STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MICAH GREEN AND JUDE GREEN,

vs.

Petitioners,

Case No. 19-1593

SUN LAKE MULTIFAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC,

Respondent.

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Administrative Law Judge Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), held a video hearing in this matter in Altamonte Springs and Tallahassee, Florida, on April 30, 2019.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Micah R. Green, pro se

Jude Green, (no appearance)1/ Unit 1112

1112 Arbor Lakes Circle Sanford, Florida 32771

For Respondent: Barry Johnson, Esquire

Miller Johnson Law Suite 1000

247 Maitland Avenue

Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioners in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (Florida FHA); and, if so, the relief to which Petitioners are entitled.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Brothers, Micah and Jude Green (Petitioners or brothers), filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint on February 14, 2017, with the Florida Commission of Human Relations (FCHR) alleging Sun Lake MultiFamily Holdings LLC (Sun Lake) discriminated against them through “Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities; Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, Etc.); [and] Failure to make reasonable accommodation.” Petitioners specifically alleged that, if proven, the alleged acts “may constitute a violation of the following sections: 804b or f, 818, and 804f3B of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988.” FCHR investigated the allegations.

Petitioners received a “Notice of Determination of No Cause” issued by FCHR on February 20, 2019, finding there was no reasonable cause to believe Respondent had committed a discriminatory housing practice against them.

Petitioners timely filed a Petition for Relief with FCHR again alleging discriminatory housing practices. The Petition

was transmitted to DOAH and assigned to an administrative law judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

The final hearing was held on April 30, 2019. Prior to receiving testimony, several late-filed pleadings were argued. The ruling as to each motion is found in the parentheticals following the specific motion. Petitioners filed an Amended Proposed Exhibit List (amended as to Exhibit 23)2/; a Motion to Determine the Confidentiality of Court Records (Granted); an Amended Motion to Join a Necessary Party to the Proceedings (Granted); and an Amended Motion for Official Recognition (Denied). Respondent filed an Objection to Petitioners’ Amended Motion to Join a Necessary Party and a Motion for Reconsideration of Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative a More Definite Statement (Denied).

At the final hearing, Petitioner Micah Green (Mr. Green) testified on his own behalf. Petitioners did not offer any exhibits into evidence.3/ Respondent presented the testimony of Shawna Pollock, the property manager at Sun Lake. Respondent’s Exhibits A, B,4/ D, E, G, and H were admitted into evidence.

A court reporter was present, and although initially both parties stated a transcript would be ordered, at the conclusion of the hearing, both parties stated a transcript would not be ordered. At the close of the hearing, the parties were advised of the ten-day time frame following the hearing to file post-

hearing submittals. Both parties timely filed post-hearing submissions. The undersigned reviewed these submissions in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

All statutory references are to the 2018 codification of the Florida Statutes unless otherwise indicated.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Sun Lake is an apartment complex located in Lake Mary, Florida. Ms. Pollock is the property manager of Sun Lake, and has been employed in this capacity for approximately seven years.

2. Mr. Green is an African-American male. The brothers leased and resided in an apartment at Sun Lake from 2012 through July 31, 2017. Mr. Green asserted that Jude is disabled, however, no other evidence to support that assertion was provided.

3. Mr. Green alleged that Respondent failed to provide Petitioners accommodations that were requested in December 2016: change their apartment locks to the brothers’ “own private locks”; stop the trash service pick-up to the brothers’ apartment; and establish a community garden within the Sun Lake property. It is undisputed that Respondent ceased the trash service pick-up, but the evidence was insufficient to support whether the apartment locks were or were not changed. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding of fact regarding the

   
   

   establishment of a community garden within the Sun Lake property.5/

4. Mr. Green suggested a December 2016 police report was fraudulent because a name on the report was incorrect, and he had not filed a police complaint regarding noise above their apartment. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding of fact on this allegation.

5. Mr. Green admitted to withholding rent on several occasions as a method to have the requested accommodations secured.

6. Ms. Pollack confirmed there was a valid lease agreement between Sun Lake and Petitioners. Further, she provided that Respondent did, in fact, stop the trash service pick-up to their apartment as Petitioners requested.

7. Ms. Pollack lacked specific knowledge regarding whether Petitioners’ apartment door locks were changed, but offered that Respondent must maintain an apartment key. This is done in order to secure access to each apartment in a timely manner for health and safety reasons. Respondent’s maintenance staff would not enter any apartment without a specific request for service.

8. Ms. Pollack provided the multiple dates on which Petitioners’ rental payments were late. Petitioners and Respondent became involved in eviction proceedings in circuit court.

   
   

9. At some point, Petitioners and Respondent entered a settlement stipulation that Petitioners would vacate their apartment earlier than their lease agreement, and pay the rental fees and other associated fees to Respondent.

10. Following Mr. Green’s testimony, and both the direct and cross-examination testimony of Respondent’s sole witness, Ms. Pollock, Mr. Green moved to dismiss the case.

11. No credible evidence was presented that Respondent discriminated against Petitioners in any fashion.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

12. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 760.35(3)(b), Fla. Stat.

13. Petitioners have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Florida FHA by discriminating against them.

14. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires proof by “the greater weight of the evidence,” Black's Law

    Dictionary, 1201 (7th ed. 1999), or evidence that “more likely than not” tends to prove a certain proposition. See

    Gross v. Lyons, 763 So. 2d 276, 289 n.1 (Fla. 2000).

    
    

15. The Florida FHA6/ makes it unlawful to discriminate against any disabled or handicapped person in connection with a

    
    

    housing rental or sale. See § 760.23(1), Fla. Stat. (“It is

    
    

    unlawful to sell or rent . . . or otherwise to make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person because of . . . handicap.”).

16. To prevail in a discrimination claim, Petitioners must establish that: (1) one of them is a person with a disability within the meaning of the Florida FHA; (2) they requested a reasonable accommodation for the disability; (3) the requested accommodation was necessary to afford them an opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) Respondent refused to make the accommodation. See Hunt v. Aimco Props., L.P., 814 F.3d 1213,

    1225 (11th Cir. 2016); Bone v. Vill. Club, Inc., 223 F. Supp. 3d 1203, 1210-11 (M.D. Fla. 2016).

17. Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that one of them has a disability within the meaning of the Florida FHA, and failed to present sufficient evidence that the requested reasonable accommodation for one of them was necessary to afford him an opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.

18. In addition to the failure to present sufficient evidence to support any claim of discrimination, Mr. Green’s motion to dismiss the action after all the testimony was received provides the undersigned no alternative but to recommend that FCHR dismiss Petitioners’ Petition for Relief.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing Petitioners’ Petition for Relief in its entirety.

DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2019.

ENDNOTES

1/ Jude Green was added as a party during the early portion of the hearing.

2/ Exhibit 23 was never offered into evidence, and no ruling was made.

3/ Mr. Green mentioned several potential exhibits during his testimony; however, he failed to lay any foundation and he never offered any exhibits for admission into evidence.

4/ Respondent’s Exhibit B was admitted over objection.

5/ Exhibit E is a hearsay document and cannot support a finding of fact by itself.

6/ Generally, the Florida FHA is patterned after the federal Fair Housing Act found in 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. See Savannah Club Worship Serv. v. Savannah Club Homeowners’ Ass’n, 456 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1224 n.1 (S.D. Fla. 2005); see also Bhogaita v.

Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass'n, 765 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2014)(“The [Federal Fair Housing Act] and the Florida Fair Housing Act are substantively identical, and therefore the same legal analysis applies to each.”).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)

Micah Ricardo Green Unit 1112

1112 Arbor Lakes Circle Sanford, Florida 32771 (eServed)

Jude Green Unit 1112

1112 Arbor Lakes Circle Sanford, Florida 32771

Barry Johnson, Esquire Miller Johnson Law Suite 1000

247 Maitland Avenue

Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 (eServed)

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 19-001593

Orders for Case No: 19-001593