Judge France Rejects Latest Attempt by Old Dixie Motel Owners to Renege on $250,000 They Owe, Now Past Due

Circuit Judge Chris France this morning denied the latest attempt by the owners of the derelict Old Dixie Motel not to post a $250,000 bond with the county, as they have been contractually obliged to do for three years. They may face contempt proceedings next.

The county required the bond as part of a deal three years ago, when the owners bought the motel on a pledge to clean up the grounds and rebuild the property into a viable hotel and restaurant. The owners agreed to a deadline and the $250,000 bond, which the county required in case the owners did not make good on their contractual obligations. The county’s aim is to demolish the building if it is not rehabilitated.

The owners of what used to be the Country Hearth Inn at at 2251 South Old Dixie Highway cleaned up the grounds and conducted limited work, but the motel remains a ruin and an eyesore. The owners never issued the bond.

France on June 19 ordered the owners to deposit the $250,000 bond within 10 days. The owners let the deadline pass. Instead, they filed a motion arguing that in light of findings at a separate hearing in which the court was not involved, the judge should weigh evidence from that hearing and rule in favor of the owners, dispensing them of the bond requirement.

France did not agree, and ruled that the hearing was not material to his earlier ruling except for affirming that ruling.

The June 5 hearing took place before a special magistrate following a demolition order issued by the county. The owners disputed the order. The magistrate agreed with the county that the building is a dangerous nuisance, the inference being that if it remained that way, there could come a time when the county would be granted clearance to demolish it. “This is where the county can issue appropriate findings and remedies” that could include a time frame, with a demolition supported by the evidence, the magistrate concluded.

But that time is not now. The magistrate ruled that demolition would be to drastic a move that preempts the owners from making good on their pledges to rebuild–pledges they reiterated before the magistrate, as they had before the judge. “I don;t think I have received sufficient evidence to conclude that this structure is unreasonable–in a state that is unreasonable to repair,” the magistrate said.

The owners’ attorney, Theodore D’Appuzzo, appearing by phone this morning (the owners were not present by phone or in the courtroom), argued to France that statements at the hearing proved that the deadline the county set for rehabilitation was “impossible” to meet, making the contractual obligations void. Impossibility is a legitimate defense in breach of contract disputes.)

France, who read the 100-page transcript of the special magistrate hearing filed with the court, did not dispute the findings of the magistrate during this morning’s 10-minute hearing. But he did not agree that legally, it made the county’s deadlines impossible to meet. The owners have not shown much progress in three years.

France also pointed out a salient point the owners’ argument either appeared to overlook or wished to overlook: that the owners could meet deadline to complete renovations or, if they missed the deadline, to pay the bond so that eventually they would be compelled to complete the work, or lose the $250,000.

The judge also told the attorney that the motion to stay his June order did not stay the 10-day deadline he had set. That clock kept ticking, and will keep ticking, putting the owners at risk of being in contempt of court.

“They can appeal,” Sean Moylan, the assistant county attorney who has handled the case with attorney Abraham McKinnon, said after the hearing, “but they would have to post the bond even if they were appealing. So I don’t think appealing makes much sense if avoiding paying the bond is what they’re hoping, which it seems to be.”

If they don’t pay, Moylan said, the county will go back to the court to ask for sanctions or find the owners in contempt of court, using the court to enforce its own order.

“I think they were making a last-ditch effort to avoid living up to the contract. The ruling did not surprise me,” Moylan said. “They should pay that bond as they agreed to do in writing, and if they don’t, they’re defying the court, breaching the contract. And if they say they can’t pay it, well, it begs the question: how will they renovate the structure?”

Since the judge’s original order and the magistrate hearing, the owners have submitted a site plan for renovations of the hotel, and sent their engineer, Kim Buck, to a county Technical Review Committee meeting reviewing the plan. The plan is to return to a future Technical Review Committee meeting for yet another review, pending the owners addressing the county’s concerns. At the site of the motel itself, not much has been done in recent months other than mowing.

The owners at the magistrate hearing proposed a timeline that had them submitting a building permit by the end of October. “We expect them to live up to that timeline because it was their timeline they provided to us, and they said it was reasonable and provided time for hiccups.”

The hearing this morning was attended by a small handful of people–a couple of members of the public, including the indefatigable Jane Gentile-Youd, who’s howled at, hounded and haunted the county to keep after the owners, and members of the county’s code enforcement division.