On Feb. 5, 2025, the Venice special magistrate accepted the affidavit of noncompliance and assessed a civil judgment in the amount of $3,000 against Corina Roofing LLC (recorded in the hearing transcript also as “Carina Roofing, LLC”) for performing an apparent complete re‑roof at 854 Jacaranda Circle, Ridgewood Mobile Home Park, without a permit.

Community Resource Officer Michael Halpin testified that he responded on Nov. 13, 2024, to a complaint at the park and learned from on‑site park manager Andrew Barak de Koller that a complete re‑roof occurred the weekend of Nov. 9, 2024, at a trailer listed to Patricia Barthorf at 854 Jacaranda Circle. Halpin said the company provided as the contractor was listed in testimony as Corina Roofing LLC of Pompano Beach, and he was unable to locate license information on the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) website. Halpin also said the company’s Sunbiz listing was expired and the company was not registered with the City of Venice building department as a licensed contractor.

Halpin described multiple attempts to contact the contractor and homeowner between Nov. 15, 2024, and Jan. 22, 2025, including certified mail and text messages. He said some citations and courtesy letters were issued and that, because the company did not pay, appeal or respond and one certified letter was returned undeliverable, he recommended the magistrate find the company in violation and enter a judgment of $3,000, which the officer described as representing the contested amount of the original citations.

There was some numerical discrepancy in testimony: Halpin at one point summarized the initial citations as totaling $1,800, then later recommended a $3,000 judgment as the contested amount. The magistrate accepted the affidavit and Halpin’s testimony and entered the civil penalty assessment.

On the record the magistrate said, “I therefore hereby accept and assess the civil penalty recommended by the code enforcement officer for the citation.” The magistrate entered judgment against the entity named in the officer’s documents.