STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: RELOCATION ASSISTANCE )

RICHARD S. and Jane E. Limegrover )

Parcel 153, Lot 243 ) CASE NO. 76-383

Project 87090-2518 )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in the above-captioned matter, after due notice to the parties, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on June 8, 1976, before the undersigned Hearing Officer.

APPEARANCES

For the Department

of Transportation: Phillip Bennett, Esquire

For Richard S. and

Jane E. Limegrover: None

ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether applicant is eligible for relocation assistance monetary benefits pursuant to Public Law 91-646 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.

Although notice of hearing was provided to Mr. and Mrs. Limegrover on March 26, 1976, they did not appear at the time of hearing. Upon telephonic inquiry on June 8th by a representative of the Department of Transportation, Mr.

Limegrover advised that he had received the notice and although he had intended to call the Department of Transportation concerning the matter, he had forgotten to do so. He stated that he desired a continuance of the case. His request was objected to by counsel for the Department of Transportation. The request for continuance was denied as being untimely and good cause not having been shown therefor. The hearing was conducted as an uncontested proceeding.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. By letter of October 20, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Limegrover of Courtly Manors Mobile Home Park, Hialeah Gardens, Florida, were advised by the Florida Department of Transportation that it was in the process of acquiring right-of-way for State Road #25 (U.S. 27) in their area, and that the mobile home lot the Limegrovers occupied as tenants would be required for construction of the facility. The letter provided the Department's assurance that they would not be required to move until at least 90 days had elapsed from the date of receipt of the letter, and that they would receive a further notice specifying the actual date by which the property must be vacated at least 30 days prior to the date specified. The letter concluded by an expression of the Department's desire to assist in relocation and to answer any questions concerning such matters.

2. On December 8, 1975, a further letter was sent to the Limegrovers by the Department of Transportation assuring the addressees that the prior letter had not been a notice to move and that no one at the Courtly Manors Mobile Home Park would be required to move until negotiations with the owner had been completed or monies placed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Dade County by court order. It further stated that in the interim period relocatees living within Courtly Manors who were eligible and decided to move on their own initiative would be assisted by the Department in their relocation.

   
   

3. Limegrover called Mr. Carl Moon, Right-of-Way Agent, Department of Transportation, Ft. Lauderdale, on December 11, requesting assistance in arrangements for moving his mobile home. Moon discovered that Limegrover wanted to move before January 1, 1976, as he had reserved a lot in another mobile home park. However, Limegrover told him that when he advised his current landlord on December 11 of the projected move on December 30, the landlord stated that in the absence of 30 days notice, Limegrover must forfeit his $90.00 security deposit. Limegrover told Moon that he felt the Department of Transportation should pay the $90.00 security deposit since he was being forced to move by that agency. Moon told him that he was not required to move that soon, but Limegrover was unwilling to wait, fearing that he would not be able to find a satisfactory place later on. Accordingly, Moon assisted him in his moving arrangements and Limegrover was paid for his moving expenses in the amount of

   $640.00 and smaller sums for reinstallation of his telephone and disconnection and reconnection of his gas equipment. Inasmuch as the Department of transportation declined to pay the $90.00 representing alleged forfeiture of the security deposit, Limegrover filed this relocation appeal. (Testimony of Moon, Exhibits 1 & 2).

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

4. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 USC 4601-4655) has as its purpose the prompt and equitable relocation and reestablishment of persons, businesses, and nonprofit organizations displaced as a result of federal and federal-aid highway construction. The U.S. Department of Transportation has promulgated a federal- aid highway program manual to implement the act that establishes rules, policies and procedures on-relocation assistance, and the various services and payments authorized as a result of displacement of individuals and businesses. The evidence establishes that the Florida Department of Transportation has complied with the various directives of the Federal Government and its own written procedures in the instant case. The sole question for decision is whether or not a $90.00 payment is authorized to the Limegrovers for an alleged forfeiture of lease deposit incident to relocation.

   
   

5. The State of Florida, Department of Transportation, has promulgated relocation assistance operating procedures in implementation of the federal act and its implementing directives. These provide for mobile home moving costs and incidental expenses in Procedures Number 175-010. Certain incidental costs other than moving expenses, such as storage of personal property, insurance premiums, losses in moving, and removal and reinstallation expenses of equipment, appliances and the like, are authorized for payment under these directives. However, there is no authority for the payment of a forfeited lease deposit. Further, even assuming arguendo that such a cost would be reimburseable under the program, no proof has been adduced that the amount in question was actually forfeited, and if so, whether it was in accordance with the terms of any lease under which the tenant held possession of the premises. In addition, the evidence shows that any such forfeiture probably could have

been avoided by proper action on the part of the tenant in giving the required notice to his landlord. Limegrover was not required to relocate by January 1, 1976, as evidenced by the correspondence provided him by the Department of Transportation. Any costs of the nature claimed came about because of his unwillingness to postpone his move until after he had been required to vacate by appropriate notice from the Department of Transportation. It is therefore concluded that the request for reimbursement should be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

That the appeal of Richard and Jane Limegrover, in the amount of $90.00, be denied.

DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

THOMAS C. OLDHAM

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Phillip Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Room 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida

Richard S. and Jane E. Limegrover Lot F4, Haven Lakes Mobile Home Park 11201 S.W. 55th Street

Miramar, Florida 33025

Docket for Case No: 76-000383

Orders for Case No: 76-000383