The most notable case involved Donna Smith, who requested a reduction of liens related to her property after a generator installation by DBK Electric resulted in unapproved gas permits and subsequent fines. Smith detailed how the county inspector frequently visited her property during the compliance process. The fines, which began accumulating on April 10, 2024, totaled $2,850 over 57 days of non-compliance, with additional administrative costs of $868. Smith disclosed an additional $6,000 in related expenses, including payments to the contractor. The county recommended a complete reduction of these costs due to the circumstances, and the magistrate decided to reduce the administrative costs to $500, provided it was paid within 30 days, or the original fine would be reinstated.

Another case involved Unique Painting Investments LLC and the property’s current owner, Mr. Gonzalez. The attorney representing Gonzalez explained that the liens, amounting to approximately $55,000, were present before his purchase and were unknown to him at the time of acquisition. The county supported reducing these fines to $1,000, allowing Gonzalez to resolve the issue. The magistrate agreed, reducing the fines to $500 each with a requirement for payment within 30 days, beyond which the original amounts would be reinstated.

Attention also focused on a compliance case involving Jose Castan, who agreed to a postponed hearing due to a service issue. The magistrate suggested extending the compliance date to March 11, with a hearing scheduled for March 12 if compliance was not achieved. This approach aimed to provide Castan additional time to obtain the necessary permits and avoid potential fines.

In another critical case, Tron Duong faced violations related to a swimming pool’s maintenance at his Winter Park property. The county inspector presented evidence under Seminole County Code Chapter 95, Section 303.1. Despite a language barrier requiring an interpreter, Duong expressed confusion and frustration about the inspector’s visits. The magistrate granted a 15-day compliance period, with a hearing set for March 12, 2026, if necessary. Duong was advised to communicate with code enforcement before making repairs to avoid further violations.

Several cases highlighted the challenges of property ownership compliance with county codes. For instance, the property of Richard and Vanessa Cowan was cited for unsecured pool enclosures and non-compliance despite proper notifications. The magistrate ordered compliance within five days to avoid a $250 daily fine, authorizing the county to enforce security measures if needed.

Similarly, Amanda C. Evans faced a hearing for failing to maintain her property’s pool. Despite receiving notices, Evans did not attend the hearing, resulting in a magistrate ruling for compliance within five days or a $250 daily fine. The county was also authorized to intervene if necessary.

Lastly, Buddy A. and Geneva Mullins were cited for inoperative vehicles and rubbish accumulation. Despite assurances of cleanup, the property’s condition worsened, leading to a ruling of 15-day compliance or a $250 daily fine.