Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 7C-1.04 as set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and that a $200 fine be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Billy M. Arzie Arzie Apartments 710 North 2nd Avenue Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250 Sherman S. Winn, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sarah R. Hunter, is licensed as a certified residential contractor and holds license number CR C004453. At the time of the events which are the basis of the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was the qualifying agent of Hunter Homes, Incorporated, a Florida corporation (Hunter Homes). Hunter Homes entered into a contract with Ludon and Donna Williams to build them a house for $31,550. The Williams placed $31,550 in escrow, and the escrow agent paid to Hunter Homes a total of $31,040 before September 25, 1979. Hunter Homes contracted in April 1979 to build a house for Marsha Montgomery for $38,500. On August 2, 1979, Montgomery paid to Hunter Homes a total of $1600 down on the contract. The Respondent's husband, Robert Hunter, was the president and chief operating officer of Hunter Homes. He was responsible for the financial aspects of the corporate business, and the Respondent was responsible for design of the structures and sales. The Respondent held the office of secretary in the corporation and worked daily in the company's offices. Hunter Homes had built homes in the Fort Myers area for a number of years and was a reputable home building corporation. It began selling its homes faster than it could build them. Because of the delay in construction time and inflationary increases in construction costs, Hunter Homes began to lose money on its sales. Mr. Hunter kept this information from the Respondent and instructed the office staff, under threat of being fired, not to advise his wife about the financial status of the company. The office staff kept this information a secret from the Respondent until Mr. Hunter was hospitalized with a serious heart condition. At that point, the clerk in charge of keeping the books had to tell the Respondent about the situation because the corporation could not meet its payroll. In mid-August of 1979, when the Respondent became aware of the financial situation, she contacted the local building official and the companies through which Hunter Homes had obtained financing to discuss the financial situation of the corporation and what should be done to protect the persons who had contract to have houses built. The Respondent did not know the exact state of the corporation's finances until after completion of a survey by the auditors of one of the corporation's mortgage lenders. Hunter Homes' problem was primarily that of cash flow and being able to manage current liabilities until the transactions were closed on several houses which were almost complete. The Respondent was almost able to obtain an agreement which could have permitted the corporation to continue in business. However, one of the materialmen would not agree to the plan and commend an action on its liens, which caused the rest of the creditors to rush to protect their interests. This forced Hunter Homes out of business. The local building official testified concerning the actions of the Respondent with regard to his office and the creditors. After she became aware of the financial problem, the Respondent did all she could to protect all of the creditors of Hunter Homes. After Hunter Homes closed, the building official hired the Respondent because of her skills as a draftsman and her knowledge of construction. Within two to three weeks of the date that Montgomery paid her down payment, Hunter Homes went out of business and never had the opportunity to begin construction of her own home. The corporation was unable to repay Montgomery's down payment. Because Hunter Homes went out of business, the Williams home was not completed. The windowsills, toilets and lavatories, a sliding glass door, a garage door, a stove and dishwasher, and the carpet were not installed in the home. The driveway had not been poured, and the sod had not been laid. The Williams obtained a default judgment in the amount of $17,025.91 against Hunter Homes. However, the amount of this judgment exceeded the reasonable cost of those things required to finish the house and required under the construction contract. On September 25, 1979, the Williams paid the final draw on their house to the Respondent. Hunter Homes closed its doors on September 26, 1979.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent not guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h) and (k), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the charges against the Respondent, Sarah R. Hunter, be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 24th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Brondstetter, Esquire Post Office Box 2258 Fort Myers, Florida 32902 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Petitioner has been subjected to an unlawful housing practice by Respondent, as alleged in the Housing Discrimination Complaint filed by Petitioner on April 9, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ruby Jewell Perl, moved into Grand Oaks Villas in October 1999. She signed a lease for a two-bedroom apartment. After moving into the apartment, she made application for and received public assistance in renting the apartment in April 2000. Grand Oaks Villas is an apartment complex located in Pensacola, Florida. Many of the residents are retired. The lease between Petitioner and Grand Oaks Villas, signed in April 2000, reflected that a portion of the rent would be paid by the Public Housing Assistance Program. The lease, which was for Apartment 13A, requires a 30-day written notice for termination of the lease after the initial year of the lease. The lease reflects that Petitioner paid a security deposit of $200 in April 2000. Respondent, Jabari Abdulsamad, took ownership of Grand Oak Villas in June 2001. He became the owner/manager of the apartment complex. At some point in early April 2002, Petitioner began discussions with Mr. Abdulsamad regarding the amount of rent she was paying for the two-bedroom apartment and the possibility of moving to a one-bedroom apartment. Petitioner was exploring these options because the amount of rent for the two-bedroom apartment was more than she could afford. Initially, Mr. Abdulsamad showed a one-bedroom apartment to Petitioner. There is conflicting evidence as to whether he actually made an offer to Petitioner to move into a one-bedroom apartment for $485 per month. There is no disagreement, however, that Mr. Abdulsamad insisted that Petitioner put her request to transfer to a one-bedroom apartment in writing. There is no evidence that Petitioner put such a request in writing. In late April 2002, Petitioner and Respondents entered into an amendment to the lease in which Petitioner’s portion of the rent for her two-bedroom apartment was to be $326 per month, and the remaining rent of $249 per month was to be paid by the Public Housing Assistance Program, effective May 1, 2002. In late October 2002, Petitioner gave Mr. Abdulsamad two written notices of intent to vacate the apartment in 30 days. One notice was handwritten; one notice was on a form. On November 5, 2002, Mr. Abdulsamad wrote to Petitioner demanding payment of her portion of the rent for November. The letter stated that the housing authority paid their part, in full, but that she owed the balance of $153.26. The letter notified Petitioner that he would file eviction papers the following day if the rent was not paid in full. An eviction action was filed resulting in court costs of $104.87. Petitioner paid the outstanding rent into the court registry and vacated the property. Mr. Abdulsamad deducted the court costs out of the $200 security deposit and refunded the difference of $95.13 to Petitioner. Despite the eviction and legal matters surrounding the eviction, Petitioner’s main complaint regarding her charge of discrimination apparently stems from her desire to move from a two-bedroom apartment to a one-bedroom apartment. She was very upset about Mr. Abdulsamad’s insistent requests that she put her requests in writing and felt she was not treated fairly. Additionally, there were disputes regarding pet deposits and the ownership of the washer and dryer in her apartment. However, these and many other matters raised in the hearing concerned business issues, rather than discrimination issues, and are outside the scope of this proceeding.2/ Miriam Lewis also resided at Grand Oaks Villas. When she initially moved into Grand Oaks Villas, she was shown a one- bedroom apartment and wished to move into it. She was told it was already rented to a tenant receiving public housing assistance. Consequently, she moved into a two-bedroom apartment. She eventually transferred into a one-bedroom apartment. She described Mr. Abdulsamad as very cooperative regarding her transfer from a two-bedroom to a one-bedroom apartment. From the weight of the testimony, it is apparent that there is a great deal of friction among residents of Grand Oaks Villas. However, the testimony in the record, while establishing that there are a number of disgruntled tenants at Grand Oaks Villas, did not establish that Mr. Abdulsamad discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her gender. There is insufficient evidence in the record that a male was offered a one-bedroom apartment at the time Petitioner desired to rent one or that a male was offered more favorable rent or other conditions of tenancy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 20th day of August, 2004.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, Roland F. Patterson, engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting in the State of Florida without being duly certified or registered in violation of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed that violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent was not duly registered or certified to engage in the practice of construction contracting in the State of Florida. He was, however, doing business as George E. Patterson & Associates. Respondent proposed to build an addition to Jennie Headen’s residence, located at 1424 Bellshore Circle, Jacksonville, Florida, for a contract price of $22,000. Respondent signed the written proposal, telling Headen that she need not sign as her name was already on the document. Headen issued checks to Respondent; one in the amount of $3,000 and one in the amount of $9,000. Respondent accepted the checks, made out to him, as payments for work in accordance with the draw schedule mentioned in the proposal. Respondent cashed both checks. Respondent proceeded to tear the back porch of Headen’s house down. He ordered trusses for the cathedral roof and some lumber for further construction, all of which was delivered. Respondent started to frame in the addition, but a City of Jacksonville inspector issued a “Stop Work” order due to the flimsy construction and violation by Respondent of building code requirements. Respondent was also issued a Notice and Order to Cease and Desist from Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, for the practice of unlicensed contracting for the work he performed at 1424 Bellshore Circle, Jacksonville, Florida. Total investigative costs in this matter incurred by Petitioner were $534.59, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. Requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner’s costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time, in the amount of $534.59. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 28th day of August, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Roland F. Patterson 1610 West 31 Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Joshua B. Moye, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Craig Mangum, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if he did, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made. At all times material to this case the Respondent, Randall Warren Lefevers, was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CG C019413. At all times material to this case the Respondent was the qualifying agent for Homes America Builders, Inc. (Homes America). In early November 1987, Mrs. Maria Caneri contacted Respondent by telephone at his offices with Homes America Builders, Inc. This initial contact was in response to an advertisement published by Homes America. Mrs. Caneri discussed with Respondent that she wanted to remodel her bathrooms. Ben Riahi, the chief estimator for Homes America, visited Mrs. Caneri in the home she and her husband owned at 1271 Quail Avenue, Miami Springs, Florida, on November 7, 1987. Homes America, through Mr. Riahi, and Mrs. Caneri contracted by written agreement on November 7, 1987, for Homes America to do the remodeling work for Mrs. Caneri at a price of $2,500.00. The job included plumbing work that could only be done by a plumbing contractor. Neither Respondent nor Homes America is licensed to do plumbing work. On November 7, 1987, Mrs. Caneri paid to Homes America the sum of $250.00 by check given to Mr. Riahi and made payable to Homes America. On November 19, 1987, Mrs. Caneri paid to Homes America the sum of $1,000.00 by check given to Mr. Riahi. At Mr. Riahi's instructions, this second check was made payable to Randall W. Lefevers. In response to repeated telephone calls from Mrs. Caneri, Homes America made empty promises to perform the work and gave numerous excuses to Mrs. Caneri as to why the work had not been done. The only progress Homes America made toward performing its contract was the measuring of the rooms to be remodeled and the drafting of blueprints. The rooms were measured on two occasions. The first was by Mr. Riahi on November 7, 1987. The second occasion was in early December 1987 by the cabinet maker who had been subcontracted to do the cabinet work. None of the actual remodeling work was done by Homes America. On February 16, 1988, Mrs. Caneri demanded her money back from Homes America. On February 23, 1988, Mr. Riahi promised to refund Mrs. Caneri's money the next day Mr. Riahi never called Mrs. Caneri again and never responded to her numerous attempts to contact him. A final judgment was entered in favor of Mrs. Caneri against Homes America as the result of a civil action she filed against Homes America. As of the time of the final hearing in this matter, the final judgment had not been satisfied. Mrs. Caneri incurred costs and attorney's fees in securing the final judgment. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Petitioner filed an Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent which alleged, in pertinent part, as follows: Respondent exceeded the scope of his license concerning the type of work contracted to be performed, violating Florida Statutes Section 489.129(1)(j), 489.115(1)(b), 489.117(2), and 489.113(3), by contracting to perform plumbing work. There was financial mismanagement and/or misconduct in connection with the work contracted to be performed, attributable either to Respondent directly or to Respondent's failure to properly supervise, in violation of Florida Statutes Sections 489.129(1)(h), (m), as generally exhibited by, but not limited to, failing to keep proper financial records, taking a deposit and never beginning work nor refunding the unearned deposit within any reasonable time. Respondent denied the violations and timely requested a formal administrative hearing of this matter by the election of rights form he filed. Three prior letters of guidance have been issued by Petitioner to Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes; which suspends Respondent's contractor's license for a period of one year, which imposes a fine against Respondent in the amount of $5,000.00 for such violations, and requires that the fine be paid within ninety days of the entry of a final order in this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 13th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Rejected as being irrelevant. Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraph 4. Rejected in part as being unnecessary to the result reached. Addressed in part in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5 Addressed in part in paragraph 6. Rejected in part as being subordinate to the conclusion reached in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraphs 7-8. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 10. 12.-14. Rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 15.-17. Rejected as being legal conclusion and not findings of fact. Addressed in paragraph 14. COPIES FURNISHED: Jan L. Darlow, Esquire Adorno, Zeder, Allen, Yoss, Bloomberg & Goodkind, P. A. Bayview Executive Plaza 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Randall Warren Lefevers 730 Northwest 147th Street Miami, Florida 33168 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact From May 1, 1985, through June 30, 1987, Respondent, John Gonzalez, was a registered general contractor and qualifying agent for Le-Go Developers, Inc., license-number RG-A02757. On his application for qualification of Le-Go Developers, Inc., respondent was required to list his individual address and the address of the business entity. To this end, respondent provided an individual address of 8435 Crespi Boulevard, Miami Beach, Florida, and a business address of Le-Go Developers, Inc., of 9840 S.W. 81st Street, Miami, Florida. On March 25, 1986, Ms. Selma Roberts contracted, through respondent, with Le-Go Developers, Inc., for certain repairs to an apartment complex owned by her, and located at 8415 Crespi Boulevard, Miami Beach, Florida. At the time, respondent was a tenant of Ms. Roberts. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Le-Go Developers, Inc., was to repair an existing dock for $700 and paint the railings in the apartment complex for $400. Ms. Roberts paid Le-Go Developers, Inc., $1,100 in advance for the work. At no time did Ms. Roberts and respondent discuss the need for a building permit to undertake the agreed upon work, and no permit was secured for the project or posted on the job site. The building regulation pertinent to this case provide: PERMITS REQUIRED It shall be unlawful to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove or demolish any building structure, or any part thereof. . . without first having filed application and obtained a permit therefor, from the Building official.... EXCEPTION: No permit shall be required, in this or any of the following sections, for general maintenance or repairs...the value of which does not exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) in labor and material as determined by the Building official. Permits, to be issued by the Building Official, shall be required for the following: (a) The erection or construction of any building or structure, the adding to, enlarging, repairing, improving, altering, covering, or extending of any building or structure. Respondent repaired the dock and painted the railings in the apartment house. The work was not, however, apparently to Ms. Roberts' satisfaction and she paid a third party $100 to correct the deficiencies she perceived. While the work may not have satisfied Ms. Roberts, there is no competent proof that respondent did not comply with the terms of the agreement, that the work was not performed in a workmanlike manner, or that the work did not conform to existing building codes. At some point during the spring of 1987, respondent moved from the apartment at 8415 Crespi Boulevard to a new residence, and permitted his license to lapse. Respondent did not notify petitioner of his new residence address until he applied to reinstate his license in April 1988, as discussed infra. The petitioner's records demonstrate that respondent's license was on a delinquent status for non-renewal from July 1, 1987, until his application to change the status of his license and reinstate his license was approved May 23, 1988. In his application, dated April 4, 1988, respondent listed his residence address as 8440 Byron Avenue, Miami, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing a reprimand and administrative fine in the sum of $250 against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 3. 2 & 4. Addressed in paragraph 4. 3. To the extent pertinent, addressed in paragraph 1. 5-7. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. 8-9. Addressed in paragraph 5 and paragraph 2 of the Conclusions of Law. 10. Addressed in paragraph 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda H. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. John Gonzalez 8440 Byron Avenue, #1 Miami, Florida 33167 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1978, an investigator for Petitioner visited the address of the Respondent's real estate broker's office registered with the FREC at Loop Road, Star Route 67, Ochopee, Collier County, Florida, to conduct an office inspection. Upon his arrival, two buildings were observed, one a restaurant which was closed and the other a two-story apartment building containing what appeared to be three apartments. No signs were in evidence indicating a real estate office was located at this location and a man at the site who identified himself as a tenant identified the two buildings as a closed restaurant and apartment. Although the restaurant was locked, the investigator looked in the windows and saw no evidence that the building contained a real estate office. The apartment building was not entered nor did the investigator peer into the windows of these apartments. He did walk around the building and saw no evidence to indicate a real estate office was located in the apartment building or anywhere at the address registered.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Respondent's registration as a real estate broker be suspended for a period of two years or until Respondent provides an office meeting the requirements of Rule 21V-10.07, Florida Administrative Code, and registers same with the FREC, whichever first occurs. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of September, 1978. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Lawrence J. Spiegel, Esquire 380 First National Bank Building 900 West 49 Street Hialeah, Florida 33012
The Issue Whether Petitioner has been the subject of discrimination in housing due to a handicap.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 52-year-old female who has a mental disability which impairs her ability to manage her money and stay organized. She is unemployed and relies on Social Security and a special needs trust to support herself. Her sister, Katherine Newman, is the trustee of Petitioner's trust. However, Petitioner's outward presentation is of an intelligent, capable, and non-disabled person. Until 2009, Petitioner, when not hospitalized, either lived with her mother or resided with another person. For a variety of reasons and with the concurrence of those involved in her care, in 2009, Petitioner, at around age 50, decided to attempt living by herself. Respondent, GrandeVille on Saxon, Ltd. (GrandeVille), is the owner of GrandeVille on Saxon, a large apartment complex located at 741 Saxon Boulevard, Orange City, Florida. GrandeVille contracted with Respondent, Cambridge Management Services, Inc. (Cambridge), to manage the GrandeVille apartment complex. During 2009 and 2010, Respondent, Carol Werblo, was an employee of Cambridge Management Services, Inc., and acted as a leasing agent for the GrandeVille apartment complex. In the past, she was recognized as the outstanding leasing agent for the GrandeVille apartment complex, as well as for all properties managed by Cambridge. She continues as a leasing agent for the apartment complex to date and has earned several Certificates of Achievement in Fair Housing Training over the years of her employment. Indeed, all employees of Cambridge receive fair housing training upon employment. Thereafter, all employees receive annual fair housing training. In 2009, GrandeVille required a prospective lessee to submit a completed application, and pay $299.00 in application, administrative and reservation fees (collectively the “application fees”). GrandeVille would not reserve an apartment or enter into a lease with a prospective lessee without a completed application and payment of all application fees. Additionally, GrandeVille required all applicants to be screened for rental history or mortgage payment history, employment history, credit history, and criminal background prior to approval of the application. After approval of an application, the prospective lessee may enter into a Reservation Agreement with GrandeVille to reserve a specific apartment within the complex and establish an anticipated move-in date. The Reservation Agreement identified the applicant’s future address, as well as, provided information concerning utilities, services and move-in procedures. The Reservation Agreement also notified prospective lessees that they were required to secure electric service and renter’s insurance before signing a lease and moving in. Additionally, the Reservation Agreement required an appointment prior to a lessee taking possession of an apartment in order to execute a formal lease agreement. In general, the application process at the GrandeVille apartment complex could take anywhere from a day to a longer period of time to complete, depending on the day and time the application is given to the facility. Importantly, applications could not generally be approved over a weekend since the person with authority for such approval did not generally work over the weekend and some of the screening process could not be completed. If there was an emergency housing situation over a weekend, the person responsible for application approval could be called by telephone to review the application, if they were available. However, the evidence did not demonstrate any housing emergency during the time period relevant to this action since Petitioner always had places she could live supplied by either family or friends available to her. Cambridge manages the inventory of apartment units at the GrandeVille complex by use of “availability reports” that are computer generated and printed daily. Leasing agents at the complex use the reports to locate apartments that can be shown and are available to rent. The availability reports list the apartment complex's inventory by floor, apartment number, number of bedrooms, type, and availability to rent. The number of bedrooms an apartment has is represented by a letter, with "A" designating a one bedroom apartment. The type of an apartment is, also, represented by a letter, with "I" designating an apartment with a glassed-in area known as an imagination room and "S" designating an apartment with a screened-in lanai. Additionally, the availability reports separate apartments into various categories. The categories under which apartments are separated are 1) vacant, not leased, and ready to show; 2) vacant, not leased, not ready to show; 3) occupied, but have received notices to vacate and are not leased; 4) occupied, but have received notices to vacate and are leased; and 5) vacant, still under lease, but ready to show. Since the apartments in categories three and four are still occupied, they cannot be shown to prospective tenants and are not available to lease. Apartments in category two cannot be shown to prospective tenants because they are not ready to show since, necessary repairs, painting, replacement and maintenance have not been completed after their occupants moved out. These units are not available for immediate occupancy and repairs are highly dependent on the workload and schedule of maintenance personnel or subcontractors. Units in categories one and five may be shown to prospective tenants and are available to lease, subject to the apartments lease status. Importantly, only apartments in category one are available for immediate or near immediate occupancy if a prospective lessee first applies, reserves, and pays all of the application fees. Around January 9, 2009, Petitioner was looking for a one-bedroom apartment. She saw an advertisement in a local rental magazine for the GrandeVille apartment complex. On January 9, 2009, she visited the complex. During this visit she was shown two one-bedroom apartments by Respondent Carol Werblo. Ms. Werblo followed her standard process in showing apartments to a prospective lessee. One apartment shown to Petitioner had an imagination room. According to the availability reports for that day, the apartment which Petitioner viewed was apartment 10118. The apartment was under a current lease but could be shown since it was vacant. Occupancy was subject to the terms of its current lease. The other apartment shown to Petitioner had a screened- in lanai. According to the availability reports for that day, the lanai apartment which Petitioner viewed was either apartment 10217 or 10219. Apartment 10217 was vacant and could be leased and occupied. Apartment 10219 was under a current lease, but could be shown since it was vacant. Occupancy of 10219 was subject to the terms of its current lease. Upon seeing the two apartments, Petitioner fell in love with the imagination room apartment. She told Ms. Werblo that she wanted to rent the apartment she had seen. In fact, Petitioner was only interested in renting a one bedroom, imagination room apartment. She was not interested in renting any other type of apartment. Following the viewing, Ms. Werblo again followed her usual procedure and discussed the application and leasing process and the rents charged by GrandeVille with Petitioner. Petitioner, per standard practice, was also provided a rate sheet showing market rent for the various apartments. Handwritten on the sheet were reduced rent rates for the one- bedroom and two-bedroom apartments based upon rent promotions or specials that were available on January 9, 2009. These promotions are limited in time and often change depending on apartment availability. The promotional rates can only be locked in by reserving an apartment while they are in effect and are one reason for reserving an apartment early in the application process. The evidence was unclear and did not establish that Petitioner told Ms. Werblo that she was disabled or handicapped or, if she did, the nature of that disability or handicap. Petitioner did advise Petitioner that she wanted to talk to her sister, Katherine Newman, about leasing the apartment and that her sister handled her money. The evidence was again unclear and did not establish that Petitioner told Ms. Werblo that she had a trust that supplied her income or that her sister was the trustee of that trust. The evidence was clear that, even after discussing the application and leasing process with Ms. Werblo, Petitioner did not complete an application or pay any application fees on January 9, 2009, so that an application could be processed and, if approved, an apartment reserved for her. Therefore, she did not apply for a lease or reserve any apartment on that day and Respondents were not obligated to hold an apartment for her. Additionally, there was no evidence introduced at the hearing as to any specific threshold requirements that a prospective lessee must meet. Petitioner's ability, at substantially later times, to qualify to rent an apartment at another apartment complex or obtain a mortgage on her mother's home does not establish that Petitioner met Respondents' requirements in January of 2009. Given this lack of evidence, it cannot be concluded that Petitioner met Respondents' screening requirements and Petitioner has, therefore, failed to establish that she was qualified to lease an apartment from GrandeVille. There was also no evidence that Petitioner may not have fully understood the application and leasing process. Indeed, Petitioner admitted that she did not fill out an application or pay the application fees because she felt such financial matters were her sister's area of responsibility. Even if Petitioner did not understand the application process, there was no evidence that Respondents could or should have known about Petitioner's lack of understanding. Given these facts, there was no evidence that any of the Respondents discriminated against Petitioner during her visit to the apartment complex on January 9, 2009. As stated above, Petitioner decided she wanted to rent the imagination room apartment and told her family and friends she was going to move into this apartment even though she did not know or have an apartment number. Petitioner told Ms. Newman about the apartment and the amount of rent under the rent promotion. She asked her sister to contact the apartment complex so that she could rent the apartment. As indicated, Ms. Newman is the sister of Petitioner and is the trustee of her special needs trust. She is a licensed Certified Public Accountant in Florida. She often advises Petitioner on financial matters. She perceives her duty as trustee to conserve the funds and make sure dollars are not spent unwisely. As such, she was in favor of Petitioner’s living independently, but was reticent about the amount of rent and expenses such independent living would entail. Ms. Newman felt the promotional rent was somewhat high for the area. However, she did feel the apartment complex met Petitioner's need for a secure living environment. On January 14, 2009, Ms. Newman telephoned the GrandeVille complex to inquire about one-bedroom apartments and to negotiate a better deal for Petitioner. She spoke with Carol Werblo. The conversation took about 10 or 15 minutes. Ms. Newman told Ms. Werblo that she handled Petitioner's financial affairs and that rent would be paid from a special needs trust. The evidence was unclear and did not establish that she advised Ms. Werblo that her sister was disabled or the nature of the disability. However, the evidence did establish that Ms. Newman thought the rent at the apartment complex was too high and communicated that belief to Ms. Werblo. Her position about the rent also made her less than pro-active in assisting her sister in going through the application and leasing process. Ms. Newman did attempt to negotiate a lower rate. The negotiation was unsuccessful. She knew Petitioner had “terrible credit” and correctly believed Petitioner could not pass the application screening process for renting an apartment without providing financial information about her trust. Ms. Newman did not provide any documentation to Respondents about the trust that would have supported any potential application for Petitioner. She did not complete an application to lease the apartment for her sister because her sister was legally capable of completing the application herself. However, she did not ascertain any of the steps that Petitioner needed to take to apply, reserve, or lease an imagination room apartment. She did not pay any application fees and did not transfer any funds to either Petitioner or GrandeVille to cover the application fees or monthly rental amount. Indeed, there was no credible evidence introduced at hearing that either Petitioner or Ms. Newman had demonstrated to Respondents that Petitioner had the financial capability to rent an apartment. In fact, there was no evidence that any of the Respondents discriminated against Petitioner on January 14, 2009, since neither Ms. Newman nor Petitioner provided any financial documentation to Respondents or otherwise completed any of the steps necessary to reserve or lease an apartment at the GrandeVille complex. Additionally, given this lack of evidence and since the only significant contact Ms. Werblo had with Petitioner or her sister occurred on January 9 and 14, 2009, the charges of discrimination against Ms. Werblo should be dismissed. In the interim, Petitioner mistakenly believed the imagination room apartment was hers for leasing at the rent she had discussed with Ms. Werblo on January 9, 2009. Since her visit she had bought furnishings for the apartment. In an e- mail to Ms. Newman dated January 28, 2009, Petitioner stated, “I want to sign a lease the first week of February.” In a January 30, 2009, e-mail, Petitioner told Ms. Newman she had obtained a telephone number for the apartment and was “going to the apartments to get lease papers and look one more time at the apt.” Petitioner was excited and looking forward to living on her own. Interestingly, Ms. Newman never informed Petitioner that she had not completed any steps necessary to financially enable Petitioner to apply for or reserve the imagination room apartment. At best, it appears both Petitioner and her sister wrongly assumed the other had performed or completed the rental process required by Respondents for all prospective lessees. Sometime between January 29, 2009, and January 31, 2009, Emily Tyler completed an application, and was approved to lease apartment 10219. The apartment was one of the two apartments Petitioner had looked at on January 9, 2009. It was the last lanai-style apartment on either the first or second floor of the apartment complex where Petitioner was interested in renting. After approval, Ms. Tyler reserved the apartment and paid all of the required application fees on January 30 or 31, 2009. Given this transaction and according to the availability reports, there were no imagination room-style apartments on the first or second floor available for leasing on January 31, 2009. There was one lanai-style apartment on the third floor. However, Petitioner was not interested in leasing a lanai apartment or leasing an apartment on the third floor. After the second floor unit was reserved by Ms. Tyler, Petitioner, on Saturday, January 31, 2009, returned to the GrandeVille apartment complex to sign a lease and rent the one- bedroom imagination apartment she had viewed. Petitioner assumed the apartment she wanted would be ready for her when she visited the apartment complex. Indeed, she had arranged for family and friends to help her move in that weekend. Upon entering the building, Petitioner asked the leasing agent, Patrick Smith, who was a young college student, for “the lease documents” so that she could sign the lease to rent the apartment on that day. Mr. Smith was not familiar with Petitioner and met her for the first time on that day. She did not speak with Ms. Werblo who was busy with other clients. However, no application had been submitted, no application fee had been paid, no application screening had been done, no lease had been prepared for her, and no move-in date was scheduled for Petitioner. Additionally, the person who could approve an application was not present at the complex since the weekend was her scheduled time off and she would not return to work until Monday. Additionally, Petitioner did not have any means to pay the required application fees of $299.00 with her and did not offer to pay the application fees. Given these facts, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she was qualified to lease an apartment from GrandeVille on January 31, 2009, and has failed to demonstrate that Respondents discriminated against her by not leasing her the apartment she had viewed. Mr. Smith told Petitioner that the only one-bedroom unit available that could be rented by Petitioner for immediate or near immediate occupancy on January 31, 2009, was a third- floor screened lanai unit. Mr. Smith offered to show Petitioner the third-floor lanai unit. He also checked and printed out the apartment complex's availability report which showed only one one-bedroom lanai apartment available and ready to rent on January 31, 2009. Petitioner became upset. She was not interested in the lanai apartment and so informed Mr. Smith. She told Mr. Smith that she only wanted to rent the imagination room apartment that she had been shown and she wanted to move in over that weekend. Petitioner testified that Mr. Smith indicated, based on the availability report for January 31, 2009, that the apartment she had seen was not available and ready to rent that day and further the only one-bedroom apartment available to rent that day was the third-floor lanai apartment, not an imagination room apartment. The statement was accurate since no apartment of the type and location Petitioner was interested in was available for immediate occupancy over the weekend. Mr. Smith could not give Petitioner a lease since she had not completed the required application process. He tried to explain to Petitioner that she must qualify to lease an apartment by first completing an application. Moreover, there were no units available for occupancy over the weekend that met Petitioner's style and location criteria. After talking with Mr. Smith, Petitioner became confused and did not know what to do. She stepped outside the building and telephoned Ms. Newman. She returned to the lobby of the GrandeVille complex, asserted the leasing agent knew she was disabled, demanded copies of the availability report, contested the truthfulness of the leasing agent’s information, and threatened to sue. She also demanded rent records for the apartment complex. At the time, Petitioner was not entitled to the private records of the apartment complex and was denied copies of these records. Petitioner again telephoned Ms. Newman who suggested she was being discriminated against and told her to leave. Petitioner then left the premises. The evidence did show that there were three apartments on January 31, 2009, that might have been made available to rent at a near future date. These apartments were 16213, 16214, and 16217. These apartments were vacant, but none were available to move in over the weekend of January 31, 2009, since all needed some sort of repair or maintenance since last occupied. In fact, the evidence indicated that none of the apartments was ready for occupancy until over a month later. The rent offers they were available at had not changed since January 9, 2009. However, at no time did Petitioner attempt to apply or reserve an apartment of the type she desired. She simply demanded to sign a lease on January 31, 2009, for a one-bedroom imagination room apartment on the first or second floor so that she could move in that weekend. No such apartments were immediately available to meet Petitioner's demands. Respondents did not misrepresent the availability of any apartments or information about its rent specials on January 31, 2009, and did not otherwise, discriminate against Petitioner. Additionally, Respondent never complied with Respondent's requirements to lease an apartment. Given these facts, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.1/
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 Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 30th day of December, 2011.
