Flagler County government and the attorney representing the always-mysterious owners of the derelict Old Dixie Motel argued in front of Circuit Judge Chris France today about a three-year-old contract requiring safety and construction benchmarks. The county considers the contract valid. The owners do not.
The judge will issue a ruling on the contract’s validity in the near future, though if his questions were any indication today, France is skeptical of the motel owners’ position.
Meanwhile, in a separate, administrative move through its own Code Enforcement Department, the county will seek to validate a demolition order before a magistrate on June 5.
The old motel has sat unused, dilapidated and at times hazardous for years. Three years ago e New York-based entity called 2251 S Old Dixie Hwy LLC bought the motel property from previous owners whom the county had sued for over the building’s code and health violations. The new owners agreed to pay the fines, meet the county’s code conditions, and rebuild the structure into a functioning motel. The county wanted the company to put up a $250,000 bond that the county would use to pay for building demolition if the company did not meet its obligations.
The company never put up the bond and its attorney today told France rather brazenly that it doesn’t intend to, because it doesn’t consider valid the contract it signed with the county three years ago. It considers the contract “illusory” and “unconscionable,” and a “mistake.”
The company says it met realistic demands, but not unrealistic ones: it cleaned up the grounds, fenced them in, and filled in the pool.
The county doesn’t dispute that. But the county argues that the company had also pledged to get the building reconstructed, yet three years later, it hasn’t applied for any substantial permits other than to seal the roof. There’s been no plumbing, no electrical work, no fire suppressant system, no water. That means the building is still not up to code. The company claims it couldn’t have any of those things because it’s a construction site.
But what construction? There hasn’t been any construction in three years, the county says. “What they have not done and have not done as we sit here today is actually sought any permits and perform any of the renovations described under section three B of the agreement,” Abraham McKinnon, the attorney representing the county alongside Assistant County Attorney Sean Moylan, told the court. “As a result, they were again notified of these conditions. And in addition to failing to perform those tasks, they refused to deposit with the Clerk of the Court the $250,000, so this lawsuit then proceeded forward against them related to this particular contract, and as well as the condition of the property.”
Theodore D’Appuzzo, who represents the building owners–they were not in court, but their project manager, local Realtor Greg Kong, was–contested the county’s characterization, though at times in terms that stretched credibility, at least to residents near the motel grounds who have seen a vacancy of activity there. “This is not a building that is abandoned. This is an active construction site with active permits where work has been done, hundreds of thousands of dollars work has been done,” D’Appuzzo said, “and what the county is asking for my clients to do or to force them to do is to post a bond, the underlying reason which is no longer there.”
For example, he said, the original 99-day deadline to obtain permits was “impossible,” he said, just as to finish initial work demands in 21 days was not possible. “What what is my client to do with this, and what is the county to do with this?” D’Appuzzo asked, though it wasn’t exactly clear what he meant by this, other than speaking a general sense of exasperation.
France was interested in more precision: “You have no intention of posting the bond?”
“The fear that my client has, is–” D’Appuzzo started, before the judge cut him off.
“It’s a yes or no. What are we doing?”
“Given the state of the contract, correct. The intention is not to not post the bond,” D’Appuzzo said. “If your honor were to limit or otherwise restrict the contract, it may, it may be an enforceable contract. As drafted this contract is not enforceable.” The county, he said, intends to demolish the building, which “would be an economic waste.” But again: it was not clear how the disused motel and its 8.5 acres of property have been something other than an “economic waste”: the building is valued at $300,000, according to the property appraiser, only a little more than the median homesteaded single family house in the county–down from $2.7 million in 2009. The property pays about $2,400 in property taxes to the county every year, possibly enough to cover the cost of the sheriff’s dispatchers and deputies who respond to policing issues in or around its periphery.
When D’Appuzzo again asserted that the county had placed his clients in an “impossible” situation to meet contractual demands, France had another simple question for him: how does the court “close the gap” between the “impossible” and the “unwise”? The client, France said, “didn’t have to sign it. He didn’t have to buy it.”
The court may find that a contract is invalid for being impossible. But it cannot find the signing of a contract unwise.
D’Appuzzo hesitated a moment, then spoke of the county having “uneven bargaining power” at the time when it put the contract forward, since it could bargain with the fines that had to be paid. But he at no p[oint gave any indication of when any substantial work might take place at the “construction site.”
There is no timetable for the judge to issue a ruling.
Oddly, the same owners who bought the motel have bought numerous adjoining properties since, under a different name, Dixie Commons Development LLC, Yom 2150 S Old Dixie Hwy LLC and 278 Storage LLC, among others, the latter a 7.5-acre tract on the south side of Old Dixie Highway used as a storage facility, and where the owners are seeking to add RV and boat storage. The properties are registered under different names with the Division of Corporations, but they all have one name in common: Manuel Gomez, one of the owners of the motel property. The other is David Shebiro.
Land of no turn signals says says
This dump should have been blown up years ago and has been an on going colonoscopy.Sell it to developers already put up 5,000 more houses and move on.
NJ says
Another Flagler County MESS! REMOVE the “motel” and Bill the Property Owners!
Atwp says
This has been going on for a few years. When will this saga end?
Dennis C Rathsam says
Why is it that every TOM DICK & HARRY, comes to Flagler County, to build something, & screws us? This should not de tolerated! We need a good lawyer, not a cheap one!
Hammock Huck says
Agreed.
melly says
Your story wrap up seems to insinuate that these “owners” are up to something, buying all this property, doing nothing, kicking cans down the road and playing dumb. Lean on all of them and if they don’t honor their contracts, start proceedings to force them out.
Skibum says
The many years of continued lies and deceit from both the previous owner and current owners of this decrepit dump should never have been tolerated as long as this has gone on and on and on. I am crossing my fingers that the judge in this lawsuit will soon make a final, decisive ruling and allow the county to bulldoze this abandoned eyesore into oblivion.
Mary Lumas says
Tear it down and build some more storage units on it.
Dirk says
County should buy it and turn it into a homeless shelter.
Billy says
Typical Flagler County, only thing Flagler is good at is putting up 15000 homes,taking bribes from developers , and asphalt the county
Marla says
Minor important detail… The homes which you complain about are all on CITY, not County property.
Jane Gentile Youd says
I ain’t no attorney; 2 years college but assume I always have my ‘ in proper person’ rights which I have used successfully based on my ‘life experiences. If I were I would have filed a Motion for Summary Judgement (against the ‘new owners only) no later January of 2022 if they had no paid by then – (which was giving 5 months extra time to the s.o.b’ ‘s to pay the $250,000 Bond due no later than August 21,2021 I would have asked the judge to dismiss the Zulalis as they were not a party to the Agreement and sold said property to the added Defendant May 13, 2021
Wherefore based on the facts that the owners of 2251 S Old Dixie Highway,LLC were aware prior to taking title to the property and of their own free will executed a legal binding document with Flagler County , Florida . The Defendant took title May 13, 2021 and to this date has never complied with any of the recorded legal binding documents executed by them of their own free will on May 12, 2021, one day prior to taking title.
We, the citizens of Flagler County pray to this court to grant Flagler County permission to destroy the premises and take title to the property for a value as determined by a court appointed impartial property appraiser. If the county recovers more than the $250,000 original owing bond debt by the Defendants, they are entitled to add additional demolition costs, if any and the remainder of sale price, if any, goes to and inures to the Defendants.
This Court grants Flagler County Florida their Motion for Summary Judgment
Done and Ordered in the ‘Court of COMMON SENSE’ this the 30th day of May, 2024
‘By Wishful Judge in her next life’ Jane Gentile-Youd
Erod says
What is the big issue with this place. If the county inspector says it’s unsafe and a danger to the public; the owners refuse to repair it enter the engineers report into the record and tear it down. Or is the county trying to work out some side deal with one of there favorite developers to drive the prices down ?
Wiser One says
The county is at fault for allowing this developer take so long. They themselves can do more. Hopefully they will.
Unknown says
I have to pass this eye sore 4 times a day to and from work. The homeless the derelicts and what ever have you, are always in there. It’s dangerous plus not safe after dark with them in there. We the people who have to live right next to it are tired of seeing this eyesore every single day. Either sit or get off the pot about what you are going to make or do with it. But he done, it’s been going on far to long now. If the judge has to live right next door to this eye sore. I’m sure 5 years ago something would have been done with it. I would like to thank Flagler County for taking your sweet wonderful time on this project.
Sincerely, We the people who live next door to this menace of a place.
Billy says
It’s just a drug money, laundering scheme! And of course to Flagler county and counsel is involved with it anyway they can swindle money from somebody that’s all it is! Eventually the county will get the property level it and put up section 8 housing