Residential Rental Licensing Ordinance

[seeker]

We have a piece of property that the 'Municipality' would like us to give them money for -- in the above listed title -- in part it states --
"Failure of the owner or owners of the residential rental property to license such property with the code official. Whenever an owner or property agent of a residential rental property fails to license said property with the department, the code official shall notify all tenants and occupants of the residential property by posting a notice on all entrances to the residential property indicating the following: ..."
It then goes on the coerce and threaten any one within --

When this ordinance was first inacted, we being 'dumbed up' registered the property -- however, the city breached the 'contract' by failing to provide a "temporary registration card" -- plus it was not occupied last year, so we did not 'register' it.
This year, we received a notice for last year AND this year -- what would be an appropriate reply to their undated letter addressed to "property Owner"

On the upside -- with them refering to this as "residential' I now have a just cause to write to the tax collector, (that bill came the same day!) and say "it has come to my attention that my property has been misclassified as 'residential'. Please correct this error and foward to me a corrected copy of all files, once the correct classification of (is it 'personal' or 'private'?) property. Thank you very much.

Thanks for all thoughts ... one I had was to return it referencing TILA -- the other was a "thanks for your note -- where's my check?" response--

Opinions?

Seeker

[weishaupt1776]

Are you an owner according to the definitions of THEIR contract?

[seeker]

WHAT CONTRACT????? It is addressed to my spouse, (TWO Initials and proper family name) not to me -- who is the only one every listed on any paperwork regarding this property EXCEPT the tax roles. I really want to Deal with Property taxes! Just got that bill and it is astronomical! And so totally bogus. I figure they want us to dispute and 'agree". I am going to compose a letter asking them to correct the record and reclassify as private property -- funny thing is -- the property is classed commericial, not residential to start with -- another loophole, I am sure.

Thanks.

Seeker

[weishaupt1776]

The contract is the statutory section where the definitions are located.
Do they have any documents/records/authorites which can be admitted as court evidence that prove you are an "owner" according to THEIR definition?

Weis: Look up, in florida statutes, the term "ultimate equitable owner". Amazing definition.

Jerry.

[seeker]

It is a city ordinance -- where do they have definitions within those? I've not seen them.

I think the whole thing is the tax role, nothing more. My question is how do they reclassify as residential? Just because living beings are domicled there?

It would be easy to rebut their assumption with fact, but then I would be arguing and admitting, right?

What a catch 22~ Should of taken the blue pill ....

Seeker

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Weis: Look up, in florida statutes, the term "ultimate equitable owner". Amazing definition.

Jerry.

ultimate equitable owner 25 hits on google for Florida

3 for Illimois

Sorry about that...

try FS 494.001 and I believe it was definition #29 if my memory serves me correctly.

[Bird]

Originally Posted by seeker

Thanks for all thoughts ... one I had was to return it referencing TILA -- the other was a "thanks for your note -- where's my check?" response--

Opinions?

Seeker

TILA = Truth In Lending Act

I don't believe it applies to everything. A conditional acceptance may help when dealing with this situation. They (THE CITY) can be made to prove up many things, quashing all the presumptions they make, including that the property is residential.

Example:

Seeker will do whatever the CITY wants and pay money or whatever upon proof of claim that:
the property is residential
the property is not for private use
etc....

[weishaupt1776]

it seems that a refusal for legal cause ab initio is first and foremost

But, since you have "registered" the property, that registration is th "root of bitterness" which must be plucked up first. A FORMAL recission Nunc Pro Tunc must be put in place invoking the doctrine of an estoppel by acquiescence/default.
I am now doing that on an estoppel/default recission regarding U.S. Citizenship and will be more forthcoming regarding procedure for such once I DO IT.

I BELIEVE IN DO IT THEN TALK ABOUT IT so I can only offer that as a snippet of info right now