Motion For Clarification - (Reopen Case)

Filing # 120936924 E-Filed 02/05/2021 04:57:06 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
HILLSBORO INLET INVESTMENTS, LLC,

A Florida limited liability company,
Plaintiff, CACE 20-015630 (21)

vs.
HILLBORO INLET CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________________/
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND FOR RELIEF

FROM FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL
PROECEDURE 1.450
COMES NOW Non-Party MARTY KIAR, in his official capacity as Broward

County Property Appraiser (hereafter “BCPA”), by and through the undersigned counsel,
hereby files Motion Clarification of Final Judgment and for Relief from Final Judgment
pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.540 as the Final Judgment orders BCPA to
update the Broward County tax roll impacting property ownership rights of property
owners not named as Defendants (hereafter “Non-Party Property Owners”) to this action,
and as grounds thereof states as follows:
1. This Honorable Court entered a Final Judgment upon clerk’s default in this matter
quieting title against 5 defunct corporate defendants, namely: Hillsboro Inlet Corporation
(dissolved 1944); Hillsborough Beach Development Company (dissolution unknown);
Bay Shores Realty, Inc. (dissolved 1950); Hillsboro Realty, Inc (dissolved 1958); and
Hillsboro Beach corporation (dissolved 1936). See Exhibit “A”.
2. The BCPA is seeking guidance from this Honorable Court due to significant legal
consequences resulting from the Final Judgment that based on a review of the pleadings
this Court may not have been aware of at the time the Final Judgment upon default was
entered.
1
3. Specifically, this Final Judgment appears to divest 23 property owners who were
not parties to this lawsuit (hereafter Non-Party Property Owners) of their property rights
without affording them due process of law in violation of the 5th Amendment to the
United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution.
4. The property that is the subject of this lawsuit (hereafter “Subject Property”)
consists primarily of submerged lands located in the Hillsboro Inlet and the Intercoastal
and also includes a portion of dry land known as the “Shore Parcels”. The BCPA has
prepared a map which depicts the BCPA’s best estimate of the location of the boundary
of the Subject Property over the parcel boundaries the BCPA currently identifies on the
tax roll. Please note, this map is not to scale and does not represent an opinion of title.
See Exhibit “B”.
5. Despite the fact that the BCPA was not a party to this lawsuit, the Final Judgment
requires the BCPA to update its records to identify the Plaintiff as the owner of all of the
Subject Property.
6. On January 18, 2020, the BCPA received correspondence from Plaintiff which
indicated that the Final Judgment vested fee simple title in the Plaintiff to the Subject
Property. The Plaintiff’s attorney stated, “As is made clear by the attached Final
Judgment, fee simple title to the parcels of land set forth, detailed, sketched and
legally described therein is now unequivocally and unconditionally vested in my
client”. See Exhibit C.
7. This creates a concern due to the fact that the Subject Property is already on
Broward County’s tax roll in the name of 23 Non-Party Property Owners. The BCPA has
prepared a list identifying the Non-Party Property Owners who are currently on the tax
roll and who are impacted by the Final Judgment. See Exhibit “D”.
8. The Plaintiff secured a Final Judgment to quiet title against 5 defunct corporate
defendants, who are not currently on the tax roll, instead of filing suit against the 23 Non-
2
Parties who are currently identified by BCPA records, and other public records, as being
the owners of the Subject Property.
9. This is especially concerning to the BCPA since the “Shores Parcel” created by
the Final Judgment actually runs through 16 residential properties owned by property
owners who are not a party to this lawsuit.
10. The BCPA has a good faith concern the due process rights of the 23 Non-Party
Property Owners will be violated if the BCPA were to comply with the Final Judgment
and Plaintiff’s demand the BCPA identify Plaintiff as fee simple owners of the Subject
Property.
I. Jurisdiction
11. In the Final Judgment, this Honorable Court reserved and retained jurisdiction
“over the parties and the subject matter hereto to (sic) jurisdiction (sic) to conduct such
proceedings and enter such further Order as may be proper, including to enforce the
terms of this Judgment, should such enforcement be necessary”. See Final Judgment
paragraph Q, page 35.
12. The BCPA seeks relief pursuant to the above terms of the Final Judgment and
pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(3)and (4).
II. Plaintiff’s Dealings With BCPA Prior To Lawsuit

13. The BCPA is an independent constitutional office. It is responsible for
identifying all property within Broward County and maintaining an accurate tax roll.
14. It is important to note that the BCPA is not an arbiter of property disputes. The
BCPA is required to maintain an accurate tax roll and must interpret existing property
records in that regard. The BCPA maintains a cadastral map on its website which
identifies all parcels of property currently on the tax roll including the identity of the
property owners based on BCPA’s interpretation of available public records.
15. The BCPA had extensive dealings with the Plaintiff from December 2020
through June 2020.
3
16. During this time, the Plaintiff has continued to pressure the BCPA into changing
its records to identify the Plaintiff as the owner of the Subject Property even though the
BCPA records, and other property records, identify other entities as having an interest in
the property.
17. The BCPA explained to the Plaintiff on multiple occasions that it does not
adjudicate property rights or boundary disputes. However, in order to assist the Plaintiff,
the BCPA contacted the State of Florida c/o the Department of Environmental Protection
(hereafter “DEP”) to determine if they have any interest in the property.
18. The DEP responded on February 5, 2020.
19. The BCPA provided the DEP’s response to the Plaintiff on February 19, 2020.
20. On February 20, 2020, the Plaintiff indicated that it disagreed with the DEP
correspondence.
21. On May 29, 2020, the BCPA contacted the DEP a second time requesting
clarification of its earlier correspondance.
22. On June 4th, 2020, the BCPA made a second request to the Plaintiff to respond to
the DEP correspondence dated February 5, 2020. The Plaintiff did not respond.
23. The DEP responded to the BCPA’s second correspondance and provided
clarification on June 9, 2020.
24. The BCPA provided the DEP’s response to the Plaintiff on June 9th and requested
that the Plaintiff respond. The Plaintiff did not respond.
4
III. The Final Judgment Appears to Deprive 23 Nonparties of
Property Rights Without Due Process And In Violation of the
US Constitution And The Florida Constitution.
25. The BCPA is unable to determine how to proceed due to the fact that the Final
Judgment appears to determine that the Plaintiff is the owner of the Subject Property in
fee simple but BCPA records, and other public records, indicate that 23 Non-Party
Property Owners appear to have an ownership interest in the Subject Property.
26. In an effort to identify how the Non-Party Property Owners are impacted, we will
compare BCPA’s current records identifying the owners of the Subject Property as
defined by the Final Judgment, namely: the Shores Parcel; Parcel 1; Parcel 4; Lot 1; Lot
3; and Block A. Please refer to Exhibit “C” for a visual map of the Subject Properties for
informational purposes only.
A. Shores Parcel
27. The Shores Parcel consists of 26,316 square feet of land that appears to run
through residential property that is currently in the possession of 13 different Non-Party
Homeowners.
28. It is critical to highlight that 13 of these Non-Party Property Owners have

residential homes located on the property that is subject to this Final Judgment. The
BCPA has prepared a map which depicts the BCPA’s best estimate of the location of the
boundary of the “Shores Parcel” over the parcel boundaries the BCPA currently identifies
on the tax roll. Please note, this map is not to scale and does not represent an opinion of
title. See Exhibit “E”.
29. The Final Judgment purports to vest title of the Shores Parcel in favor of the
Plaintiff and requires the BCPA to update its records and the official tax roll in this
regard:
5. More particularly, Plaintiff is currently in possession of the

“properties”, which are hereby collectively comprised and
consist of…the Shores Parcel (hereafter defined and described)
…
Final Judgment pg. 4
5
42… this Court finds that title to the Shores Parcel presently
vests in Plaintiff, including those additional lands identified
and delineated on the Shores Parcel Sketch, as set forth
above…”.
L. Title to the Shores Parcel is hereby quieted in the name of

Plaintiff Hillsboro Inlet Investments LLC, and against
Defendants…together with all persons claiming by, and
through, under or against same, with regard to certain parcel of
real property defined as the shores Parcel, as described above.
P. This Judgment shall constitute a court order quieting title to

the Properties so that the BCPA can, will may and shall be able
to assign property control numbers to the Properties, appraise
the Properties, including the submerged lands, and to
accurately put the properties on the property assessment rolls,
so as to enable Plaintiff to pay the necessary and appropriate
taxes assed against the Properties, and
30. The “Shores Parcel” appears to run through residential property which BCPA
records, and other property records, identify as being owned by the following individual
homeowners below:
Property Owner In BCPA Records Parcel Number

OB3691836 LP 484329041180
HILLSBORO SHORES IMP ASSOC INC 484329041190
CONFIDENTIAL 484329041210
SHINING HILL DEVELOPMENTS 484329041220
SCAP.FL 12 LLC 484329041230
FENTON, WARREN 484329041240
KULLE, RICHARD J & BARBARA A 484329041250
NUDELMAN, JEFF S & LINDA 484329041260
CHARLES, KENNETH & LISA 484329041270
SHINING HILL 484329041280
REYNA, JOE A 484329041290
BOUTIN, GEORGES & BARBARA 484329041300
BAGWELL, CHANTAL J 484329041310
NGUYEN, LONG 484329041320
RADTKE, JOHN 484329041330
6
RADTKE, JOHN 484329041340
31. Based upon review of the pleadings, the Plaintiff never disclosed to this
Honorable Court that the land known as the “Shores Parcels” is currently identified by
BCPA records as being owned by the above Non-Parties.
32. In fact, a review of the record suggests that this Court was never provided a
current aerial photograph which would have put the Court on notice that the Shores
Parcel appears to run directly through residential property. Instead, the Plaintiff provided
the Court with a sketch based on historic property records which does not appear to
diagram the 16 Non-Party Residential Property Owners’ interest in the land.
33. Therefore, the Final Judgment appears to violate the above Non-Party Property
Owners’ due process rights as their interest in the “Shores Parcel” has been vested in the
Plaintiff despite the fact that they were not a party to this lawsuit.
34. For these reasons, the BCPA seeks guidance from the Court as to how to resolve
the conflict between the Final Judgment and the BCPA records indicating that 16
Residential Property Owners, not parties to this lawsuit, own this residential property.
B. Parcel 1
35. The property described in the Final Judgment as Parcel 1 is submerged land
located in the Intercoastal Canal consisting of 121,894 square feet of submerged land.
36. The Final Judgment purports to vest title of this property in favor of the Plaintiff
and requires the BCPA to update its records in that regard:
5. More particularly, Plaintiff is currently in possession of

the “properties”, which are hereby collectively comprised and
consist of…Parcel 1 Property (hereafter defined and described)
…
13… The State of Florida is permanently divested of having

any interest in the Parcel 1 Property irrespective of whether
7
the Parcel 1 property is now submerged or, if submerged, the
waters thereon may be navigable in fact …
14. ...this Court finds that title to the Parcel 1 Property

presently vests in Plaintiff, including those additional lands
identified and delineated on the Parcel 1 Sketch…
D. Title to the Parcel 1 is hereby quieted in the name of

real property defined as the Parcel 1 Property, as described
above.

37. Based upon a review of the pleadings, the Plaintiff never disclosed to this
Honorable Court that the land known as “Parcel 1” is currently identified by BCPA
records as being owned by the above the State of Florida c/o Department of
Environmental Protection or Trustees for the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (hereafter
“State of Florida c/o DEP”) Property.
38. Additionally, from a review of BCPA records, it appears that there are adjacent
Non-Party Property owners who may have docks located on this property.
39. Therefore, the Final Judgment appears to violate the State of Florida’s due
process rights as their interest in “Parcel 1” property has been “permanently divested”
despite the fact that they were not a party to this lawsuit.
8
the conflict between the Final Judgment and the BCPA records indicating that the State
of Florida c/o DEP, not a party to this lawsuit, is the owner of this property.
C. Parcel 4
41. The property described in the Final Judgment as “Parcel 4” is submerged land
located in the Intercoastal Canal and consists of 251,444 square feet (5.7724 acres) of
submerged land.

consist of…Parcel 4 Property (hereafter defined and described)
…
20. …The State of Florida is permanently divested of

having any interest in the Parcel 4 Property irrespective of
whether the Parcel 4 property is now submerged or, if
submerged, the waters thereon may be navigable in fact.
21. ...this Court finds that title to the Parcel 1 Property

identified and delineated on the Parcel 4 Sketch…
F. Title to the Parcel 4 is hereby quieted in the name of

real property defined as the Parcel 4 Property, as described
above.

9
Honorable Court that the land known as the “Parcel 4” is currently identified by BCPA
records as being owned by the State of Florida c/o DEP.
44. Therefore, the Final Judgment appears to violate the State of Florida’s due
process rights as its interest in “Parcel 4” property has been “permanently divested”
despite the fact that they were not a party to this lawsuit.
D. Lot 1
46. The property described in the Final Judgment as Lot 1 consists of submerged and
dry land located in and near the Hillsboro Inlet. Lot 1 consists of 854,031 square feet
(519.6059 acres) of land.

consist of…the Lot 1 Property (hereafter defined and
described) …

any interest in the Lot 1 Property irrespective of whether the
Lot 1 property is now submerged or, if submerged, the waters
thereon may be navigable in fact.
10
28. …this Court finds that title to the Lot 1 Property presently
and delineated on the Lot 1 Sketch…
H. Title to the Lot 1 is hereby quieted in the name of Plaintiff

Hillsboro Inlet Investments LLC, and against
real property defined as the Lot 1 Property, as described above.

48. According to BCPA records and other public records, property owners who are
not a party to this lawsuit have an ownership interest in the property including:
Property Owner in BCPA Records Parcel Identification Number
E G BROWN LLC 484320000450
TIITF/STATE OF FLORIDA 484320000460
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 484329000020
E G BROWN LLC 484329070061
TIITF/STATE OF FLORIDA 484329070062
HILLSBORO SHORES IMP ASSOC 484329070070
Honorable Court that the land known as the “Lot 1” is currently identified by BCPA
records as being owned by the above Non-Party Property Owners.
11
50. Therefore, the Final Judgment appears to violate the above Non-Party Property
Owners’ due process rights as their interest in the “Lot 1” property has been vested in the
Plaintiff despite the fact that they were not a party to this lawsuit.
the conflict between the Final Judgment and the BCPA records indicating that the above
named property owners, not parties to this lawsuit, are the owner of this property.
E. Lot 3
52. The property described in the Final Judgment as Lot 3 of 26,204 square feet
(.06016 acres) of property.

consist of…the Lot 3 Property (hereafter defined and
described) …

35. ...this Court finds that title to the Lot 3 Property presently
and delineated on the Lot 3 Sketch…
J. Title to the Lot 3 is hereby quieted in the name of Plaintiff

Hillsboro Inlet Investments LLC, and against
real property defined as the Lot 3 Property, as described above.
12
54. According to BCPA records and other public records, another entity not a party
to the lawsuit has an interest in Lot 3, namely, the State of the State of Florida c/o DEP.
Honorable Court that the land known as “Lot 3” is currently identified by BCPA records
as being owned by the State of Florida c/o DEP.
56. Therefore, the Final Judgment appears to violate the State of Florida c/o DEP’s
due process rights as their interest in “Lot 3” property has been “permanently divested”
despite the fact that they were not a party to this lawsuit
of Floirda c/o DEP, not a party to this lawsuit, is the owner of this property.
F. Block A
58. The property described in the Final Judgment as Block A consists of submerged
land located near the Hillsboro Inlet. Block A consists of one acre of land.

“properties”, which are hereby collectively comprised and
consist of…the Block A Property (hereafter defined and
described) …

13
any interest in the Block A Property irrespective of whether the
49. …this Court finds that title to the Block A Property

identified and delineated on the Block A Sketch…
N. Title to the Block A is hereby quieted in the name of

real property defined as the Block A Property, as described
above.

60. According to BCPA records and other public records, Block A should be in the
name of the State of Florida c/o DEP.
Honorable Court that the land known as the “Block A” is currently identified by BCPA
records as being owned by the State of Florida c/o DEP.
62. Therefore, the Final Judgment appears to violate the State of Florida c/o DEP’s
due process rights as their interest in “Block A” property has been “permanently
divested” despite the fact that they were not a party to this lawsuit
14
IV. The Final Judgment is Void

64. The Final Judgment orders the BCPA to deprive Non-Party Property Owners of
their property rights by removing them from the tax roll without due process of law and
in violation of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the
Florida Constitution.
65. The Final Judgment is void due to Plaintiff’s failure to name essential Non-Party
Property Owners and the BCPA as parties to this lawsuit.
V. The BCPA Is Entitled To Relief Because A Review Of

The Pleadings Suggest The Final Judgment Was Obtained
Through Purported “Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Other
Misconduct of An Adverse Party”
66. Based upon a review of pleadings filed before the Court, it appears the Plaintiff
made misrepresentations to the Court in its filings which the Court relied upon to grant
the Final Judgement in this matter.
67. The BCPA is entitled to relief from this Final Judgment pursuant to Florida Rule
of Civil Procedures 5.1540(b)(3) because, based upon a review of the pleadings, the
Plaintiff’s misrepresentations and omission of material facts constitutes “fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party”.
A. Plaintiff Never Filed Suit Against The Property Owners

Identified on BCPA Records and Other Public Records
68. As stated above, the BCPA records and other public records, clearly identify that
there are at least 23 different nonparty property owners who have an ownership interest in
the property that is the subject of this lawsuit.
15
69. Instead of filing suit against any of the 23 Non-Parties identified by BCPA
records as the property owners, the Plaintiff filed suit against defunct corporate
defendants who were dissolved over 70 years ago and who are not listed by BCPA as
owners of the property.
B. Plaintiff Misrepresented BCPA’s Position To the Court

70. The BCPA would like to correct the record regarding certain inaccurate
representations made by the Plaintiff to the Court regarding the basis of BCPA’s refusal
to process the Plaintiff’s ownership interst in the Subject Property.
78. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff states BCPA refused to recognize the Plaintiff’s
ownership interest in the Subject Property because the property was submerged lands:
1…Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Properties by

virtue of the Inlet Conveyance, because the Properties now
consist of submerged lands the Broward County Property
Appraiser’s Office (“BCPA”) has refused to acknowledge
Plaintiff’s ownership of the Properties on Broward
County’s tax records without a court order which quiets
title to the Properties as being vested in Plaintiff…”
Complaint pg. 4
50. However, BCPA has refused to recognize Plaintiff’s fee

simple ownership of the Parcel 1 Property in that as a matter
of course, BCPA incredulously posits that it will not map,
assign property control numbers to and/or appraise any
privately-owned submerged lands absent a court order
quieting title to the lands in question.
Complaint pg.19

simple ownership of the Parcel 4 Property in that as a matter
Complaint pg.34
16
simple ownership of the Lot 1 Property in that as a matter of
course, BCPA incredulously posits that it will not map,
Complaint pg.50

simple ownership of the Shore Parcel in that as a matter of
course, BCPA incredulously posits that it will not map,
Complaint pg.76

simple ownership of the Block A Property in that as a matter
Complaint pg.89
71. The above is simply not accurate.
72. The BCPA notified the Plaintiff exactly why it would not update its tax rolls in
favor of the Plaintiff by correspondence dated February 26, 2020; April 2, 2020; and May
1, 2020.
73. This BCPA has this correspondence in its possession. If the Court would like to
review this correspondence, the BCPA will provide it to the Court.
74. The BCPA represents to this Court that nowhere in this correspondence does the
BCPA “incredulously posits that it will not map, assign property control numbers to
and/or appraise any privately-owned submerged lands absent a court order quieting
title to the lands in question”.
17
75. The BCPA does in fact place privately owned submerged lands on the tax roll.
See Exhibit “F”.
76. The BCPA brings this to the Court’s attention in order to correct the record in
this matter.
C. Based On The Pleadings It Appears The Plaintiff misrepresented

To The Court That the Property Was Not On BCPA Records
representations made by the Plaintiff to the Court that the BCPA does not have this
property on the tax roll:
52. Yet despite BCPA’s direct and express statutory

requirement to do so, the Parcel 1 Property has neither been
assigned a folio number by BCPA nor has the Parel 1
Property been added to Broward County’s tax roll, which
omission has and will continue to cause Plaintiff significant
damage.
Complaint pg.19

requirement to do so, the Parcel 4 Property has neither been
assigned a folio number by BCPA nor has the Parel 4
damage.
Complaint pg.35

requirement to do so, the Lot 1 Property has neither been
assigned a folio number by BCPA nor has the Lot 1
damage.
Complaint pg.50
18
requirement to do so, the Lot 3 Property has neither been
assigned a folio number by BCPA nor has the Lot 3
damage.
Complaint pg.64

requirement to do so, the Shores Parcel has neither been
assigned a folio number by BCPA nor has the Shores
Parcel been added to Broward County’s tax roll, which
damage.
Complaint pg.77

requirement to do so, the Block A Property has neither been
assigned a folio number by BCPA nor has the Block A
damage.
Complaint pg.89
78. The above is simply not accurate. Not only is the Subject Property currently on
Broward County’s tax roll with assigned folio numbers, the Property was in the name of
23 Non-Party Property Owners who were not a party to this lawsuit.
79. A review of the record suggests that the Plaintiff failed to disclose to this Court
that the BCPA records had different property boundaries for the Subject Property. The
current folio numbers for each parcel of the Subject Property are listed above.
80. BCPA brings this to the Court’s attention in order to correct the record in this
regard.
19
D. Plaintiff Misrepresented To The Court That They
Were “Currently In Possession” Of Property Known
As The Shores Parcel
representations made by the Plaintiff to the Court that the it is currently in the possession
of the “Shores Parcel”.
82. In multiple filings, the Plaintiff misrepresents that it is currently in the possession
of property knows as the “Shores Parcel”:
1. Plaintiff… currently owns and maintains possession of the

Properties…”
Complaint pg. 3
199. Plaintiff currently owns and hold title to that certain

parcel of real property which are depicted, identified and
legally described as… (“the Shore Parcel”)
Complaint pg.68
9. More particularly, Plaintiff currently owns and maintains

possession of the subject properties…The subject properties
consist of privately-held lands which (i) are now submerged…
Amended Motion for

Default Final Judgment pg. 4

“Properties,” which are hereby collectively comprised and
consist of the…. Shores Parcel (hereafter defined and
described) ….
Final Judgment at pg. 4
83. As stated above, the “Shores Parcel” runs through and bifurcates property
containing residential homes belonging to property owners who are not a party to this
lawsuit. See Exhibits “B” and “E”.
20
84. It is simply not possible for the Plaintiff to own, maintain, possess the “Shore
Parcel” lands as they appear to be in the possession of the residential property owners
identified by the BCPA records.
85. This is extremely concerning to the BCPA due to the Plaintiff’s correspondence
dated January 18, 2021 where it demands the BCPA to update its records to show the
Plaintiff owns the Subject Property in fee simple:
Attached please find a copy of the Final Judgment Quieting
Title entered in favor of my client, Hillsboro Inlet Investments,
LLC, on December 10, 2020 which was recorded among the
Public Records Division of Broward County, Florida on
December 14, 2020, as instrument $116924172. As I made
clear by the attached Final Judgment, fee simple title to the
parcels of land set forth, detailed, sketched and legally
described therein is now unequivocally and unconditionally
vested in my client.
See Exhibit C.
86. The BCPA has a good faith belief that Plaintiff is using the Final Judgment to
deprive current Non-Party Property Owners of their property rights.
E. State of Florida Interest In Subject Property
87. The BCPA wanted to bring to this Honorable Court’s attention that the Final
Judgment by its terms permanently divests the State of Florida of their interest in the
Subject Property:
any interest in the Parcel 1 Property irrespective of whether the
Parcel 1 property is now submerged or, if submerged, the
waters thereon may be navigable in fact.
20…The State of Florida is permanently divested of having

any interest in the Parcel 4 Property irrespective of whether the
Parcel 4 property is now submerged or, if submerged, the
waters thereon may be navigable in fact.
21


any interest in the Block A Property irrespective of whether the
Block A property is now submerged or, if submerged, the
waters thereon may be navigable in fact …
88. The BCPA is seeking clarification that the Court intended to permanently divest
the State of Florida c/o DEP, a non-party, of their interest in these properties.
Conclusion
This Honorable Court should determine that the BCPA has filed this Motion in
good faith in order to obtain clarification of the Final Judgment in this matter as it
impacts property rights which fall within the subject matter of this lawsuit. The Court
having reserved and retained jurisdiction in the Final Judgment “over the parties and the
subject matter hereto (sic) to (sic) jurisdiction to conduct such proceedings and enter such
further Order as may be proper” should clarify the Final Judgment as requested by the
BCPA. See Final Judgment paragraph Q, page 35. The BCPA is respectfully requesting
this Honorable Court clarify whether the Final Judgment divests the 23 Non-Party
Property owners of their right in the Subject Property. Additionally, the Court should
determine that the Final Judgment is void and unenforceable against the BCPA and all of
the Non-Party Property Owners according to BCPA records due to the fact they were not
named parties to the lawsuit. Finally, the Court should grant the BCPA relief from this
22
Final Judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(3)and (4). The
Court should grant other relief that is just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD A. SHERMAN, Jr.,

Deputy General Counsel
Florida Bar No. 716431
Broward County Property Appraiser’s Office
115 S. Andrews Avenue, Room 111
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 357-6865 Telephone
(954) 357-6804 Facsimile
rsherman@bcpa.net
MILA SCHWARTZREICH, General Counsel

(954) 357-6934 Telephone
(954) 357-6804 Facsimile
mila@bcpa.net E-Mail, and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by E-Mail on
February 5, 2021, on ANDREW B. BLASI, ESQUIRE, Attorney for Plaintiff; SHAPIRO,
BLASKI, WASSERMAN & HERMANN, P.A., ablasi@sbwh.law; kgarcia@sbwh.law;
rfrank@sbwh.law; rmorales@sbwh.law.
23
Respectfully submitted,

(954) 357-6865 Telephone
(954) 357-6804 Facsimile
rsherman@bcpa.net
MILA SCHWARTZREICH, General Counsel

(954) 357-6934 Telephone
(954) 357-6804 Facsimile
mila@bcpa.net E-Mail
24

Exhibit “A”

Exhibit “B”

±
A 1A Y
NE AVE
STH
Draft of Properties from FJ
ST
27
H
NE 26TH AVE
25T
TH
NE
1A
NE 25TH ST T
HS
A
T
24
SR
HILLS
*For in office use only* NE
1A
B OR O
1A
A
A
STHY
NE 24TH ST Parcel 1
MILE
Count 1
SR
A1
A
E DR
A 1A
D
ERSI Blk A
N RI V Count 6
A VD
BL B
AN SPRING ST
O CE G E
N
NORFOLK ST Govt Lot 2 C F
Parcel 4 Count 5
Count 2 NORFOLK ST
DOVER RD
N A 1A
D
DOVER RD G E
N SR A1A
BEACON ST BEACON ST
EE
DR
DD
Y
BA
O CC
ROBBINS RD BB H
ROBBINS RD
N STHY A1A
AA
Z Shore Govt Lot 1
LEIGH RD
Parcel Count 3
LEIGH RD Y Count 5
N RI V
X
W
BARTON RD
ERSI
V
BARTON RD U
D
T
E DR
S
DOW ST
N J
DOW ST
M K K
I I
MARINE DR
Govt Lot 3 L
Count 4
Legend
CANAL DR Mean High Water Line
CANAL DR
Catergory
The boundaries depicted on this Map are FJ
for tax assessment purposes only and ImpactedParcels
does not constitute an opinion of title.
BCPA Parcels
Note: Map Not To ScaleNE 16TH ST
Date of Aerial 12/15/2019 to 01/26/2020

Exhibit “C”
Richard Sherman
From: Andrew B Blasi <ablasi@sbwh.law>

Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 2:19 PM
To: Richard Sherman
Cc: William Swaim
Subject: Hillsboro Inlet Investments, LLC vs. Hillsboro Inlet Corporation et al.
Attachments: Final Judgment Quieting Title - Certified Copy 1.pdf; QCD.HillsboroInletInvestments.pdf
Mr. Sherman:

Attached please find a true copy of the Final Judgment Quieting Title entered in favor of my client, Hillsboro Inlet
Investments, LLC, on December 10, 2020, which was recorded among the Public Records of Broward County, Florida, on
December 14, 2020, as Instrument #116924172. As is made clear by the attached Final Judgment, fee simple title to the
parcels of land set forth, detailed, sketched and legally described therein is now unequivocally and unconditionally
vested in my client. As was made clear in Paragraph 50 of the Final Judgment, and Conclusion (P), the purpose in seeking
and obtaining this Final Judgment was to enable the Broward County Property Appraiser’s Office to recognize my client’s
ownership of the subject properties and to assign PCNs thereto and map the properties in my client’s name on the
County’s tax maps.

I am also attaching hereto the original deed of conveyance which vested title to the subject properties in my client’s
name from its predecessor(s) in title . You may recall that Mr. Swim, the principal of Hillsboro Inlet Investments, LLC, had
provided BCPA with a copy of this deed shortly after it was recorded and requested the assignment of PCNs and tax
mapping, but for some inexplicable reason BCPA refused to comply with the request absent a court order making it clear
that my client owns the properties. Now, you have one, and my client is demanding that BCPA honor it and comply with
the request which has been made numerous times with respect to the subject properties.

Please feel free to contact me back at your convenience for any further detail or discussion which you feel may be in
order.

Andrew B. Blasi
Attorney and Counselor at Law

ablasi@sbwh.law
7777 Glades Road | Suite 400
Boca Raton, Florida 33434
Telephone: (561) 477‐7800 | ext.214
Facsimile: (561) 477‐7722

1

Exhibit “D”

Count from FJ Folio Owner Map Letter
Count 1 ‐ Parcel 1 484330000940 TIITF/STATE OF FLORIDA A
Count 2 ‐ Parcel 4 484330000940 TIITF/STATE OF FLORIDA A
Count 3 ‐ Govt Lot 1 484320000450 E G BROWN LLC D

484320000460 TIITF/STATE OF FLORIDA E
484329000020 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD F
484329070061 E G BROWN LLC C
484329070062 TIITF/STATE OF FLORIDA G
484329070070 HILLSBORO SHORES IMP ASSOC H
484329070100 CONFIDENTIAL I
484329070110 HEAVEN'S USA INC J
484329070030 SHINING HILL DEVELOPMENTS K
Count 4 ‐ Govt Lot 3 484329030030 CITY OF POMPANO BEACH L

484329041210 CONFIDENTIAL M
484329041220 SHINING HILL DEVELOPMENTS N
Count 5
Govt Lot 2 484329070061 E G BROWN LLC C
Shore Parcel 484329041210 CONFIDENTIAL M

484329041220 SHINING HILL DEVELOPMENTS N
484329041180 OB3691836 LP O
484329041230 SCAP.FL 12 LLC S
484329041240 FENTON,WARREN T
484329041250 KULLE,RICHARD J & BARBARA A U
484329041260 NUDELMAN,JEFF S & LINDA V
484329041270 CHARLES,KENNETH & LISA W
484329041280 SHINING HILL X
484329041290 REYNA,JOE A Y
484329041300 BOUTIN,GEORGES & BARBARA Z
484329041310 BAGWELL,CHANTAL J AA
484329041320 NGUYEN,LONG BB
484329041330 RADTKE,JOHN CC
484329041340 RADTKE,JOHN DD
484329041351 3691836 LP EE
Count 6 ‐ Block A 484329020050 TIITF/STATE OF FLORIDA B

Exhibit “E”

Draft of Properties from FJ
BEACON ST
DD
EE
±
*For in office use only*
CC
The boundaries depicted on this Map are
for tax assessment purposes only and O
does not constitute an opinion of title.
Note: Map Not To Scale
BB
ROBBINS RD
H
AA
Y Shore
LEIGH RD Parcel
Count 5
BAY DR
BARTON RD
U
J
N
DOW ST
K K Legend
M
Mean High Water Line
Catergory
I I FJ
ImpactedParcels
L BCPA Parcels
Date of Aerial 12/15/2019 to 01/26/2020

5IFCPVOEBSJFTEFQJDUFEPOUIJT.BQBSF
GPSUBYBTTFTTNFOUQVSQPTFTPOMZBOE
EPFTOPUDPOTUJUVUFBOPQJOJPOPGUJUMF
/PUF.BQ/PU5P4DBMF

Exhibit “F”

In the New River: 504220000151

Intracoastal/Harbor Beach area: 504212000041

New River/Harbor Beach: 504212000080

Along the Intracoastal: 484305080021

Intracoastal/West Lake Park: 514201022950

Intracoastal/West Lake Park: 514201022900 and 514201022910

Motion For Clarification - (Reopen Case)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For Clarification - (Reopen Case)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filing # 120936924 E-Filed 02/05/2021 04:57:06 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

HILLSBORO INLET INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Plaintiff, CACE 20-015630 (21)

HILLBORO INLET CORPORATION, et al.,

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND FOR RELIEF

COMES NOW Non-Party MARTY KIAR, in his official capacity as Broward

II. Plaintiff’s Dealings With BCPA Prior To Lawsuit

18. The DEP responded on February 5, 2020.

28. It is critical to highlight that 13 of these Non-Party Property Owners have

5. More particularly, Plaintiff is currently in possession of the

L. Title to the Shores Parcel is hereby quieted in the name of

Final Judgment pg. 34

P. This Judgment shall constitute a court order quieting title to

Final Judgment pg. 35

Property Owner In BCPA Records Parcel Number

5. More particularly, Plaintiff is currently in possession of

13… The State of Florida is permanently divested of having

14. ...this Court finds that title to the Parcel 1 Property

Final Judgment pg. 8

D. Title to the Parcel 1 is hereby quieted in the name of

P. This Judgment shall constitute a court order quieting title to

Final Judgment pg. 35

5. More particularly, Plaintiff is currently in possession of

20. …The State of Florida is permanently divested of

Final Judgment pg. 12

21. ...this Court finds that title to the Parcel 1 Property

Final Judgment pg. 32

F. Title to the Parcel 4 is hereby quieted in the name of

P. This Judgment shall constitute a court order quieting title to

Final Judgment pg. 35

5. More particularly, Plaintiff is currently in possession of

27… The State of Florida is permanently divested of having

Final Judgment pg. 17

Final Judgment pg. 17

H. Title to the Lot 1 is hereby quieted in the name of Plaintiff

Final Judgment pg. 33

P. This Judgment shall constitute a court order quieting title to

Final Judgment pg. 35

5. More particularly, Plaintiff is currently in possession of

34… The State of Florida is permanently divested of having

Final Judgment pg. 22

J. Title to the Lot 3 is hereby quieted in the name of Plaintiff

Final Judgment pg. 33

Final Judgment pg. 35

5. More particularly, Plaintiff is currently in possession of the

Final Judgment pg. 4

Final Judgment pg. 31

49. …this Court finds that title to the Block A Property

Final Judgment pg. 31

N. Title to the Block A is hereby quieted in the name of

Final Judgment pg. 34

P. This Judgment shall constitute a court order quieting title to

Final Judgment pg. 35

IV. The Final Judgment is Void

V. The BCPA Is Entitled To Relief Because A Review Of

A. Plaintiff Never Filed Suit Against The Property Owners

B. Plaintiff Misrepresented BCPA’s Position To the Court

1…Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Properties by

50. However, BCPA has refused to recognize Plaintiff’s fee

100. However, BCPA has refused to recognize Plaintiff’s fee

224. However, BCPA has refused to recognize Plaintiff’s fee

265. However, BCPA has refused to recognize Plaintiff’s fee