Circuit Judge Chris France this morning denied the latest attempt by the owners of the derelict Old Dixie Motel not to post a $250,000 bond with the county, as they have been contractually obliged to do for three years. They may face contempt proceedings next.
The county required the bond as part of a deal three years ago, when the owners bought the motel on a pledge to clean up the grounds and rebuild the property into a viable hotel and restaurant. The owners agreed to a deadline and the $250,000 bond, which the county required in case the owners did not make good on their contractual obligations. The county’s aim is to demolish the building if it is not rehabilitated.
The owners of what used to be the Country Hearth Inn at at 2251 South Old Dixie Highway cleaned up the grounds and conducted limited work, but the motel remains a ruin and an eyesore. The owners never issued the bond.
France on June 19 ordered the owners to deposit the $250,000 bond within 10 days. The owners let the deadline pass. Instead, they filed a motion arguing that in light of findings at a separate hearing in which the court was not involved, the judge should weigh evidence from that hearing and rule in favor of the owners, dispensing them of the bond requirement.
France did not agree, and ruled that the hearing was not material to his earlier ruling except for affirming that ruling.
The June 5 hearing took place before a special magistrate following a demolition order issued by the county. The owners disputed the order. The magistrate agreed with the county that the building is a dangerous nuisance, the inference being that if it remained that way, there could come a time when the county would be granted clearance to demolish it. “This is where the county can issue appropriate findings and remedies” that could include a time frame, with a demolition supported by the evidence, the magistrate concluded.
But that time is not now. The magistrate ruled that demolition would be to drastic a move that preempts the owners from making good on their pledges to rebuild–pledges they reiterated before the magistrate, as they had before the judge. “I don;t think I have received sufficient evidence to conclude that this structure is unreasonable–in a state that is unreasonable to repair,” the magistrate said.
The owners’ attorney, Theodore D’Appuzzo, appearing by phone this morning (the owners were not present by phone or in the courtroom), argued to France that statements at the hearing proved that the deadline the county set for rehabilitation was “impossible” to meet, making the contractual obligations void. Impossibility is a legitimate defense in breach of contract disputes.)
France, who read the 100-page transcript of the special magistrate hearing filed with the court, did not dispute the findings of the magistrate during this morning’s 10-minute hearing. But he did not agree that legally, it made the county’s deadlines impossible to meet. The owners have not shown much progress in three years.
France also pointed out a salient point the owners’ argument either appeared to overlook or wished to overlook: that the owners could meet deadline to complete renovations or, if they missed the deadline, to pay the bond so that eventually they would be compelled to complete the work, or lose the $250,000.
The judge also told the attorney that the motion to stay his June order did not stay the 10-day deadline he had set. That clock kept ticking, and will keep ticking, putting the owners at risk of being in contempt of court.
“They can appeal,” Sean Moylan, the assistant county attorney who has handled the case with attorney Abraham McKinnon, said after the hearing, “but they would have to post the bond even if they were appealing. So I don’t think appealing makes much sense if avoiding paying the bond is what they’re hoping, which it seems to be.”
If they don’t pay, Moylan said, the county will go back to the court to ask for sanctions or find the owners in contempt of court, using the court to enforce its own order.
“I think they were making a last-ditch effort to avoid living up to the contract. The ruling did not surprise me,” Moylan said. “They should pay that bond as they agreed to do in writing, and if they don’t, they’re defying the court, breaching the contract. And if they say they can’t pay it, well, it begs the question: how will they renovate the structure?”
Since the judge’s original order and the magistrate hearing, the owners have submitted a site plan for renovations of the hotel, and sent their engineer, Kim Buck, to a county Technical Review Committee meeting reviewing the plan. The plan is to return to a future Technical Review Committee meeting for yet another review, pending the owners addressing the county’s concerns. At the site of the motel itself, not much has been done in recent months other than mowing.
The owners at the magistrate hearing proposed a timeline that had them submitting a building permit by the end of October. “We expect them to live up to that timeline because it was their timeline they provided to us, and they said it was reasonable and provided time for hiccups.”
The hearing this morning was attended by a small handful of people–a couple of members of the public, including the indefatigable Jane Gentile-Youd, who’s howled at, hounded and haunted the county to keep after the owners, and members of the county’s code enforcement division.
Shark says
Captains BBQ got a sweet deal so I guess everyone is trying to get on the Flagler County gravy train !!!!
Jane Gentile Youd says
Contempt ? what does that do for the community? File Summary Judgment to enforce the original Agreement which the owners gave the county legal right to demolish the building. Contempt accomplishes nothing on its own. If the county can’t file for total summary judgment based on the hotek owners agreeing, in writing, prior to taking title , that if $250,000 bond not paid by August 2,2021 county could d e m o l i s h the POS.
I cam going to file a Motion for Leave to Intervene and file this Monday with the Judge – Enough is enough – Maybe Judge will deny me but it’s worth my time and efforts – 3.5 years county has cost us $over $40,000 in outside legal fees and the POS stands in the middle of hurricane season. Just watch. I will send filed copy to Flagler Live the Minute I file.
God Bless America that a citizen still has access to the courthouse; more access than to the ears of the county staff in my opinion
GW says
Flagler County: Start taking bids for demolition. This farce has gone on far too long.
More of the same says
If they plan on renovation it why not put up the bond? Does this mean they do not have the money? There plans do not even make sense. Why not tear down what is there and build a new structure? Why pour money into a 1950s outdated motel?
Celia Pugliese says
Looks like already cost this county taxpayers at least 40,000 in legal fees etc. If I am incorrect please document it. Expensive hotel demise battle.
Tara L says
Jane, you are the crusading watchdog for this county needs. Why haven’t you ran for office ? As a commissioner you could do so much than the ones that are there now.
Would you please consider running for commissioner ?
FlaglerLive says
Ms. Gentile-Youd twice ran for county commission.
Atwp says
The old building stands, as disputes continue. When will it end?
Erod says
Is owners of the hotel also putting up the “affordable living housing” units across the street near the storage building ?
Jane Gentile Youd says
Atwp
It won’t end in my opinion unless the judge lets us intervene and show him the Agreement itsef is sufficient to grant order to demolish and sell property with any amount (above the $250,000 plus the $40,000 legal fees , tax certificate redemption and fees, and X amount of tax dollars Sheriff spends on patrolling the open POS ) going to the current ‘owners’.
Other option ( my personal non professional opinion ) is a Class Action lawsuit against Flagler for willful malfeasance and misfeasance .
Chuck T says
Now I understand why Miss Gentile-Youd has failed in 2 previous attempts for county office.
Jerry Marchone says
I’m no fan of that derelict property but this is still America and we still have what’s called DUE PROCESS. Ms Youd believes if she yells loud enough or she pens whatever angry tirades on social media people will bend to he demands and give in to whatever is bugging her this week.
The owners of the hotel were taken to court, a court of LAW NOT PUBLIC OPINION and the Judge ruled against them and has paved the was for demolition at the end of a specified time.
Although I still wonder why the county refused for so long to proceed with this case and demolish this unsafe and potentially deadly building.
However DUE PROCESS AND JUSTICE NOT MOB RULE STILL IS THE NORM IN AMERICA.
Taylor Mathews says
Tomorrow night Monday July 15 is the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners bimonthly meeting someone should ask why the county waited so long to bring the owners to court. That dangerous eyesore would have been gone by now.
Why did the Flagler County Building Engineer wait over 2 years ?
Jane Gentile-Youd says
The county originally sued in January 2021 – Today is Juky 2024. Owners agreed to pay %250,000 bond and have all work in progress no later than August 2021.
DUE PROCESS? Taxpayer injustice is more appropriate!
Sandy Beaches says
Then why did the county wait so long to take them to court ?
Jane Gentile Youd says
To Sandy Beaches
Accumulation and payments of over $40,000 of YOUR money of outside legal fees which County Attorney can f r e e l y use to hire ‘outside attorneys’ to do his job. The longer the litigation the more money the outside attorney can bill Mr. Hadeed. I got my very strong suspicions…. this case should have been brought to the Court for Total Summary Judgment January 2022 ( no later than a maximum of 5 months after $250,000 due August 2021 remained unpaid).
I am sure, in my non professional opinion, that the Judge can clearly read the famous 3 page Agreement 5/12/21 wherein the current owners GIVE the county permission to demolish the building. YOU FIGURE IT OUT if you can come up with a different suspicion than I have…
Say What? says
Why is that? It is in a large because of her efforts that anything is being done. We are grateful for her hard work and success.
Here we go again says
Jane is for due process. The frustration has been why has due process taken so long? Why so many legal fees with little results?