03/15/2011 (4) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of County Commissioners May 12, 2010 Page no of Three Although the County Attorney's office has not obtained a title search of the golf course property (for cost reasons), it appears preliminarily that there are no mortgages or significant liens on the property having priority over the County's two existing liens. Also of significance, Vista Golf filed a lawsuit in 2008 against the various Vista property owners associations, seeking termination of covenants which require the. property to be operated as a golf course and to be kept together as.a single piece of property. That lawsuit was scheduled for trial on the April 13, 2010 docket, although it appears that the trial may have been delayed because of ongoing mediation discussions between Vista Golf azid the associations. It was noted in court papers that Vista Golf is a sole asset company— that is, it has no assets other than the golf course property. ANS The County's alternatives are influenced by the fact that there do not appear to be any other significant liens on the property. As :ra result, code enforcement board liens will attach to the property and can be foreclosed through a sale at which thfrd parties (e.g., the Vista associations) would likely bid. ,Thus, the strongest alternatives for the County are item 1 (fine up to $500 per day to became a lien) and item 3 (foreclosure). Implementation of items 1 and 3 would involve more proceedings before the Code Enforcement Board and the filing of a foreclosure lawsuit, which could cost several thousand dollars in costs, even if handled internally by the County Attorney's office. Assuming the property is currently in compliance because of the mowing efforts resulting from the Board's April 20, 2010 decision, further Code Enforcement Board proceedings to levy a new fine up to $500 per day could not commence until the grass and weeds grow and the property is once again out of compliance. Another possibility may be item 4 (injunction requiring compliance with the code), although the injunction would be enforceable through contempt proceedings, and it is unclear how effective such proceedings would be in actually accomplishing compliance. Item 2 (continued abatement and recording abatement costs as a lien) is more of the same process that has been ineffective to date. And item 5 (converting prior orders to a money judgment) is not useful, because Vista Golf has no'other assets against which the judgment can be enforced. Lastly, while the IRC Code creates imprisonment up to 6 months as a sanction, legal questions surrounding the viability of imprisonment for violation of the nuisance code would likely bog down any enforcement proceedings indefinitely, Another alternative is for the County to wait and see what happens in the mediation presently taking place in the Vista Golf lawsuit against the Vista associations. It is possible that mediation will result in a settlement agreement which may eliminate the code violations. If the County implements items 1 and 3 above and files a foreclosure lawsuit, and then Vista Golf and the associations reach a settlement which eliminates the problem, the foreclosure lawsuit would probably become moot. LL's