Pinellas County, and the county would like to submit into evidence the motion to initiate foreclosure, which consists of the history of the case and the attached exhibits. You may proceed. I have a copy of the motion and attachment. Okay, great. Thank you. So, basically, we've got the notice of hearing for today, today's hearing, September 19th. We've got the motion to initiate foreclosure that was signed by the director, Officer Reason. We've got Pinellas County property appraiser showing that it is a non-homesteaded property in unincorporated Pinellas County. We have the warranty deed showing the owner of record being Brian Burge and Mindy Jean Burge. We have the notice of violation for minimum housing sent in September 19th of 2015. The inoperative vehicle violation sent on September 19th, 2015. And the trash and debris violation sent on the same date. We've got the notice of hearing that was January 21st, 2020. We have the affidavit of violation and request for hearing, again, for the minimum housing, the IVs, and the trash and debris. We have the notice showing that it was posted at the courthouse and on the property. We have an order assessing an administrative fine until compliance is achieved back on January 21 of 2020. Then we have the affidavit of noncompliance that was completed. We have the code enforcement lien that was entered in July of 2020. We have the letter sent to the owner of record showing that the lien is required, or excuse me, that they have a lien on the property. We have a condemnation notice that was done on January 24th of 2025 by the housing official. Okay, so here's the copy of the condemnation posting that was done on January 24th of 2025. I've got basically pictures just showing the condition of the property at that time when they did the posting. That's in June of this year, right? That was actually January 24th. January this year. Yes, sir. Okay. So I went out to the property. Actually, we were contacted by a gentleman who wanted to get the condemnation removed. He stated that the owner had basically asked him for help, and so he asked us to come to the property. So on June 12th, this was the condition of the property when I went out there. I'm sorry. So this was someone that you say Mr. Burge or something asked him to? Well, so let me go back up and say that I've never spoken to Mr. Burge. He's never contacted me. He did appear at one of the hearings. Oh, did he? Oh, yeah. I just read it. That's why I was asking you. So I didn't take this case. It was referred to me for the foreclosure case. I understand. And he has not had any communication with me. Who's he? Mr. Burge. Okay. I thought you said someone came up to you at the property. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Yes, and let me clarify that. Okay, go ahead. So the only person I've had communication from has been the area officer in addition to a person who was trying to get the condemnation removed because he wanted to be able to live there from his statement with Mr. Burge's permission. Okay, so somebody just walked up to you at the property and said what you said. They asked us to come out. Oh, okay. And the purpose was because the property had been condemned by both the area, well, by the housing official, but at the area officer's request. And so they had asked us, he had asked us to come out to see if the condemnation could be removed. Is this before or after the filing of the motion? Do you know? This was before the filing of the motion for foreclosure. I thought it would be. That's why you filed the motion. Got it. Go ahead. So according to him, and the area officer did confirm that power and water had been restored, the history of this property is it had basically turned into a homeless camp, and even though it was already accruing daily fines, there were a lot of homeless in the area, or excuse me, on the property, multiple tents, a large amount of debris, which I'm going to show you in a moment, which is actually improved from the original state of the property. And so the sheriff's department deputies and the area officer were working to try and get the homeless camp removed, basically. And so this person who's claiming he, well, and we did verify he is actually the one that restored power and water. Oh, he's the one, huh? Yes. Not Mr. Burge. Basically wanted to know if we could then remove the condemnation. So he invited us onto the property. So... This is a curiosity question. He's not a tenant. And he had to tell him he had some relationship to the property to have power there, right? He's obviously was somehow got power and water. I got it. I'm just asking. I just want to... How he did, I don't know. I'm assuming with Mr. Burge's permission. Okay. Go ahead. So basically, the property is in very, very poor condition. You can see how much rotted wood, rotted wood. There's a tarp on the roof. The back, you know, it's just everything is rotted, large amounts of debris, large amounts of rotting wood. And the siding isn't even really here. It's like it's gone and they just put pieces of rotted wood there. He allowed me inside the room that he said he had been living in before his condemnation. And you can see that the ceiling is basically just covered with mold, mildew. It's peeling. So all the three, or excuse me, the two images here are basically the ceiling that's basically coming in and has fallen from all the moisture. And I'm assuming rain getting through and dripping on it. Again, more rotted wood, a large amount of trash and debris. The two inoperable vehicles that were there back from the initial case back in 2015 are still there. Again, large amount of debris. And actually, the area officer said that this was actually better than when the last time he was there because the homeless camp was still there at that time. Again, large amounts of debris. So this sheeted area, the area officer had asked him, you know, why is that still there when you said all the tents were removed? And this gentleman's response was basically that that's what they'd been using as a toilet and he wasn't going anywhere near it. So that was still up. Again, just a lot of filth. The condemnation is still there. Officer Lasser actually went out to the property on September 12th because he had written a citation for a different code violation. So he took a picture of the condemnation sticker. Again, the property really hasn't changed. It's still overgrown. The inoperable vehicles are still present. I don't know if it collapsed here or if he purposely pulled it out. But there's a hole. He was living below this. This is the top story of where he was living. Just a bigger picture of the hole. It's hard to tell from there. Still overgrowth and tarp on the roof. The inoperable vehicles and overgrowth. Just items covered by a tarp. More items by the door. Tires in the driveway. And just more items in the back. So the property continues to be owned by the respondent. The property has not been declared to be homesteaded by the respondent. And I will let you know that was, I'm trying to remember, the Pinellas County property appraiser, basically their investigators removed the homestead as of 2025. The petitioner has an interest in the property by virtue of Pinellas Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Lien. Hang on one second. You said they removed it? Yes, it was homesteaded and was removed. It shows that on your... Let me just double check. Exhibit A? Yes, Exhibit A shows that at 2025 it's no longer homesteaded. I always check for that. The 23 was homesteaded and 20... There it is, the no. Yeah, right. I see that. 25 and the no. Thank you, Elsa. Okay. So, they have the current lien of $20,414.19 of September 4th, 2025. The lien is accruing daily fines in addition to interest. The petitioner provided respondent with notice that the property was found to be in violation of the county's ordinance. The petitioner provided respondent with notice that the property remained in violation of the county's ordinances after respondent was afforded due process and given a period in which to cure or remedy the violations of the county's ordinance at the property. The respondent had actual or implied knowledge of the process and procedures employed by the petitioner, its code enforcement division, and special magistrate for imposition of the code enforcement lien. Magistrate, based on the evidence provided in the motion, the county requests that you issue an order granting Pinellas County the ability to initiate foreclosure. Thank you, Officer. I'm granting the motion and we'll enter an order initiating the foreclosure on the property. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I think we're done for today. We don't have anything else. Okay, then we can go off. Communications, please stop recording. Thank you.