The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a residential contractor should be suspended, revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violation of Subsections 468.112(2) (h) and 489.129(1)(k), F.S. as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated July 7, 1981. This case was consolidated for purposes of hearing with DOAH Case No. 81- 2491 involving an administrative complaint by the Board of Real Estate against the same Respondent arising out of the same transaction. The complaint herein alleges that Respondent, a licensed residential contractor and qualifying registrant for CAT Development Inc., contracted to build a dwelling for Jenny Soto, received full payment under the contract, but abandoned construction prior to completion, and has not corrected continuing deterioration of the property. It is therefore alleged that Respondent violated Subsection 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1978) and its successor statute Subsection 489.129(1)(k) F.S. (1979).
Findings Of Fact Respondent Catherine W. Grabhorn is a licensed real estate broker, doing business as CAT Realty Company at East Palatka, Florida. She was so licensed at all material times alleged in the Administrative Complaint. (Testimony of Respondent) Respondent is also a certified residential contractor operating as CAT Development, Inc. at East Palatka, Florida, and was so licensed at all material times alleged in the Administrative Complaint. (Testimony of Respondent) In October, 1978, Jenny Soto, Bronx, N. Y., accompanied other prospective land purchasers to Palatka, Florida, where she was shown and purchased a lot for $10,000 at a development known as P & B Ranchettes. The group had traveled to Florida in a van. After the land purchase, the driver of the van took Soto and the others to Respondent's combination real estate and construction firm office where Respondent showed the group a catalog of various homes for possible construction on the lots which had been purchased. Soto saw a split level design that she liked, and Respondent told her that she could build it for $43,000, with the garage and the below ground level part of the split level to be unfinished, and without appliances. A contract was entered into between Respondent as President of CAT Development, Inc. and Soto on October 22, 1978. The contract provided for payments of $13,000 on October 24th, $25,700 on November 12th and the balance of $4,300 due on completion of the house. However, no completion date was stated in the contract. (Testimony of Respondent, Soto, Petitioner's Exhibits 16-19) On October 24, 1978, Respondent flew to New York City to obtain the initial payment under the contract. Soto met her at the airport and paid $13,000. At that time, Soto asked Respondent when house construction would commence, and Respondent indicated that she needed additional money for materials. On November 30, 1978, the parties entered into a new contract to add additional features to the house, including a finished downstairs and garage, and appliances. The new contract price was $47,600, which reflected that $13,000 had been paid, $20,000 was due on December 1, 1978, $10,000 due on January 15, 1979, and the balance of $4,600 due on completion of the house. Again, no time for completion was stated in the contract. Pursuant to the agreement, Soto paid Respondent $20,000 on December 1, 1978 in New York City where the contract was signed. At some undisclosed date thereafter, Soto decided she wanted to upgrade the carpeting and appliance allowances, and the parties entered into an oral agreement for a total contract price of $53,000. (Testimony of Respondent, Soto, Petitioner's Exhibits 19-22) On January 4, 1979, Respondent obtained a Putnam County building permit for the Soto project, and plumbing and electrical permits were obtained by subcontractors later that month. Construction commenced on the house and it was discovered that the ground water table was close to the surface of the land and there would be drainage problems. However, Respondent told Soto that she would be able to cure the problem by pumping out the standing water in the area. On January 26, Respondent again went to New York and obtained a $10,000 payment from Soto. In February, Soto visited the construction site and observed that standing water near the house was "like a lake". Soto visited the house again in March and gave Respondent the final $10,000 payment on the contract price. At that time, the house was substantially completed and there was no apparent water damage. Respondent told Soto that it would take a couple of months to finish construction. It appeared to Soto then that the only remaining work to be done was to install carpeting, light fixtures, and appliances. Several county inspections were made as the work progressed during January and February, 1979, and it was determined, after certain minor corrective measures, that the work was being performed satisfactorily. (Testimony of Durbin, Michaels, Soto, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-3, 23-24) During ensuing months, Soto periodically telephoned Respondent to ascertain when the home would be completed, and on these occasions Respondent promised that the house would be completed within thirty days. However, no further work has been done by Respondent, except to obtain approval of a temporary electrical pole in June, 1981. At that time, the county building inspector observed that there was a considerable amount of standing water around the house, and that the outside of the building had deteriorated. Siding was warped and pulled away, the front door was open, and some wrought iron was located in a nearby ditch. (Testimony of Soto, Respondent, Durbin, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) In response to a request by Soto in 1980 concerning the market value of the house, Respondent wrote her on July 1, 1980 that the home was 90 to 95 percent complete and that completion was anticipated "as soon as possible". On May 28, 1981, the building permit was extended by the county to August 31, 1981. In July of that year, Soto visited the property and observed that a lock was missing from the door, mud was present in the lower level, sheetrock on the walls had rotted out, and the kitchen cabinets were missing, apparently due to vandalism. Soto saw the Respondent and asked her why the property was in that condition, and Respondent told her that she had no money because workmen on the project whom she had paid had "run off" with the money. During this visit, Respondent provided Soto with a written statement that the said house would be completed within sixty days, which would be September 20, 1981, unless prevented by "some act of God". (Testimony of Respondent, Soto, Michaels, Petitioner's Exhibits 14, 15, 25) On September 1, 1981, the county building official wrote to Respondent and advised her that the permit extension had expired the previous day and that new permits would be required to complete the work. The letter also stated that if substantial work was not evident within ten days from her receipt of the letter, he would be forced to conclude that she had effectively abandoned the project and he would bring the matter to the attention of the county contracting board, and to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Complaints by Soto to the building official of Putnam County resulted in a letter written to him on January 14, 1982 by Respondent wherein she stated that she had not been able to do anything about the Soto house due to her financial situation, but that she hoped to be able to finish the project within the next thirty to sixty days. (Testimony of Michaels, Petitioner's Exhibits 10, 11) On February 18, 1982, the county building officials went to the project site and found further evidence of deterioration, but no indication that any corrective or preservative work had been accomplished. Doors and windows were missing from the house, siding and fascia board were warped and pulled away, and several panels had fallen from the side of the house. A ditch had been dug around the house and there was standing water in it. Inside, it was observed that gypsum board had been removed from the walls, and in the lower level water stains were evident sixteen to eighteen inches above the flooring. Roof trusses had been broken and structural integrity had deteriorated with rotted 2 x 4 lumber forming bearing walls. It was further noted that kitchen cabinets had been removed from the property. (Testimony of Durbin, Michaels, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-9) Although construction of the house was substantially completed at the time Respondent ceased work, the remaining cost of installing heating and air conditioner units, kitchen appliances, washer/dryer, bathroom and lighting fixtures, pump for septic tank, and carpeting is estimated at approximately $13,000. Additionally, to correct the present deficiencies and procure new windows, kitchen cabinets, and other vandalized property, would require a substantial, but unknown additional cost. Respondent estimates that it would take about $10,000 to $15,000 to complete the house. (Testimony of Michaels, Respondent) Since commencing construction on the Soto house in January, 1979, Respondent has obtained permits and completed construction on nine single family homes, the last permit being issued as recently as January 20, 1982. No complaints have been received by the Putnam County building department on these projects. (Testimony of Michaels, Petitioner's Exhibit 12) Respondent testified at the hearing and conceded that she had not completed the Soto house, but attributed her failure to "cash flow" problems which had resulted in financial inability to complete the work. Respondent had deposited all of the money paid to her by Soto in her general banking account. This account was used for expenditures on the Soto house, as well as other concurrent projects. Respondent produced a statement of expenditures on the Soto house in the amount of $47,000. However, this statement reflected that Respondent had included airplane fare for two trips in the total amount of $434. These trips were made to pick up checks from Soto in New York. Respondent stated that other costs for fill, construction of a ditch, and rock would not have been necessary if she had followed later advice as to the water problem on the property, and installed a sump pump and "french" drains. She further stated that on various occasions she would lock the house, but each time when she went back the locks would have been stolen, and that although she reported vandalism to the police, the problem continued. Respondent admitted that she had made promises to Soto to complete the house which she had not kept, but that she had never intended to take her money and not perform the work under the contract. She underestimated the cost of building the house due in part to her unfamiliarity with the particular design of the Soto house. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 13, 29)
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a residential contractor be suspended for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 25 day May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 25th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James Quincey, Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 William N. Gambert, Esquire 630 North Wild Olive Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent’s group home license should be revoked for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed June 30, 2020.
Findings Of Fact APD is the state agency with the duty and responsibility to license group home facilities caring for persons with development disabilities. See § 393.067, Fla. Stat. Sunnyskies Support Services, Inc. (“Sunnyskies”), holds APD license number 07000504 to operate a group home facility known as Hidden Havens, with a maximum of four residents located at 1080 Grandeur Street Southeast in Palm Bay, Florida. Sunnyskies is a registered, active, Florida for-profit corporation and Ms. Hodges is the chief executive officer of Sunnyskies. December 11, 2019 Incident Jonathan Pavia and Serena Ray live across the street from Hidden Havens. On December 11, 2019, Mr. Pavia and Ms. Ray heard yelling emanating from the Hidden Havens property. Mr. Pavia and Ms. Ray went to the window and observed a Hidden Havens staff member walking toward the transport van from the residence, yelling and cursing at the occupants of the van in the driveway of the facility. The incident was captured by Mr. Pavia’s “Ring” doorbell, video from which was introduced into evidence. As seen in the video, a staff member of Hidden Havens yells out to the occupants of the van, “Get out of the car!” A distressed female voice responds, “no.” Then, the staff member yells, “Get the fuck out of the car!” Ms. Hodges was not present on the date in question and offered no witness to testify about the incident. Ms. Hodges cross-examined Ms. Ray about whether she could identify the occupants of the van during the incident. Ms. Hodges was apparently trying to show that Petitioner could not prove there were actually Hidden Havens residents in the van. The totality of the evidence supports a finding that at least one Hidden Havens resident was in the van and that the staff person was yelling and cursing at the resident to get out of the van. February 24, 2020 Incidents On February 24, 2020, Mr. Pavia and Ms. Ray were home when Ms. Ray heard yelling and screaming coming from the Hidden Havens property. From their front window, Mr. Pavia and Ms. Ray observed staff unloading residents from the facility transport van, which was parked in the driveway. Ms. Ray witnessed the staff person exit the van on the driver’s side and walk around the back of the van to the passenger side while yelling, “Get the fuck out of the car!” Both Mr. Pavia and Ms. Ray testified that they saw the staff member put her hands on a resident and physically remove the resident from the van, whereupon the resident fell to the ground, landing on the concrete walkway on her hands and knees. Ms. Ray then heard the staff member yell “get up” to the resident. Ms. Ray recorded part of the incident on her cell phone from the front window of her home. In the video, a resident can be seen on her hands and knees on the walkway leading from the driveway to the facility entrance. A staff person, who is at first bent over the resident, stands up in the brief video. Another resident, who has exited the van, is standing by looking on. Ms. Ray testified that the staff member who is bent over, had just dragged the resident out of the car. Ms. Hodges was not present at Hidden Havens on February 24, 2020, and did not offer any witness to testify about the incident. Ms. Hodges denied that the resident was injured in the incident. She testified that if the resident had been dragged along the concrete walkway, she would have had scrapes and scratches on her knees. However, the witnesses testified that the resident was dragged out of the van, not down the walkway. Ms. Hodges admitted at the final hearing, that, if the resident was dragged out of the van as described by the witnesses, that would be inappropriate treatment of the resident. Later that same day, Ms. Ray again heard yelling and screaming from the Hidden Havens property. She was working in her home office and looked out the window across the street to the Hidden Havens property. Ms. Ray witnessed a resident standing on the front porch of the residence and a staff person getting out of the transport van yelling at the resident as the staff person walked toward the front porch. Ms. Ray began recording the incident on her cell phone. On the video, which was admitted in evidence, the staff person is seen struggling with the resident to remove something from the resident’s hands. The two tug back and forth, at one point standing a couple of feet apart from each other. Finally, with her back to the camera, the staff person removes the object and places it in her pocket. The resident is crying and visibly upset. The object itself is unidentifiable. Ms. Ray testified that the resident had a cell phone which the staff person was taking away from her. Ms. Ray was so upset by the incident, among others she has witnessed, that she called the police. She was not questioned by the police, but did go outside when they arrived. She saw both the resident and the staff person interviewed by the responding officer. Ms. Hodges was not present at Hidden Havens when the incident occurred and offered no witness testimony regarding the incident. Ms. Hodges testified that the resident had the “house phone” and was herself making a false call to the police, which is why the staff person was taking the phone from her. Even if Ms. Hodges is correct that the resident was calling the police with a false report, staff certainly had a more appropriate, professional way to deal with the situation than literally wrestling the phone away from the resident and upsetting her. Ms. Hodges admitted at the final hearing that she did not consider the staff’s actions observed on the videotape to be appropriate treatment of the resident. In response to the police incident, APD sent human services program analyst Carol Gilchriest to Hidden Havens for a health and safety check. Ms. Gilchriest conducted the health and safety check on February 24, 2020. She observed A.A. in her wheelchair with a bruise on her left cheek, bruising under her right eye, and a cut on her right hand. A.A. was unable to communicate the cause of her injuries to Ms. Gilchriest. Ms. Gilchriest observed A.G. with a bruise on her left cheek and bruising under her right eye. A.G. is non-verbal and was unable to communicate to Ms. Gilchriest the cause of her injuries. Ms. Hodges testified that no one from APD visited the residence on February 24, 2020, because “[APD] never came out within 24 hours. They wasn’t called. It wasn’t a report written, nothing.” Ms. Gilchriest’s testimony is accepted as credible, despite Ms. Hodges’ testimony that APD does not usually respond within 24 hours. January 10, 2020 Inspection Andrea Howell is an APD human services program analyst assigned to monitor Hidden Havens since 2017. On January 10, 2020, Ms. Howell made an unannounced inspection at Hidden Havens. She observed the facility’s transport van in the driveway with residents inside. The van had recently arrived at the facility and the passengers were unloading. Ms. Howell witnessed resident A.A. exit the van and urinate on herself in the driveway. Ms. Howell followed the residents and staff into the home, where she observed A.A. remove all of her clothing and stand naked in a common area of the house. A.A. was positioned so that she was in front of a window and the blinds were open. Ms. Howell observed that none of the staff interacted with A.A. to redirect her. Ms. Howell observed resident A.G. remove her shirt and sit in her wheelchair in the common area of the house. She observed that no staff member tried to redirect A.G. Shortly thereafter, A.G. began hitting herself in the face and head, making loud noises, and appeared to be upset. Again, no staff member intervened to prevent A.G. from hurting herself. Ms. Hodges was not present at Hidden Havens during Ms. Howell’s unscheduled visit. At the hearing, Ms. Hodges did not contest Ms. Howell’s version of the events, except to establish that A.A. has cerebral palsy, so she could not possibly have stood very long in front of the window. Ms. Howell confirmed that A.A. removed her clothing and first stood by her wheelchair, then sat in the wheelchair. Ms. Hodges testified that she is aware A.G. frequently removes her clothing, so Ms. Hodges has purchased nice sports bras for A.G. to wear so she has full coverage when she removes her shirt. No evidence was introduced as to what undergarments A.G. was wearing on the date of Ms. Howell’s inspection. Ms. Hodges further testified that she has worked to obtain behavioral services for A.G., but has not received approval for said services. Without approval for behavioral services, Ms. Hodges maintains that her staff is limited in their efforts to intervene when A.G. engages in self harm. A.G.’s APD-approved support plan requires intervention when A.G. engages in self-injury. The support plan does not specify the particular intervention to be undertaken by staff. During prior inspections of Hidden Havens, Ms. Howell has observed staff intervening by directing A.G. to the television, particularly the television program “Barney,” or offering a snack. During the January 10, 2020 incident, staff did not attempt to intervene when A.G. engaged in self-injury. Notices of Noncompliance APD issues a notice of noncompliance to a group home licensee upon the first occurrence of a Class II or III violation when the violation is not corrected prior to completion of the inspection in which the violation was identified. Fla. Admin. Code R. 65G-2.0041(1). The licensee is required to submit a corrective action plan (“CAP”) to APD within 15 days of receipt of the notice of noncompliance. Id. In the CAP, the licensee is required to specify the actions that will be taken to remedy the violation and come into compliance with the applicable licensing provision. Fla. Admin. Code R. 65G- 2.0041(2). The licensee is further required to document, in writing, all actions taken to remedy the violation. Id. APD must reject any CAP that fails to conform to the rule, and, if APD rejects the CAP, the licensee must submit an amended CAP within ten days. APD issues a notice of noncompliance letter, also known as a ROM letter, for more serious violations. These letters are issued by the applicable Regional Operations Manager, as opposed to notices of noncompliance, which may be issued by APD monitors. On or about February 14, 2019, APD issued a ROM letter to Respondent regarding violations identified by APD monitors on November 23, 2018; December 27, 2018; January 3, 2019; and January 25, 2019. The notice identified violations of background screening requirements, medication administration, and client funds accounting. The detailed letter listed the date of each monitoring visit, the specific rules violated, and the elements required for corrective action. Respondent’s CAP submitted in response to the ROM letter was insufficient to address the listed violations. APD issued two more follow-up letters, on March 15 and 26, 2019, detailing the items which were insufficient and the items needed to complete the CAP. After an extended period, Respondent made a sufficient response to the ROM letter. However, it was untimely and staff noted that no meaningful improvements were ever made at the residence. On or about April 1, 2019, APD issued a notice of noncompliance to Respondent regarding violations observed by Charles Steen, APD residential services supervisor for the central region; and Ms. Howell during an inspection of the residence. Respondent did not submit a CAP in response to the notice of noncompliance. On or about April 19, 2019, APD issued a notice of noncompliance to Respondent regarding violations observed by APD monitor, Ruben Castro. Respondent did not timely submit a CAP in response to the notice of noncompliance. On or about December 18, 2019, APD issued a notice of noncompliance to Respondent regarding violations observed by Ms. Howell. Respondent did not submit a complete CAP in response to the notice of noncompliance. At the final hearing, Ms. Hodges testified that she was unable to timely respond to the April 19, 2019 notice of noncompliance because she asked for the survey instruments used by Mr. Castro and never received a response from APD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities revoke license number 07000504 issued to Sunny Skies to operate a group home facility known as Hidden Havens located at 1080 Grandeur Street Southeast in Palm Bay, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Veronica Hodges Sunnyskies Support Service, Inc. 1331 Banbridge Drive Kissimmee, Florida 34758 (eServed) Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Agency for Persons With Disabilities Suite 380 4030 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Danielle Thompson, Senior Attorney/Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 309 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Francis Carbone, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue Under Section 9.5-540(b) of the LDRs, the issue on this appeal is whether the Planning Commission's decision should be affirmed, reversed, or modified.
Findings Of Fact The Planning Commission's Resolution No. P32-01 lists the following findings of fact in support of its decision, while noting that the Lesicks' request was denied by a vote of 2-2: [T]he Lesicks have a single-family structure, on 5.24 acres on Money Key, in the Offshore Island Land Use District. . . . . [I]t is the intent of the LDRs and the 2010 Plan that nonconforming uses should not be rebuilt if destroyed. Based on the Monroe County Code and the Monroe County 2010 Plan, we find that the "grandfather clauses" in Section 9.5-268 and Policy 101.3.23 are intended to protect existing residents of the County by permitting the replacement of their homes if destroyed and that Money Key currently is not being used as a principal residence. [T]he structure on Money Key is currently being used for vacation rentals and therefore does not qualify for the exemption in Section 9.5-268 of the [LDRs], even though the property had both a homestead exemption and a public lodging license in 1996. Therefore, we conclude that approval of the applicant's request would violate the intent of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the [LDRs]. Other "findings of fact" listed in Resolution No. P32-01 clearly were conclusions of law. To the extent that they are findings of fact, statements as to the intent of the County's Plan and LDRs are not supported by competent substantial evidence. They are contrary to the unambiguous language of the County's Plan and LDRs, as indicated in the Conclusions of Law, infra. Otherwise, the findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence. The evidence was that the Lesicks occupied the structure on Money Key from on April 19, 1994, and claimed a homestead exemption beginning in 1995. They applied for a Florida Public Lodging License on May 19, 1995, and the structure was registered with an opening date of May 25, 1995. Until renting the structure in March 1996, they continued to occupy it (including on January 4, 1996, a critical date under the Plan and the LDRs). After renting it in March 1996, they ceased occupying it; however, they continued to claim homestead exemption on the property through 1998.
The Issue Whether the certificate of registration as a salesman of Respondent, Permit 2000S, should be revoked or suspended, or whether Respondent should be fined.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Gary Steinman, was a licensed lot salesman, who worked as an employee of Suncoast Highland Corporation for about eight (8) years prior to October, 1978. Respondent had begun to work as a salesman at Shadow Run, a subdivision owned by Suncoast Highland Corporation, in November of 1974. Shadow Run is the subdivision involved in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Respondent Steinman made application for renewal of his Land Sales Board license in August of 1978, but said license was not renewed for the reason that the broker bad not renewed his license. Respondent Steinman has had a suspended license since October of 1978, and has not been selling since that time. On or about October 18, 1978, a notice to show cause why the Petitioner Division should not suspend or revoke the license of Respondent or impose a fine of not more than $1,000.00 was served on Respondent Steinman. A request for an administrative hearing was entered by Respondent's Counsel. Respondent Steinman, as an employee of Suncoast Highland Corporation, attempted to sell and sold lots in Shadow Run subdivision from November of 1974, to October, 1978. Mr. and Mrs. Fred Reed purchased a lot from Respondent, built a home upon it, and moved into the Shadow Run subdivision in November of 1975. Prior to the purchase of their lot, the Reeds were furnished a colored advertising map of the subdivision by Respondent Steinman indicating that underground utilities would be furnished the subdivision, that tennis courts and a boat ramp would be built in a recreational park, that the Lake Grady Road and Bridge District would be formed, and that assessments would be levied at a future date against each lot. Respondent Steinman and the Reeds examined and viewed the large map together, and Respondent pointed out the placement of the proposed tennis court and boat ramp. Respondent told the Reeds that underground utilities and telephone lines would be provided and later pointed out black conduit pipes in the front of each lot, which he stated were to be used for said underground facilities. Respondent told the Reeds that the assessment cost indicated on the Florida Public Offering Statement dated September 16, 1974, and furnished by Respondent to the Reeds, would be a total of approximately $200.00. Subsequently, the Reeds learned that underground utilities would not be provided. At the time of this hearing, no tennis court has been constructed, and the boat ramp is little more than a marshy opening at the water's edge. The roads are said by the Reeds to be in poor repair and not constructed or maintained properly, and street signs have just recently been placed. Respondent's Exhibit 2 is a letter dated November 30, 1978, from an engineering firm stating that part of the streets of the subdivision were constructed in accordance with 1973 plans and were up for final inspection. At the time of this hearing the roads had not been accepted by the County. The Reeds were told that the building restrictions would be enforced, but said restrictions were violated while Respondent Steinman was a member of the approving board. A house was constructed in the subdivision that violated the restrictions but was approved by Respondent Steinman, who was a member of the Architectural Board of Shadow Run. The Architectural Board at that time consisted of three (3) members: the President of Suncoast Highland Corporation, an engineer employed by the corporation, and Respondent Steinman. Similar representations as to recreational facilities and underground utilities and telephone wires as were made to the Reeds were made to John Castellana, a purchaser and home owner in Shadow Run. Mr. Castellana was told by Respondent Steinman that a dirt dike in the lake would be removed, but at the time of this hearing said dike had not been removed. Mr. Castellana was told that the assessment on his lot by the Lake Grady Road and Bridge District would be much less than his estimated total of $600.00 or $700.00. Similar representations as to recreational facilities, underground utilities and telephone lines, and assessments were made by Respondent Steinman to James Dovin, who purchased two (2) lots in April of 1975, from Respondent upon which to build a house. Mr. Dovin had not built his house at the time of this hearing and has filed a suit to require Suncoast Highland Corporation to buy back from him one lot. Mr. Dovin's other lot was bought back because of a buy-clause and lack of an offering statement. Similar representations were made to Phillip Midulla, who bought two lots in May of 1975, and built a home, and to Mrs. Cherie Pacheco. Mrs. Pacheco was told by Respondent Steinman that there would be nature trails and a concrete boat ramp. She was furnished a receipt for the required HUD report but not the report itself. Mrs. Pacheco had read the public offering statement and was not misled by Respondent Steinman into believing the assessment would be only $100.00 to $200.00. Mr. Chester Fennell, who purchased a lot in February of 1976, and began construction of his home the following May, was told by Respondent Steinman that Lake Grady was completely private and for the use of the subdivision home owners, that the above-ground utilities then in place were temporary in nature, and that the roads would soon be accepted by the County. Mr. Fennell's understanding from Respondent was that the assessment would be at most $200.00 or $300.00, and that he would be assessed only after the development was completed. Mr. Alfred Vetrano purchased a lot from Respondent, and similar representations were made to him as to the recreational facilities, underground utilities, and lot assessment. Mr. Vetrano was also told that the earthen dike across Lake Grady, which was very close to his backyard and blocked his view of the lake, would be removed within a few months. Mr. Vetrano relied upon the representations of Respondent Steinman and purchased the lot, but the dike has not been removed as promised. Respondent Steinman later told Mr. Vetrano that a permit could not be obtained to remove the dike, but Mr. Vetrano was informed by the Southwest Water Management District that a permit could be obtained upon payment of $16.00. Mr. Vetrano had also been told that the subdivision would have a children's playground, but no playground exists at the time of this hearing. Peter Scaglione, employed as Counsel for Suncoast Highland Corporation since August of 1976, was produced as the only witness for Respondent. The representations made by Respondent Steinman, which are the subject matter of this hearing, were made to purchasers between late 1974, and late 1978. Mr. Scaglione testified that Suncoast Highland Corporation will soon be constructing a tennis court and another court when 400 lots are sold, that the corporation will construct a picnic area, and that some reconstruction will be done on the boat ramp, providing a proposed agreement is entered into with the Shadow Run Homeowners Association. Respondent Steinman's employer, Suncoast Highland Corporation, represented by Mr. Scaglione, began receiving complaints about the representations concerning recreational facilities and other misrepresentations involving the Shadow Run subdivision in February of 1977. Mr. Scaglione was familiar with six (6) of the witnesses for the Petitioner Division and served as "middleman" between the corporation and the Shadow Run Homeowners Association, receiving for the corporation the complaints about Shadow Run and Respondent Steinman. Mr. Scaglione testified that the assessment on the lots made by the Road and Bridge District was about $4,500.00 on the platted lots and $1,300 on the unplatted land. Because of the complaints of misrepresentation and fraud on the part of Suncoast Highland Corporation, Shadow Run, and Respondent Steinman, the assessment on each lot was reduced from $4,480.52 to the sum of $975.00, to be paid either in a lump sum or amortized over a period of approximately twenty- eight (28) years. This compromise was worked out some four (4) years after the lots began to be sold in Shadow Run. A plan for correcting deficiencies in the roads of Shadow Run was presented for the fourth or fifth time to the Road and Bridge District by the owner of the subdivision a few days before this hearing, and it was learned that the County had inspected the roads and could not approve them. There were still thirteen (13) deficiencies to be corrected before approval of the roads would be considered. Mr. Scaglione had no personal knowledge of the selling methods of Respondent Steinman and had not worked with Respondent. Respondent Steinman testified in his own behalf, quoting what was told to him by Mr. Peterson, the President of Suncoast Highland Corporation, and a Mr. Estep, an engineer, but no witnesses were called to corroborate Respondent's statements. Respondent denied that he had told purchasers that the total assessment would be approximately $100.00 to $700.00. He stated that after some two (2) years he stopped telling prospective buyers that there would be underground utilities, having learned in January of 1975, that there would be none. Respondent testified that he had furnished the Florida Public Offering Statement to all prospective purchasers, and that he knew of its contents, however said Statement is inconsistent with the representations of Respondent. Respondent Steinman acknowledged that there were two (2) home owners on Lake Grady whose homes were not in Shadow Run. This allowed nonresidents of Shadow Run entrance to the lake, and therefore the lake was not a privately owned lake. Respondent's main answer to the complaints against him was that he believed the representations of the President of Suncoast Highland Corporation and its engineer, and that the things Respondent told prospective buyers were true. The various public offering statements on Shadow Run filed with the Petitioner Division did not provide information as to whether the utilities would be above ground or underground. The public statements indicated that recreational facilities are in Brandon, within eight (8) miles of the subdivision. The promotional brochure, an attractive blue and yellow folder used to promote sales and either given to prospective purchasers or placed in the sales office where it can be easily secured, shows park and recreational areas on a large map of Shadow Run. The first brochure was revised, and the map of the revised brochure shows a portion of the lake as not included in the subdivision but a more extensive park area. The brochure states there will be protective restrictions and all roads will be paved and curbed, but unlike the first brochure the map shows outside access to the lake. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this Order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this Order they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, Gary Steinman, be reprimanded and his license be suspended for a period of six (6) months from the date hereof. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire John W. McWhirter, Jr., Esquire Department of Business 1776 Exchange National Bank Building Regulation Post Office Box 2150 725 South Bronough Street Tampa, Florida 33601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES AND CONDOMINIUMS DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES AND CONDOMINIUMS, Petitioner, vs. DOCKET NO. 78183RS CASE NO. 78-2210 GARY STEINMAN, (Salesman's Certificate of Registration - Permit No. 2000S issued 10-17-77) Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondents, Wayne Jones, manager (Mr. Jones), and Sun Key Village (Sun Key), are entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to sections 57.105(5) and 120.595, Florida Statutes (2010),1/ and ,if entitled to an award, then the determination of a reasonable amount.
Findings Of Fact The Beaulieus are residents of Sun Key, a mobile home park located at 8607 26th Avenue, East, Palmetto, Florida. Mr. Jones is the manager of Sun Key. Sun Key is a mobile home park as defined by section 723.003(6), Florida Statutes. On March 25, 2010, the Beaulieus filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission stating: I still feel this is discrimination-- Mr. Jones states I am violating park rules by having a dog over 20 lbs this dog is a Visitor not a resident pet. It is my sons' dog--visits on occasion. There are many dogs over 20lbs & living in Sun Key. This is selective enforcement!!! Ms. Beaulieu attached to her Petition for Relief a lengthy hand-written document, alleging that other residents were violating Sun Key park rules concerning the size and number of permissible dogs. On March 30, 2010, the Commission forwarded the Beaulieus' petition to DOAH. An Initial Order was issued, requiring the parties to respond concerning, in part, the amount of time required for the hearing and the date and location for the hearing. On April 6, 2010, Carol S. Grondzik, Esquire (Ms. Grondzik), of Lutz, Bobo, Telfair, Eastman, Gabel & Lee, filed a response for Respondents. On April 8, 2010, the Beaulieus, acting as their own attorneys, filed a response. Based on the responses, the Administrative Law Judge set the case for final hearing on August 3, 2010. On April 12, 2010, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. In the Motion to Dismiss, Respondents argued that the Beaulieus "have not alleged they are members of a protected class under fair housing law." Further, the motion referenced Ms. Beaulieu's letter dated March 8, 2010, requesting an appeal of the Commission's no cause determination. Specifically, the Motion to Dismiss stated that the Beaulieus' complaint was for "selective enforcement" and not tied to retaliation based on the prior housing complaint filed by Ms. Beaulieu's sister. Thus, the Motion to Dismiss concluded that: [B]ecause Petitioners do not assert that they are members of a protected class under fair housing law, because they do not pursue a claim of retaliation against Respondents Wayne Jones and Sun Key, and because Bert Blanchard and the Sun Key Village Homeowners Association, Inc., are not providers of housing subject to fair housing laws, this Petition should be dismissed as a matter of law. On April 12, 2010, Ms. Grondzik served, by U.S. mail, a copy of the Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, pursuant to section 57.105, with a letter to the Beaulieus. Specifically, Ms. Grondzik's letter states: A Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs is also enclosed for your review. I will hold this motion for at least 21 days before filing with the Division as required by Florida law. This allows you time to analyze the relevant facts and law, to seek advice as necessary, and to take action. On April 19, 2010, DOAH issued a Notice of Ex-parte Communication after it had received a copy of a letter that had been sent by Kenneth Wiggins (Mr. Wiggins), an attorney for the Beaulieus, to Ms. Grondzik. The terms of the letter sought to settle the dispute between the Beaulieus and Respondents. Mr. Wiggins, however, did not make an appearance for the Beaulieus before DOAH, and it was unclear who mailed the letter to DOAH. In any event, the Beaulieus continued to represent themselves in the proceedings before DOAH. On July 7, 2010, the Beaulieus filed a motion for continuance of the August 3, 2010, hearing date. The Administrative Law Judge denied the motion. On July 19, 2010, the Beaulieus filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of their petition. On July 21, 2010, Respondents filed the Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs and Notice of Filing Affidavit of Carol S. Grondzik. Ms. Grondzik's affidavit set out the hourly rate and the scope of work performed to date in the case. On July 29, 2010, Respondents filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of Respondent's [sic] Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. At the January 14, 2011, hearing, Ms. Beaulieu testified about instances where the mobile home park failed to enforce its rules and regulations concerning the pet size for residents. Further, she testified that she had brought the DOAH proceeding to address the unfair and selective enforcement of the mobile home park's rules. Sun Key Village Mobile Home Park, Park Rules and Regulations provides, in pertinent part, that: 9. Pets: A maximum of two small pets are permitted, which at maturity must not weigh greater than 20 pounds each. Pets must be confined to the interior of the home when the resident is not present and must be on a leash at all times when outside of tenant's home. They must be transported to areas outside of residence or common areas for exercise. The record shows that the Beaulieus were provided a copy of the rule when moving into Sun Key. Mr. Wayne Jones testified that there were instances when exceptions had been made for residents to have dogs larger than 20 pounds. For example, he identified that residents, who had large, elderly dogs when they moved into Sun Key, were allowed to keep their pets. Mr. Peterson, an attorney who has extensive experience in representing mobile home park owners, testified concerning the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs. Mr. Peterson testified that he considered the factors outlined in Florida's Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), and reviewed the legal file in this case. Based on his review, Mr. Peterson found that 57.2 hours were reasonable in defense of this case and that the blended hourly rate of $235.92 was reasonable. Therefore, Mr. Peterson testified the reasonable attorney's fees to be $13,494.40 and the amount of taxable costs to be $575.00. Mr. Peterson also testified that Respondents would be entitled to attorney's fees for having to litigate the issue of fee entitlement. Mr. Peterson testified that 14 hours would not be an unreasonable amount of time for preparing and attending a hearing concerning the entitlement to fees, for a total of $3,302.88 using the blended hourly rate of $235.92. Based on a review of the record and testimony offered at trial, 71.2 hours is a reasonable amount of time spent on the defense of the instant case and litigating the issue of entitlement to attorney's fees. A review of the record and testimony shows that $235.92 an hour is a reasonable prevailing blended hourly rate. The parties stipulated that the Beaulieus are not members of a protected class under the fair housing law.
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1988 Petitioner made application with the Respondent for a permit to erect a banner across State Road 40 in the 900 block, East Silver Springs Boulevard in Ocala, Marion County, Florida. The copy to be placed on that banner would say "18th Annual Marion County Home Builders Assn. Parade of Homes May 13 thru May 21." After considering this permit application, Peter W. Wright, the Respondent's administrator for outdoor advertising in his part of the State, determined to deny the permit. That decision was reached based upon the interpretation by Mr. Wright that under the terms of Rule 14-43.001(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, the permit could not be granted in that the banner was one of a commercial nature. This decision was reached on November 11, 1988. A further attempt to explain the reason why the Petitioner felt that it was entitled to this permit was made in the person of its executive officer, J. W. Shoemaker, by correspondence of January 23, 1989. Mr. Wright, having examined that correspondence wrote to the Petitioner's executive officer and advised him that the request was being denied because the banner was deemed to be commercial in nature. This decision was reached on February 8, 1989 and it explains the right of the Petitioner to a formal hearing to dispute that choice of denial. On February 20, 1989, the Respondent received a request for formal hearing under the terms of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The case was then forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and the final hearing held on the date identified in this Recommended Order. Marion County Home Builders Association, Inc., Petitioner, is a not- for-profit corporation incorporated under the Laws of Florida, specifically at Chapter 617, Florida Statutes. The corporation is for the benefit of home builders and related industries within its jurisdiction, having in mind mutual advantage and cooperation and collaboration with all fields related to the residential building industry within that jurisdiction, for the construction industry as a whole and to assist the accomplishment of the mutual objectives of the National Association of Home Builders of the United States and Florida Home Builders Association. The executive officer for the Petitioner stated further that the Petitioner had an interest in assisting its members with legislation in Ocala and Marion County, Florida reference the businesses of its members. Further, it has as its purpose to advertise to the public the skills and wares of the members of the association, in particular through the Parade of Homes for which the banner permit is sought. In that Parade of Homes the association hopes to show the public what the members of the association are involved with as business, and to show the homes themselves. The builders of those homes are at the Parade of Homes show and the public is invited to tour the homes. Not only are the members of the public touring the homes, but also looking at home products being shown by members of the association. The public is charged a nominal fee of $1 to view the homes and in the past, that money has been contributed to the United Way. On one occasion $1400 was given to the United Way. It is expected that the $1 fee collected would be given to the United Way in the 1989 Parade of Homes Show. While persons are looking at the homes in the parade, they may ask the builders who constructed those homes, questions about the homes and if it is the desire of the consumer public and the builder to make arrangements for a home purchase, then that is an acceptable arrangement from the point of view of the association. Nonetheless, the specific idea which the association has in mind is to advertise the display of homes and home products. Other activities concerning the sale of houses or home products is left to the individual members of the association who have homes and home products in the show. The home builders who are in the association pay dues and constitute one-third of the membership. Other dues-paying members are suppliers within the industry and they constitute approximately two-thirds of the membership. Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 is a photograph which shows indicating the appearance of the banner in question. In 1985, Petitioner had been allowed to place a banner in Ocala at a time when Mr. Wright was not in the position of granting permission for banner displays. Within the last year the Respondent has granted permits to such diverse organizations as the Ocala Civic Theater, the Ocala Shrine Rodeo, the Florida Blueberry Festival/Ocala Blueberry Festival and the Rotary Club of Ocala-Silver Springs Charity Barbeque. Copies of these permits may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 5-8, admitted into evidence. Mr. Wright made the decision to grant those permits. Related to the Ocala Civic Theater, Wright spoke to someone within that organization and was impressed with the fact that it was, in his mind, for a public purpose. Related to the Ocala Shrine Rodeo, Mr. Wright felt that the Shrine is a charitable organization and aids burn victims. As to the Florida Blueberry Festival/Ocala Blueberry Festival, Mr. Wright felt that the majority of the funds that were collected in this endeavor went to the Chamber of Commerce to assist in civic and charitable events. In the main, he identified that his process of assessment was one of asking whether the function to be advertised by the banner was one in which the primary interest was for charity as opposed to profiting individuals or companies. Examples of permit requests that he has turned down as not being acceptable in that they were commercial in nature would be rock and gem shows, art festivals, sales of equipment for homes and other types of businesses. He has no recollection of ever having to decide the question of whether a Parade of Homes banner was an acceptable purpose to allow the display of a banner across a public roadway, other than the case at issue. In making decisions about the grant of the permit in the region in question, Mr. Wright does not require the submission of a corporate charter to ascertain whether an organization is a for-profit or not-for-profit corporation.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which denies the banner permit application. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: J. R. Shoemaker, Executive Officer Marion County Home Builders Association 409 Northeast 36th Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670 Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications to license their group home facilities should have been approved by Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities ("APD" or "Respondent").
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of fact: APD is the state agency that licenses foster care facilities, group home facilities, residential habilitation centers, and comprehensive transitional education programs. § 393.067, Fla. Stat. APD is charged with reviewing all applications and ensuring compliance with the requirements for licensure. Id. Stipulated Facts Submitted by the Parties The parties stipulated to the following facts. Loving Touch Dynamic Group Home and Loving Touch A Brighter Future Group Home are owned and operated by Loving Touch Adult Family Care, Inc. Zulia Brenovil is Loving Touch Adult Family Care, Inc.'s sole shareholder. Loving Touch's applications for licensure of the A Brighter Future and Dynamic homes were ultimately complete and met all requirements for licensure. However, APD exercised its discretion to deny the applications pursuant to Section 393.0673(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The parties dispute whether such discretion was correctly applied in this case. Until the denial of the A Brighter Future and Dynamic home applications, APD had not previously denied a license application submitted by Loving Touch Adult Family Care, Inc. Loving Touch Adult Family Care, Inc., has never had a license revoked or suspended by APD. The Notice of License Application Denial/Administrative Complaint does not charge Loving Touch Adult Family Care, Inc., with making false statements or omitting material facts in its license application under Section 393.0635(2)(a)1, Florida Statutes. Loving Touch Adult Family Care, Inc., also owns three additional homes licensed by APD: Loving Touch "My Place," Loving Touch "Transition," and Loving Touch "Unity." See also (Pet. Exs. 24-26.) APD renewed the licenses of My Place, Transition, and Unity after March 2, 2018. APD had previously renewed and/or issued the licenses of My Place, Transition, and Unity after the alleged verified findings by the Florida Department of Children and Families. Petitioners are the applicants for licensure of two group home facilities. Resp. Exs. 1 and 3. Petitioners' corporate officer and operator is Zulia Brenovil. She prepared and submitted both group home licensure applications for Loving Touch "A Brighter Future" Home and Loving Touch "Dynamic" Home to APD in December of 2017. Pre-Hr'g Stip. 3.(e); Resp. Exs. 1 and 3. Upon receipt, APD reviewed Petitioners' applications for licensure and took steps to verify the accuracy of the information provided in the applications. As part of the review, APD conducted a search of the Department of Children and Families ("DCF") records on the Florida Safe Families Network. Resp. Ex. 2, pp. 80-81; Resp. Ex. 3, pp. 186-197. APD's search of DCF records revealed four DCF reports that contained verified findings of abuse, neglect, or exploitation against Brenovil. Resp. Exs. 6, 7, 8, and 10. Those cases are outlined in more detail below. DCF Case Number 2015-147636 DCF case number 2015-147636 resulted in a verified finding of maltreatment/threatened harm against Brenovil. Resp. Ex. 6, p. 190. Tiffany Perry was the DCF investigator assigned to investigate the allegations in this case. The initial report to DCF alleged that minor child E.L., a resident of one of Brenovil's group homes, was being bullied by other children and was not receiving enough food. Perry began her investigation by performing background checks on the persons involved in the report. Perry then visited Brenovil's group home. Perry interviewed all the children in the home. Perry noted that E.L.'s bedroom door had locks on the outside of the door that would allow someone to lock E.L. inside his bedroom. Initially, Brenovil denied knowing that the locks had been switched, but Brenovil ultimately admitted to Perry that Brenovil's maintenance man had switched the locks. Resp. Ex. 6, p. 191. Perry verified the findings against Brenovil because the locks on E.L.'s bedroom were on the outside of the door and this allowed E.L. to be locked in his bedroom. Resp. Ex. 6, p. 191. This also resulted in the other children locking E.L. in his bedroom. Resp. Ex. 6, p. 191. Additionally, if E.L. was locked in his bedroom she concluded that his ability to quickly and safely escape the house in the event of an emergency, such as a fire, would be impaired. Resp. Ex. 6, p. 191. DCF Case Number 2016-297713 DCF case number 2016-297713 resulted in a verified finding of maltreatment/inadequate supervision against Brenovil. Resp. Ex. 7, pp. 209-210. Charlie Parker was the DCF investigator assigned to investigate the allegations in this case. The initial report to DCF alleged that minor child L.K., a resident of one of Brenovil's group homes, was using a cell phone to send pictures of L.K. cutting herself and to send other explicit pictures. Resp. Ex. 7, p. 209. There was also an allegation that another minor child resident, O.W., was not being closely monitored. Parker began his investigation by visiting Petitioners' group home. Upon inspection, Parker found that L.K.'s safety plan was not in L.K.'s file, as required. Parker testified that L.K.'s status was "to be seen, sight and sound." "Sight and sound" means that L.K. was supposed to be within sight of the house parents at Petitioners' group home at all times, and L.K. was never to be left unsupervised. Parker stated that he made verified findings against Brenovil because the safety plans for O.W. and L.K. were not properly located in the group home as required, and that staff members of the group home did not know the contents of the plans. Brenovil admitted to Parker that she was aware that the proper information was not available to the staff members at the group home. Based on Brenovil's comments and Parker's investigation and interviews of other staff members, Parker closed the case with a verified finding of maltreatment/inadequate supervision against Brenovil. Resp. Ex. 7, p. 211. DCF Case Number 2017-125783 DCF case number 2017-125783 resulted in five verified findings of maltreatment/inadequate supervision against Brenovil. Resp. Ex. 8, pp. 228-229. Virginia Snyder was the DCF investigator assigned to investigate the allegations in this case. The initial report to DCF alleged that five minor children at two of Brenovil's group homes were not being adequately supervised. Resp. Ex. 8, pp. 227-228. Snyder began her investigation by interviewing the minor children residents of the group homes and the staff members, including Brenovil. Part of the allegations involved a child not receiving a ride back to the group home. The child alleged that she called the group home and no one would pick her up. Brenovil informed Snyder the staff member at the group home could not pick the child up, and Brenovil could not pick the child up because she had taken headache medicine. Brenovil and Brenovil's staff member both admitted to the investigator that the minor child had been dropped off at another foster home without contacting the foster mother of that foster home in advance. Snyder verified findings against Brenovil that children were going between Brenovil's group home and another group home without staff adequately determining or knowing where the children were going or located. Additionally, one child was left at a home and neither Brenovil, nor her employees, were able to pick the child up. DCF Case Number 2009-146042 DCF case number 2009-146042 resulted in a verified finding of maltreatment/inadequate supervision against Brenovil. Resp. Ex. 10, pp. 248-249. In that case, two residents of Brenovil's group home had improper sexual relations, due to inadequate supervision. Resp. Ex. 10, p. 248. Brenovil's Response to the DCF Verified Findings Brenovil denied switching or having someone switch the locks with respect to DCF case number 2015-147636. Brenovil testified that the safety plans for O.W. and L.K. were properly in the group home during Investigator Parker's investigation in DCF case number 2016-297713. Brenovil denied talking to an investigator with respect to DCF case number 2017-125783. Brenovil testified that she submitted both applications to APD in full in December of 2017. However, the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans, submitted as part of the applications, were dated January 2018. Resp. Ex. 2, p. 23. Brenovil did not sign the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan until February 16, 2018. Resp. Ex. 2, p. 37. Similarly, the Sexual Activities Policy, another document submitted as part of the licensure application, was not signed by Brenovil until January 18, 2018. Resp. Ex. 2, p. 103. Similarly, the Sexual Activity Policy submitted as part of A Brighter Future's application for licensure was not signed by Brenovil until January 18, 2018. Resp. Ex. 4, pp. 184-185. After being confronted with the late documents, Brenovil admitted that the completed applications were not submitted until after December of 2017.3/ As part of the DCF investigation in case number 2015- 147636, Perry interviewed Brenovil's board member, Mr. Phillip Alexander ("Alexander"). Resp. Ex. 6, p. 194. Alexander informed Perry that the locks had been reversed for years. Resp. Ex. 6, p. 194. When confronted with this at the hearing, Brenovil stated that Alexander did not make this statement to DCF. Brenovil later testified that she knew Alexander did not make that statement because Brenovil was present for the conversation between Alexander and Perry. However, on re-direct, Brenovil acknowledged that she was not present for the conversation between Alexander and Perry. Brenovil testified that she voluntarily gave up her licenses for her DCF licensed group homes, and that there had been no threat of administrative action from DCF. However, Michelle Windfelder, a DCF licensing specialist, testified that Brenovil relinquished her licenses in lieu of revocation. Windfelder testified that, because of problems in Brenovil's home, DCF contacted Brenovil and advised Brenovil that she had the option of relinquishing her licenses, otherwise DCF was going to revoke the licenses. Windfelder testified that because of the impending revocation by DCF, Brenovil decided to voluntarily relinquish the licenses. Petitioners offered no compelling or persuasive evidence to show that APD wrongly denied their license applications, or abused the discretion afforded to it under section 393.0673(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The undersigned finds the testimony and evidence of the DCF investigators and the DCF licensing specialist more compelling and credible than that of Brenovil. Ultimately, the Petitioners did not carry their burden of proof to show that APD abused its discretion or when it denied their initial applications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter a final order denying the license applications of Petitioners, Loving Touch "A Brighter Future" and Loving Touch "Dynamic." DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2019.
