The Issue Petitioner seeks attorney's fees and costs as a prevailing small business party pursuant to Section 57.111, F.S. Appropriate stipulations have eliminated all but this central issue: whether the underlying enforcement proceeding had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time that it was initiated or whether special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust.
Findings Of Fact Nicholas A. Musashe is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida and was the respondent in the case, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Real Estate v. Nicholas Musashe, case no. 91-4463. During the relevant period, Musashe owned a business, Apartment Locator Specialists, with a principal office in Orlando, Florida. As stipulated by the parties, Nicholas A. Musashe is a "small business party", as provided in Section 57.111(3)(d), F.S. The underlying agency proceeding was based on a document sent to the Governor's office and forwarded to the Department of Professional Regulation on October 29, 1990. The document is a one-page copy of a newsletter from Apartment Locator Specialists. Portions of the newsletter are underlined, and at the bottom there is this handwritten notation: "Why are these people allowed to go on month after month breaking real estate laws? Are they brokers or not? This is a formal complaint! [signature illegible] 'Republican'." (p. 10, Investigative Report) The newsletter includes this text: To keep you posted on our lucky drawings -- Robin DeMorse at Summer Place Apartments posted a whopping $100 and Pam Hyde at Monterey Crossings once again received a check for $50 in asking those clients they were unable to help to call us at Apartment Locator Specialists. Remember these numbers -- 657-8282, 345-1000 and in Kissimmee 846-8808. These numbers could mean cash to you next month. Apartment Locator's helper of the month is Melodi Hanson of the Villas. Her name was drawn for always calling us to let our consultants know when a client rented or stopped by. A $50 gift certificate at the Florida Mall was her choice for that extra shopping spree. Thanks for being so considerate, Melodi. (page 10, investigation file) According to the Investigative Report, interviews were conducted between January 28 and February 5, 1991, and included Nicholas Musashe and the women mentioned in the newsletter. Musashe denied compensating unlicensed individuals for making referrals, but said that the drawings were "thank you rewards" for calling his office. Melodi Hanson, Pam Hyde and Robin DeMorse are each unlicensed employees of their respective apartment complexes. They confirmed that their names were drawn at random and that each time they called Apartment Locator Specialists their names were entered for the drawing. Apartment Locator Specialists had contracts with the respective apartment complexes and received a commission when their referrals rented an apartment. The apartment complex employees were encouraged to call Apartment Locator Specialists to report on the outcome of the referral. Each of the three women signed an affidavit stating she was not operating as a licensee as defined in Chapter 475, F.S., and would not so operate in the future without complying with the requirements of law. The investigative report form lists these alleged violations: "475.25(1)(e) Violation of a rule; Rule 21V-10.019 lotteries". There are two uniform complaint forms in the investigative file. One lists the same violations as on the investigative report form; the other lists, "475.42(1)(a) - unlicensed activity". An administrative complaint was drafted and was presented to the Florida Real Estate Commission Probable Cause Panel on February 19, 1991. The panel found cause and voted to proceed with administrative action in accordance with the proposed administrative complaint. The administrative complaint, dated February 20, 1991, makes factual allegations based on the investigation described above. Two counts of violations are alleged: COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. COUNT II Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent is guilty of having employed persons as a salesman [sic] who were not the holders of a valid and current license as a salesman in violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(c), Florida Statutes and therefore in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and was set for hearing. It was later continued and was placed in abeyance while the parties presented a stipulation to FREC. By this time Musashe had informed the agency attorney that he had sold his business and was pursuing other business interests. FREC rejected the stipulation on December 3, 1991, after Respondent Musashe made substantial changes in the standard stipulation text. Shortly thereafter, Musashe retained William M. Furlow, Esquire, and the case was again set for hearing by DOAH. On July 7, 1992, Musashe, through counsel, filed his motion to dismiss the administrative complaint. The motion to dismiss argued the agency's burden of proving the charges by clear and convincing evidence. It argued that Count I was unsupported by any allegations in the complaint or by any actual facts. The motion also argued that Count II was not supported by the allegations; that winning a drawing did not establish an employment relationship; that the women who were employed by the apartment complexes were exempt from Chapter 475, F.S., pursuant to Section 475.011(4), F.S.; and that a FREC legal advisor had issued an opinion that the type of referral business conducted by Apartment Locator Specialists did not require licensure. The motion also pointed out that although Section 475.25(1)(h), F.S., prohibits paying a fee to a nonlicensed person for referral of business, the administrative complaint did not include that charge. Moreover, since the apartment complex employees were exempt from Chapter 475, it would not have been a violation to give them a fee. And finally, they were not given a fee, but rather a chance to win a prize, not for referrals, but for mere informational telephone calls. The administrative complaint recites facts which are substantially consistent with the facts outlined in the motion to dismiss. For example, paragraph 8 of the complaint states: 8. The Respondent admitted that each time an employee of a contracted leasing office calls his office, that individual's name is put into a fish bowl, from which the drawing is held. The Respondent stated that the name is entered whether or not the client rents the apartment. The parties agreed to further abeyance of the proceeding before DOAH and to presentation of the motion to dismiss directly to the FREC. On August 18, 1992, FREC granted Respondent's motion and the administrative complaint was dismissed. The Final Order was entered on September 2, 1992. As stipulated by the parties, Nicholas A. Musashe incurred reasonable and necessary legal fees in the amount of $6,756.25, and costs in the amount of $858.62, for a total of $7,614.87.
Findings Of Fact Plotkin is the owner and operator of the Rendale Hotel located at 3120 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, which has been operated by Plotkin, a family owned corporation, for more than twenty-five years. The apartment/hotel has 98 studio apartments. In the Spring of 1972, after Plotkin corresponded with DOR, it made the determination that it was exempt from the imposition of sales tax on the rentals it charges. Plotkin made the same determination for consecutive years through and including 1978. Early in September 1978, DOR caused an audit to be made of Plotkin's records and determined that Plotkin was not an exempt facility and that taxes were due for the three years prior to September , 1978, for all rentals to "non- permanent" guests. DOR's auditor utilized only the transcript of guest charges in making his determination. The transcript was compiled from April 1, 1975, a period beyond three years prior to the date of the audit. A transcript is a compilation generally prepared by the night clerk of all the active folio cards or guest ledge cards for that particular day. When tenants or guests were absent from the apartment hotel for various periods of time, they were not carried on the transcript. At times when a tenant had no charges for a particular day, the tenant was not carried on the transcript. As of April 1, 1975, Plotkin had 87 units occupied. As of June 30, 1975, it had 55 units occupied. Thirty of those units were occupied continually during that test period in 1975. As of April 1, 1976, 80 units were occupied and as of June 30, 1976, 55 units were occupied. Twenty-five units were continuously occupied during that three month test period. As of April 1, 1977, 95 units were occupied and as of June 30, 1977, 50 units were occupied. During the test period, 29 units were occupied for a continuous period of time.
The Issue The purpose of the hearing in this case was to provide Petitioner an opportunity to present evidence as to the relief to which she is entitled in a housing discrimination case.2
Findings Of Fact As a result of the admitted facts alleged in the Petition for Relief, Petitioner has suffered both tangible and intangible harm. As a result of the admitted facts, when Petitioner and her family were evicted from the apartment they had been subletting, they were locked out of the apartment and were unable to retrieve most of the personal property that was in the apartment. The reasonable value of the personal property that was lost as a result of the acts alleged in the Petition for Relief is $5,281.00.6 Petitioner also suffered intangible harm as a result of the admitted facts. The most serious aspects of the intangible harm were humiliation and loss of personal pride and self-esteem as a result of, in her words, “being treated like a dog.” Petitioner also suffered a substantial amount of personal inconvenience and indignity, because for a period of time after the eviction from the apartment she was truly homeless and was forced to live in her automobile. The harm to Petitioner described in this paragraph cannot be quantified. There is no evidence in this case that Petitioner incurred any attorney’s fees or costs. Alina Portuono is no longer employed at the apartment complex where the events giving rise to this proceeding occurred. Whoever owned the apartment complex at the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding is no longer the owner. The subject apartment complex no longer rents apartments as all the units are now condominiums.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order awarding quantified damages in the amount of $5,281.00 to Petitioner, if the FCHR believes it has provided adequate notice to Respondent(s) in this case and has jurisdiction arising from such notice.8 DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 29th day of April, 2004.
The Issue The issue presented herein concern whether or not the Respondent failed to maintain apartments that he owns situated at the 2563 Northwest 13th Court in good repair; free of vermin; failed to keep the premises and yard clean; failed to keep the garbage in proper receptacles and to keep the license for the premises displayed in a conspicuous place as is more particularly set forth in the Notice to Show Cause filed herein dated January 3, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent, George A. Williamson, is the owner of several apartments known as the 13th Court Apartments in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Those apartments are licensed by the Petitioner, Division of Hotels and Restaurants and has been assigned control number 16-3079-H. (Stipulation of the parties.) On November 22, 1983, petitioner's inspector, Daniel J. Stallone, made a routine inspection of the Respondent's apartments involved herein and found that the roof leaked in apartment number 2, that the toilet leaked in apartment number 7, that there were several torn and missing screens and that garbage and refuse were strewn all around the premises and needed attention. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) In addition, inspector Stallone could not find the license displayed in a conspicuous place as is required pursuant to Rule 7C-1.02(1), Florida Administrative Code. On December 8, 1983, Inspector Stallone made a callback inspection and found that none of the above-referred violations had been corrected or otherwise complied with by Respondent. Inspector Stallone issued a Notice of violation citing the Respondent with non-compliance with Rule 7C-1.02(4), 7C-1.03(1), (5), and (7), Florida Administrative Code and Section 509.221(8), Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) Copies of the reports for the November 22 and December 8, 1983 inspections were sent to Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) On January 24, 1984, Inspector Stallone made a subsequent inspection and found that the roof leak had not been repaired on the premises. Additionally, he noted that there were broken screens in several apartments and that there was garbage strewn around the premises. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) Inspector Stallone made another inspection of the premises on July 20, 1984 and found that all of the violations for which Respondent had been cited in earlier inspections had been complied with with the exception of a roofing leak. That leak is now repaired. (Respondent's testimony and Exhibit 1.) Rosa Mae Spivey, a tenant at the apartments, has resided there for approximately seven years and is responsible for the overall maintenance and cleaning for the apartments. The structure has a flat roof. As of March 30, 1984, apartments 2, 4 and 5 were patched by Cherokee Roofing of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Ms. Spivey cleans the grounds surrounding the premises approximately three times per week and has had the screens repaired or replaced at least three times since she has served as manager of the apartments. Respondent paid Cherokee Roofing $475 on April 2, 1984 to repair the roof for the apartments. Respondent has placed a large dumpster for the tenants to utilize for garbage and other debris from their apartments. Respondent retains the services of a plumber, a carpenter, a general laborer and a painting and cleanup employee who responds to complaints as they are made. Respondent admits to an approximately four-month delay in correcting the roof inn repairs however, he states that due to the large number of repairs brought abort by uncaring tenants, he attempts to prioritize the repairs and schedules them as soon as practicable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Petitioner issue Respondent a written reprimand admonishing him for failure to timely correct violations for which he has been cited and request that he continuously maintain his premises in a clean and sanitary condition as required by pertinent rules and statutes. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3rd day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Williamson 1113 Southeast 3 Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Cindy Cammarota and Quail Oaks Apartments violated the Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance (Ord. 88-9 as amended) by discriminating on grounds of race and religion against Petitioners, Reverends William and Jacqueline Caractor with respect to an attempted eviction action.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cammarota is the resident manager of Quail Oak Apartments. Respondent Quail Oak is an apartment complex in Hillsborough County which is subject to the Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance. Petitioners, who are black, are husband and wife. They are ordained ministers, who reside in Quail Oaks. They have used the community center at the apartment complex for services and frequently pray with other residents. They wear clerical garb and read their Bible in common areas at the complex. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Cammarota knew Petitioners were ministers at Mt. Carmel African Methodist Espiscopal Church. On July 30, 1990, a written rental agreement was entered into between Quail Oaks, lessor, and Petitioners, lessees, for an apartment at the complex. The term of the lease was from September 1, 1990 through August 31, 1991. At the option of Quail Oaks, payment of rent could be accepted conditionally by means of a personal check from the lessees. If the check was rejected for insufficient funds, Quail Oaks could require rent plus late charges to be paid by cashier's check, certified check or money order. In addition, Quail Oaks could terminate the lease for nonpayment of rent. Prior to leaving for vacation in November 1990, Petitioner Jacqueline Caractor issued a check in the amount of $645.00 for the November rent. The check was drawn upon the personal checking account belonging to her and her husband at Citizens and Southern National Bank (C & S). It was payable upon demand to Quail Oaks. Although a C & S counter check was used, all of the information on the check was correct. This check was accepted by Respondent Cammarota on behalf of Quail Oaks. It was presented to Barnett Bank of Tampa (Barnett) for collection and the bank was instructed to deposit the funds in Quail Oaks' account at the bank. Barnett Bank did not exercise ordinary care in regard to the check as required by the Uniform Commercial Code. Instead of collecting the funds from the payor bank, Barnett returned the check unpaid to Quail Oaks on November 5, 1990. Notice of the bank's dishonor was sent to Quail Oaks in a notice of debit with respect to the instrument together with the check itself. No reason was given by the bank for the dishonor. The provisional settlement of the check made by Barnett with Quail Oaks was revoked and the amount of credit given was charged back to Quail Oaks' account. Respondent Cammarota, who managed the Quail Oaks account with Barnett, misinterpreted this activity in the account as nonpayment of rent. A "three day notice" was issued by Quail Oaks to Petitioners for payment of rent or possession of the premises on November 7, 1990. The deadline for payment was November 13, 1990. Petitioners received actual notice on November 16, 1990, when they returned from vacation and found the notice posted on the front door of their apartment. A message concerning the matter was also on their answering machine. The message advised them that their check had been returned for insufficient funds. Petitioners went to their bank to determine why their check had not been honored. They had always paid their rent on time and they were concerned about the current state of affairs. The C & S Bank investigated the matter and discovered the check had never been submitted to it for payment. While Petitioners were present, a representative of the bank telephoned Respondent Cammarota and told her a bank error must have occurred as sufficient funds had always been available in Petitioners' account to cover the check, which had never been submitted to C & S for collection. Once Petitioners established that insufficient funds was not the basis for a dishonor of their personal check, they went to Respondent Cammarota to discuss the resolution of the problem. Respondent Cammarota was asked to resubmit the personal check for payment. She refused and requested a money order that included additional charges for the costs Quail Oaks incurred as a result of Barnett Bank's dishonor of the check. Respondent did not believe Petitioners' claim that the original check was a good check. Petitioners advised that they would not pay additional charges because they had complied with all of their responsibilities. They asked for the return of the original check and offered to pay the rent only by money order. Respondent Cammarota refused this potential solution of the problem. Respondent Cammarota did not believe Petitioners were at the office in order to make the check good. She did not believe that Petitioners were merely asserting their legal rights under the lease and negotiable instruments law. As a result, she was suspicious and unyielding during the discussion. She wanted them to pay late fees in order to remain in possession of their apartment. Petitioners, who were tired from their journey and surprised by Respondent Cammarota's lack of receptiveness to very reasonable requests, became somewhat excited by the fact that the process to remove them from their home had begun and they were being told to pay more money than they legally owed to remain in possession. In their response to the situation, Petitioners reminded Respondent Cammarota that they were Reverends. A suggestion that Respondent Cammarota should listen to God was construed by her as "preaching". The excited utterances from Petitioners caused the leasing agent in the office to ask them to leave, which they refused to do until they had read the notice of debit Respondent had received from Barnett Bank about their check. After the notice of debit was read and returned to Quail Oaks, Petitioners began to take their leave. At this point, Respondent Cammarota said something like, "And you people call yourself ministers". On November 20, 1990, Petitioner Jacqueline Caractor gave Quail Oaks a second November 1990 rent payment in the form of a money order. A letter dated the same day from Quail Oaks advised Petitioners that the money order could not be accepted because their account had already been turned over to Quail Oaks' attorney for eviction proceedings. On November 21, 1990, eviction proceedings were filed against Petitioners by Respondent Quail Oaks for nonpayment of rent. On November 28, 1990, Petitioners filed a housing discrimination complaint against Respondents. Attempts to resolve the housing discrimination complaint through conciliation was unsuccessful. Respondent Cammarota uses the term "you people" in conversation whenever she refers to two or more people in her presence. Ordinarily, it is not used to differentiate blacks from whites. In her conversation with the Petitioners, however, the term referred to their race or religion or both. It is Respondent Cammarota's opinion that ministers should behave differently than the Petitioners were behaving when they were asserting their legal rights in her office on November 16, 1990. Respondents did not articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the eviction action for non-payment of rent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of County Commissioners enter a Final Order finding that an unlawful discriminatory housing practice occurred when Respondent Cammarota, agent for Respondent Quail Oaks, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioners because of race or color and religion. That Respondents be required to pay a $500 fine to Hillsborough County. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See See HO HO #2. #11. 4. Accepted. See HO #3. 5. Accepted. See HO #5. 6. Accepted. See HO #10. 7. Accepted. See HO #11. 8. Accepted. See HO #12. 9. Accepted. See HO #13. 10. Accepted. See HO #14. 11. Accepted. See HO #14. 12. Accepted. See HO #14. 13. Accepted. See HO #18. 14. Accepted. See HO #20. 15. Accepted. See HO #21. 16. Accepted. 17. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Docket speaks for itself. See HO #22. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact and loose agreements. Rejected. Inconclusive evidence. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #16. Rejected. Argumentative. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. #17. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. Redundant. 49.-57. Rejected. Irrelevant. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #5, #7 and #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #12. Accepted. See HO #13-#14. Rejected. Self serving. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #22. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to lease. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact and legal test for unlawful discrimination. COPIES FURNISHED: Cretta Johnson, Director Hillsborough County Equal Opportunity and Human Relations Department P.O. Box 1110 Tampa, FL 33601 John McMillan, Esquire Levin & McMillan 9385 N. 56th Street, #200 Temple Terrace, FL 33617-5594 Catherine P. Teti, Esquire Assistant County Attorney P.O. Box 1110 Tampa, FL 33601 Reverend William Caractor Qualified Representative 4747 W. Waters Avenue #3807 Tampa, FL 33614
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents violated section 70-176, Pinellas County Code of Ordinances (Code), as alleged in Petitioner's Housing Discrimination Complaint (Complaint).
Findings Of Fact This case concerns an allegation that Petitioner, an African-American female, was the victim of housing discrimination in two respects. First, after complaining that her bathroom was not timely repaired by her landlord, Petitioner reported the problem to the City of St. Petersburg (City). When the manager came to repair the bathroom, Petitioner alleges he told her he "would throw her black ass out of here for calling the city on them." Second, Petitioner alleges she was told by the manager to move her car that was parked "for a few days" on the property, yet white tenants were allowed to keep a truck with "no tags and flat tires" on the premises for more than a year. Because no evidence was presented on the second issue, only the first allegation will be addressed. By way of background, from August 2012 until she was evicted in October 2015, Petitioner resided in an apartment complex at 3865 9th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The complex is owned by Holly Berry Gifts, Inc., whose president is Holly Bonk. The complex is managed by Mike Prusinski. Bonk and Prusinski are employed full-time in other jobs, but devote attention to apartment matters when required. Bonk has a practice of leasing units to whoever is qualified, regardless of their race. She was drawn into this affair because of the alleged comments of her manager. It is fair to assume that Bonk has delegated responsibility to Prusinski to deal with maintenance issues and to evict tenants. Pursuant to a one-year Residential Lease executed by Petitioner in July 2012, she was required to pay $500.00 rent each month, due no later than the fifth day of the month. If rent was paid after the fifth day, a $60.00 late charge was imposed. After the lease expired on July 31, 2013, Petitioner continued renting her apartment on a month-to-month basis, but all terms and conditions in the original lease still applied, including the same monthly rent and late payment provisions. Prior to 2015, Petitioner was periodically late in paying her rent. For the months of February, March, July, and August 2015, she was either late paying her rent, or she did not pay the full amount. No rent was paid for September 2015. Despite Petitioner being in arrears throughout her tenancy, Prusinski "worked with" her because of her financial constraints, and according to Petitioner, he never demanded she pay the late charge. On June 2, 2015, Petitioner sent a text message to Bonk complaining that her upstairs neighbor (a female) was playing loud music and was noisy, which interfered with Petitioner's enjoyment of her apartment. When the neighbor came to Petitioner's apartment to discuss the complaint, Petitioner opened the door and "maced" the neighbor in the face. The neighbor filed a complaint with the police. Petitioner was arrested and charged with battery. In 2016, a jury convicted her of battery, and she was sentenced to 15 days in jail and placed on probation for 11 months. According to Prusinski, the macing incident was the final straw that led him to begin the eviction process. Besides the macing incident, Prusinski explained that Petitioner "harassed" the air-conditioning crew that serviced the complex to the point they refused to provide further service unless they received a $45.00 surcharge for each visit. He described Petitioner as being "hostile" towards him throughout her tenancy, and he noted it reached the point where she would not answer the door half of the time when he knocked. On August 14, 2015, a Fifteen Day Notice to Vacate the premises was personally served on Petitioner informing her that she must vacate the premises by August 31, 2015. An Eviction Notice was then obtained from the court. Before it was served on Petitioner, she changed the door locks, padlocked the circuit breaker box to her apartment, and moved out without notice to Respondents. Each of these actions violated the terms of her lease. Petitioner says she did this because she was "scared" that "Mike was coming over to throw her out," and a friend told her it was okay to change the locks. Prusinski was forced to call a locksmith to access the empty apartment and use bolt cutters on the padlock to restore electricity. In all, Petitioner still owes $1,933.00 for past due rent, late charges, court costs, locksmith charges, and the cost of a bolt cutter. There is no evidence that the eviction process was motivated by racial bias. The record shows that Prusinski has evicted four black tenants and eight white tenants for failing to pay their rent. Although Petitioner was upset that she had to relocate to new housing, she agrees there was justification for her eviction. A month after her eviction, Petitioner filed her Complaint. Petitioner says the Complaint was filed only to address issues other than her eviction. Against this backdrop, the only allegation that requires resolution is an assertion by Petitioner that Prusinski directed a racial slur towards her when he was repairing her bathroom.2/ Due to a leak in the upstairs bathroom, Petitioner's bathroom developed multiple problems, which required repairs to the walls and ceiling and professional mold remediation. Although these problems were eventually resolved, they were not resolved as quickly as Petitioner desired. Therefore, she reported the problem to the City. The City inspected her unit in early April 2015, determined that repairs were needed, and relayed its findings to Prusinski. After receiving the City's report, Prusinski came to the apartment to repair the bathroom. Petitioner says an argument over the repairs ensued, and he told her he would "throw her black ass out of here for calling the city on them." Except for Petitioner's testimony, there is no other credible evidence to corroborate this statement. Notably, even though the incident occurred in early April 2015, Petitioner never reported it to Bonk (Prusinski's boss), she did not mention the incident at the eviction hearing, and she waited until after she was evicted to raise the issue with the County. Prusinski denies making any racial comments to Petitioner and attributes her allegation to the hostile relationship between the two and her eviction in September 2015. Having considered the record as a whole, Prusinski's testimony is accepted as being the most credible on this issue. Ironically, Petitioner sometimes used the term "black ass" when referring to herself in text messages sent to Bonk, and during the hearing, she sometimes referred to herself as a "black ass."
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 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
