Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/28/2011 Closed Session (#11A-Blocker) Minutes BCC BLOCKER CLOSED SESSION June 28 , 2011 FINAL DISPOSITION FORM 1.998 This form is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting judicial workload data pursuant to Florida Statutes § 25.075, and pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.100(c)(3) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA I. CASE STYLE COLLIER COUNTY, Case No.: 09-1281-CA Plaintiff, v. Judge: Frederick R.Hardt JERRY BLOCKER,et al., { (01-F-5) Defendants. •ORIGINAL FILED H. MEANS OF FINAL DISPOSITION. (Place an"x" in one box only) MAR 18 2013 X Dismissed Before Hearing COWER COUNTY CLERK _Dismissed Pursuant to Settlement–Before Hearing X Dismissed Pursuant to Mediated Settlement–Before Hearing Other–Before Hearing _ Dismissed After Hearing Dismissed pursuant to Settlement–After Hearing Dismissed Pursuant to Mediated Settlement–After Hearing —Other After Hearing Disposed by Default Disposed by Judge Disposed by Non-Jury Trial Disposed by Jury Trial Other: Signature of Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Collier County: CAD 'eY*l/Cf1)02eAliAlaoce A11013 Colleen M.Greene,Esq. ate Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No:502650 cc: Gregory N.Woods,Esq.,Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Steven Bracci,Esq.,Counsel for Defendants Jerry Blocker and Klmberlea Blocker Wanda Collins,Trustee,Defendant Kenneth Blocker,Sr.,Movant to Intervene • IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION JERRY B. BLOCKER and KIMBERLEA BLOCKER, Plaintiffs, v. Case No.: 08-9355-CA COLLIER COUNTY, a political Judge: Frederick R. Hardt subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant. FINAL DISPOSITION FORM (Form 1.998) II. MEANS OF FINAL DISPOSITION(Place an"x"in one box only) ❑ Dismissed Before Hearing ❑ Dismissed After Hearing ❑ Disposed by Default ❑ Disposed by Judge ❑Disposed by Non jury Trial ❑ Disposed by Jury Trial X Other: Disposed by Court-Approved S• • ent Date: March 15,2013 Stev . Bracci,Esq. Steven J. Bracci,PA Florida Bar#157562 2590 Northbrooke Plaza Drive, Suite 208 Naples, Florida 34119 Ph: (239) 596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 Email: steve@braccilaw.com Secondary email: service @braccilaw.com Attorney for Jerry Blocker and Kimberlea Blocker tI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15th day of March, 2013,a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been furnished by Email or U.S.mail (as indicated below)upon: Gregory M. Woods,Esq. Woods, Weidenmiller&Michetti,P.L. 5150 N.Tamiami Trail, Suite 603 Naples,Florida 34103 Email:gwoodsalawfirmnaples.com Jeffrey Klatzkow, Esq. Steven Williams, Esq. Jacqueline Hubbard,Esq. Collier County Attorney's Office Harmon Turner Building 3301 Tamiami Trail E, Floor 8 Naples,FL 34112 Email: JeffKlatzkow(ci)colliergov.net i Steven J. Bracci,Esq. Steven J. Bracci,PA Florida Bar#157562 2590 Northbrooke Plaza Drive, Suite 208 Naples, Florida 34119 Ph: (239) 596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 Email: steve @braccilaw.com Secondary email: service @braccilaw.com Attorney for Jerry Blocker and Kimberlea Blocker June 28, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE CLOSED-SESSION MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 28, 2011 Closed Session Item #11A - Blocker LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 12:39 p.m., in CLOSED SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Georgia Hiller Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Jacqueline Hubbard, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 Item #1 1 A THE BOARD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL DISCUSS: STRATEGY SESSION RELATED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING CASES OF (1) JERRY BLOCKER, ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 08-9355-CA; AND (2) COLLIER COUNTY V. JERRY BLOCKER, ET AL., CASE NO. 09-1281-CA; NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. — CLOSED SESSION MR. KLATZKOW: I'd call the shade session. Commissioner Henning and I chatted briefly about parameters of a possible settlement of this Blocker lawsuit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to have to talk a little louder, Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: I apologize. I've called a shade session, as Commissioner Henning and I talked about a possible resolution in the Blocker case, and I think the commissioner has some ideas he'd like to share with you. MS. HUBBARD: I think we have to identify everyone in the room around the table first. MR. KLATZKOW: No, I don't know that you have to, but okay. Jacqueline Hubbard, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Hiller, County Manager Ochs, and myself. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, based upon Commissioner Coletta's statement on the Immokalee Area Master Plan, they continued it indefinitely until we resolved the Blocker issue, I came up with some information that might lead us to a resolution to that. And one is a recent court case that I have here dealing with code liens Page 2 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 having a priority over recorded mortgages. Now, that will be an issue in the foreclosure of the Blockers. The Court ruled that the county doesn't have -- that does not supersede recorded mortgages. That's one issue. So if we go to court that question will come up, and we might not be able to resolve it by gaining the property, that the use has been there for 50 years, and bulldozing it down and let somebody come in and do industrial property. That's the one issue. Now, I have a map here that was discovered in the record, the county records, a 1952, that clearly demonstrates that this property was not industrial property in 19 -- I'm sorry, 1953. And the property is located right here in this section by the airport. And you can see that it was designation of Commercial 3. Now, back in -- even our present code allows uses in -- you have a C3 property, you have the designation of using the uses in C2 and in C 1. That is no different than it was back then. In 1951 the property was C3, that it included the use of C2 and Cl and all residential uses allowed from 1951 through 1965 except tents for living quarters. C3 district you -- or the district, you are allowed to have transient facilities. And what this property is being used for is for farmworker villages, farmworker housing. It also is used for trailer camps and trailer courts. Now, back in the '70s, right off of Henderson Creek -- and I know this well -- there was, and there still is today, Holiday Manor Trailer Park. Well, across from Holiday Manor Trailer Park, there are individual trailer parks as you would know them today, but they were called trailer courts back then. They're much smaller than a trailer park, Henderson Creek Trailer Park -- but you have the Oasis Trailer Court, you had Kenyons Trailer Court, so on and so forth. I know that well because that's where I caught the bus to go to school. All right. I also want to point out that this use has been going on for 50 Page 3 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 years, so why all of a sudden do we have an issue with this use on industrial property? It's been -- it's been there for 50 years and has been zoned over and over again, different property. The issue is, in Immokalee, there needs to be jobs for that transformation from its present use to an industrial use. The property is not -- if it was ripe for the change, it would have happened by now. Because the underlying zoning allows for it doesn't have to create more -- you don't have to get a rezone in that. So now I've heard issues about the -- there are several violations -- building violations there. I've looked, and I can't find any violations out there. Now, is it something that I would like to live in? No; I make that choice, just like the people who live there now; they made that choice. But that's not the issue. The issue is what it's saying is, it's an illegal use in the industrial zoning. Recently Randy Johns found the map in our records states -- showing that back in the '50s it wasn't. So -- and, in fact, I want to pass this out. I know that all of you have this in your email box, and that is Bob Mulhere's opinion on this. Now, the special master did not agree with this opinion by Bob Mulhere, but -- MS. HUBBARD: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we're using Bob Mulhere's -- yes. MS. HUBBARD: We're in closed session, and if you're going to refer to those documents, a copy needs to be given to the court reporter of the documents. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I was going to ask for them back. MS. HUBBARD: Pardon? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was going to ask for them back. Page 4 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 MS. HUBBARD: Well, they need to be fully identified. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. This is a -- this is a document prepared by Bob Mulhere, and the date is March 6, 2007. And in his conclusions it says, in conclusion, it's clear that the residential use for subject property was lawful, preexisting, and legally -- legal non-conforming, as such is to continue under the authority of the Land Development Code, LDC, with limitations of maintenance and repair and the prohibition of acceleration, expansion, or replacement except through a process that is identified under the Land Development Code in Section 9, as it points out. So I think our legal counsel has done a great job of defending the board's position. I have a concern continuing on, and I think that we have the ability to render Bob Mulhere's -- when we come out -- render Bob Mulhere's decision -- stating that it's a legal nonconforming use and suspend a foreclosure case and the -- suspend the fines that are -- that apply to it. That's what I have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you -- I mean, just for the records, could you gather these documents up, identify them all on a list, and then return them to Commissioner -- MS. HUBBARD: Yes. In fact, we could identify them now for the record. CHAIRMAN COYLE: These are all documents that are already in the records, but in -- if you need them as part of this record and he wants to keep them, get them back -- MS. HUBBARD: We can just identify them for the court reporter. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or you can make copies of them now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can give you copies, except for the map. MR. KLATZKOW: We have the map. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have the map. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, you have all that stuff. It's already Page 5 — Item #11 A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 in the record. MR. KLATZKOW: It's in the record. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What are we hearing here that's new? MS. HUBBARD: Nothing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're just dealing with the same information all over again. I don't know. Based upon everything I've seen in the past, I was waiting to see if something new was going to coming up. I haven't seen anything new. I'm not inclined to change my mind. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Where are we in the court case then? MR. KLATZKOW: Jackie? MS. HUBBARD: We have a hearing next week. There are two court cases. There is a Bert Harris Act claim and an inverse-condemnation claim filed by the Blockers, and they are requesting over $2 million from the county. We have a foreclosure suit, which is the second piece of litigation, in which we are -- have been -- previously been instructed to foreclose on the code-enforcement liens which amount at this point to about $972,000. Recently something very interesting occurred which was about a year ago the property owner who sold the property to Jerry and Kimberly Blocker -- that's the property that's an issue, because there are lots of Blockers out in Immokalee. Ms. Collins recorded a satisfaction of mortgage. She took a $262,000 mortgage in return for selling the property to Jerry and Kimberly Blocker back in 2002. About a year ago she recorded a satisfaction of mortgage. Meanwhile, the appeals of the CEB, Code Enforcement Board, were progressing. The Bert Harris Act claim is essentially based upon Page 6 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 the actions that were taken by the Code Enforcement Board, and once the Bert Harris claim was filed, our office was instructed to defend against it, which we did. The first level of defense was defending what the Code Enforcement Board did. Now, the Code Enforcement Board decision was appealed in every conceivable forum. It was appealed by a direct appeal, and it was appealed by a Writ of Certiorari. And in both cases the judge ruled that the Code Enforcement Board had acted appropriately. And both of those appeals were then taken up to the Second District Court of Appeals, and in both cases the Second District Court of Appeals pro curium affirmed what Judge Hayes had ruled. So it's important to understand that as far as the action that was taken by the Code Enforcement Board, it has been -- the county has prevailed, and the Code Enforcement Board has been found to have acted properly. Now, while the Code Enforcement Board appeals were pending, the Bert Harris Act claim was filed against the county, and subsequently to that being filed, our office was instructed to file the foreclosure suit by the board. We filed a foreclosure suit, the Bert Harris Act Harris case was pending, I filed a motion to dismiss the Bert Harris claim for a number of legal reasons, and the first dismissal was granted. The judge dismissed, I think, three out of four counts, something like that, without prejudice. So they re-filed the Bert Harris claim, and they omitted one of the counts that had been previously dismissed and reworded another one. Then they asked for a stay of the foreclosure action and the Bert Harris action pending receipt of the ruling from the Second DCA. Is everybody following me so far? Okay. The judge agreed to stay the Bert Harris claim until the Second DCA had ruled. The Second DCA ruled, if my recollection Page 7 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 serves me properly, that second -- the final appeal was finalized in December of 2010. Now, on March -- on March 2011, there was a -- some other recordings that were made on this property after the satisfaction of mortgage. One of those was a document that said the satisfaction of mortgage was a mistake. The second document was an assignment from Ms. Collins, who was the prior owner, to Kenneth Blocker. Now, we have inquired of opposing counsel which Kenneth Blocker, Kenneth Blocker, Jr., or Kenneth Blocker, Sr., and we were told that they didn't know which one it was. Our lis pendens was filed in 2009. It was obviously after the original mortgage, it was before the satisfaction of mortgage was recorded, and it was before the satisfaction of mortgage was rescinded, and the assignment of the mortgage was recorded. And the legal issue is very interesting to me, because the issue is whether or not the Kenneth Blocker -- whichever one -- you find out which one it is -- we need to determine a number of factors. One is, was there sufficient consideration paid to the prior owner for the assignment? Because as of March 2011, there would have been approximately $260,000 paid by Jerry and Kimberly Blocker to Ms. Collins, and she's never filed for a foreclosure, to our knowledge, and she's never said they didn't pay her. Now, that may -- so we don't know if that's true or false. So that left about $100,000 if you had calculated the two sixty-two plus the interest and the amount of time that it would take to pay off the original note. So that was very interesting, those numbers. It's also interesting that the documentation for both the satisfaction of mortgage, the assignment, and the rescinding of the satisfaction of mortgage saying that they made a mistake when they said it was a satisfaction of the mortgage, all of those documents were created, the operative ones, by the current attorney for Jerry and Kimberly Blocker. Page 8 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 Now, the reason I'm bringing that up is because Ms. Collins, Wanda Collins, is represented by counsel, and when he found out that she had signed all these documents and never consulted him and no one had ever called him to see if it was okay, he entered -- he informed the Blockers' counsel that he represented the seller and for them to stop dealing with the seller. We've been trying to set depositions so we could know what's going on with the Blockers and Ms. Collins, who sold the property to them, and she's apparently not available until August. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who's the attorney that said they represented Collins again? MS. HUBBARD: Andrew Reese. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Reese? MS. HUBBARD: From the Cheffy Passidomo firm. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, okay, okay. MS. HUBBARD: She's always been a party in the foreclosure litigation because she held the mortgage. All right. So where are we? That's where we are. We have a hearing on July 6th. There are a lot of motions that I have filed. There are motions that the other side has filed. I believe that there's some badges of-- how do I put it? There's -- there's a possibility of a fraudulent transfer, but, of course, we don't have all of the information. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Fraudulent transfer from whom to whom? MS. HUBBARD: Well, I don't want to discuss any more of the details than that at this point, because the pleading that I'm working on hasn't been filed yet. But I'm just saying it's highly unusual for a person to assign a mortgage to someone when the record shows that there's a foreclosure of the underlying property that's been in existence by virtue of the lis pendens since 2009. Now, the other thing that has happened is the Kenneth Blocker Page 9 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 who has the assignment -- I don't know whether he is the junior or the senior, the father or the brother -- has also requested that he be permitted to intervene in the lawsuit, not only intervene in the lawsuit, but to file a foreclosure action against Kimberly and Jerry Blocker. Okay. So you have a relative -- we don't know if it's the brother or the father -- wants to intervene in the ongoing litigation and also file their own foreclosure action against Jerry and Kimberly, who are involved in our litigation, so the judge is going to hear all of that stuff next week. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And, Commissioners, what this really means is that this foreclosure can get muddied up -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Speak up. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sorry. What that really means is that this foreclosure can get muddied up for a very long time now. I mean, we've got issues that have recently arisen here, perhaps created here, that we're going to have to resolve, and depositions, and it may be a while before the foreclosure finalizes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was there illegal action that may have taken place with these foreclosures on the other party's part? MS. HUBBARD: We don't know, and it's not easy to prove. But there are what they call -- the law has what they call markers or badges that indicate that things are not as they seem, and there's a long list of them. And one of them is, was the property exchanged while there was a pending lawsuit? Is the exchange related to somehow mucking up the lawsuit? Will any creditor be damaged by the transfer? And so forth and so on. And a lot of these markers are there. Is the transfer from one family member to other one? COMMISSIONER HILLER: But, you know, one of the things is you said that these assignments of mortgages, or mortgage as the case may be, was done by an attorney? MS. HUBBARD: By the -- yes. I've said -- Page 10 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: One of the -- MS. HUBBARD: -- one of them was an attorney. COMMISSIONER HILLER: One of the duties an attorney has is to ensure that if he is doing a transaction as you're describing that he isn't basically advancing a fraudulent conveyance, because it's called in pari delicto. You can't, you know, basically involve yourself in a transaction as an attorney without having assurances that it isn't a fraudulent conveyance, and you have to engage in due diligence to make sure that is the case. MS. HUBBARD: The only point I'm making -- MR. KLATZKOW: This is very unusual. You very rarely see this -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I find it hard to believe that an attorney would participate in a fraudulent conveyance. And I'm sure under the circumstances, with all this litigation being as public as it is, I'm also -- MS. HUBBARD: Well, you may be correct. I don't know. I'm just telling you that there are markers out there that are -- that indicate this. I haven't proved it. I haven't accused anyone of it. I haven't had an opportunity to depose the witnesses. But I do know that Ms. Collins' attorney did not participate in any of these transactions, and she has been represented by counsel since the beginning of the case. And I have been told by Mr. Reese that he had no knowledge of any of these transactions, so he was not -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You just said that the transactions were recorded by the attorney. MS. HUBBARD: No, no, no, by the Blockers' attorney's firm. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And who are the Blockers' attorneys? MS. HUBBARD: I can't think of the name of the firm, but the woman is -- Page 11 — Item #11A (B locker) June 28, 2011 MR. KLATZKOW: Foster. MS. HUBBARD: Foster, the Foster firm, but the person that you COMMISSIONER FIALA: Margaret Cooper. MS. HUBBARD: Margaret Cooper. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they recorded -- are you suggesting that they recorded fraudulent conveyances? MS. HUBBARD: I don't know -- no, I'm not suggesting that they conveyed fraudulent conveyances. Let me be very clear here. What I am telling you is that the conveyances were drafted by that law firm and recorded by that law firm. And Ms. Collins is an elderly woman, her attorney was not informed of these transactions, and he has been attorney of record since the beginning of this suit. I'm just telling you what I know. And I haven't been able to prove -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But you're -- you have made it very clear by what you have said that you are suggesting that they -- that they -- that this law firm participated -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the discussion has nothing to do with settlement or negotiations. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is correct. And there's no point trying to draw our attorney into a legal battle over something she did not say. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the record will reflect what she said. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, it was stated that "I have seen no new evidence." Well, I disagree with that, because the whole case that went before the Code Enforcement Board was based upon -- this property was zoned industrial. Now, you have an opinion from a planner that says differently, okay, that it was not always industrial. You have a map that is new; Page 12 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 it's not a new map, but it's new to us. Since we've seen this, it clearly states this property wasn't industrial. You know, that is the new information that we have. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're saying the map says -- and I saw the map also, and I agree with you -- that the property is legally nonconforming. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Based upon the zoning -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: At that time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the zoning classification at that time that, you know, in the C3 subsequent zoning categories, that you are allowed different kind of residential, one being transient residential, one being a trailer court, so on and so forth. That was the code at that time. And Bob Mulhere has determined -- and there are other planners -- that has determined that it is a legal nonconforming use. That is the new evidence. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me ask a question about that. Isn't there some legal standard that must be established with respect to the authority of this particular map? Should it not have been signed and certified? MS. HUBBARD: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it is not? MS. HUBBARD: No, it isn't. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is not. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have no idea where that map came from. Somebody could have made that map -- MS. HUBBARD: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and put it in the file or found it. MS. HUBBARD: It's not a new map. MR. KLATZKOW: The map's not fraudulent. It exists. The only issue -- MS. HUBBARD: It's been -- and it has been -- Page 13 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, it's been in this case, really, from day one. MS. HUBBARD: -- from day one. It's not a secret. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that wasn't -- all this, what I'm bringing up, wasn't brought before the Code Enforcement Board. MS. HUBBARD: The map was brought before the Code Enforcement Board, I'm sorry to correct you on that. But if you check the transcript which -- what's his name? Patrick White specifically mentioned the 1952 map and that he wasn't sure he could rely upon it because there was no certification or verification of it. But it's the same map that we've had. We haven't had any other type of map. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that map's what went before the special magistrate along with the -- MS. HUBBARD: Yes. I don't know if the map did. The -- but the Mulhere report -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mulhere opinion did. MS. HUBBARD: Mulhere was there. He was at the special-magistrate hearing. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did the Code Enforcement Board see this 1952 map? MS. HUBBARD: It was mentioned by Patrick White. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. But did the Code Enforcement Board see this map? Did the county produce this map and introduce it in evidence at the code-enforcement hearing to support its case? MS. HUBBARD: No. What happened is Patrick White had it, and he indicated to the board that he wasn't sure that the 1952 map was valid or -- you know, it's the same map that everybody else has seen, and so he wasn't sure he could use it as convincing evidence. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But did the county produce it? MS. HUBBARD: I wasn't there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who was -- who represented the Page 14 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 county at the code-enforcement hearing? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't in the -- it was in subsequent -- I think it was appealing to the Code Enforcement after they made their ruling, right? MS. HUBBARD: Right. I think so, too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. HUBBARD: That he mentioned the map. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I looked at the record, the minutes of the Code Enforcement Board, and what was just said is -- must have been in a subsequent hearing. It wasn't during their findings that it was an illegal use. I'm sure that Patrick White appealed to the Code Enforcement Board, and they didn't accept the appeal. MR. KLATZKOW: Even if the '53 map is correct -- MS. HUBBARD: Fifty-two. MR. KLATZKOW: -- one of the real issues here, though, is clearly it's industrial by 1973. And at that point in time, if you want to claim he's a nonconforming use, that's fine, but he's limited to what he had then. You can't expand upon a nonconformity. And I don't know that the Blockers are willing to go back to running that property the way it was back in 1973. I don't know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What was on it? MR. KLATZKOW: A lot less than was on it now. MS. HUBBARD: Special magistrate indicated that he thought there may have been 10, 15 structures on it, but there were 31 on it at the time that they had the hearing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time, just so I can put my mind at ease about where we're going. The process as we're seeing it, when will it come to some sort of conclusion? MS. HUBBARD: Well, a lot depends on what happens in the courtroom, what the judge decides. So, you know, it's very difficult to predict what the judge will do. Page 15 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 MR. KLATZKOW: What we're telling you, though, with this new mortgage issue, which is a new issue, okay, it could muck it up for a very long time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, my reaction to this is that there are too many unknowns right now for us to get into a settlement. I think we need to proceed and get some answers to these questions. And I'm sort of with Commissioner Coletta on this thing, because I don't see any basis for settlement. I don't see any reason for settlement. But if we find out something about these supposed transfers that, number one, appears to be illegal, that gives an idea of where we need to go; but on the other hand, if it gives us an idea that it is going to be overly complicated and become too expensive to do this process, then that maybe guides us toward a settlement. MR. KLATZKOW: It's not expensive to do this process. What I'm telling you, it is time-consuming. And I understand the Immokalee Area Master Plan is on hold until this is done. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it is. And the people can change their mind down the road as we get through parts of the case. MS. HUBBARD: One thing in favor of the documentation being valid is that the person who signed off on it is a real estate attorney. I mean, that's the specialty of this person. So I would think that there's a good chance that it is -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are good real estate attorneys, and then there are lousy real estate attorneys, and I've dealt with both sides. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who signed off on the documents? MS. HUBBARD: A real estate attorney. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who was it? MS. HUBBARD: I can't remember his name, but -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you get that for me? MS. HUBBARD: -- I'm assuming that he knew -- he knew what he was doing. Page 16 — Item #11A (B locker) June 28, 2011 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you get that for me? MS. HUBBARD: It's -- you haven't seen that pleading? COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Shakes head.) MR. KLATZKOW: Well -- MS. HUBBARD: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: -- you can get the commissioner the information. MS. HUBBARD: Sure. MR. KLATZKOW: We still have time left in this lawsuit, and we'll get you that information as it comes through. And, certainly, even if we prevailed on the foreclosure, we wouldn't actually physically foreclose on that property without board permission. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already gave that permission. MR. KLATZKOW: To commence the foreclosure suit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. MR. KLATZKOW: But I'm not taking -- I'm not taking anything to the courthouse steps without majority approval to auction off a man's property. MS. HUBBARD: And -- yeah, because you still may have to make a decision about whether or not you pay off the Blocker that wants to intervene if he gets -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know. That's to be seen, but this will come back. I mean -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm for staying. I'll tell you what, the commitment for me was made first with the master plan when they rejected the Blocker settlement within the language, then second with the CRA when they met to reconsider it and rejected it. So I'm just following the will of the people of Immokalee. If either one of those times they went the other way, I'd be taking a different position on this. Page 17 — Item #11A (Blocker) June 28, 2011 MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I haven't seen anything change. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. HUBBARD: Well -- yeah. We follow your direction, so -- MR. KLATZKOW: We're off. ***** TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 18 — Item #11A (Blocker)