STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ) HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-0681
) WINDY SHORES AERO RESEARCH, INC., ) d/b/a LAYTON APARTMENTS, )
)
Respondent. )
) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ) HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-0682
)
ERIC AND CAROL NELSON, )
d/b/a LAYTON APARTMENTS, )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Notice was provided and on February 1, 1991, in Deland, Florida, a formal hearing was held in these cases. Authority for the conduct of the hearing is set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Emily Moore
Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Respondent Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc.,
(the corporation): No appearance
For Respondents
Eric and Carol Nelson: Eric Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, Florida 32136
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The issues for consideration in this case concern separate notices to show cause placed against the named Respondents alleging violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), and Chapter 7C, Florida Administrative Code.
These notices date from January 25, 1991. The notices to show cause seek to impose fines against the corporation and the Nelsons.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In conjunction with emergency orders entered against the corporation and the Nelsons on January 25, 1991, the corporation and the Nelsons were charged by notices to show cause/administrative complaints with various violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.) and Chapter 7C, Florida Administrative Code. In that the emergency orders closed and ordered the several Respondents to cease operation of an alleged unlicensed public lodging establishment at 30 South Grandview Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, and that the emergency orders would remain in effect form the time of their entry and service at the premise until the emergency orders were lifted or a final order issued in the notice to show cause cases, Respondents were presented with the opportunity to request an expedited hearing on the notices to show cause. That expedited hearing was to take place on February 1, 1991. In lieu of an expedited hearing Respondents were afforded the opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the normal notice provisions associated with establishing hearing dates as announced at Section 120.57(10(b)2, Florida Statutes.
Eric Nelson responded to the opportunity for expedited hearing by signing a document which had the following language: "We W.S. Aero Research Inc request an emergency hearing Fri Feb 1, 1991 at 10:00 a.m." See Hearing Officer Exhibit 1.
Eric Nelson appeared at the expedited hearing and represented the Nelsons' interest in their case. He disavowed any association with the corporation in its case and did not represent it at the expedited hearing. He struck this posture notwithstanding the fact that he had requested the expedited hearing in the name of the corporation. No other individual or counsel appeared to represent the corporation at the expedited hearing.
The notices to show cause associated with the corporation and the Nelsons were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of that hearing following notice given by Petitioner. An expedited hearing was conducted on February 1, 1991, as described.
Petitioner in furtherance of its proof presented seven witnesses: Fred Holmes, Inspector Supervisor, City of Daytona Beach Fire Department, Code Administration Division; Charles Casper, Dennis Steinke, Arthur Begyn and Joseph Pitrowski, Inspectors with the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Sanitation/Safety, for Petitioner; Chester Cole, Environmental Health Director of the Petitioner's Orlando District Office and Jenanee Miller Young, a former tenant at 30 South Grandview Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. Petitioner introduced 15 exhibits. All of those exhibits were introduced in both cases with the exception of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13 which was introduced in DOAH Case No. 91-0681 and Petitioner's Exhibits No. 10 and 14 which were introduced in DOAH Case No. 91-0682. Petitioner sought the admission of a late filed exhibit in DOAH Case No. 91-0681, which is received as Petitioner's Exhibit No.
16 without objection. A copy of the motion to reopen the record and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16 are submitted with the Recommended Order.
Respondent Eric Nelson testified in his own behalf and introduced one exhibit. Respondent Eric Nelson in the interest of the Nelsons orally conceded the facts which underlie the alleged violations in DOAH Case No. 91-0682. This concession by the Nelsons was accepted for purposes of DOAH Case No. 91-0682 only.
Petitioner's counsel asked that official recognition be made of various provisions within Chapter 7C, Florida Administrative Code, that were set forth in the notices to show cause. That recognition was made. Additionally, counsel for Petitioner made the Hearing Officer aware of certain statutory references deemed to be relevant in considering this dispute. Those included statutory references within Chapters 48 and 509, Florida Statutes.
The parties were granted 10 days from the date of the final hearing to file proposed recommended orders with the Division of Administrative Hearings. This arrangement was made absent a transcript. Petitioner availed itself of that opportunity. Respondents have not filed proposed recommended orders. The proposed fact-finding set out in the Petitioner's proposed recommended order has been examined and is commented on in an Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On May 14, 1990 Windy Shores Trading Post Inc. conveyed property at 30 South Grandview Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, to Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. That latter corporation is the Respondent in DOAH Case No. 91-0681. Again for ease of reference Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. shall be referred to as "the corporation." The Respondent corporation is a Florida corporation.
No one identified as having appropriate authority to request a hearing for the corporation either on an expedited basis or pursuant to the normal notice time prescribed by Section 120.57(1)(b)2, Florida Statutes, has asked that the corporation be heard in defending accusations made in the notice to show cause pertaining to DOAH Case No. 91-0681. The hearing request described in the preliminary statement made by Eric Nelson does not constitute a legitimate request for hearing by the corporation. This determination is made based upon the record established at hearing both in testimony and documentary evidence. All that has been established concerning the corporation's position is that, according to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16 in DOAH Case No. 91-0681, the corporation through certified mail return receipt requested was served with the emergency order and associated notice to show cause.
At all times relevant to the inquiry, a building a 30 South Grandview Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, was operated as a seven unit, transient rental, public lodging establishment. The last license of record for that property had been issued in the name of Roy E. Midkiff, d/b/a Layton Apartments under license no. 74-01494H-1. This license was issued under the authority of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Neither the corporation nor the Nelsons have ever sought or been issued a license pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, which would allow those Respondents to operate the public lodging establishment at 30 South Grandview Avenue.
It can be inferred that the property in question passed from Midkiff eventually ending up with the Respondent Corporation after the conveyance from Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. on May 14, 1990.
By history, the City of Daytona Beach became aware of the subject property and its problems back in March, 1990. In particular, the City of Daytona Beach through its Code Enforcement Division was concerned about the addition of a living unit at the premises without appropriate permission. Concerns about this were addressed to Carol E. Nelson at 2036 South Ocean Shores Boulevard in Flagler Beach, Florida by certified mail return receipt requested dated March 26, 1990. A copy of this notice of violation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. This was followed up by an affidavit of violation and notices of hearing addressed to Carol E. Nelson, who in this affidavit of violation and notices of hearing was referred to as President, as she had been in the March 26, 1990 correspondence. This description of the violation of adding a living unit and other matters related to that from the point of view of the Code Enforcement Board of the City of Daytona Beach may be found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2. These documents under Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2 run from April, 1990 to January 29, 1991. In would appear that the presidency which was being attributed to Carol Nelson was that affiliation with Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc., the former corporate owner of the subject property. The violation concerning the addition of an unauthorized living unit at the subject facility remains pending before the City of Daytona Beach.
When the tax records were prepared for 1990 the City of Daytona Beach became aware of the change in the ownership of the subject property as described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 listing the corporation as the owner and the corporate headquarters as 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida.
Fred Holmes of the Daytona Beach Code Administration Division and Inspector/Supervisor for that Division, in his testimony, addressed the history of the property from the point of view of the City of Daytona Beach. When he was on the property on January 29, 1991, the persons who were on the property other than tenants were the Nelsons. Holmes is also aware that on January 30, 1991, an application for an occupational license to operate the subject property was made with the City of Daytona Beach and was signed by Carol Nelson in the interest of the corporation. A copy of this occupational license application can be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. It points out that the property is owned by Winifred L. Nelson of 2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, which has been shown to mean 2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard in Flagler Beach, Florida. The record on balance supports the fact that Winifred L. Nelson, who is Eric Nelson's mother, owns the corporation. The application and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence refers to a transfer of ownership of the subject property from Windy Shores Trading Post to the corporation.
On January 29, 1991, the City of Daytona Beach communicated with Petitioner in the person of Barbara Palmer, Director, notifying the Petitioner that effective January 25, 1991, the City had placed the property in question off limits by notice that it was unsafe and its use or occupancy prohibited. A reinspection on January 29, 1991, pointed out that the violations about which the City, as well as the Petitioner, were concerned related to safety and occupant welfare had not been corrected. The correspondence of January 29, 1991, from the City to the Petitioner found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 speaks of those matters. A list of deficiencies found by the City corresponds in many respects to allegations in the notices to show cause.
According to Fred Holmes an inspection was made on February 1, 1991 to speak to the application for occupational license and the results of that inspection were not known at the point of hearing.
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence related to the City of Daytona Beach and its inspection dated January 11, 1991, points out deficiencies that are common to the concerns in the notices to show cause. Notice of these deficiencies was provided to Carol and Eric Nelson at the time of this January 11, 1991 inspection. Inspector Holmes was of the opinion that the apartment building would not have met local code requirements of the City of Daytona Beach. The City was continuing to express concerns about the unauthorized occupancy of the one apartment added without permission. The City at that point expected corrections to be made and the removal of that improvement, i.e. the additional apartment.
Inspector Holmes is unaware of any changes over time in persons who are responsible for the conduct of the business at the property in that he has no documentation in his records concerning such changes. In particular, he is not aware of any permission from Winifred Nelson to Eric Nelson allowing him to act in her behalf. At the hearing Holmes was unaware that Winifred Nelson was the authorized agent for the corporation.
Charles Casper, Environmental Health Specialist for the Petitioner, made an inspection at the premises on June 8, 1990, and found certain deficiencies which are set out in the Composite Exhibit No. 7. Among the highlights of this inspection was the identification of the fact that the property was being rented without being properly licensed and that an additional unit had been installed under the building without city approval or permits as described before in the remarks attributable to Inspector Holmes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 is a composite exhibit and it also contains a complaint by J. Young made on June 29, 1990, concerning a security deposit about which she had requested reimbursement on moving out of the apartment at the subject premises effective May 5, 1990. Within that exhibit is found a copy of a memorandum dated May 2, 1990, from Carol E. Nelson signed as d/b/a Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. releasing Ms. Young from lease obligations as a tenant. The contents of the Young lease may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It includes the agreement under the terms of the lease related to the security deposit.
Back in June, Casper was attempting to get Carol Nelson to seek a license from the Petitioner to operate the premises. He made Ms. Nelson aware of the problems that he had identified at the premises to include the lack of a license. If Carol Nelson should arrange for the purchase of a license for the benefit of the corporate operator the obtaining of that license, according to Casper, would take care of the complaint about a lack of license. He reminded Carol Nelson that if the corporation as opposed to Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. operated the premises, it would need a license and that if during certain relevant times the two corporations operated the premises separately that the proprietors would be paying for licenses twice within a license period. During this conversation Carol Nelson told Casper that when problems were experienced they were responded to by changing to a new corporation. Carol Nelson told Casper that Carol Nelson and Eric Nelson operated the property in question. When Casper made his June inspection he understood the name of the premises to be Layton Apartments. This was based upon the records of the Petitioner associated with the earlier licensed operator Mr. Midkiff.
J. M. Young had entered into the lease that has been described through Volusia Realty Associates, Inc. as agent for Midkiff. Four or five months later Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. bought the property from Midkiff, to Young's understanding. This is confirmed in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, correspondence from a representative of Volusia Realty to Petitioner in which Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. in this May 17, 1990 correspondence is identified as the new owner. Ms. Young had been made aware of that change on January 24, 1990 in correspondence from Volusia Realty to J. Miller setting out that Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. was now the owner of the property in question. Carol Nelson and her husband are the owners of Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, which contains the January 24, 1990 correspondence sets out the fact that Ms. Young's security deposit had been transferred to the new owners, the Nelsons.
After the change in ownership from Midkiff to Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc., Young would pay Carol and Eric Nelson her rent and would get a receipt from Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. Following certain problems, which brought about Young's departure, she got the release from the requirements of her lease from Carol Nelson as has been described. Eric Nelson told Ms. Young that she would get her security deposit back as did Carol Nelson. The security deposit has not been returned. This has not been arranged even though Ms. Young has continued to contact Eric Nelson to get the deposit money. No notice has been given to Ms. Young concerning a claim against the security deposit made by Eric Nelson. Ms. Young was never made aware of a transfer of the ownership of the subject property to the corporation.
Dennis Steinke is a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with Petitioner. On December 20, 1990, he performed an inspection at the premises in question. This inspection together with an inspection of January 22, 1991, forms the basis of the charges in the notices to show cause. The findings in the Steinke inspection are part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 10 in DOAH Case No.
91-0682. A legal notice was given of the findings of that inspection. That led to a notice to show cause dating from January 15, 1991, directed to Eric and Carol Nelson trading as Layton Apartments. This notice to show cause predates the notices to show cause which are under consideration in the present cases.
The prior notice to show cause of January 15, 1991 is part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 10 in DOAH Case No. 91-0682. It carries with it the same nine violations which are spoken to in the subject notices to show cause.
Again, the Nelsons do not contest the findings set out in the legal notice which followed the inspection by Steinke and as identified in the present notice to show cause in DOAH Case No. 91-0682 attached as an appendix and as restated from the January 15, 1991 notice to show cause. The January 15, 1991 notice to show cause was served on the Nelsons. No one availed themselves of the opportunity for an informal conference on January 24, 1991 that the January 15, 1991 notice to show cause made available. At the time Steinke made his December 20, 1990 inspection and made the findings reported in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 he was unaware that the corporation owned the premises. Steinke's findings of December 20, 1990 were based upon the inspection of three or four units within the licensed premises.
Another Inspector with the Petitioner who had a knowledge of the premises is Arthur Begyn. He took certain photographs of the premises on January 25 and 29, 1991, found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 11 showing the state of disarray at the licensed premises and further confirming observations that had been made by Inspector Steinke in his December 20, 1990 inspection.
Begyn had been to the property in mid-November based upon a complaint about operations there. His purpose was to inspect the property but no one was available for such inspection. He tried to find out who the owner of the property was by calling a number that was located on the building. That telephone number is found in one of the photographs in Petitioner's Exhibit No.
11 admitted into evidence. He made contact through that telephone number and presented himself as a possible future tenant. The person who spoke to him on the phone was a lady. She stated that someone would come and make contact with him at the property. As a result of this telephone conversation he met with Carol Nelson who said she was representing Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. which was the name in a recorded message eminating from the telephone number that had been found on the building. In other words, the telephone answering device said that the caller had made contact with Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. When the contact was made with Carol Nelson at the property, Begyn made the remark that "you must be the owner of the building", to which Carol Nelson replied "yes, I am". That comported with what certain tenants had told Begyn, that is to say that Carol Nelson and her husband owned the building. Carol Nelson in the course of the conversation with Begyn told him that he should pay her or her husband Eric Nelson the rent money. It was not clear whether the payment would end up with an individual or a corporation.
Among the highlights of the photographs of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 are those which show that the basement apartment has a door shorter than that of Mr. Begyn how is 6' 1 1/2" tall. There is one photograph that shows a smoke detector ripped from a wall and his inspection of the seven units demonstrated that the individual units did not have smoke detectors. There was a smoke detector in the hall which worked. A rear entrance door on the first level appears to be rotting and in that same area the wood had been disturbed and there were rodent droppings in evidence. There was a leak in an apartment bathroom. There was tile that had been ripped up and not repaired. There was loose electrical wiring hanging down in a certain area. One door which normally has a window was missing a window. A junction box showed where a wire had touched the metal and had a charred appearance with exposed wiring. There was a large hole in the ceiling leading up into an attic. These items were of the nature found by Steinke in his December 20, 1990 inspection.
On January 25, 1991, when Begyn was at the property around 6:25 p.m. the Nelsons arrived and removed certain notices that had been placed by the Petitioner in Daytona Beach which prohibited the occupancy of that building. At one point Eric Nelson yelled out to Begyn to, "stay the f off by mf property."
Begyn served and read the order and notice related in DOAH Case No. 91-0682 to Carol Nelson on January 25, 1991. This pertains to the emergency order and notice to show cause. These items are seen in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14 admitted into evidence.
Chester Cole who is the District Director for Petitioner in the Orlando, Florida area, in his testimony, identified the fact that the Petitioner became aware that the property in question was operating without the appropriate license contemplated by Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. The records of the Petitioner indicated that Midkiff was the last license holder. Someone contacted the Petitioner and said that he was taking over the property, that person claimed to be Eric Nelson. Eric Nelson indicated that he was the owner of the property and made no mention of a corporation. Nelson was sent an application in which he could point out the change in ownership and get a new license. That application was never returned by Eric Nelson. Mr. Cole was not made aware through any notice from the Nelsons or anyone else who the owner was
beyond the Midkiff ownership. As of January 14, 1991, Cole was of the opinion that the Nelsons owned the premises in question. Cole became aware of the tax roll information found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 which showed that the corporation owned the property in question. Cole was also aware through information from the Secretary of State, carried forward on a computer printout of the Petitioner that the corporation had a corporate address of 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida, and the registered agent was Winifred Nelson whose address is 2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. This is found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence which carries a date of January 25, 1991 and another date referred to as a "filed date" of May 2, 1990.
As alluded to before, Carol Nelson was served with the emergency order and notice to show cause in DOAH Case No. 91-0682. Her husband was also served on January 25, 1991. Both parties were served at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida.
Corroboration of service on the corporation by certified mail in DOAH Case No. 91-0681 was made in remarks from Eric Nelson to Mr. Cole in which Nelson identified that the service was perfected by certified mail and the return receipt dispatched.
The corporation's address and that of the Nelsons at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida is the same.
Based upon the remarks by Eric Nelson in his testimony, the property in question was never owned in his proper person or by his wife. He did acknowledge that at one time Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. owned the property in question and that ownership in the Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. was held with his wife. Nelson points out that he and his wife never did business as Layton Apartments. From Eric Nelson's testimony and other matters presented it appears that Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. took ownership from Mr. Midkiff. In turn the transaction of May 14, 1990, took place in which Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. sold out to the Respondent corporation.
Eric Nelson in his testimony said that he and Carol Nelson his wife do not work for the corporation or have any "statutory" tie to the corporation. He says in his testimony that he and his wife divested association with the corporation through the change of ownership of May 14, 1991. He describes himself as an independent subcontractor for the corporation as it relates to the building in question. Eric Nelson states that he has not collected rent at the property. He reiterates that his wife is not an employee of the property. He makes the comment that his mother had asked his wife to collect rent for the mother until the mother had returned from her trip to Canada. He indicates that some other "agent" collects rent for the mother on the property in question. He identified the fact that on January 25, 1991, that his mother was in Florida the latter the part of the afternoon and was at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard between 10 a.m. and noon briefly and as he describes it "in and out."
Eric Nelson identified that he sleeps at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard at times and that the corporation gets mail there.
Contrary to Eric Nelson's protestations, he and his wife during the relevant times associated with the December 20, 1990 and January 22, 1991 inspections referred to in the notice to show cause in DOAH Case No. 91-0682 were serving as managers, and appointed agents of the corporation, as defined at Section 509.013, Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.).
Eric Nelson in his behalf and that of his wife conceded to the factual observations of the January 22, 1991 inspection performed by Joseph Pitrowski and found within Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 admitted into evidence. They coincide with the earlier inspection of December 20, 1990 by Mr. Steinke. Testimony of Mr. Pitrowski was given as it relates to accusations made against the corporation at a time where counsel for Petitioner had announced that the Pitrowski testimony would relate to the corporation and not to the Nelsons. Under the circumstances, Mr. Nelson as representative for himself and his wife departed the hearing room before Pitrowski testified. Therefore, with the exception of the written report rendered by Mr. Pitrowski found within Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 admitted into evidence and related to an inspection of January 22, 1991, it would be inappropriate to find facts against the Nelsons based upon the Pitrowski testimony. Likewise, that testimony by Mr. Pitrowski related to the corporation has no utility in that the corporation has never requested a formal hearing to contest the accusations placed against it when examining the present record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Eric and Carol Nelson were operators at relevant times set forth in the notice to show cause of the unlicensed public lodging establishment at 30 South Grandview Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida. In particular, as described in the definition set out in Section 509.013(2), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), they were managers and appointed agents.
Section 509.261(1), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), allows the Petitioner to take action against the operators of unlicensed public lodging establishments such as the one in question through the imposition of a fine not to exceed $1,000 per offense.
Eric and Carol Nelson contested the question of whether they were operators of the public lodging establishment on the relevant times contemplated by the notice to show cause in DOAH Case No. 91-0682. They have been found to be operators within the definition of 509.013(2), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.) They did not contest the underlying facts which support the allegations found in the appendix to the notice to show cause. Therefore what remains to be decided is whether those factual circumstances constitute violations of the sections that have been referred to in the complaint. That is to say whether the facts conceded constitute violations of various provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.) and Rule 7C, Florida Administrative Code, found within the appendix to the notice to show cause and Chapter 83, Florida Statutes.
Concerning item no. 1 in the appendix, wherein it is alleged that Rule 7C-1.004(2)(c), Florida Statutes, has been violated by the failure to have an update to the service tags on all fire extinguishers on the licensed premises, that rule states:
A standard state approved service tag shall be attached to each extinguisher and a person holding a valid state permit issued by the State Fire Marshal shall recharge or inspect the extinguisher and shall prepare the tag to
include the information required by rule
4A-21.041 of the State Fire Marshal's rules.
Being unmindful of the requirements of Rule 4A-21.041, Florida Administrative Code, by proof presented at hearing and the request for official recognition, it is unclear whether Rule 7C-1.004(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, taken in the context of Rule 4A-21.041, Florida Administrative Code, requires that when the tags dates had expired, this constituted a violation. Therefore, Point no. 1 has not been proven.
Item no. 2 refers to the condition of the premises as to roofs, walls, ceiling, floors, etc. and the need to maintain these items in good repair. Rule 7C-1.003(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, states:
Roofs, walls, ceilings, floors, stairways, stair railings, steps, windows, window operators, screens, transoms, shelves, fixtures, overhangs, balconies, etc., shall be kept in good repair, clean, free of obstructions and painted, where applicable.
Based upon the factual allegations, the Nelsons have failed to comply with this rule and are subject to a fine for such noncompliance.
Item no. 3 refers to an alleged violation of Rule 7C-1.003(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, which states:
Vermin control -- Effective control measures shall be taken to protect against the entrance into the establishment, and the breeding or presence on the premises of rodents, flies, roaches and other vermin.
All buildings shall be effectively rodent-proofed, free of rodents and
maintained in an rodent-proof and rodent-free condition. All openings to the outside air, including windows, doors, skylights, transoms, intake and exhaust ducts shall be effectively protected against the entrance of flies and other flying insects by self-closing doors which open outward, closed windows,
screening, controlled air currents or other effective means. Screening material shall not be less than 16 mesh to the inch or equivalent, and screens for windows, doors skylights, transoms and other openings to the outside air shall be tight fitting and free of breaks. Insecticides or rodenticides, when used, shall be used in full compliance with the manufacturer's label directions.
As conceded by the Nelsons and as the proof bore out there was evidence of rodent infestation, a violation of that rule, about which a fine may be assessed.
Related to Item no. 4, the Nelsons have participated in the operation of this public lodging establishment without a license in the relevant time
frame and have violated Section 509.241(1), Florida Statutes, (1990 Supp.), and Rule 7C-1.002, Florida Administrative Code. This subjects the Nelsons to a fine.
Item no. 5 relates to alleged violation of Section 509.201(1), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.) and Rule 7C-1.002(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code, associated with room rate schedules. The Nelsons concede that no room rate schedules were available and no room rates were posted in any of the apartments in question. This factual concession leads to the conclusion that the Nelsons have violated the statutory reference and the rule reference associated with Item no. 5 and have subjected themselves to a fine for such violations.
Item no. 6 refers to termination of the lease and the treatment of the security deposit and the contention that the Nelsons have violated Section 83.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes, by not giving 15 days notice as to the disposition of the security deposit for J. Young. No proof has been offered as to Scott Buffington and the reference to Scott Buffington should be dismissed. The Young testimony has proven that notice was not given of the disposition of the security deposit that she had provided and that her security deposit has not been returned to her.
Section 84.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes, states:
Upon the vacating of the premises for termination of the lease, the landlord shall have 15 days to return the security deposit together with interest if otherwise required, or in which to give the tenant written notice by certified mail to the tenant's last known mailing address of his intention to impose a claim on the deposit and the reason for imposing the claim. The notice shall contain a statement in substantially the following form:
This is a notice of my intention to impose a claim for damages in the amount of upon your security deposit, due to . It is sent to you as required by s. 83.49(3), Florida Statutes. You are hereby notified that you must object in writing to this deduction from your security deposit within
15 days from the time you receive this notice or I will be authorized to deduct my claim from your security deposit. Your objection must be sent to
(landlord's address)
If the landlord fails to give the required notice within the 15-day period, he forfeits his right to impose a claim upon the security deposit.
Section 83.49(8), Florida Statutes, speaks to the significance of the failure to deal appropriately with the security deposit when it says:
Any person licensed under the provisions of
s. 509.241, unless excluded by the provisions of this part, who fails to comply with the provisions of this part shall be subject to a fine or to the suspension or revocation by his license by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business Regulation in the manner provided in s. 509.261.
It allows action to be taken against persons who are licensed under 509.241, Florida Statutes. The Nelsons are not licensed under that provision, therefore no violation of Sections 83.49(3)(a) and (8), Florida Statutes, has been proven.
Item no. 7 speaks in terms of a violation of Section 509.215(4), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), related to single station smoke detectors being installed and maintained and the idea that the factual concession by the Nelsons is to the affect that these detectors were not found in apartments 2, 4 and 5 and the second floor hallway and were not in working order. The Nelsons have violated that provision and are subject to a fine for such violation.
Item no. 8 refers to a violation of Section 509.215(8), Florida Statutes, (1990 Supp.), which states:
Specialized smoke detectors for the deaf and hearing-impaired shall be available upon request by guests in public lodging establishments at a rate of at least one such smoke detector per 50 dwelling units or portions thereof, not to exceed five such smoke detectors per public lodging facility.
Further reference is made to a violation of Rule 7C-1.004(2)(f), Florida Administrative Code, which states:
Specialized Smoke Detectors--Sepcialized smoke detectors for the deaf and
hearing-impaired shall be made available upon request by guests in public lodging establishments.
At least one such detector for every 50 dwelling units or parts thereof shall be provided, not to exceed five such smoke detectors per public lodging facility.
Failure of the operator to inform any employee charged with registering guests of the location of such detector constitutes failure to make such detectors available.
It has not been proven and the allegations do not contend that a request was made by a guest for a smoke detector for a deaf or hearing impaired person and was not available upon such request or that the operator failed to inform any of its employees charged with registering guests of the location of such special detectors. The factual basis for the violation simply says "a
smoke detector for the hearing impaired was not available." Under these circumstances no violation of the statute or rule has been shown.
Finally, Item no. 9 refers to a violation of Rule 7C-1.003(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, which states:
The premises, including but not limited to, yards, alleys, driveways and sidewalks etc., shall be kept clean, free of debris, free of odor, and properly drained, maintained and mowed. All unused and discarded equipment and materials shall be removed from the premises, except when placed in a designated storage area.
The Nelsons conceded that there was an accumulation of trash around the building. This constitutes a violation of the rule described in Item no. 9 and subjects the Nelsons to a fine for such violation.
The corporation has not requested a formal hearing either upon an expedited basis or under the normal opportunities for notice. See Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which absolves the Nelsons of the allegations under Item no. 1 in the appendix; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $1,000 for the violation established in Item no. 2; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $250 for the violation established in Item no. 3; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $1,000 for the violation established in Item no. 4; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $250 for the violation established in Item no. 5; absolves the Nelsons of the violation alleged in Item no. 6; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $500 for the violation established in Item no. 7; absolves the Nelsons of the violation Item no. 8 and fines the Nelsons in the amount of $250 for the violation established in Item no. 9. No disposition is suggested concerning the corporation, it having been concluded that the corporation has not requested a formal hearing. In that respect the case is returned to the referring agency for disposition in DOAH Case No. 91-0681 without commenting on the merits of the allegations made against the corporation.
RECOMMENDED this 4th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1991.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0681
The following discussion is made of the Petitioner's proposed fact-finding.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 with the exception of the last sentence of Paragraph 2 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence of Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Paragraphs 3 through 10 are subordinate to facts found.
Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the discussion of the violations as they pertain to the corporation which alleged violations have not been challenged by the corporation.
Concerning Paragraph 12, remarks attributable to Inspector Pitrowski are rejected because they were made outside of the presence of the Nelsons at a time when counsel for Petitioner had announced that the case related to the Nelsons had been concluded.
Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Barbara Palmer, Director
Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
Emily Moore, Esquire
Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
Eric Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson
2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which top submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDERS
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS
STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS,
Petitioner,
vs. LICENSE NO. UNLICENSED
DOAH CASE NO. 91-0681
WINDY SHORES AERO RESEARCH, INC., d/b/a LAYTON APARTMENTS,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
The Director, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business Regulation, State of Florida, hereby enters this Final Order in the above captioned matter based on the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times relevant hereto Respondent engaged in the unlicensed operation of a Public Lodging Establishment.
The conditions of the subject premises and/or the acts or omissions of Respondent or its agent(s), as described in the Division's Notice to Show Cause dated January 25, 1991, are incorporated herein by reference.
The Notice to Show Cause provided that an immediate postemergency order hearing would be held on February 1, 1991, if requested by noon on January 29, 1991, and further provided that if Respondent wished to request an Administrative Hearing, upon at least 14 days notice, in this matter, a written request for the same must be received by the Division within 14 days of the
Notice to Show Cause. Respondent did not appear at the immediate post emergency hearing, and as found by the Hearing Officer, in Case No. 91-0681, no written request for a hearing was received in this matter from the Respondent corporation (Recommended Order DOAH Case No. 91-0681, p. 1-3).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division has jurisdiction in this case pursuant to Section 509.032, Florida Statutes.
Respondent, by its failure to appear or timely request an Administrative Hearing, has waived its right to a hearing on the charges in this matter. City of Punta Gorda v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 358 So.2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The Division has authority to suspend or revoke the Respondent's license for violation of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, or Division rules, and to assess an administrative fine of up to $1,000.00 for each offense, pursuant to Section 509.261, Florida Statutes.
The conditions of the premises and/or acts or omissions of the Respondent described by reference in paragraph 2. of the Findings of Fact above, are violations of statutes or rules as described in said Notice to Show Cause, and said citations are incorporated herein by reference.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is ORDERED:
8. | Respondent shall pay a total administrative fine in the amount | of |
$7000.00 | for the violations established in this cause,as follows: | |
All extinguishers on premises have expired. $1000.00 fine. Front screen door broken, screen missing. Floor tiles in front hallway missing. Hole in ceiling of apartment #5. Door closures broken, apartments #3 and #4. Carpet on hallway steps and floor is filthy. $1000.00 fine. (4) Section 509.241(1), F.S., 7C-1.002, FAC - Licenses; annual renewals. Each public lodging establishment and each public food service establishment shall obtain a license from the |
7C-1004(2)(c), FAC - a standard state approved service tag must be attached to each extinguisher and a person holding a valid state permit issued by the state fire marshal shall recharge or inspect the extinguishers yearly. (1)
7C-1.003(1)(a), FAC - Roofs, walls, ceilings, floors, stairs, steps, windows, transoms, shelves, fixtures, etc. shall be kept in good repair, clean and painted where applicable. (#11).
7C-1.003(1)(c), FAC - Insects, vermin, rodents, termites, etc. shall be kept exterminated. (#20). Evidence of mice in apartment #5, confirmed by tenants. $1000.00 fine.
division. Such license shall not be transferable from one place or individual to another. It shall be a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.052 or s. 775.083, for such establishment to operate without a license. - (#24).
Business is being operated without a license. $1000.00 fine.
(5) Section 509.201(1), F.S., 7C-3.002(1) and (2),
FAC - In each public lodging establishment renting by the day or week there shall be posted in a plainly legible fashion, in a conspicuous place in each rental unit, the rates at which each such unit is rented.
Such posting shall show the maximum amount charged for occupancy per person, the amount charged for extra conveniences, more complete accommodations, or additional furnishings; and the dates during the year when such charges prevail. Copies of the posted rate schedules for all similar rental units in each establishment shall be filed with the division at least 5 days before such rates are to become effective and shall be kept current, The rates posted in the rental units shall coincide with those on file in the Division's office, and no establishment shall charge more than the rates posted in the rental units and filed with the division. (#26/27).
No room rate schedule (DBR 20B) was available and no room rates (DBR 234) were posted in any of the apartments. $250.00 fine.
Section 83.49(3)(a), F.S. - Upon the vacating of the premises for termination of the lease, the landlord shall have 15 days to return the security deposit together with interest if otherwise required, or in which to give the tenant written notice by certified mail to the tenant's last known mailing address of his intention to impose a claim on the deposit and reason for imposing the claim. (#31).
Did not give 15 day notice as to disposition of security deposits and security deposits have not been returned to Scott Buffington and Jenanne Young.
$1000.00 fine.
Section 509.215(4), F.S. - Single station smoke detectors shall be installed and maintained in working order. (#37).
Smoke detectors in apartments #2, #4, #5, and second floor hallway are not in working order. $500.00 fine. (8) Section 509.215(8), F.S., 7C-11004(2)(f), FAC -
Specialized smoke detectors for the deaf and hearing-impaired shall be available upon request by
guests in public lodging establishments at a rate of at lease one such smoke detector per 50 dwelling units or portions thereof, not to exceed five such smoke detectors per public lodging facility. (#39).
A smoke detector for the hearing-impaired was not available. $1000.00 fine.
(9) 7C-11003(1)(f), FAC - Premises, yards, alleys, etc. shall be kept clean, free of debris and properly drained. (#21).
Accumulation of trash around building. $250.00 fine.
Should any deficiencies or violations cited in the Notice to Show Cause previously identified remain uncorrected as of the next inspection of the premises, the Division may pursue further action against Respondent including, but not limited to, the issuance of a Notice to Show Cause, and penalties as permitted by Section 509.261, Florida Statutes.
This is the Final Order of the Division respecting the matters set forth above.
This Final Order is directly enforceable by petition in a Circuit Court of Florida, as provided for in Section 120.69, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, the Division may obtain attorneys fees from the Respondent for necessary
enforcement action on this order.
Judicial review of a Final Order may be available under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, provided a Notice of Appeal is filed with the Division Director and a Notice of Appeal is filed with the appropriate District Court of Appeal, accompanied by the correct filing fee, within thirty (30) days after a Final Order is rendered.
DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 1991.
BARBARA PALMER, DIRECTOR
DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS
725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1O11
Copies to: Certified Mail No. P 832 638 534 Charles Adams, Hearing Officer Date Mailed 06/03/91 Division of Administrative Hearings
Eric Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Emily Moore, Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation
Kelli Fulcher, Chief
Bureau of Hotels and Restaurants
Jeanne Stallcup, Admin. Asst. II DBR Legal Section
B.E. Fernandez, Chief of Enforcement Division of Hotels and Restaurants
Chet Cole, Sanitation and Safety Administrator Division of Hotels and Restaurants
RIGHT TO APPEAL
This Final Order, which constitutes final agency action, may be appealed pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, by filing a Notice of Appeal conforming to the requirements of Rule 9.110(d), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, both with the appropriate District Court of Appeal, accompanied by the appropriate filing fees, and with this agency within 30 days of rendition of this Order.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS
STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS,
Petitioner,
vs. LICENSE NO. UNLICENSED
DOAH CASE NO. 91-0681
WINDY SHORES AERO RESEARCH, INC., d/b/a LAYTON APARTMENTS,
Respondent.
/
AMENDMENT TO FINAL ORDER
On June 3, 1991, Petitioner Division, by certified mail, return receipt requested, served its Final Order in this case. While the Division's Order is complete in all material respects, it does not advise Respondent of the date on which the administrative fine imposed in said Order is due and payable.
The Division hereby amends-its June 3, 1991, Final Order to reflect that the fine is due and payable 31 days after service of the Final Order in this case. Respondent shall pay the total administrative fine assessed no later than July 5, 1991.
DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1991.
BARBARA J. PALMER, DIRECTOR DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS
725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011
(904) 488-1133
Copies to:
Charles Adams, Hearing Officer Certified Mail No. P 832 638 539 Division of Administrative Hearings Date Mail 7-1-91
Eric Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Emily Moore, Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation
Kelli Fulcher, Chief
Bureau of Hotels and Restaurants
Jeanne Stallcup, Admin. Asst. II DBR Legal Section
B.E. Fernandez, Chief of Enforcement Division of Hotels and Restaurants
Chet Cole, Sanitation and Safety Administrator Division of Hotels and Restaurants
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 91-0682
ERIC AND CAROL NELSON, d/b/a LAYTON APARTMENTS,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
COMES NOW, the Director, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and enters her Final Order in the above-styled cause pursuant to authority vested by Chapter 120, Fla. Stat.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Noting that the premises are unlicensed, and thereby correcting Finding of Fact number 17 to clearly so state, the Division, therefore, accepts the Hearing Officer's enumerated Findings of Fact, in Case No. 91-0682, as they are supported by the competent, substantial evidence of record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division also adopts the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law in Case No. 91-0682, with reference to violations/items numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9. - The Division cannot, however, accept the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law in their entirety and therefore rejects those conclusions as to items numbered 1,
6 and 8.
With regard to item number 1 in the appendix, the
Hearing Officer concludes that it is unclear whether when the dates on standard State approved fire extinguishers service tags have expired, a violation of Rule 7C-1.004(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code (FAC) has been committed (Recommended Order p. 20)
Rule 7C-1.004(2)(c), FAC, provides:
A standard state approved service tag shall be attached to each extinguisher and a person holding a valid state permit issued by the State Fire Marshal shall recharge or inspect the extinguisher and shall prepare the tag to include the information required by Rule 4A-21.041 of the State Fire Marshal's rules.
Among the information required by Rule 4A-21.041, FAC, (transferred to 4A- 21.241), is that the tags shall bear the month and year that the fire
extinguisher service was performed. This requirement is imposed so that the month and year when the fire extinguishers were last serviced is easily ascertainable.
The Division alleged that "all extinguishers on premises have expired."
The Hearing Officer found that the Nelsons "did not contest the underlying facts which support the allegations found in the appendix to the Notice to Show Cause"; the Corporation did not respond to the Notice to Show Cause.
Consequently, the competent evidence of record, in conjunction with relevant statutes and rules, establishes that all fire extinguishers on premises were expired, in violation of Rule 7C-1.004(2)(c), FAC.
With reference to item number 6, (Recommended Order, p. 22-24) the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law would yield the unfortunate conclusion that because the operators in this case are not licensed, they may violate Section 83.49(3), Fla. Stat. with impunity and without sanction by the Division; they therefore are allowed to violate two laws by virtue of their wilful violation of one. The Division's position is that such could not have been the legislative intent; rather, when the legislature amended Section 509.261(1), Fla. Stat., to authorize the Division to regulate and sanction unlicensed public lodging establishments, such authorization extends to unlicensed public lodging establishment operators who violate Section 83.49(3), Fla. Stat.
Were the Division to adopt the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law regarding item number 8, (Recommended Order, pp. 24-25), the Division would thereby concede that an inspector's request for a specialized smoke detector is meaningless; rather, the Division must wait for a complaint wherein a guest alleges that a specialized smoke detector was requested but was not available. The Division, pursuant to Section 509.032(2), Fla. Stat., has a statutory obligation to inspect transient public lodging establishments to ascertain compliance with Section 509.215(8), Fla. Stat. before complaints and injuries occur.
The Division has alleged that a specialized smoke detector for the hearing impaired was not available. The Corporation has made no appearance and the Nelsons have conceded the matter. Contrary to the Hearing Officer, therefore, the Division must conclude that there is sufficient facial basis for the allegation in item number 8.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Division, albeit somewhat reluctantly, hereby adopts the recommendation of the Hearing Officer with reference to Case No. 91-0682.
It is therefore ordered that Respondent, Eric and Carol Nelson, pay a total administrative fine in the amount of $3250, for the violations established in this cause; said administrative fine is calculated, pursuant to the recommendation of the Hearing Officer, as follows:
$1000.00 for the violation established in item no. 2
$250.00 for the violation established in item no. 3
$1000.00 for the violation established in item no. 4
$250.00 for the violation established in item no. 5
$500.00 for the violation established in item no. 7
$250.00 for the violation established in item no. 9
$3250.00 total administrative fine
DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 1991.
BARBARA J. PALMER, DIRECTOR DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS
725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011
(904) 488-1133
COPIES FURNISHED:
Charles Adams, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings
Eric Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn:
Winifred Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Emily Moore, Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation
Kelli Fulcher, Chief
Bureau of Hotels and Restaurants Jeanne Stallcup, Admin. Asst. II DBR Legal Section
B.E. Fernandez, Chief of Enforcement Division of Hotels and Restaurants
Chet Cole, Sanitation and Safety Administrator Division of Hotels and Restaurants
Certified Mailed No.P 832 638 536
Date Mailed 6-3-91
RIGHT TO APPEAL
This Final Order, which constitutes final agency action, may be appealed pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, by filing a Notice of Appeal conforming to the requirements of Rule 9.110(d), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, both with the appropriate District Court of Appeal, accompanied bye the appropriate filing fees, and with this agency within 30 days of rendition of this Order.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 91-0682
ERIC AND CAROL NELSON, d/b/a LAYTON APARTMENTS,
Respondent.
/
AMENDMENT TO FINAL ORDER
On June 3, 1991, Petitioner Division, by certified mail, return receipt requested, served its Final Order in this case. While the Division's Order is complete in all material respects, it does not advise Respondent of the date on which the administrative fine imposed in said Order is due and payable.
The Division hereby amends its June 3, 1991, Final Order to reflect that the fine is due and payable 31 days after service of the Final Order in this case. Respondent shall pay the total administrative fine assessed no later than July 5, 1991.
DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1991.
BARBARA J. PALMER, DIRECTOR DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS
725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011
(904) 488-1133
COPIES FURNISHED:
Charles Adams, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings
Eric Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson
2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
Emily Moore, Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation
Kelli Fulcher, Chief
Bureau of Hotels and Restaurants Jeanne Stallcup, Admin. Asst. II DBR Legal Section
B.E. Fernandez, Chief of Enforcement Division of Hotels and Restaurants
Chet Cole, Sanitation and Safety Administrator Division of Hotels and Restaurants
Certified Mail No. P 832 638 540 Date Mail 7-I-9I
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Mar. 04, 1991 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 28, 1991 | Agency Final Order | |
| Mar. 04, 1991 | Recommended Order | Disciplinary action against an unlicensed public lodging establishment. Recommended fines. |
