Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem Q04COUNTY of MONROE The Florida Keys BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor Michelle Lincoln, District 2 Mayor Pro Tem David Rice, District 4 Craig Cates, District 1 James K. Scholl, District 3 Holly Merrill Raschein, District 5 Regular Meeting February 18, 2026 Agenda Item Number: Q4 26-0409 BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: County Attorney TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Kelly Dugan AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to pay the tax certificates and outstanding taxes on real property acquired by Monroe County, located at 114 W Avenue A, Key Largo, totaling $17,196.51, funded with Fund 316. ITEM BACKGROUND: This property is residential property located at 114 W Avenue A, Key Largo. The BOCC approved litigation to enforce the County's code and an outstanding lien stemming from Code Compliance Case CE10040067 on February 21, 2018. Monroe County filed suit against the former property owner on March 26, 2018. Following a trial, a Final Judgment of Foreclosure was issued on July 6, 2023. On November 21, 2025, Monroe County purchased the property at auction for $100. Certificate of Title granting ownership to Monroe County was recorded on December 4, 2025. Taxes are due and owing to redeem tax certificates for 2022, 2023, and 2024, in the amounts $4,551.79, 4,600.03, and $4,371.29 respectively. There are additional outstanding taxes for 2025 in the amount of $3,673.40. Together the taxes due on the property total $17,196.51. The amount is to be paid out of Fund 316. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Approval for litigation 2/18/21. INSURANCE REQUIRED: No CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval DOCUMENTATION: FINANCIAL IMPACT: Payment of $17,196.51 Effective Date: Expiration Date: Total Dollar Value of Contract: Total Cost to County: $17,196.51 Current Year Portion: Budgeted: Source of Funds: Fund 316 CPI: Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: If yes, amount: Grant: County Match: Insurance Required: Q4. Approval to pay the tax certificates and outstanding taxes on real property acquired by Monroe County, located at 114 W Avenue A, Key Largo, totaling $17,196.51, funded with Fund 316. Administration Vision Pro Accounting Rolls Real Estate Tangible Central Business Tax Tourist ORION FRVIS RenewExpress Mercedes K. Q BK/Lit Cashiering Accounts Bills Certificates Tax Deeds Certificate Sale Deed Express TitleExpress Reports Administration Delinquent Tax Summary Account History as of 02/27/2026 Roll Status Due 2026 Preliminary roll View 2025 Ar:r:t: Unpaid $3,673.40 View 2024 Accu Unpaid $4,371.29 View I.}eed: Certified 2023 Acct Unpaid $4,600.03 View Cert: ftedeerrred 17eed: Certified 2022 Acct: Unpaid $4,551.79 View Cert: Slur rendered Deeds: Certified 2021 Acct: Paid -in -full View 2020 Acct: Paid -in -full View 2019 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cent: Redeemed 2018 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cent: Redeemed 2017 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cert: Redeemed 2016 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cert: Redeemed 2015 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cent: Redeemed 2014 Acct: Paid -in -full View Delq Advertised 2013 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cent: Redeemed 2012 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cert: Redeemed 2011 Acct Paid -in -full View Cert: Redeemed 2010 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cert: Redeemed 2009 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cert: Redeemed 2008 Acct: Paid -in -full View Deed: Paid -off 2007 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cent: Redeemed Deed: Paid -off 2006 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cent: Surrendered Deed: Paid -off 2005 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cert: Redeemed 2004 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cent: Redeemed 2003 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cert: Redeemed 2002 Acct Paid -in -full View Cert: Redeemed 2001 Acct: Paid -in -full View 2000 Acct: Paid -in -full View Delq Advertised Deed: Paid -off 1999 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cent: Redeemed Deed: Paid -off 1998 Acct: Paid -in -full View Cert: Surrendered Deed: Paid -off Deed Redemption Total: $13,523.11 (2022-2024) Other Taxes Total: $3,673.40 (2025) Total Due as o1 02/27/2026: $17,196.51 Post a bill payment Write off uncollectible amounts Print History View a different due date Account Information Roll Year: 2025 Tax Year: 2025 Account Number: 1565199 « Prev Next Property ID: 1565199 a Prev Next u Millage Code: 500K- PT OF KEY LARGO Certified SCHOFIELD MARK H Roll Owner(s): SCHOFIELD CISSY ANN 9555 SW 175th Ter # 4014 Palmetto Bay, FL 33157-5604 a Prev Nexh> Situs Address: 114 W AVENUE A, KEY LARGO Links: Property Appraiser, Public Site Flags: "rtax IDeed AIpIrdl iicafloin BillExpress- Add BillExpress subscriber Subscribers: Class Value: 0 Just Value: 496,679 Unimproved Land Value: 0 School Assessed Value: 496,679 Assessed Value: 327,547 Ad Valorem: $3,133.40 Non -ad Valorem: $577.11 Total Tax: $3,710.51 Modify this account Prorate this account Print Balance Due After Final Judgment Letter Split this parcel Combine this parcel Move this account -year to another parcel Print this bill Print form short bill Print a copy of this bill Manage account links Create VAB Case Create Catastrophic Event Allowance Create Veteran Refund Create new account Location Details Ad Valorem Details INon-ad Valorem Details Filing # 176790399 E-Filed 07/06/2023 10:15:02 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 16th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Monroe County, Florida, a political Case No. 18-CA-217-P Subdivision of the State of Florida, Plaintiff, v, Mark H. Schofield, Defendant. FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF ON DEFENANT'S COUNTERCLAIM THIS ACTION was heard before the Court at a non -jury trial before the Hon. James Barton, II, held on April 18, 2023 and April 19, 2023. Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Defendant presented witness testimony and other evidence to the Court during the trial as well as oral closing arguments. The parties agreed to submit proposed final judgments to the Court thirty days after receiving a copy of the trial transcript. The Court, having considered the testimony and other evidence as well as the written submissions of counsel, makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT Plaintiff Monroe County, Florida (the "County") filed this action against Defendant Mark H. Schofield ("Schofield") to enforce its code enforcement lien. The lien arises from a Final Order issued in Monroe County Code Enforcement Case No. CE10040067. Schofield owns the subject real property located at 114 W. Avenue A, Key Largo, Florida ("Property"). The Court finds that service of process was duly and regularly obtained over Mark H. Schofield, Defendant. In its Complaint, the County seeks a money judgment, Page 1 of 14 lien foreclosure judgment, and a writ of execution.' Schofield's counterclaim contains three counts, alleging: 1. Entry of an invalid final order, 2. Imposition of excessive fines, and 3. Failure to satisfy the requirements of procedural due process. Schofield obtained the property at a foreclosure sale in 1991. He intended to eventually live on the property. At all times material hereto, the structure on the property (a trailer) was and remains vacant and uninhabitable. Monroe County Code Enforcement Case No. CE10040067 began with an inspection of the Property conducted by Monroe County Code Enforcement Inspector White on May 8, 2010. The inspection resulted an Unsafe/Unsanitary Referral, sent to Building Official Joe Paskalik on August 2, 2010, which concluded that the structure was unsafe, both because of the condition of the building (broken out windows, rotted fascia, and fence falling down) and also because it was abandoned. Monroe County Code Enforcement initiated Code Enforcement Case CE10040067, with three violations of Monroe County Code Ordinances: Monroe County Code section 21-20(b) (the "Mowing Violation"); Monroe County Code section 6-27(b)(2)(b) ("Unsafe/Structural Deterioration Violation"); and Monroe County Code section 6-27(b)(2)(i) ("Unsafe/Abandoned Violation"). The County issued a Notice of Violation, posted the Notice on the Property, and sent a copy of the Notice to Schofield on August 4, 2010 via certified mail. The certified mail receipt, bearing Schofield's signature, was returned to the County. The Notice of Violation indicated a hearing date of August 26, 2010. 1 Prior to the start of trial, the County dismissed Count One in its Complaint, for injunctive relief. (Trial Transcript ("Tr."), at 11:7-9.) Page 2 of 14 Schofield did not dispute the charges. On August 20, 2010, Schofield signed a Stipulation to Code Violation and for Time to Comply for First Time Offenses, admitting the violations, asking for more time to correct the violations, and waiving his right to appeal. The scheduled hearing was held on August 26, 2010, which Schofield, after receiving notice, did not attend. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Special Magistrate entered an order ("Final Order), finding that the violations existed and imposing fines in the amount set forth in the Stipulation that Schofield had signed, in the amount of $50 per day for the Mowing Violation and $250 per day for each of the Unsafe Violations, until the violations were corrected. The Final Order incorporated by reference the Stipulation to Code Violation and For Time to Comply for First time Offenses that had been signed by Mr. Schofield on August 20, 2010, and imposed fines that would accrue on each of the three violations listed in the Final Order, if the violations were not corrected by a Compliance Date of November 3, 2010. Schofield did not appeal the Final Order. The conditions were not corrected by November 3, 2010. Later in November, 2010, after the compliance date set in the initial Stipulation, Schofield requested an extension of the compliance date. The County and Schofield then entered into another Stipulation, in which Mr. Schofield again stipulated that the violations existed and further stipulated that the same fines would begin to run if the violations were not corrected by March 17, 2011. On March 17, 2011, Monroe County Code Enforcement Inspector Diane Link went to the property to conduct an inspection to determine whether the violations had been corrected. Although Schofield testified at trial that the grass was mowed in 2010, the Page 3 of 14 Court accepts Ms. Link's conclusion that none of the violations had been corrected as of March, 2011. Therefore, fines on all three violations in Code Enforcement Case CE10040067 began to run on March 18, 2011. In 2011 Schofield obtained a permit to demolish the structure located on his property. The amount needed to demolish the structure, between $9,000.00 and $16,000.00, was cost prohibitive, and the permit has expired. On December 28, 2012, Code Enforcement reviewed a photo of the Property as it existed on December 28, 2012, and concluded that the fines on the Mowing Violation had been corrected as of that date. As to the other two violations, the deficiencies described in the 2010 Notice of Violation and the final administrative order remained in existence at the time of the trial in this case. Over the years, Schofield claims that he has met with County employees to discuss actions to cure the ongoing violations. Specifically, he testified that he removed a gazebo and repaired a wall, and secured plans for rebuilding the structure. On April 16, 2015, the County sent by certified mail a Notice of Hearing, scheduling a May 28, 2015 hearing, to Schofield at his residence. After the hearing, which Schofield did not attend, an order was entered authorizing the County to initiate a lien foreclosure action. The May 28, 2015 order was not appealed. The County filed the instant action in 2018. On March 8, 2023, Cynthia McPherson, Monroe County's Director of Code Enforcement, visited the property and took photographs. Although she observed that the broken windows appeared to have been repaired, the property was still not in compliance and was in an unsafe condition. Page 4 of 14 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Because Schofield raises constitutional arguments in his three count Counterclaim which, if successful, would bar the County's claim for relief and entitle Schofield to the remedies requested in his counterclaim, the Court addresses the Counterclaim first. Each of the legal theories advanced in the Counterclaim will be discussed below. First, Schofield asserts that the Final Order is invalid, because it "fails to impose `a fine' for the number of days past the date of compliance" and also because "the Special Magistrate did not conduct a hearing, issue findings of fact, or issue an order `affording the proper relief consistent with powers granted herein."' (Counterclaim, ¶¶ 56, 57.) However, a property owner who fails to appeal the decision of the Special Magistrate in the form of the Final Order cannot later collaterally attack the Final Order in a foreclosure action. Kirby v. City of Archer, 790 So.2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). "Matters determined in an order which has become final without appeal are not later subject to appellate review ...." Id., quoting City of Plantation v. Vermut, 583 So.2d 393, 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also Hardin v. Monroe County, 64 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Schofield, having waived his right to appeal in a written stipulation, admitted that he never filed an appeal challenging the Final Order. All three cases on which Plaintiff relies for support on this issue (Massey v. Charlotte County, 842 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), Sheckler v. Monroe County, 335 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), and Hayes v. Monroe County, 337 So. 3d 442 (Fla. 3d 2022)) involve petitions for second tier certiorari to the district court of appeal. Unlike Page 5of14 here, in none of the three cases did the property owner stipulate that Code violations existed and agree to waive his right to appeal. Schofield points to the exception in Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134, 137 (Fla.1970) and argues that his issues fall within the category of fundamental error. Sanford, 237 So. 2d at 137 ("Constitutional issues, other than those constituting fundamental error, are waived unless timely raised.") (emphasis added). Fundamental error is "error which goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action." Sanford, id.; see also Grigg v. State of Florida, 230 So. 3d 943, 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ("Fundamental error is defined as error which 'goes to the essence of a fair and impartial trial, error so fundamentally unfair as to amount to a denial of due process."'); Wooten v. State of Florida, 904 So. 2d 590, 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ("Fundamental error is error that 'goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to the denial of due process."'). The Florida Supreme Court has advised that courts should exercise their discretion under the doctrine of fundamental error "very guardedly." Sanford, 237 So. 2d at 137; see also Wooten, 904 So. 2d at 592 ("The fundamental error exception is very limited and 'should be applied only in rare cases where a jurisdiction error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling case for its application."'), quoting Ray v. State, 403 So. 2d 956, 960 (Fla. 1981). Schofield's fundamental error argument ties neatly with his second and third counts, for excessive fines and procedural due process. In other words, to prevail on his fundamental error argument, Schofield would need to prevail on one of his other two counts. He does not, Page 6of14 With regard to excessive fines, Schofield argued that the fines were excessive because they began to run on March 18, 2011, and continued running, with the result that the fines as of time of trial exceeded $2 million. In the case of the Mowing Violation, the fines ran until December 28, 2012. In the case of the two Unsafe Violations, the fines continued running until the date of the trial in this matter. Defendant has suggested that the Final Order is invalid because it failed to specify a lump sum amount, or failed to specify a maximum number of days for which the fine could accrue. Nothing in Section 162.09, Florida Statutes, contains this limitation on fines. Schofield also argues that in Attorney General Opinion 86-10, the Attorney General opined that fines mentioned in the lien cannot accrue after recordation of the lien. AGO 86-10 is more limited. AGO 86-10 "authorizes the entry of a fine upon notification that a previous order of the enforcement board has not been complied with by a set time ...." AGO 86-10 also says that no provision within Chapter 162 "provides for or authorizes the amendment of the lien imposed by failure to comply with the board's original order to include the fine imposed by the board for repeat violations." Id. In this case, there was no subsequent order of the Final Order, after recordation, to include a subsequent finding of a repeat violation. AGO 86-10 is therefore not applicable. Finally, as to excessive fines, there is a "strong presumption that the amount of a fine is not unconstitutionally excessive if it lies within the range of funds prescribed by the legislature." Moustakis v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 338 Fed, App'x 820, 821 (11th Cir. 2009) (Internal quotation marks omitted). "A fine within the permissible range otherwise authorized by the legislature is presumptively constitutional." State v. Cotton, 198 So. 3d Page 7 of 14 737, 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). The fine at issue here is well within the range specified in Monroe County Code Ordinance No. 016-2015, which matches the range of fines set forth in Florida Statutes Section 162.09(2)(d), particularly when the fact that two of the three violations involved a determination by the Building Official that the structure was unsafe and the building was unsafe because it was abandoned. For all of the above reasons, the fine is not constitutionally excessive and does not constitute fundamental error. In Count Three of the counterclaim, Schofield argues that there has been a procedural due process violation. However, the evidence shows that Schofield was consistently given notice and an opportunity to be heard. He was provided with notice of the August 2010 code enforcement hearing and was advised (in writing, in paragraph 3 of the Stipulation) that he could attend even though he had entered into the Stipulation. He chose not to attend. Had Schofield chosen to attend, the August 26, 2010 code enforcement hearing met the requirements of procedural due process. Schofield next argues that he was entitled to a second hearing, which Schofield refers to as a "Massey" hearing, based on the opinion in Massey v. Charlotte County, 842 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In that opinion, the court held that the Masseys were deprived of due process by never being provided with notice of the second hearing. Here, however, in addition to notice of the original August 26, 2010 hearing, Schofield received notice of the second hearing. Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 is a letter from Kathleen Windsor of Monroe County Code Enforcement which was sent to Schofield by certified mail, informing him that a hearing would be held on May 28, 2015. The return receipt on the back of the exhibit shows that it was mailed to Schofield at the address that he stated on the record was his address, and shows that it was signed for on April 18, 2015. Page 8of14 At trial, Schofield said that he did not recognize the signature on the certified mail return receipt. However, he also stated that only two people lived in his house on the date of delivery, the other person being his wife. The Court finds that the County has proved by substantial competent evidence that Schofield was provided with notice of the May 28, 2015 second collections hearing, at which he would have had an opportunity to provide evidence. Schofield's claim of a due process violation based on a failure to conduct a Massey hearing is without merit. Schofield raises two additional issues. First, he claims that the alleged Code violations are unclear, vague and unenforceable. This argument fails because it was not raised in the proceedings below (see Kirby v. City of Archer, supra). Moreover, Schofield should not now be allowed to claim that the alleged Code violations are vague and unclear when he admitted in two stipulations that the Code violations with which he was charged existed. At the time he signed the stipulations, Schofield made no objection that the Code violations, as written, were unclear or vague. Next, Schofield asserts that this action, filed by the County after a four-year delay, should be barred on the basis of laches. In code enforcement proceedings, the landowner may raise equitable defenses. Jones v. State ex reL City of Winter Haven, 870 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (estoppel). In a foreclosure case, the doctrine of laches requires a showing of unreasonable, prejudicial delay, leading to an unconscionable or unjust result. Keys Country Resort, LLC v. 1733 Overseas Highway, LLC, 324 So. 3d 988, 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). In evaluating a laches defense, the court should consider all relevant facts to determine whether the plaintiff has slept on his rights and caused an injustice to be visited Page 9of14 upon the defendant. Ratner v. Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank, 368 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The facts here do not establish either unreasonable delay or prejudice. The County worked with Schofield to repair his vacant, uninhabitable property. Only when efforts failed to obtain compliance with the admitted Code violations did the County initiate this action in 2018, three years after obtaining a court order authorizing the filing of a lien foreclosure action. Schofield did not meet his burden of establishing the laches defense by the greater weight of the evidence. Turning to the Complaint, Monroe County must prove by the greater weight of the evidence the following three elements: (a) that a lien exists; (b) that fines and costs accrued on the lien; and (c) that the lien has not yet been satisfied. If the County meets its burden, it is entitled to judgment on the three remaining causes of action in its Complaint, i.e., money judgment, foreclosure, and writ of execution. Monroe County has established that a valid lien exists. A certified copy of the Final Order in Monroe County Code Enforcement case CE10040067 dated August 26, 2010 (Final Order) was filed and recorded in the Official Records of Monroe County at Book 2509, Pages 1781-1782. The Final Order constitutes a lien against the land on which the violation exists and upon any other real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Section 162.09(3), Florida Statutes. The County has presented competent, substantial evidence to show that the violations were not corrected as of March 17, 2011, and that therefore fines began to accrue beginning on the following day, March 18, 2011, in the amounts specified in the Stipulation to Code Violation and for Extension of Time to Comply and in the Final Order: Page 10 of 14 $50.00 per day for violation of Monroe County Code section 21-20(b) (the "Mowing Violation"); $250.00 per day for violation of Monroe County Code section 6-27(b)(2)(b) ("Unsafe/Structural Deterioration Violation"); $250.00 per day for violation of Monroe County Code section 6-27(b)(2)(i) ("Unsafe/Abandoned Violation"). With respect to the Mowing Violation, Monroe County proved by competent substantial evidence that the violation was corrected on December 28, 2012. With respect to the Unsafe/Structural Deterioration Violation, and the Unsafe/Abandoned Violation, Monroe County proved by competent substantial evidence that the violations have never been corrected. The unrebutted testimony of Monroe County Code Compliance Director Cynthia McPherson was that as of Monday, April 16, 2023, the total amount of the lien was $2,234,777.40, which included $2,239,000.00 in fines and $4,777.40 in costs. The parties stipulated that no portion of the lien has been paid. jr. 14:23-24.) The liens constitute a valid lien on real property owned by Defendant, located in Monroe County, Florida, described as: Lot 3, Block 17 of Key Largo Trailer Village First Addition, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 5, page 55 of the Public Records of Monroe County. Also known as 114 W. Avenue A, Key Largo, FL 33037. There is due and owing to Plaintiff from Defendant the following sums: C E 10040067 Code enforcement fines through 5/30/2023: $2,059,901.74 Costs $0.00 TOTAL: $2,061,401.74 Page 11 of 14 Plaintiff Monroe County proved at trial that it holds a lien for the grand total sum specified above. The lien of the Plaintiff is superior in dignity to any right, title, interest or claim of the Defendant and all persons, corporations, or other entities claiming by, through, or under the Defendant, or any of them, and the properties will be sold free and clear of all claims of the Defendant, with the exception of any assessment that is superior pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 718.116. The Plaintiff's lien encumbers the subject property located in Monroe County, Florida. Monroe County is entitled to a judgment on Count Two in its Complaint, for a money judgment, in the amount of $2,061,401.74, for which let execution issue. The total amount of the judgment shall bear interest from this date forward against the Defendant at the prevailing legal rate of interest which is currently 4.75% per annum or .0130137% per day from the date of the judgment until paid. Plaintiff Monroe County is also entitled to judgment on Count Three in its Complaint, for Foreclosure. Plaintiff Monroe County is entitled to judgment on Count Four in its Complaint, for Writ of Execution. CONCLUSION It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 1. Plaintiff Monroe County shall recover from Defendant Schofield the sum of $$2,061,401.74 on principal, plus interest on any unpaid judgment at the prevailing legal rate of interest which is currently 4.75% per annum or 0.130137% per day from the date of judgment until paid. 2. Plaintiff holds a lien for the total sum set forth above on the following property, described as: Page 12 of 14 Lot 3, Block 17 of Key Largo Trailer Village First Addition, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 5, page 55 of the Public Records of Monroe County. Also known as 114 W. Avenue A, Key Largo, FL 33037. RE # 00461740-000000 3. If the total sums with interest at the rate described in paragraph 1 above of this Judgment are not paid, the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to F.S. 45.031, shall sell the property at public sale on August 22, 2023, to the highest bidder for cash at the courthouse located at 302 Fleming St., Key West, FL 33040 at 11.00 a.m. 4. IF THIS PROPERTY IS SOLD AT PUBLIC SALE, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL MONEY FROM THE SALE AFTER PAYMENT OF PERSONS WHO ARE ENTITLED TO BE PAID FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS PURSUANT TO THIS FINAL JUDGMENT. IF YOU ARE A SUBORDINATE LIENHOLDER CLAIMING A RATE TO FUNDS REMAININ AFTER THE SALE, IF ANY, YO UMUST FILE A CLAIM WITHIN THE CLERK NO LATER THAN THE DATE THAT THE CLERK REPORTS THE FUNDS AS UNCLAIMED. IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A TIMELY CLAIM, YOU WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY REMAINING FUNDS. 5. Defend ant/Counter-plaintiff Schofield shall take nothing on his Counterclaim by this action and Plaintiff/Counter-defendant Monroe County shall go hence without day. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Final Judgment and to enter other orders Page 13of14 that are proper, including, but not limited to, an award of attorneys' fees and costs, deficiency judgment, and writ of possession. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this day of July, 2023, Copies to: All Counsel of record r,. ;4a yes M on, 11 nior Circuit Judge Page 14 of 14