04/24/2008 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He stated that The Source has shown through its own testimony and the chronology of New Horizons that the property was not used or occupied at least for a period of over one (1) year; and that creates the presumption of an intent to abandon the property and puts the burden back on the property owner to rebut the presumption of abandonment, and that would be up to Attorney Henderson to do at his closing. Attorney Collins argued that ultimately there was a contract because there was a later contract with Lowe's Realty in which the property was sold from New Horizons to I AM Ministries, despite the unsigned listing agreement which Attorney O'Haire objected to earlier. He reminded the Board that the argument is, the listing agreement showed there was not a consistent attempt to sell, but the issue for the Board is, was there an intent to abandon or were they making good faith efforts to have the property put in a status where it could be occupied. Attorney Collins discussed the rule of abandonment, and whether the effort to put the property back in use was made. He pointed out that there has also been some evidence with respect to the hurricane permits, that the permits were not applied for in 2004/2005, but there were blue tarp temporary repairs done to protect the property; and that the permits were not actually applied for to do the repairs until two years later when I AM Ministries/The Source had actually closed on the property. He felt that was attempting to demonstrate that there was no effort by the Sellers to do repairs during that period, when they could, under the hurricane reconstruction period, have gotten more than one year for cessation. He submitted to the Board that the rule being argued was, if use ceases for any period greater than a year, it is considered abandoned and nonconformity is lost. Attorney Collins noted that the exception that the staff pointed out was for hurricane situations where there were no reconstruction timeframes, and the ability to put property back in use may take substantially more than one year. Therefore, the issue perhaps is, was that effort put forward to get the property back in use or was it simply marketed haphazardly and any April 24, 2008 44 Special Call Meeting (The Source)