The first significant case revolved around a request for a lien reduction, which was met with the city’s stance that it had no authority to modify the previously ordered amount. The respondent, represented by their lawyer, had fulfilled all of the city’s demands and had remedied additional issues on the property. The respondent was willing to cover the administrative fee. The Special Magistrate resolved not to impose additional fines but ordered the payment of administrative costs.

In a similar vein, another notable discussion involved Wilmington Savings Fund’s lawyer addressing a late payment due to a calendaring error. The lawyer argued that this mistake constituted excusable neglect and sought a fine reduction. The city’s code enforcement officer was wary of the implications of allowing late payments, emphasizing the need for consistent enforcement of orders. The Special Magistrate recognized the lawyer’s point on excusable neglect but underscored the importance of adhering to the orders and the city’s responsibility to ensure equitable treatment. A three-day grace period was granted for the payment of the reduced fine, with the Special Magistrate advising the lawyer to liaise with the city to manage the payment process.

In other cases, the city pursued only administrative costs for properties that had achieved compliance. One property, while generally compliant, had an identified violation lasting a single day. Consequently, a fine for that one day, alongside administrative costs, was levied.

The technical issues that marred the meeting were significant enough that they prevented the Special Magistrate from addressing all items on the agenda. Repeat violations and new cases were postponed and are slated to be continued at the next hearing. Orders of continuance for these matters were to be issued, specifying the date when they would be revisited.