Findings Of Fact At all times here involved Bernadine Geary was registered with FREC as a broker and Active Firm Member of Florida Real Estate Enterprises, Inc., a corporate broker, and William J. Geary was registered as a real estate salesman working for the corporate broker, Florida Real Estate Enterprises, Inc. Florida Real Estate Enterprises, Inc. entered into a contract to sell Bird Bay Village Condominiums by providing a salesman, William J. Geary, at the site developed by Valencia Development Corp. Although the exact relationship between Bird Bay Village and Valencia Development Corporation was not clearly established it appears that the former handled the sales of the condominiums built by the latter and Bird Bay Village was a subsidiary of Valencia Development Corporation or they had common ownership. During the latter part of 1974 meetings were held by representatives of Valencia Development Corporation and Atlantic Equities, Inc. to reach an agreement whereby the latter would refer its clients owning an interest in undeveloped Florida land to Valencia Development Corporation who would negotiate with these people to exchange their interest in land for condominiums in Bird Bay Village. The understanding reached between the negotiators was memorialized in Exhibit 1, a letter from Valencia Development Corporation to Atlantic Equities dated October 18, 1974. Therein Atlantic Equities agreed to refer their clients to Valencia Development and if they purchased a condominium Valencia Development would pay Atlantic Equities a commission. William J. Geary attended two meetings which resulted in the agreement described in Exhibit 1. On November 22, 1974, Folmer and Rita Reich entered into a contract to transfer their equity in undeveloped land in Florida as down payment on a condominium at Bird Bay Village (Exhibit 5). William J. Geary negotiated the sale of the condominium to the Reichs. No evidence was presented that any misrepresentations were made to induce this sale or that the Reichs were advised in any manner regarding continuation of payments on their contracts for deed representing their equity in the land exchange. They did exchange, or purport to exchange, an equity in real property for other real property or an equity therein.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' rental property was licensed under Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners, Robert Meller, Jr., and Kristine M. Meller, were owners of a rental property (a house located at 4516 Bowan Bayou) in Sanibel, Florida. In addition, they owned a condominium in the same area. Respondent Cross held a valid real estate license at all times material to matters at issue. Respondent Cross had a business relationship with Petitioners, which antedated the purchase of the Bowen Bayou house as a result of being the leasing agent for a condominium association with which Petitioners were associated. Respondent DBPR is the State of Florida agency which represents the FREC in matters such as this matter. In January 2000, Petitioners purchased the house in Sanibel located at 4516 Bowan Bayou. On or about January 20, 2000, Respondent Cross mailed a Rental Property Management Agreement to Petitioners for the property located at 4516 Bowan Bayou, Sanibel, Florida. The parties to this contract were Petitioners and Properties in Paradise, Inc. Petitioner, Robert Meller, Jr., signed the contract and returned the contract to Respondent Cross. Petitioners maintain that the Rental Property Management Agreement was not signed by Petitioner, Robert Meller, Jr., and that his name is forged. He maintains that he entered into an oral agreement with Respondent Cross, individually, to manage the property. From the purchase of the house in January 2000 through April 2001, Petitioners received correspondence, including a monthly "owner statement" reflecting short-term rental income, commissions, and debits for maintenance, from Properties in Paradise, Inc., regarding all aspects of the business relationship contemplated by the Rental Property Management Agreement. By letter dated January 20, 2000, Petitioner, Robert Meller, Jr., authorized "Revonda Cross of Properties in Paradise as my agent in establishing telephone and electrical service and so forth for my property on Sanibel Island at 4516 Bowen's [sic] Bayou Road." Thereafter, Petitioners received correspondence from Respondent Cross relative to the subject property wherein she is identified as "Operations Manager, Properties in Paradise, Inc." During the relevant time period, Petitioners' property was rented at least 22 times; once for 17 days, four times for 14 days, once for nine days, thirteen times for seven days, and once for five days. The frequency and term of these rentals qualify for the statutory definition of a "resort dwelling" and transient rental dwelling. Properties in Paradise, Inc., listed the property located at 4516 Bowan Bayou in the list of properties it provided the Division of Hotels and Restaurants as licensed in accordance with Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2005). In April 2001, Properties in Paradise, Inc., through an attorney, notified clients that it had effectively ceased doing business. At that time, Petitioners were owed $11,588.06, which went unpaid. Petitioners made a claim in July 2001, against Respondent Cross to recover their loss from the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund. In October 2003, Petitioners' claim was denied by the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order denying Petitioners' claim for recovery from the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Solla, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Robert L. Meller, Jr., Esquire Best & Flanagan, LLP 225 South 6th Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4690 Revonda Stewart Cross 1102 South East 39th Terrace, No. 104 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Nancy B. Hogan, Chairman Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a real estate salesman's license should be approved?
Findings Of Fact Sometime in late February or early March, 1988, Petitioner submitted an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. Petitioner's answers to questions 6 and 7 of the application reflected that in June or July 1987, he had pled guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States and was sentenced to serve 2 years on probation and assessed a $5,000 fine. Based on Petitioner's answers to questions 6 and 7 of the application, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for licensure. Petitioner's conviction for conspiring to defraud the United States was due to his involvement with two Farmers Home Administration projects to build low-income housing in Michigan. In 1983, the Farmers Home Administration had allotted approximately $500,000 to fund each of 2 low-income housing projects consisting of 18 units each. The funding had been committed to a developer other than Petitioner. The developer had been unable to arrange for the projects to be built. The developer had let out bids on both projects. The bid on one project came back under the amount allotted; however, the bid for the other project came back at approximately $105,000 over the amount allotted. At this point, Petitioner was contacted by the developer and became a partner in the development of the two projects. Petitioner's job was to get the projects built. Petitioner determined that it might be possible to construct the two projects for the total amount allotted, $1,000,000, if both projects were bid out together, since efficiencies should be achieved by bidding both projects as one. Petitioner let out a bid for the construction of both projects. The bid came back at a slightly higher amount than that allotted. However, after some negotiations with the Farmers Home Administration the two projects were allowed to proceed. However, the fact still remained that one project was more expensive than the other to build, and that the costs of the more expensive project exceeded the amount allotted by the Farmer's Home Administration. In order to resolve this problem, Petitioner falsified some documents to make the accounting for each project show that both projects came in under the amount allotted even though this was not true. In effect, Petitioner used money allotted to the less expensive project to pay for the more expensive project. In 1985, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began an investigation of all Farmers Home Administration projects in Michigan. Out of this investigation, Petitioner's involvement with the two projects was uncovered, and his subsequent plea of guilty and conviction were due to his falsifying the documents. Petitioner held a real estate salesman's license in Michigan from 1975 to 1978. From 1978 to the present time, Petitioner has held a real estate broker's license in Michigan. No disciplinary action has been taken by the State of Michigan on account of Petitioner's actions which led to his conviction. Also, no action has ever been brought in Michigan arising out of Petitioner's activities representing buyers and sellers of real estate. Petitioner has paid $150.00 of the $5,000.00 fine imposed by the Federal government. He has paid when he has had work. Petitioner is in the process of filing for Chapter 11 reorganization in order to facilitate the payment of some debts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order approving Petitioner's application for license as a real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3479 The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted. Rejected as not a finding of fact, but see Conclusions of Law section of RO. Rejected as not a finding of fact. Respondent's PRO posed Findings of Fact PRO posed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph Accepted as modified in RO 1. Accepted as modified in RO 3. Subordinate. Accepted as modified in RO 2, 4 and 12. Accepted as modified in RO 11 and 12. Accepted as modified in RO 16 and 17. First 7 words are not a finding of fact; remainder of sentence is Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: George Joseph Laufersky 7 Oak Lane Lady Lake, Florida 32659 Lawrence S. Gendzier Assistant Attorney General 400 West Robinson Room 212 Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 32801 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Recommendation It is recommended that the Complaint against the Respondent be dismissed. ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Staff Attorney, Florida Real Estate Commission 17 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Lawrence Scherr 2222 Southwest 22nd Terrace Miami, Florida 33145 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not James T. Speaks, Respondent, engaged in conduct amounting to a failure to maintain in an escrow bank account deposits he received as a selling broker which were entrusted to him in the course of his brokerage activities until a proper or authorized disbursement of such monies was made. Based on its Administrative Complaint filed on May 17, 1978, the Florida Real Estate Commission, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, annul, suspend or otherwise discipline licensee James T. Speaks, who holds Florida Real Estate License No. 0083459, based on conduct which will be set forth herein in detail.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony presented during the course of the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: During October of 1976, Donna W. Ross was a listing broker to sell the property of Katherine Scanlon. During mid-October, 1976, Respondent Speaks located purchasers for the Scanlon property and submitted an offer to the listing broker, which offer was accepted by the seller. Respondent Speaks deposited a $1,000.00 binder deposit in his escrow account. (See FREC Composite Exhibit No. 7.) The closing of the real estate transaction in the Scanlon property took place in Attorney David Booher's office who, based on evidence received during the course of the closing, questioned Respondent Speaks as to the negotiability of a $1,000.00 check Respondent Speaks presented as a refund of the escrow deposit he had tendered to secure the deposit receipt contract for the Scanlon property. Virginia RawIs, who was formerly employed by Booher and Crabtree, Realtors, called the Barnett Bank of Regency to verify if sufficient funds were on deposit in Respondent Speaks' account and was advised that sufficient monies were not on deposit to cover the check. At that juncture, Respondent Speaks acknowledged that he had tendered a check which was drawn on an account without sufficient funds to cover it and agreed that the $1,000.00 binder deposit should be deducted from his commission monies due. This agreement was acceptable to all parties concerned at the closing and another check representing the commission monies due Respondent Speaks, less the $1,000.00 deposit, was drawn and made payable to Speaks. Donna W. Ross, the listing broker, was also present during the hearing and verified the testimony of Attorney Booher respecting the presentation by Respondent Speaks of the $1,000.00 check which was not secured by sufficient funds. As noted in the appearance section of this Recommended Order, the Respondent, James T. Speaks, did not appear during the hearing although copies of the Notice of Hearing were mailed to his last known addresses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the Registered Real Estate Broker license of Respondent, James T. Speaks, be suspended for a period of two (2) years. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Robert Hartnett was at all times pertinent to this complaint a registered real estate broker. Bill Dew and Dave Allman sought to lease a specific piece of real property for business purposes. In this regard they contacted William Hartnett, who had previously leased a piece of real property which included the specific piece of property Messrs. Dew and Allman desired to lease. Messrs. Allman and Dew entered into an agreement to sublease a portion of the Hartnett leasehold. A contract was prepared by William Hartnett and delivered by Robert Hartnett to Dew and Allman, who executed the contract. Although there is conflicting testimony, the testimony of Robert Hartnett is accepted as the more accurate explanation of his role in the transaction. Robert Hartnett had no interest in William Hartnett's business venture or in the leasehold, and did not appear or function as a real estate broker in this transaction. The owner of the property, Mr. Grossinger, testified he agreed to lease the property to William Hartnett. Hartnett was permitted to occupy the premises and paid rent. William Hartnett prepared a written lease which was not signed by the owner, Mr. Grossinger. Grossinger terminated the agreement when Hartnett subleased the premises to Allman and Dew without notifying him and instituted legal action to evict William Hartnett. Under the circumstances, there was an oral lease between Hartnett and Grossinger. Messrs. Dew and Allman made arrangements with contractors to make modifications to the subleased premises, and the modifications were begun. These modifications were in part the cause for the owner terminating the lease with William Hartnett. Messrs. Dew and Allman or their agents did have occupancy of the premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against Respondent Robert Hartnett. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louis M. Jepeway, Esquire 619 Dade Federal Building 101 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether, with respect to each application filed, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) review and decision-making process in response to the Request for Applications 2020-201 (RFA) was contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the RFA.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Section 420.5099 designates Florida Housing as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program (commonly referred to as “tax credits” or “housing credits”) was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These housing credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. The effect is to reduce the amount that the developer must otherwise borrow. Because the total debt is lower, the housing credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the housing credits. The demand for housing credits provided by the federal government exceeds supply. The Competitive Application Process Section 420.507(48) authorizes Florida Housing to allocate housing credits and other funding through requests for proposals or other competitive solicitations, and Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to prescribe the competitive solicitation process. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its competitive funding through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). Applicants for funding request, in their applications, a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. Applicants normally will sell the rights to the future stream of income housing credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount an applicant can receive depends on several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected total development cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. These are just examples of the factors considered, and this is by no means an exhaustive list. Housing credits are made available through a competitive application process that starts with the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is considered to be a “request for proposal” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA in this case was issued on August 26, 2020, and responses were due November 5, 2020. The RFA was modified September 11, 2020, and October 12, 2020, but with no change with respect to the response deadline. Through the RFA, Florida Housing expects to award up to an estimated $15,275,810 of housing credits to proposed developments in medium-sized counties, and up to an estimated $1,453,730 of housing credits to proposed developments in small counties. Florida Housing received 84 applications in response to RFA 2020-201. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to the Florida Housing Board of Directors (Board). The Review Committee found 79 applications eligible and five applications ineligible for funding. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, 10 applications were preliminarily recommended for funding. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. The federal government enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CCA) in December 2020, and as a result, an additional $3,367,501 in housing credits became available for affordable housing for Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, and Bay Counties, which were impacted by Hurricane Sally. The staff at Florida Housing recommended using the CCA funding to award housing credits to additional highest-ranking eligible applications in qualified disaster areas, subject to the county award tally, regardless of the county size in RFA 2020-201 and developed a chart listing its CCA funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On January 22, 2021, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the Review Committee and staff for RFA 2020-201. At approximately 2:50 p.m. that day, all of the applicants in RFA 2020-201 were provided notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration of funding, and that certain eligible applicants were preliminarily selected for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Notice was provided by posting on the Florida Housing website two spreadsheets: one listing the Board-approved scoring results in RFA 2020-201; and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In the January 22, 2021, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 24 applicants, including The Villages, Pinnacle at Hammock Springs, and Rosemary Place. Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceedings. All Intervenors have been properly recognized as such. The terms of RFA 2020-201 were not challenged. RFA 2020-201 Ranking and Selection Process The RFA contemplates a structure in which the applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. A summary of the eligibility items is listed in Section 5.A.1. of the RFA, beginning at page 71. Only applications that meet all of the eligibility requirements will be eligible for funding and considered for the funding selection. This challenge does not raise any issues with respect to the point totals awarded to the applicants. The RFA has four funding goals: The Corporation has a goal to fund five Medium County Developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.a of the RFA, with a preference that three of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(1) of the RFA to be considered submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113, and two of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(2) of the RFA to be considered not submitted in RFA 2019-113. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal outlined in Section Four A.5.i of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund two Developments with a Demographic commitment of Family that select and qualify for the geographic Areas of Opportunity/ SADDA Goal outlined in Section Four A.10.a(1)(d) of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the SunRail Goal outlined in Section Four, A.5.e.(5) of the RFA. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process, outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal with one exception: If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, the SunRail Goal will also be considered met. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp.75). At page 76 of Joint Exhibit 1, the RFA also sets forth the sorting order to be used when selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal: The highest scoring applications will be determined by first sorting together all eligible Priority I Medium County Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order. This will then be repeated for Priority II Applications: First, counties of the Applications that (i) qualified for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal in FRA 2019-113 and (ii) were invited to enter credit underwriting will receive lower preference than other Medium Counties competing for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. This affects the following counties: Brevard, Lee, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, and Volusia. The remaining counties will receive higher preference. Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. Next, the RFA sets forth the sorting order for selecting applications to meet the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. It then sets for the sorting order after selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal (LGAO Designation) and Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. The RFA includes a funding test where a) small county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough small county funding ($1,453,730) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount, and b) medium county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough medium county funding ($15,275,810) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount. The RFA outlines a specific County Award Tally based on Priority Levels as follows: Priority I County Award Tally As each Priority I Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. Priority II County Award Tally As each Priority II Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the proposed Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority II Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp. 78-79) The RFA outlines the selection process at pages 79-81 as follows: Five Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal Applications that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not Awarded The first three Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not awarded, subject to the Funding Test and County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this preference is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this preference, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this preference is met. Applications that were not submitted in RFA 2019-113 The next Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were not submitted in 2019-113, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this Goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are not eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this Goal. One Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal The next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Two Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal The next two Applications select [sic] for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are no eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this goal. One Application that Qualifies for the SunRail Goal If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal described in a. above or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal described in b. above also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, this Goal will be considered met without selecting an additional Application. If none of the Applications selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization also qualify for the SunRail Goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Small County Applications that (i) can meet the Small County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Small County Priority I Applications. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Priority I Application can meet the Small County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded Small County Priority II Application can meet the Small County Funding Test. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Applications can meet the Small County Funding Test, no further Small County Applications will be selected, and the remaining Small County Funding will be added to the Medium County funding amount. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Medium County Applications that (i) can meet the Medium County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Medium County Priority I Applications. If Medium County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority I Applications can meet the Medium County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority II Applications can meet the Small County Funding Test. If Medium County Funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Application can meet the Medium County Funding Test, no further Applications will be selected and the remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. After the description of the sorting process, the RFA specifies: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant withdrawing, an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting or the Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, and/or provisions outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed as approved by the Board. All 84 applications for RFA 2020-201 were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. The Fletcher Black Application During the scoring process, Florida Housing determined that the Fletcher Black application was eligible for funding, but ineligible for the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black was not selected for preliminary funding. If Fletcher Black’s application was eligible for the LGAO Designation, it would have been selected for funding. It would have been selected as the second of the three developments selected for the LGAO Priority I applications that qualified for the preference for those development applications submitted in RFA 2019-113, but not awarded as outlined on pages 69-70 of the RFA. Additionally, if Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, then The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs will be displaced from funding. In order to qualify for the LGAO Designation and Goal, applicants must “demonstrate a high level of Local Government interest in the project via an increased amount of Local Government contributions in the form of cash loans and/or cash grants.” The RFA outlines the types and amounts of contributions from Local Governments that will be accepted to meet the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black’s proposed development is in Bay County. Therefore, Fletcher Black would be required to demonstrate a contribution of at least $340,000 to be considered for the LGAO Designation. The RFA at page 67 expressly limits the number of applications from the same government jurisdiction as follows: Limit on the number of Applications within the same jurisdiction A proposed Development may only qualify where a jurisdiction (i.e., the county or a municipality) has contributed cash loans and/or cash grants for any proposed Development applying for this RFA in an amount sufficient to qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. A Local Government can only contribute to one Application that qualifies for the Local Government Area of Opportunity Designation, regardless of how the contribution is characterized. Any single jurisdiction may not contribute cash loans and/or cash grants to more than one proposed Development applying for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. If multiple Applications demonstrate Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding from the same jurisdiction and those Applications qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, then all such Applications will be deemed ineligible for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, regardless of the amount of Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding or how the contribution is characterized. However, Local Governments may pool contributions to support one Application (i.e., the county and the city may provide contribution to the same Development and each Local Government will submit its own form as an Attachment to the Application). Page 68 of the RFA describes the requirements for demonstrating LGAO funding: In order to be eligible to be considered Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding, the cash loans and/or cash grants must be demonstrated via one or both of the Florida Housing Local Government Verification of Contribution Forms (Form Rev. 07-2019), called “Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan” form and/or the “Local Government Verification of Contribution -- Grant” form. The forms must meet the Non-Corporation Funding Proposal Requirements outlined in 10.b.(2)(a) above, the qualifying funding must be reflected as a source on the Development Cost Pro Forma, and the applicable form(s) must be provided as Attachment 16 to the Application. Applications are not required to reflect the value (difference between the face amount and the net present value of the payment streams) on any Local Government Verification Forms. Similarly, Section 10.b.(2)(a) of the RFA specifies that, Note: Eligible Local Government financial commitments (i.e., grants and loans) can be considered a source of financing without meeting the requirements above if the Applicant provides a properly completed and executed Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Form 0702019) and/or the Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form (Form 07-2019). Fletcher Black submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Grant Form) from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000. Fletcher Black’s Grant Form was executed by Greg Bridnicki, as the Mayor of Panama City and “Approved as to Form and Correctness” by Nevin Zimmerman, City Attorney. Fletcher Black’s request for funding from Panama City was placed on the agenda for the City of Panama City City Commission’s August 25, 2020, meeting, and approved by the City Commission, which authorized Mr. Bridnicki to sign the Grant Form. Fletcher Black had obtained a similar LGAO Form in the previous year using the same established process. Fletcher Black did not submit any documentation in the RFA Application regarding the process used to gain approval of the grant. However, no party identified any requirement in the RFA that such a description must be included in the Application. Fletcher Black cannot be faulted for not supplying something that is not required. Another Applicant, Panama Manor App. No. 2021-074C, submitted a Grant Form from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000 executed by Michael Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s title is listed as the Director of Community Development/CRA/CDBG/SHIP. During the scoring process, Florida Housing’s scorer found that since both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor submitted documentation for the LGAO Designation from the same jurisdiction, the City of Panama City, according to the terms of the RFA, both applications were deemed ineligible for the LGAO Designation. The Grant Form submitted by both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor contains the following instruction regarding who is authorized to sign the form on behalf of the local government: This certification must be signed by the chief appointed official (staff) responsible for such approvals, Mayor, City Manager, County Manager/ Administrator/ Coordinator, Chairperson of the City Council/Commission or Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners. … One of the authorized persons named above may sign this form for certification of state, federal or Local Government funds initially obtained or derived from a Local Government that is directly administered by an intermediary such as a housing finance authority, a community reinvestment corporation, or a state-certified Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Other signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed. To be considered for points, the amount of the contribution stated on this form must be a precise dollar amount and cannot include words such as estimated, up to, maximum, not to exceed, etc. Michael Johnson was not authorized by the City of Panama City to sign the Grant Form. Greg Bridnicki, as Mayor of Panama City, is an authorized signatory. Panama Manor’s request was not submitted to the City Commission for approval. Because the Grant Form was improperly signed, Panama Manor should not, by the terms of the RFA, receive credit for the LGAO Designation. Had Panama Manor’s application received the LGAO Designation, it would not have been selected for funding because its lottery number was too high. Michael Johnson is the Director of Community Development for the City of Panama City. While he is an employee for the City of Panama City, he also performs duties for Bay County through an interlocal agreement between the city and the county. The Grant Form submitted for Panama Manor stated on its face that it was signed on behalf of the City of Panama City, but Mr. Johnson testified that the form was supposed to reflect that it was for Bay County. Mr. Johnson testified that over the last 17 years, he has executed approximately 40 forms for applications for funding from Florida Housing. He acknowledged that there are multiple types of forms that may need signatures from city or county officials to complete a Florida Housing application, such as zoning forms and infrastructure-verification forms, as well as local government contribution forms. Since Florida Housing changed its process to use RFAs in 2013, Mr. Johnson could not recall if he signed the Grant Forms or whether the city manager did. He could not confirm signing a single Grant Form for either the city or the county since 2013. Mr. Johnson believed that he had the authority to sign Grant Forms on behalf of both the city and the county. Mark McQueen, the City of Panama City city manager and Mr. Johnson’s boss, does not share his belief. According to Mr. McQueen, whose testimony is credited, Panama City committed only to the Fletcher Black property, took no official action with respect to Panama Manor’s application, and Mr. Johnson was not authorized to sign the Grant Form committing funds on behalf of the City. When Mr. Johnson realized that the Panama Manor Grant Form stated that it was signed on behalf of Panama City as opposed to Bay County, he called the legal department for Florida Housing to explain the error. He testified that he spoke with several people at Florida Housing, including Jean Salmonson, David Weston, and someone in the multi-family development section. Mr. Johnson was not sure of the dates when these telephone calls were made, but it appears that the telephone calls were after the submission of the applications but before the posting of funding selections. Marissa Button is Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs. She testified that Florida Housing is aware of the contention that the form submitted by Panama Manor was signed in error and should have reflected that it was signed on behalf of Bay County. She was also aware that according to Mr. McQueen, Mr. Johnson did not have the authority to sign a Grant Form on behalf of the City of Panama City. She stated: Q. How does that information impact Florida Housing’s scoring decision? A. This --at this juncture it does not impact Florida Housing’s scoring determination as to the Panama Manor or Fletcher Black being designated as LGAO goal. … We take the requirement of the RFA specifically references the – the submission of what – when there’s a submission of multiple applications from the same jurisdiction, and so we, Florida Housing, consider that as of – as of the application deadline what this applicant has submitted is a form executed on behalf of the City of Panama City. To change the designation, which I understand from Mr. Johnson’s testimony it was a mistake, he intended to issue on behalf of Bay County and reflect that, we interpret that to be a – an improper amendment or modification to the application after the application submission. So we do not consider it to change the scoring designation of the – of either the Panama Manor application or the resulting consequence to the Fletcher Black application. * * * Q. Now, Fletcher Black may argue that it’s unfair to treat its application as ineligible for the LGAO designation and goals when the Fletcher Black [application] did not contain an error. What would your response be to that? A. You know, my response is, we score the application in accordance with the terms of the RFA. The applications are responsible for all parts of that – that RFA with regard to their application submission. It’s clear in this RFA that there would be a consequence if other applications were submitted from the same jurisdiction for an LGAO designation. And, unfortunately, that’s the mistake that happened, but the fairness – it is a fair process because we are – we are administering the RFA as it has been, you know – as the terms exist to the public and to the fellow applications that came in for funding. So, I – I do believe it’s unfortunate that that consequence impacts their application; however, it is – it is fair because that’s the consequence if it happens. (T-39-40, 45-46). Panama Manor’s application did not demonstrate local government funding because the Grant Form was not signed by someone with authority to do so. The RFA specifically states that “[o]ther signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed.” Where forms signed by local government officials are challenged, Ms. Button indicated that Florida Housing has in the past relied upon or deferred to local government officials to address the propriety of the forms signed. The issue usually arises with forms related to zoning or other facets encompassed in the Ability to Proceed forms. Here, the credible testimony of local officials is that the Grant Form for Panama Manor was intended to reflect a funding commitment from Bay County and the signator on Panama Manor’s Grant Form was not authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Panama City. It would be contrary to competition if Panama Manor were allowed to amend its application to correct the Grant Form. It is appropriate to disregard Panama Manor’s Grant Form, given the inaccuracies contained therein. If Panama Manor’s application is not selected for the LGAO Designation because of its failure to demonstrate that the City of Panama City is providing local support for Panama Manor’s project, then there is only one application with a valid Grant Form from the City of Panama City, and that is Fletcher Black. Ms. Button testified that it would provide a competitive advantage to Fletcher Black if Fletcher Black were considered for the LGAO Designation. However, she stated that applicants are responsible for all parts of their application submission. Fletcher Black did not make an error in its application and is not requesting that it be amended in any way. It is asking that the application be considered as submitted, just as other applications are considered. Florida Housing’s decision to find Fletcher Black ineligible for the LGAO Designation is clearly erroneous, in light of the clear demonstration that Panama Manor did not demonstrate a local funding commitment from the City of Panama City, and Fletcher Black is the only entity that did so. The Rosemary Place Application Florida Housing deemed the Rosemary Place application to be eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Rosemary Place for funding. One of the requirements for eligibility under the RFA is that applicants demonstrate Site Control by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Site Control Certification form (Site Control Form). For the Site Control Form to be considered complete, the applicant must attach documentation demonstrating that it is a party to an eligible contract or lease or is the owner of the subject property. Applicants can demonstrate Site Control by providing documentation that meets the requirements in the RFA for an eligible contract, deed or certificate of title, or a lease. The RFA specifies at pages 39-40 that an eligible contract must meet the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than May 31, 2021; It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant: and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. The RFA notifies applicants that Florida Housing’s review of the Site Control documents is limited. At page 40, the RFA states: Note: The Corporation will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation. During scoring, the Corporation will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirement of this RFA to demonstrate site control. The Corporation has no authority to, and will not, evaluate the validity or enforceability of any eligible site control documentation that is attached to the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process. During credit underwriting, if it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, the Corporation may rescind the award. The RFA also requires that, for the purpose of demonstrating Site Control, “documentation must include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases and subleases. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites.” A “scattered site” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(106) as “a Development site that, when taken as a whole, is comprised of real property that is not contiguous (each such non-contiguous site within a Scattered Site Development, is considered to be a “Scattered Site”). For purposes of this definition ‘contiguous’ means touching at a point or along a boundary. …” Rosemary Place submitted a properly completed and executed Site Control Form which was accepted by Florida Housing during its review, scoring, and ranking process. As an attachment to its Site Control Form, Rosemary Place attached a Purchase and Sale Agreement (Rosemary Place Agreement) between Kyle McDorman as the Seller and RM FL XX Prime, LLC (the applicant entity for Rosemary Place) as the Purchaser. The Rosemary Place Agreement has a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021, and states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. The Rosemary Place Application identified the address of the proposed development as “690’ N of intsctn of 331-Bus & Azalea Dr on W side of 331- Bus; within city limits of Freeport, FL (Walton County).” (J-16, page 5). The Development Location Point, consisting of latitude and longitude coordinates was correctly identified, and the Rosemary Place Application stated that the proposed development did not consist of scattered sites. Exhibit A of the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement identifies the property as follows: That Thirteen (13.0) Acres situated in the City of Freeport, FL (Distrct 2); Section 10, Township 1S, Range 19, and which is part of Walton County, FL Parcel 10-1S-19-23000-009-0020 which is further described in the land records of Walton County, FL as 210FT SQ FT IN THE SE/C OF THE W1/2 OF THE NE1/4 OF SW1/4 IN SEC 10-1S-19W, 204-184, 1204-279, 2660- 2976, 3084-4417 and which is recorded in that Warranty Deed from Grantor Aaron M and Rachel N Sloan Elkins to Grantee Kyle J. McDorman which Warranty Deed is recorded in the land records of Walton County, FL at Book 3084 and Page Number 4417. The Property is further described and identified as the shaded area denoted with an X in the image below. Based on the Walton County Property Appraiser map, the shaded area denoted with an X is contained within Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000, which is owned by the Seller, Kyle McDorman, as opposed to Parcel No. 10- 1S-19-23000-009-0020. Timshell contends that the shaded area denoted with an X overlaps parcels outside of Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000. Timshell contends that the submitted Site Control documentation submitted by Rosemary Place is not consistent with the requirements of the RFA because of the uncertainty of the property that is actually being purchased and where the proposed Development site is actually located. Timshell also contends that the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement, as written and submitted to Florida Housing, denotes scattered sites which were not disclosed by Rosemary Place in its application. Rosemary Place contends, and Florida Housing agrees, that the shaded area denoted with an X on Exhibit A to the Rosemary Place Agreement sufficiently identifies the property being purchased through the agreement as the Development site. Moreover, the visual depiction of the property is consistent with the written description of the development location in the Rosemary Place Application at J-16, page 5. The Rosemary Place Application does not depict scattered sites. Even assuming that the parcel number included in Exhibit A were part of the purchase reflected in the Sale and Purchase Agreement, an eligible contract may involve the purchase of multiple properties or a larger parcel of property than will be developed. What is most important is that the documents show where the development will be located, which Rosemary Place’s application demonstrates, and that the applicant will have control over the location. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing did not consider the Rosemary Place Application to be proposing a scattered sites development. Rosemary Place affirmatively stated that it was not proposing a scattered sites development; did not list coordinates for scattered sites; and did not identify the location of scattered sites on other forms required by the RFA. Exhibit A to the Purchase and Sale Agreement contains typographical errors in the written description of the property being sold. Stewart Rutledge, who prepared the Purchase and Sale Agreement, testified credibly that parcel numbers are listed on the Walton County Property Appraiser website, and that to see a particular parcel description, the user clicks on the parcel number he or she wants to see. When preparing the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Mr. Rutledge mistakenly clicked on the parcel number immediately above the parcel number he wanted, and he did not notice the error. The parcel number reflected in the Purchase and Sale Agreement references another parcel owned by the seller, Kyle McDorman. Florida Housing considered the typographical error within Exhibit A that results in the listing of the wrong parcel number and property description to be a waivable minor irregularity because the error did not result in the omission of any material information; did not create uncertainty that a term of the RFA was met; and did not adversely impact Florida Housing or the public. The same could be said for other typographical error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, such as capitalizing the word “property” when it should not have been. Ms. Button also noted that the RFA does not require applicants to submit a land survey of the proposed development site with its application. The RFA states that Florida Housing reserves the right to waive minor irregularities. A minor irregularity is defined in rule 67-60.008 as: those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Timshell presented the testimony of Stephen Rutan, a professional land surveyor. Mr. Rutan believed that, based on the property description in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the proposed development site overlapped with another parcel not owned by the seller. Mr. Rutan did not perform a professional land survey and admitted that the boundary lines in his informational Exhibit (Timshell Exhibit 4) were not completely accurate. Given that the measurements that Mr. Rutan provided were estimates and not the result of a survey, and the testimony by Mr. Rutledge that the parcel identification was the result of a clerical error, Mr. Rutan’s testimony is given little weight, and does not demonstrate that the error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement included in Rosemary Place’s application created any real uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met. Florida Housing’s determination that the error in Rosemary Place’s application was a waivable minor irregularity is not clearly erroneous. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove Florida Housing determined that the Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove Applications were eligible for funding but ineligible for the “submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 Preference.” Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove were not selected for preliminary funding. Within the LGAO Designation and Goal, the RFA contained preferences for funding. One of those preferences was for developments that were submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 (the 2019-113 Preference). In order to qualify for the 2019-113 Preference, an Applicant must meet the following requirements: The question at 11.b.(1) of Exhibit A must reflect confirmation that the Development was submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113; The Application in RFA 2019-113 must have provided a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan or Grant form demonstrating the minimum Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Amount outlined in RFA 2019-113; The Development Location Point and latitude and longitude coordinates for all scattered sites stated at question 5. of Exhibit A for the proposed Development must be located on the same site(s) as the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. These coordinates do not need to be identical to the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. All entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical; and The Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 was not invited to enter credit underwriting. Florida Housing scored Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove as qualifying for all requirements of the 2019-113 Preference except for the requirement that “[a]ll entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical.” (Identical Principals Requirement). The Principals disclosed on the Principals Disclosure Form for Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove in RFA 2019- 113 were identical to the Principals disclosed in the applications submitted for RFA 2020-201. The plain language of the RFA only requires that the “entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) be identical.” The plain language of the RFA does not require that the Applicant and Developer entities be identical to those listed in the 2019-113 application. Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove met the requirements for the 2019-113 preference. However, even though Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, they would not be selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. The Villages Florida Housing determined that The Villages Application is eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, The Villages has been preliminarily selected for funding. During scoring, Florida Housing reviewed the Villages’ Zoning Form and determined that it met the requirements of the RFA to demonstrate appropriate zoning. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove alleged in their Petitions that The Villages failed to demonstrate Ability to Proceed and appropriate zoning as required by the terms of the RFA. Prior to hearing, Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove withdrew their challenge to The Villages’ eligibility for funding. However, should Florida Housing determine, as recommended, that Panama Manor’s Grant Form did not demonstrate a funding commitment from Panama City, then Fletcher Black would receive funding as opposed to The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to Case No. 21-0515BID, finding that Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, and awarding funding to Fletcher Black, subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting; that with respect to Case Nos. 21-0516BID, 21-0517BID, and 21-0518BID, finding that Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, but are not selected for funding; and with respect to Case No. 21-0520BID, finding that the decision to award funding to Rosemary Place was not clearly erroneous, and the error in its application was a minor waivable irregularity. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tiffany A. Roddenberry, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereafter Department), is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute complaints concerning violations of the real estate licensure laws of the State of Florida. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate broker in Florida holding license number 0052222. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Faye F. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0052101. The Respondent F. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Larry B. Lewis is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0052189. The Respondent L. Lewis' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Registered Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Cindy L. Morales is now and was at all material times a licensed real estate salesman in Florida holding license number 0123347. The Respondent Morales' last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. The Respondent Melvin M. Lewis Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., is now and was at all material times a corporation registered as a real estate broker in Florida holding license number 0243694. The Respondent corporation last known address is Melvin M. Lewis, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., 633 N.W. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162. At all material times, the Respondent M. Lewis was licensed and operating as a qualifying broker and officer for the corporate broker, Melvin M. Lewis Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc. The Respondents M. Lewis, F. Lewis, L. Lewis and Morales, from May 4, 1977 to September 9, 1979, as sellers individually and/or in concert as owners, officers and directors of various corporations, including South Florida Property, Inc., and West Dade Acres, Inc., solicited and obtained through telephone and mail, 58 purchasers who entered into agreements for deed for one and one-fourth acre lots located within a sixty-acre parcel of land in Section 21, Range 37, Township 54, Dade County, Florida. On September 24, 1979, the Respondent Melvin M. Lewis, acting on behalf of South Florida Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, entered into a deposit receipt contract, as purchasers with InterAmerican Services, Inc., by Lester Gottlieb, as sellers, for the purchase of 60 acres, more or less, more particularly described as: The N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of the N. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 Section 21, Township 54, Range 37E, Dade County, Florida. The total purchase price of the parcel of land was $120,000.00. The purchase price was to be paid by a down payment of $1,520.00 and a first priority purchase money mortgage and note of $118,479.80. From May 4, 1977, to September 24, 1979, the Respondents had no ownership interest in the above described 60- acre parcel of land. The purchase and sale closed on April 22, 1982, as evidenced by a warranty deed wherein title to the 60-acre parcel more particularly described as: The N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of the N. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 Section 21, Township 54, S., Range 37 E. lying and being in Dade County, Florida. was transferred to South Florida Properties, Inc., by Lester Gottlieb, President. The subject land lies in the East Everglades moratorium area and is subject to Dade County Ordinance 81-121 which is highly restrictive to owners of parcels or lots of land less than 40 acres. It is approximately ten miles west of Krome Avenue and is underwater on the average of nine months a year. As a result of its isolated location, it is accessible only by airboat. A building moratorium was enacted for the subject land in September, 1981, and is still in effect with no significant change planned for the reasonably foreseeable future. Upon discovering the increased restrictions on the 60-acre parcel, the Respondents demanded of InterAmerican Services, Inc., a refund of their purchase price. As a result, Respondents delivered a Quit Claim Deed dated October, 1982, from South Florida Properties, Inc., executed by Melvin Lewis, President. InterAmerican Services, Inc., delivered a satisfaction of mortgage to South Florida Properties, Inc. on December 7, 1982, which was executed by Lester Gottlieb, President. Although Respondents had on December 7, 1982, no ownership interest in the real property described in Paragraph 12 supra, they continued to collect payments from purchasers of the 1 1/4 acre lots. Respondents attempted to, and were successful in, having some of the purchasers of the 1 1/4 acre lots in the area described in Paragraph 12, supra, agree to exchange their "lots" for lots in a parcel of land more particularly described as portions of Sections 32, 33, 34, of range 37, township 55, Dade County, Florida, that was owned by Respondent Cindy Morales' company, West Dade Acres, Inc. These lots which were sold for approximately $7,500 each, were accessible only by airboat, were near the Everglades National Park and were incapable of being actually surveyed because of their isolated location. Several purchasers, in particular, Chester Herringshaw and Edward Gruber, refused to exchange their original "lots" and continued making payments to South Florida Properties, Inc. Respondent Cindy Morales deposited into the bank account of West Dade Acres, Inc., one or more of the payments made by Chester Herringshaw and/or Edward Gruber without authority or consent by them to do so. Respondents Cindy Morales and Melvin M. Lewis have failed to refund to Edward Gruber the money he paid for the purchase of real property and have failed to provide Edward Gruber clear title to the real property sold to him. To induce purchasers to enter into one or more of the 58 agreements for deed, the Respondents orally represented the 1 1/4 acre lots as valuable property, that the value would greatly increase in the near future, that the property was suited for residential and other purposes and that the purchase of the property was a good investment. The subdivisions established by the Respondents through corporations they controlled existed only on paper and were formed as part of a telephone sales operation to sell essentially worthless land to unsophisticated out-of- state buyers who believed they were purchasing potentially valuable land for investment and/or retirement purposes. The various corporations which were formed and dissolved by the Respondents, including South Florida Properties, Inc., and West Dade Acres, Inc., were attempts by the Respondents to shield themselves from liability for their fraudulent land sales activities. The Respondents collected the initial deposits and monthly payments in accordance with the agreements for deed, but the Respondents failed and refused to deliver warranty deeds as promised upon the full payment of the purchase price. The Respondents attempted to obtain the exchange of property agreements without fully and truthfully advising the agreement for deed purchasers of the quality of any of the property they were buying or exchanging. The Respondents allowed South Florida Properties, Inc., to become defunct without furnishing good and marketable warranty deeds as promised, and without returning the money received, or otherwise accounting for the money received to the various and numerous agreement for deed purchasers, notwithstanding the purchasers' demands made upon Respondents for accounting and delivery of the money paid. At the request of Respondent Larry Lewis, Randy Landes agreed to sign a document as President of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc. From that point on, Randy Landes did nothing else with or for the company and had no idea of what business Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., transacted. On November 15, 1982, Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., issued a warranty deed to Vernon Mead granting a parcel of real property to the grantee. Persons unknown executed the warranty deed by forging Randy Landes' name which forgery was witnessed by Respondents Faye Lewis and Cindy Morales and acknowledged by Respondent Melvin Lewis as a notary public. On September 24, 1982, the Respondent Larry B. Lewis unlawfully and feloniously committed an aggravated battery upon Carlos O'Toole by touching or striking Carlos O'Toole against his will by shooting him with a deadly weapon, to wit, a revolver, in violation of Subsection 784.045(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On December 8, 1982, Respondent Larry B. Lewis was convicted of a felony and adjudication was withheld. He was on probation for a period of ten years beginning December 8, 1982, by the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, Florida. Respondent Larry B. Lewis failed to inform the Florida Real Estate Commission in writing within thirty days after pleading guilty or nolo contendere to, or being convicted or found guilty of, any felony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the real estate license of all Respondents be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of September, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX Case No. 86-3941 Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order Paragraphs 1-29, 31 - accepted as modified. Paragraph 30 - rejected; it was not established what felony the Respondent Lewis was convicted of. Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order Paragraph 8 - Rejected. The evidence established that the corporations which the Respondents established and controlled sold the various properties. Paragraphs 9-13 - Accepted. Paragraph 14 - Accepted. Although sales were made prior to 1981, the land in question was essentially worthless when purchased. Paragraph 15 - Rejected. The moratoriums, vested rights provision offers virtually no protection to owners of the property. Paragraphs 16-17 - Rejected. The Respondents merely traded one set of undevelopable property for another. Paragraphs 18-19 - Rejected. Irrelevant. Paragraphs 20-21 - Rejected. Neither Mr. Herringshaw nor Mr. Gruber agreed to exchange their property. Paragraph 22 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 24 - Accepted. Paragraph 25 - Rejected. The corporations were formed by the Respondents to receive monies for these fraudulent land schemes. Paragraph 26 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 - Rejected. See No. 25. Paragraphs 28-30 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 31-38 - Rejected. Contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 39-42 - Accepted. Paragraphs 43-46 - Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Tallahassee, Florida 32802 Herman T. Isis, Esquire ISIS & AHRENS, P.A. Post Office Box 144567 Coral Gables, Florida 33114-4567 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact On June 21, 1975, J. V. Freeman asked respondent, who was then employed as a real estate salesman by Ancient City Realty Company, in St. Augustine, to represent his wife and himself in the sale of lot 13, block 11, Vilano Beach subdivision, Unit A, [the lot], in St. Johns County, Florida. Mr. Freeman and respondent did not visit the property at the time of the listing, but Mr. Freeman told respondent that the lot was high and dry and that the County would put in a road in front of the lot as soon as houses were constructed in the area. Belden N. Barrows and Edith Evelyn Barrows, his wife, approached respondent in August of 1975. Subsequently, respondent showed Mr. Barrows the Freemans' unimproved lot. Mr. Barrows asked how he could expect to gain access to the property and respondent answered that the County would pave Viejo Street once houses were built in the area. When he gave this answer, respondent reasonably believed it to be accurate, although in fact it was not accurate. At all pertinent times, Viejo Street appeared on a plot in the official records of St. Johns County. Viejo Street is platted between blocks 11 and 12. Block 12 lies between block 11 and the St. Augustine Inlet. Respondent was familiar with this plat and had been present when Ray Clark, the real estate broker for whom he worked, telephoned a county office and was told that Viejo Street would be built, as proposed. Respondent telephoned a title insurance company and was advised that there would be access to the property. The title insurance policy obtained by Mr. and Mrs. Barrows in connection with their purchase of the lot insured against a lack of access by road. Since the Barrowses' purchase of the lot, however, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Johns County has decided that the soil at the site proposed for Viejo Street is too wet too often to justify expenditure of county money for the construction of a road, although the County Commissioners have given permission to a private citizen to open and maintain a road at his own expense. When they learned that no road was likely to be built, Mr. and Ms. Barrows brought suit against the title insurance company, and prevailed in the trial court. An appeal is now pending. Even though Mr. Freeman had told respondent that the lot was high and dry, respondent knew otherwise. All the houses in the general vicinity of the lot are on stilts. Respondent was familiar with the area and "knew in case of a hurricane, or high tide with a northeaster, that there would be water on [the lot]." (R. 51). Even so, in answer to questions from Mr. Barrows, respondent assured Mr. and Mrs. Barrows that the water did not come up as far as the lot. In reliance on respondent's representations, Mr. and Mrs. Barrows purchased the lot. There have been frequent encroachments on the lot since they purchased it. The entire lot has been under water. Water has covered portions of the lot as many as 10 days in a single month.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for ninety (90) days. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Donald W. Gilbert 66 1/2 Abbott Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084
