[CLC-Discussion] Unsafe structure order, time past for compliance, and innocent buyer

Thu Jun 16 11:57:11 PDT 2022

If the City demolishes the structure(s), aren't they going to charge the Owner?  Wouldn't it be better for the Owner to do it?  Perhaps I am missing something like the costs and/or size of the structure.  However, you mentioned the Owner is a contractor.
Factually, the economic waste concept is appealing if the structure is going to be the same and the cost to repair would be much less.  It also seems like the City is acting against the "unsafe" status if there has been such a delay in removing it.  In other words, if it is not that "unsafe", why not let it be repaired.  The question may be if those issues can be raised if the deadlines to appeal the unsafe order have passed.
I do not see it being a taking.  Although it is a creative argument, it seems they would argue that the structure needs to be removed for the property to be used.  Are they stopping the Owner from doing the demolition or are they just not doing what they said they would do? 

Paul 
Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL  33020 USA 
Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 
___________________________ 
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed.  The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender.

-----Original Message-----
From: RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Sent: Thu, Jun 16, 2022 8:47 am
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Unsafe structure order, time past for compliance, and innocent buyer

I was wondering if any of you all have thoughts or ideas regarding the below issue. Thank you    FACTS: Contractor/client bought property. Title commitment showed Miami order that if permits not pulled by date certain property would be demolished. Date to pull permits expired before client even bought property. Title company says they warned client. In fact, Client signed hold harmless to title company and underwriter regarding the City Order. Fast forward many months later. Client attempts to pull permit to bring property into compliance. City refuses to process the permit as untimely, citing the Order. It has been many many months since deadline to pull permits expired. City still has not demolished the property. Following conversation with City attorney, she refuses to allow any type of permit to be pulled to bring the property into compliance.    ISSUE:      1.  A Taking.                            City has not done anything with property, wonâ€™t let client develop it, is there a federal case to be had as a Taking?   2.  Economic Waste.             For the City to demolish the property, only to then let Client pull permits to rebuild the same property, and then bring property into compliance sounds like economic waste.   3.  Injunctive Relief.              Both mandatory (requiring the city to demolish the structure/ or to issue the permits), or Prohibitive (to stop the City from demolishing the property)          
| Sincerely yours,  | Address:   1720 Harrison Street, Penthouse B  |
|    |                    Hollywood, FL 33020  |
|    | Office:       (954) 620-5000  |
|  | Fax:            (954) 620-5105  |
|   Bryce Gilbert, Esq.  | Web#1:    www.TheConstructionLawyers.com Web#2:    https://ftic.net   |
| Senior Partner  |  |

    _______________________________________________
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20220616/d93cf388/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 42149 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20220616/d93cf388/image001-0001.jpg>