Judges: J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
Agency: Contract Hearings
Latest Update: May 14, 1986
Summary: Victims of housing discrimination settled. Realtor witness had no standing to prosecute. Threat to "blacklist" realtor was not carried out. There were no remedies.
85-3355STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
RUBIN AND DORIS BUSH,
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 85-3355
) DAVID MICHAEL DAVIS, BURNES ) REALTY and ANN BURNES, )
)
Respondent. )
) JOYCE REAMS and JOYCE REAMS ) REALTOR, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 85-3356
) ANN BURNES, BURNES REALTY, and ) DAVID MICHAEL DAVIS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The final hearing in this case was held in Tampa on January 13 and 14, 1986.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Rubin and Doris Bush, pro se
Route 10, Box 5 Boaman Road
Springhill, Florida 33526
Joyce Reams, pro se
138 North Moon Avenue Brandon, Florida 33511
For Respondents: Robert H. Nutter, Esquire
610 Azeele Street
Tampa, Florida 33606 For Intervenor, Equal Opportunity Office:
Amelia G. Brown, Esquire Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33611
The issues to have been determined at final hearing were whether Respondents, David Michael Davis (Davis), Ann Burnes (Burnes) and Burnes Realty violated the rights of Petitioners, Rubin and Doris Bush and Joyce Reams and Joyce Reams Realtor. However, at the conclusion of the final hearing on January 14, the parties requested and were granted a stay of post-hearing procedures pending attempts to conciliate the disputes between the parties. By letter dated February 18, 1986, the parties to Case No. 85-3355 notified the Hearing Officer that a settlement had been reached in that case. The letter, from Jeanette L. Fenton, states in part:
"The parties are in the process of reviewing and executing the written settlement agreement, a copy of which will be provided to you upon execution by all parties.
Therefore, no further action by DOAH will be necessary in this case."
Although the parties have not provided the Hearing Officer with a copy of the written settlement agreement, it is assumed that the settlement agreement disposes of the complaint of Petitioners, Rubin and Doris Bush, in Case No. 85-3355.
Fenton's February 18th letter also confirms that the request of the parties to Case No. 85-3356 for an additional two-week stay of post-hearing procedures for purposes of further settlement negotiations was granted. On February 28, 1986, the parties to Case No. 85-3356 notified the Hearing Officer that no settlement could be reached and requested until March 28, 1986, in which to file proposed recommended orders. The request was granted, and the parties' proposed recommended orders in Case No. 85-3356 were filed on March 27 and 28, 1986.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, Joyce Reams, is the licensed real estate broker for her company, Petitioner, Joyce Reams Realtor. In October and November 1984, the company employed Julie Krause as a real estate sales associate. Krause had not been employed very long in the real estate business before October 1984.
In October 1984, Krause showed Petitioners, Rubin and Doris Bush, real property which Respondent, David Michael Davis, had in the real estate multiple listing service. The Bushes, who
are black, liked the property and decided to make an offer. (All other persons identified in these Findings of Fact are white.)
Krause, on behalf of the Bushes, took the Bushes' offer to the office of the listing realtor, Respondent, Burnes Realty. Burnes Realty is owned and operated by its real estate broker, Respondent, Ann Burnes. Burnes also happens to be the mother of Davis.
As Davis was looking over the offer and preparing a counter offer, he asked Krause vague questions intended to provide him with information whether the buyers were, among other things, black. Burnes, who also was there but did not know, made no comment. Krause, showing her inexperience, attempted to assure Davis that the Bushes were "regular people," just like everyone else who was in the office at the time. Davis interpreted Krause's answer to mean that the Bushes were white.
At the Burnes Realty office on October 20, 1984, Davis made a counter-offer which the Bushes accepted. The closing of the transaction scheduled for October 31 was postponed until November 16. At the scheduled closing on November 16, Davis saw the Bushes for the first time. Davis became extremely upset partly because the Bushes are black but even more because he thought Krause had lied to him. In the presence of his mother, Davis stated he would not close the transaction and strongly criticized Krause for allegedly lying to him and for not revealing that the Bushes were black in response to his questions on October 20. Davis also threatened to tell his family, friends and acquaintances not to deal with Joyce Reams Realtor or its employees. (But there is no evidence that Davis carried through with this threat.) Davis also stated that it could have made a difference if he had known the fact of the buyers because he could have counter-offered with terms and conditions that were beyond their means.
During these heated discussions on November 16, Ann Burnes was relatively quiet and mostly was trying to calm down her son, Krause and another real estate sales associate representing the Bushes, Debbie D'Errico. In doing so, Burnes mentioned something about "common courtesy" but the evidence is not clear that she considered it "common courtesy among brokers to let each other know (whether prospective buyers were black)." She also mentioned that the Bushes probably would have wanted to know if they were about to move to a place where they were not wanted.
Eventually, Davis asked Krause and D'Errico to present to the Bushes his request for an extension of time to close the transaction. When the Bushes, who were not present during the
heated conversations, learned of the request for an extension of time and began to inquire of the reasons for the request, they reached the conclusion that Davis did not want to close the transaction because of their race. At some point, the Bushes and Davis began discussing the possibility of settling the matter by Davis paying the Bushes their costs to cancel the contract.
After Davis had calmed down, his mother took him aside and privately advised him that it was illegal for him to discriminate against the Bushes on account of their race and that he had entered into a contract to which he was bound regardless of the Bushes' race.
After further discussions on November 16, the parties agreed not to settle the matter at that time but agreed to an extension of time to close the transaction to give Davis an opportunity to speak to a lawyer.
After the aborted closing on November 16, Krause and D'Errico reported to Joyce Reams, who telephoned Burnes and informed her of the possible consequences of discriminatory actions by a realtor.
Three days later, on November 19, 1986, the parties closed the real estate transaction as contracted on October 20.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 16 1/2-40 of the Fair Housing Ordinance of Hillsborough County authorizes a case of an apparent violation of the Fair Housing Ordinance which cannot be resolved by conciliation to be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.65(6), Florida Statutes(1985), for appointment of a DOAH Hearing Officer to conduct an administrative hearing according to the procedure provided in Sections 120.57(1),and 120.58 Florida Statutes (1985).
Section 16 1/2-35 of the Fair Housing Ordinance of Hillsborough County provides that "it shall be an unlawful and discriminatory housing practice for any owner or any other person engaging in a real estate transaction, or for a real estate broker or sales person, because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin [to commit several specified acts of discrimination in connection with a real estate transaction.]" Such violations bear criminal penalties of "a fine up to but not exceeding the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00), or imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days or both such fine and imprisonment."
But Section 16 1/2-38 of the Fair Housing Ordinance of
Hillsborough County, governing the complaints which ultimately may be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, provides in pertinent part:
"A person who claims that another person has committed a discriminatory housing practice against the claiming person may report the alleged offense to the director, office of equal opportunity, by filing a complaint within one hundred and eighty (180) days after the date of the alleged discriminatory housing practice." (Emphasis added)
In this case, there was an allegation of a discriminatory housing practice against the Bushes, but the Bushes settled their complaint against the Respondents. There was no allegation or proof of any discriminatory housing practice under Section 16
1/2-35 against Joyce Reams or Joyce Reams Realtor. There was evidence that Davis threatened to "black list" Joyce Reams and Joyce Reams Realtor, but there was no evidence that he, in fact, did so. There was no other evidence of any independent discrimination against Joyce Reams or Joyce Reams Realtor because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
In addition, the Fair Housing Ordinance of Hillsborough County is defective in that it does not authorize any relief or remedy to a complainant who has been aggrieved by a violation of Section 16 1/2-35. Section 16 1/2-40 provides that the Hearing Officer transmits a Recommended Order to the Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity for Hillsborough County and provides that the Director "shall review and adopt the Order. "
Nowhere does the ordinance authorize the Hearing Officer to recommend or the Director to order any relief or remedy for the complainant at the conclusion of the procedures established for processing complaints. This defect in the statute has forced intervenor, Hillsborough Equal Opportunity Office, to propose that the Hearing Officer simply find a violation and order the parties "to reach a reasonable conciliation within thirty (30) days." Yet, the reason for the hearing in the first place was that the parties were unable to conciliate.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and in view of the settlement of the Bushes' complaint in Case No. 85-3355, it is recommended that the Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity for Hillsborough County dismiss both Case No. 85-3355 and Case No. 85-3356.
RECOMMENDED this 14th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee,
Florida.
J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1986.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Robert Nutter, Esquire 610 Azeele Street
Tampa, Florida 33606
Jeanette L. Fenton
Equal Opportunity Assistant Hillsborough County Equal Opportunity Office
Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601
Rubin and Doris Bush Route 10, Box 5 Boaman Road
Springhill, Florida 33526
Joyce Reams and. Joyce Reams Realtor
138 North Moon Avenue Brandon, Florida 33511
Amelia G. Brown, Esquire Hillsborough County Equal Opportunity Office
Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601
Robert W. Saunders, Director Equal Opportunity Assistant Hillsborough County Equal
Opportunity Office. Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601
APPENDIX
Rulings On Findings Of Fact Proposed By Intervenor, Hillsborough County Equal Opportunity Office.
Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are accepted.
Proposed finding of fact 3 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact.
Proposed finding of fact 7 is rejected, in part as conclusions of law, in part as not proved by the evidence and in part as irrelevant.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.
Respondents did not make specific proposed findings of fact and are not entitled to specific rulings. The proposed findings of fact that might be interspersed in Respondent Recommendation To The Hearing Examiner served on March 25, 1986 have been considered and are fairly addressed by the Findings Of Fact.
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. None were submitted.
Docket for Case No: 85-003355
Orders for Case No: 85-003355
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
May 14, 1986 |
Recommended Order
|
Victims of housing discrimination settled. Realtor witness had no standing to prosecute. Threat to "blacklist" realtor was not carried out. There were no remedies.
|
