Findings Of Fact On May 24, 1986, Joseph C. Devine, Petitioner, the complaining party, saw an advertisement in the Clearwater Sun for an apartment for rent. He called the number listed and was given directions to locate the restaurant which is adjacent to the apartment for rent. Devine proceeded to the location given and upon arrival some 10 minutes later was told that the apartment had already been rented. Ali Likmeta, Respondent, is the owner of the restaurant and of the 4- unit apartment building adjacent thereto. Likmeta was born in Albania, has been in the United States for 18 years and is a naturalized citizen. He speaks English with a heavy accent and does not fully understand everything said to him in English. Likmeta placed an ad in the Clearwater Sun to run for one week advertising a vacant apartment for rent. At the time this apartment became vacant, the tenants in the three other apartments were Albanian, Greek and Italian. On the evening of May 23, 1986, Mr. and Mrs. Agaj, the former owners of the apartments who had sold them to Respondent and were aware of the vacancy, drove to Safety Harbor where they picked up two Albanian men who had recently arrived in the United States. They drove these men to Respondent's place of business for the purpose of renting the apartment; however, the business was closed and the men were returned to Safety Harbor and instructed to return early the following morning to the restaurant. The vacant apartment was, in fact, rented to the Albanian, Gezim Muca, on May 24, 1986, who had been brought down the evening before by the Agajs. On June 2, 1986, Devine filed a complaint with the Clearwater Human Relations Commission alleging that he was discriminated against in housing because of his race (black). During the investigation and conferences between the parties that followed the filing of this complaint, Devine indicated he would accept payment in the amount of $1200 to drop the charges which Likmeta refused. Likmeta offered to rent to Devine the next apartment to become vacant which Devine refused for the reason as he testified at this hearing "I didn't want to risk my life in that environment." When asked by the Hearing Officer what he expected to obtain through these proceedings Devine replied, justice. When told that this tribunal lacked jurisdiction to place Likmeta in jail or award money damages to Devine, the latter responded that the Hearing Officer was prejudiced and it was obvious that he would not get justice at these proceedings and would take this case to the Supreme Court if neccesary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 7C-1.04 as set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and that a $200 fine be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Billy M. Arzie Arzie Apartments 710 North 2nd Avenue Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250 Sherman S. Winn, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact This case is presented for consideration on the basis of a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, against Michael Cohen, trading as Capricorn Apartments, Respondent. In fact, the 13251 Corporation, Inc., trades as Capricorn Apartments and is licensed by the Petitioner for the apartment business located at 13251 Northeast Memorial Highway, North Miami, Florida. That corporation was also the owner of the apartment building in September and October, 1979, and it is the licensee listed with the Petitioner. The license control number is 23-08555H. Michael Cohen, the named Respondent, is the President of the 13251 Corporation, Inc. On September 24, 1979, Inspector John D. McKinnon, an employee for the Petitioner, went to the Respondent's apartment building at 13251 Northeast Memorial Highway, North Miami, Florida, for purposes of conducting a premises inspection. In apartment 3, one of the units in the apartment complex, he found that the tenant had removed a panel on the wall and placed a bucket there for purposes of catching water that was periodically leaking into the apartment. There was no evidence at this point of any active leak, nevertheless the stains on the wall showed that the leak problem did exist. The source of the water leak was never determined, leaving open the possibility that it could have been caused by some problem created by the tenants living on the second floor above apartment 3 or by a roof leak, or other source for which the owner is responsible. There was an additional problem in apartment 3 where plumbing under one of the sinks was leaking and a catch bucket had been placed to collect the water. There was a problem in apartment 9, which is also located on the first floor. In that apartment newspaper had been placed on the floor to catch water which was coming in from the ceiling. Again, the origins of that water were never discovered, whether it was the fault of some second floor tenant above apartment 9 or a roof leak, or other source for which the owner is responsible. An examination of the grounds adjacent to the apartment building revealed tall bushes and weeds and a number of bottles, cans and pieces of paper. This inspection by McKinnon was a "call back" inspection which followed an earlier inspection of September 11, 1979, that earlier inspection revealing the same deficiencies.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, 13251 Corporation, Inc., holder of license No. 23-5555t to trade as Capricorn Apartments at 13251 Northeast Memorial Highway, North Miami, Florida, he fined in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the violation established through Count III and in a similar amount for the violation established in Count V. (In keeping with the opportunity to submit Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a Recommendation, the Respondent has submitted its proposal. Its proposal has been reviewed in preparing the Recommended Order and to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the Recommended Order, it has been utilized. To the extent that it is inconsistent, it is hereby rejected.) DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F.X. Purnell, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Malcolm B. Wiseheart, Jr., Esquire Suite 402, Security Trust Building 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue Whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioner by evicting him from his apartment as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American. Prior to his eviction in the fall of 2000, Petitioner occupied a handicapped apartment at Park Place by the Bay (Park Place), an apartment complex located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. By notice dated May 25, 2000, Respondent Park Place, through its management, advised Petitioner that it intended to terminate his tenancy as of August 31, 2000. Petitioner did not surrender his tenancy and, consequently, Respondent Park Place instituted eviction proceedings against him in September 2000. As a result of those eviction proceedings, Respondent Park Place regained possession of the premises and Petitioner was evicted. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner was evicted for any reason other than the fact that he made threatening statements to the staff of Respondent Park Place. There was no evidence that Petitioner was evicted because of his race.1 There was no evidence that Petitioner was evicted because of a physical handicap.2 There was no evidence that Petitioner was evicted because of his religion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition For Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 16th day of October, 2002.
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1978, an investigator for Petitioner visited the address of the Respondent's real estate broker's office registered with the FREC at Loop Road, Star Route 67, Ochopee, Collier County, Florida, to conduct an office inspection. Upon his arrival, two buildings were observed, one a restaurant which was closed and the other a two-story apartment building containing what appeared to be three apartments. No signs were in evidence indicating a real estate office was located at this location and a man at the site who identified himself as a tenant identified the two buildings as a closed restaurant and apartment. Although the restaurant was locked, the investigator looked in the windows and saw no evidence that the building contained a real estate office. The apartment building was not entered nor did the investigator peer into the windows of these apartments. He did walk around the building and saw no evidence to indicate a real estate office was located in the apartment building or anywhere at the address registered.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Respondent's registration as a real estate broker be suspended for a period of two years or until Respondent provides an office meeting the requirements of Rule 21V-10.07, Florida Administrative Code, and registers same with the FREC, whichever first occurs. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of September, 1978. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Lawrence J. Spiegel, Esquire 380 First National Bank Building 900 West 49 Street Hialeah, Florida 33012
The Issue Whether Respondents committed discriminatory housing practices against Petitioner as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner.2
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a male of Hispanic origin. Petitioner suffers from a debilitating physical illness and has a history of mental illness. Respondents own and/or operate a large apartment complex in Dade County, Florida. At no time relevant to this proceeding did Respondents or their staff know that Petitioner suffered from a debilitating illness. Petitioner resided in Apartment 1519 of Respondents’ apartment complex between an unspecified date in 1999 and December 2003. In approximately March 2003, Petitioner requested permission of Respondents to transfer to another apartment in Respondents’ apartment complex. This request was made prior to the expiration of Petitioner’s then-current lease. Petitioner testified that the request was made after Apartment 1519 was vandalized. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondents had a policy that permitted a resident to transfer from one apartment to another apartment prior to the end of the tenant’s term only if the tenant’s payment history demonstrated that the tenant had no rent checks dishonored by the tenant’s bank and that he or she had not been late in paying the rent on more than two occasions. Respondents denied Petitioner permission to transfer from one apartment to another only because of Petitioner’s poor payment history. Over the course of his tenure in Respondents’ apartment complex, Petitioner had been late with his rent payment on 12 separate occasions and had rent checks dishonored on two separate occasions because his bank account had insufficient funds to cover the checks. There was no evidence Respondents discriminated against Petitioner by denying his transfer request. In December 2003, Respondents evicted Petitioner from Apartment 1519. This action was taken based on Petitioner’s poor payment history, because he repeatedly caused disturbances at the apartment complex, and because he damaged his apartment and neighboring apartments by intentionally flooding his apartment.3 There was no evidence Respondents discriminated against Petitioner by evicting him from Apartment 1519.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition For Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 1st day of April, 2004.
Findings Of Fact At times pertinent hereto, Respondents were the holders of Florida real estate licenses. During all times material hereto, Respondent, Robert F. Nagel was licensed and operating as a real estate broker. Additionally, Respondent Nagel was the qualifying broker for Bluff's Realty, Inc. During times material, Respondents had an open listing agreement with Angelo Traina to sell his property at 401 Ocean Bluffs Boulevard, 305, in Jupiter, Florida. On or about December 7, 1986, Respondents prepared a purchase-sales contract signed by Carl and Lila Holback, as purchasers and Angelo Traina, as seller, for the purchase of the above referred property for the price of $98,450.00. The sales contract called for a $1,000.00 deposit to be held in escrow by Respondents. An additional $8,000.00 was to be deposited in escrow with the Respondents upon acceptance by the Seller. The contract signed by the Holbacks and Traina's contained a failure of performance provision. The failure of performance provision was contained in paragraph S of the contract and provided essentially that if the buyer failed to perform as required per the terms of the contract, the deposit could be retained by the seller as liquidated damages, or seller, at seller's option, could proceed at law or in equity to enforce the seller's legal rights under the contract. On the following day, December 8, 1986, the Holbacks informed the Respondents that they were no longer desirous of purchasing the Traina property. The Holbacks requested that the $1,000.00 deposit instead be transferred from the Traina/Holback transaction to a new contract to purchase a different condominium unit. This was done on December 8, 1986, as directed by the Holbacks without the knowledge and consent of Angelo Traina. The Holbacks considered that they had been pressured by Mr. Traina into executing the purchase agreement and that after reflection on the "duress" exerted by Mr. Traina, the Holbacks considered that they had a 72 hour period in which they could withdraw from the transaction. They therefore advised Respondents that they were no longer desirous of purchasing the Traina property. The Holbacks closed on a different property on January 12, 1987. Subsequent to December 8, 1986, but prior to January 13, 1987, Respondents offered to pay Mr. Traina $500.00 in return for a release from any potential liability under the contract. This offer was rejected by Mr. Traina. Thereafter, on or about January 13, 1987, Mr. Traina retained counsel who demanded a payment of $10,000.00 from Respondents for alleged damages for breach of a fiduciary duty. The Respondents refused to pay $10,000.00 to or on behalf of Angelo Traina based on the listing agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondents for Two Thousand Dollars (2,000.00) payable within thirty (30) days of entry of Petitioner's Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 25th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Bryan, Jr., Esquire Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan & Hyland, P.A. 450 Royal Palm Way Post Office Box 2664 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation- Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Laurence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Gaspar Nagymihaly, who does business as Bay Air Apartments, is the holder of license No. 23-12970H-3234, held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. The location of the Bay Air Apartments is 665 N.E. 83rd Terrace, Miami, Florida. At all times pertinent to the notice to show cause, the Respondent has held such license for doing business as Bay Air Apartments. Bonnie Joyner, formerly known as Bonnie Pestcoe, rented an apartment from the Respondent beginning February 11, 1977. The contact that Mrs. Joyner had with the Respondent was through the intermediary M. Infante. Mr. Infante was the manager and agent for the Respondent in the apartment business known as Bay Air Apartments. There was a discussion between Mrs. Joyner and Infante to the effect that the tenant intended to stay in the aforementioned apartment for a period of one year; however, there was no written or verbal agreement which bound the parties to a lease which would last for a period of one year. In effect, the rent was paid on a monthly basis, thereby creating a tenancy of month to month. The amount of monthly rent was $190 and the parties had agreed to a security deposit of $190. Mrs. Joyner lived in the apartment for two months and paid the rent for that two-month period. Evidence of the rent payments for the two months and the security deposit may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 admitted into evidence. Two weeks before April 11, 1977, Mrs. Joyner contacted Mr. Infante to apprise him of the fact that she intended to vacate the premises. This contact was by an oral communication only. At that time, Infante advised Mrs. Joyner that he could not return the deposit and that he would not tell her who the owner of the apartment was. Mrs. Joyner then vacated the apartment on April 11, 1977, and sent a request to Mr. Nagymihaly for return of her security deposit. She learned of Mr. Nagymihaly's identity through a search of the tax records. The written request for the return of the security deposit is dated April 11, 1977 and is Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Mr. Nagymihaly responded to the request by forwarding a $90.00 check to Mrs. Joyner, dated April 12, 1977. This check indicated that the basis of the return of that portion of the security deposit was premised upon the fact that Mrs. Joyner had a nice personality. A copy of the check may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the payment of the $90.00, Nagymihaly wrote a letter of April 14, 1977, addressed to, the then Mrs. Pestcoe in which he stated that the reason for returning only a portion of the security deposit, was due to the failure of Ms. Pestcoe to stay for a year and the necessary cost for preparing the apartment for reinspection, etc. A copy of the letter of April 14, 1977, is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. In response to a complaint which Mrs. Pestcoe made with the Petitioner, Mr. Nagymihaly wrote a letter of May 3, 1977, reiterating his comments about the necessity for Ms. Pestcoe, now Mrs. Joyner, to live in the apartment for a year and explaining why no certified letter had been sent to Ms. Pestcoe when the Respondent intended to keep the security deposit. The letter of May 3, 1977, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. It should be noted that in Petitioner's Exhibit 6, which is the April 14, 1977, letter to Mrs. Pestcoe, the monies are referred to as advance rent and not a security deposit. This is in contrast to the terminology used in the May 3, 1977, letter which referred to the money in controversy as being a security deposit. Moreover, the facts in the case demonstrated that the manger for the Respondent had inappropriately kept the security deposit which Mrs. Joyner had paid. The facts in this case are to be looked at in accordance with the provisions of Section 83.49(3)(a). This provision reads as follows: 83.49(3)(a) Upon the vacating of the premises for termination of the lease, the landlord shall have 15 days to return said security deposit to- gether with interest or in which to give the tenant written notice by certified mail to the tenant's last known mailing address of his in- tention to impose a claim thereon. The notice shall contain a statement in substantially the following form: This is a notice of my intention to impose a claim for damages in the amount of upon your security deposit. It is sent to you as required by s. 83.49(3), Florida Statutes. You are hereby notified that you must object in writing to this deduction from your security deposit within 15 days from the time you receive this notice or I will be authorized to deduct my claim from your security deposit. Your objection must be sent to (landlord's address). . . If the landlord fails to give the required notice within the 15-day period, he forfeits his right to impose a claim upon the security deposit. If this section were read without reference to any other provision within Chapter 83, Florida Statutes, it would appear that the Respondent, Mr. Nagymihaly has illegally retained a portion of Mrs. Joyner's security deposit. However, to truly understand the Respondent's obligation in this instance, it is necessary to look to the language of Section 83.49(5), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: (5) Except when otherwise provided by the terms of a written lease, any tenant who vacates or aban- dons the premises prior to the expiration of the terms specified in the written lease, or any tenant who vacates or abandons premises which are subject of a tenancy from week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter, or year to year, shall give at least 7 days' notice by certified mail to the landlord prior to vacating or abandoning the the premises. Failure to give such notice shall relieve the landlord of the notice requirement of subsection (3)(a). The facts establish that Mrs. Joyner, then Mrs. Pestcoe, failed to make seven days' written notice by certified mail of her vacation and abandonment of the premises, thereby relieving Mr. Nagymihaly of any responsibility to give a written notice of the intent to claim damages against the security deposit and written notice of the rights of the tenant to object in writing to the deduction of the security deposit within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Notwithstanding the lack of requirement on the part of the Respondent to notify Mrs. Joyner of his intent to claim against the security deposit, he did make such a notification by his comments to her in person on April 11 and by his letter of April 14 to Mrs. Joyner. She in turn made her objection known to the Petitioner. This action taken by Mrs. Joyner and the Respondent to protect their interests has set the stage for possible court action by either of the individuals in a civil proceeding. The sequence of events has not shown that there has been any violation of Section 83.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes, because the Respondent is contesting the return of the security deposit as he is entitled to do and he has been relieved of any necessity for written notice of his intention as required by that provision of the law, because Mrs. Joyner's failure to give 7 days notice by certified mail of her vacation or abandonment of the premises as required by Section 83.49(5), Florida Statutes, removed any obligation of Respondent to give such written notice. Therefore, there is no violation of Section 83.49, Florida Statutes, and there can be no penalties imposed under Section 509.261, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that the action taken under the notice to show cause against the Respondent, Gaspar Nagymihaly, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Winson, Esquire Department of Business Regulation Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Theresa N. Walsh-Hubbart, Esquire 3115 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
