[New post] AK Supreme Court Upholds Enforcement Fines After Owner Failed to Appropriately Challenge Them

Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO Consultant
CTAC LEED Certification

The Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*
630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 Cell

WebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com
Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/rESUME2011.pdf
Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/

IT'S THE LAW-Designation Discrimination is Illegal [FIRREA, Sec. 564.6]: Professional Association Membership http://www.orea.ca.gov/html/fed_regs.shtml#Statement7 Membership in an appraisal organization: A State Certified General Appraiser may not be excluded from consideration for an assignment for a federally related transaction by virtue of membership or lack of membership in any particular appraisal organization, including the appraisal institute.

CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal.

From: LAW OF THE LAND
Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎December‎ ‎29‎, ‎2014 ‎9‎:‎04‎ ‎PM
To: Commercial and Forensic Appraiser, and CRE Consultant




Patricia Salkin posted: "Szabo used his property zoned low density residential for a junk sales business as well has for his family residence. The municipality received a complaint that junk was stored on the property. Code enforcement officers investigated and agreed. Junk stora"





Respond to this post by replying above this line
















New post on LAW OF THE LAND



















AK Supreme Court Upholds Enforcement Fines After Owner Failed to Appropriately Challenge Them
by Patricia Salkin





Szabo used his property zoned low density residential for a junk sales business as well has for his family residence. The municipality received a complaint that junk was stored on the property. Code enforcement officers investigated and agreed. Junk storage is not an allowed use in the zoning district. The code enforcement officer filed a complaint against the Szabos for unlawfully storing junk on their property. Thereafter, the code enforcement officer and property owner worked together to clean up the property. However, the property owner missed deadlines for cleanup and kept asking for more time. After four years of working with the property owner and seeing no substantial progress, the municipality assessed fines. Two years later, it filed an action for abatement, injunctive relief and civil penalties. After a bench trial in which the property owner represented himself, the trial court issued an order requiring plaintiff to clean up the property and pay a $311,000 penalty.
Plaintiff hired a lawyer and sought relief from the court’s judgment arguing the fines assessed were excessive. The court decided that whether the fines were excessive was an issue that could have been resolved in an appeal from the court’s judgment. Because the landowner failed to appeal the court’s order, the court decided he was not entitled to relief from judgment via reconsideration. The court never reached the merits of the landowner’s argument that the fine was unconstitutionally excessive.
Szabo v. Municipality of Anchorage, 2014 WL 895197, 320 P.3d 809 (Alaska 2014), reh'g denied (Apr. 2, 2014).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6024430011039791703&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Editor’s Note: This abstract appears in Wendie Kellington, Esq.’s materials from the December 2014 ALI Land Use Institute




Patricia Salkin | December 30, 2014 at 1:03 am | Categories: Current Caselaw, Enforcement
| URL: http://wp.me/p64kE-2dD





Comment
   See all comments
   Like














Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from LAW OF THE LAND.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.


Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:

http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/ak-supreme-court-upholds-enforcement-fines-after-owner-failed-to-appropriately-challenge-them/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com