Findings Of Fact Respondent was licensed for the years 1977 and 1978 with the current license No. 080018 valid until 1 January 1979. During an inspection of Adams Rooming House in Belle Glade, Florida on 20 April 1977 only one fire extinguisher was located on each floor of the two floors used for rental units, numerous extension cords running from the same outlet were observed in the rental units, in the public toilets on each floor the bulbs were missing from the lighting fixtures, screens on windows were torn or missing, window was missing in toilet, doors on toilet split, no designation of sex on any bathroom, some windows in units boarded up with full panel doors, other windows had torn screens and broken jalousies, trash, junk and garbage littered on ground in vicinity of dumpster, and there were areas on stairways, landings and porch with railing missing. Respondent was notified of these violations. At an inspection on November 14, 1977 the proper number of fire extinguishers were present but two were empty. There was a direct conflict in the testimony regarding the fire extinguishers with neither witness saying how he ascertained the extinguisher empty or not empty. Accordingly, this alleged violation will be disregarded hereafter in this Recommended Order. At this inspection all of the other violations previously noted were still extant and some doors were also boarded up. No windows had both good screens and unbroken panes. Respondent was notified of these violations. On January 3, 1978 another inspection was conducted in company with Gilbert Adams. All violations previously reported were still uncorrected at this time. The premises were again inspected January 24, 1978 and all violations previously found remained uncorrected. At an inspection on March 8, 1978 the fire extinguishers had been recharged. When inspected again on April 10, 1978 the violations were still uncorrected. On April 25, 1978 an inspection was conducted in company with Adams. At this inspection some screening had been replaced, some windows and railings corrected, the grounds around dumpster had been cleaned, the doors to the bathrooms had been repaired and they had been designated for use by sex. However, all doors and windows were not corrected, some windows were still fully boarded up, bulbs were missing from fixtures in bathrooms, some railings were still loose, and the basic violations remained but not as many as before. On 25 January 1978 (Exhibit 2) Respondent executed a stipulation in which he agreed to pay a civil penalty of $25 and to correct all the violations previously reported within 30 days. The inspection conducted on 8 March was the follow-up inspection to ascertain if the violations had been corrected pursuant to the stipulation. Respondent contends that the rooming house caters principally to transients and that every time he puts bulbs in the bathrooms they are removed by the tenants; that tenants and passersby throw trash at the dumpster rather than put the trash in the dumpster; that he has a man who does repairs and cleanup at the rooming house; that he can't keep screens in either the unit windows or the bathrooms; that some tenants asked him to have their window boarded up to provide greater security; and that tenants disregard the sex signs placed on the bathrooms and will use whichever bathroom is vacant. Respondent does not visit the units frequently but does come to collect rent when due. He also contends that it is virtually impossible to keep tenants from running numerous extension cords from the same fixture. This is undoubtedly true if there are insufficient outlets in the rental units. Additionally, Respondent testified that he has the walls washed occasionally and provided paint to one tenant who wanted to paint his unit. He further stated that the units have been painted but the frequency of this painting was unclear. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner and Respondent have been considered. Those inconsistent with the facts noted above were not supported by testimony deemed credible. Those proposed findings not included herein were deemed immaterial to the results reached.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner's imposition of an administrative fine of $300 upon the Respondent should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Riverview Rest Home is an adult congregate living facility which is subject to licensing by the Petitioner. This facility was so licensed on the dates in question, and remains licensed to the present time. On July 23, 1980, members of the professional staff of the Petitioner inspected the Respondent. Based upon this inspection the Respondent was issued a list of violations and deficiencies. In addition to those which were subsequently corrected, the violations in issue are: (1) screens in the kitchen area in need of repair, (2) a toilet which could not be flushed, and was full of human waste, (3) dust and dirt accumulated in the bed frames, and window sills cluttered with dust, lint, cigarette butts, paper and cobwebs, and (4) dirt on the floor under beds. A reinspection of Riverview Rest Home was conducted on August 15, 1980, which revealed the following: A toilet accommodating 4 residents was semi-full of toilet paper, human urine and feces, and emitting a strong odor. Two residents were sitting or lying in rooms in close proximity to this toilet. An attempt to flush this toilet disclosed the tank to be empty and the water to have been cut off. When the water was turned on, the toilet began to leak in a large stream. The toilet seat was loose, broken, and not attached to the base. Heavy accumulations of lint, dust and dirt on bed frames, and window sills cluttered with dust, lint, cigarette butts, bits of paper and cobwebs. The outside screen door adjacent to the kitchen area was torn and in need of repair. Dirty and stained mattresses in resident rooms, dirty, urine stained, and soiled sheets on resident beds. Bathroom fixtures were dirty, stained, in need of cleaning, and the floor around toilets was dirty and wet. The table in the cottage where residents eat was dirty, and showed the residue of a previous meal or meals. Other violations or deficiencies were observed during reinspection, but the above are repeat occurrences of those first noticed on July 23, 1980. In addition, a fire marshall of the City of Holly Hills conducted a fire safety inspection of the Respondent facility on August 4, 1980, and found 5 violations of the City Fire Code. A reinspection was done on August 13, 1980, to verify corrections, and the gas hot water heater which had been found improperly vented, had not been corrected. A second reinspection on August 21, 1980, found the gas hot water heater then properly vented, but the emergency lighting system was not working. The Respondent, while not admitting the violations and deficiencies described above, presented no evidence to controvert the testimony of the Petitioners witnesses relative to the results of inspections of the Respondent facility. Essentially, the Respondents position is that all of the alleged deficiencies are first-time violations not subject to fine or penalty. However, there is adequate evidence in the record to support a finding that the violations for which a penalty was assessed were recurring deficiencies not corrected after the Respondent had been advised of their existence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $300 be upheld. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 12th day of January, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Leo J. Stellwagaen, Esq. Assistant District IV Counsel P.O. Box 2417 F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Leo Siroky Riverview Rest Home 700 Daytona Avenue Holly Hill, Florida 32017
Findings Of Fact William R. Rifenburgh, Jr. is licensed as a certified general contractor (License No. CG C011375), certified pool contractor (License No. CP C010307) and registered pool contractor (License No. RP 0023263). Respondent held the above licenses at all times material to this action. In early 1978, Rifenburgh entered an oral contract with Personalized Construction Company to install a Nautilus Spa at a house this company was constructing at 9186 Northwest 21st Street, Coral Springs. Respondent then installed the spa exclusive of deck, electrical and brick work. Periodic inspections of the spa project were conducted between February and December, 1978, by the City of Coral Springs Building Department. The facility did not pass final inspection because of electrical wiring deficiencies and the purchaser's contention that the spa lost water. A follow-up final inspection has never been requested. The house was purchased by Nathaniel Gerold in March, 1978. Gerold paid about $5,200 to Personalized Construction Company for the spa, but later recovered this amount in a judgment against Personalized Construction. Between May and December, 1978, Gerold called Respondent numerous times regarding the inability of the spa to hold water. Nothing substantial was done by Respondent during those months. However, Respondent did return to the site in January, 1979, at the urging of the Coral Springs Building Department, but was refused access to the property by Gerold. As a result of Gerold's complaints, the City of Coral Springs Building Department withheld Respondent's building permit privileges beginning in March, 1980. However, no hearing was held nor was formal disciplinary action taken by the municipality. Respondent's building permit privileges were restored by the Building Department in February, 1981, on advice of the City Attorney. Respondent and Personalized Construction had several disagreements regarding the amount and schedule for payments to Respondent. However, Respondent was paid in May, 1978, by Personalized Construction for completion of the project, and was not a party to the lawsuit wherein Gerold recovered from Personalized Construction for the defective spa. Personalized Construction subcontracted the deck work, and this subcontractor was responsible for breaking some of the spa plumbing Respondent had installed. Although the underground pipes were repaired, they remain a possible source of water loss. It was not established if the current water loss is occurring through these pipes, from leaks in the prefabricated spa or through normal evaporation.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 16th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrew M. Chansen, Esquire Suite 108 2000 East Oakland Park Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306
The Issue Whether existing Rule 21F-20.009, Florida Administrative Code, is, as a matter of law, an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact There were no findings of fact to be made.
Findings Of Fact The respondent; Dr. Asher S.A. Padeh d/b/a Ladon Apartments, currently operates under license number 23-5073H. The Ladon Apartments is located at 2217 Normandy Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. On September 16, 1985, the petitioner conducted an inspection of the Ladon Apartments. At this time the following conditions were noted: (a) there was no proof that the fire extinguishers had been serviced the tags were missing (b) the clean out plug in the rear of the apartments had been removed to alleviate indoor plumbing problems, and effluent was all around the area (3) a refrigerator was located outside the apartments (4) the state operational license had not been posted. As a result of the inspection, Dr. Padeh was sent a notice which stated, "WARNING Minor and/or major violations in the operation of your establishment must be corrected by 10 days from notice." The notice explained what had to be done to remedy the situation. On October 7, 1985, petitioner conducted a call back inspection of the premises. None of the violations had been corrected. However, there was no evidence presented to show that this inspection occurred after ten days from receipt of the notice. Although Dr. Padeh received the notice sometime in late September or early October, insufficient evidence was presented to find that respondent received it ten days before the inspection of October 7, 1985. On or about November 1; 1985, petitioner issued a Notice to Show Cause which alleged that respondent was in violation of various statutes and rules based on the conditions noted on September 16, 1985, which remained uncorrected on October 7, 1985. An informal hearing was scheduled for November 19, 1985. 1/ On November 9, 1985, Dr. Padeh completed the Request for Hearing form attached to the Notice to Show Cause. Under the statement "Disputed issues of fact", Dr. Padeh referred to the four violations alleged stating, "They have all been corrected since." On November 15, 1985, another inspection of the apartments revealed that the only condition that had been corrected was that the refrigerator had been removed from the premises. On February 17, 1986, petitioner conducted another inspection, due to the impending hearing in this cause, and found that all of the problems had been corrected. Mr. Delgado, the manager of the Ladon apartments, testified that he tried to fix everything as soon as possible after being informed of the violations. He explained that the clean out plug had to be replaced several times because the tenents would remove it everytime it was replaced. As of the date of the hearing, the clean out plug had been permanently affixed. The fire extinguishers always had been properly serviced, but the tags had been removed or had blown away. The tags are now taped on and the extinguishers are protected from the wind. The refrigerator outside the building had been taken out of an apartment, and its door had been removed. The city had been called to pick it up, but it took the city a couple of weeks before they came and removed it. The state license is now posted over the mailboxes. Although Mr. Delgado explained why the problems existed and what he had ultimately done to correct them, there was no evidence presented that would explain or justify respondent's failure to have all the violations corrected prior to the November inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that respondent violated rules 7C-1.02(1), 7C-1.04(l)and 7C-3.0l(l), Florida Administrative Code, and assessing a fine of $200 for each of the violations, for a total amount of $600. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1986.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate salesman in the state, holding license number 0488568. The license was issued %Tequesta Properties, Inc., 169 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida 33458 ("Tequesta"). On June 29, 1989, Respondent negotiated a contract for the sale and purchase of a single family residence located at 65 Willow Road, Tequesta, Florida (the "contract"). The residence was listed for sale with Tequesta. The sellers were Frank and Hilda Sceusa, and the buyers were Dale and Cathy Favre. The buyers first saw the listed property at an open house. Respondent was present at the open house because the listing agent was busy with another transaction. The contract provided: Inspection, Repair And Maintenance: Seller warrants that as of 10 days prior to closing, the ceiling, roof . . . and exterior and interior walls do not have any VISIBLE EVIDENCE of leaks or water damage and that the septic tank, pool, all major appliances, heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing systems, and machinery, are in WORKING CONDITION. Buyer may, at Buyer's expense, have inspections made of those items by an appropriately Florida licensed person dealing in the construction, repair, or maintenance of those items and shall report in writing to Seller such items that do not meet the above standards as to defects together with the cost of repairing them prior to Buyer's occupancy or not less than 10 days prior to closing whichever occurs first. Unless Buyers report such defects within that time, Buyer shall be deemed to have waived Seller's responsibilities as to defects not reported. . . . Buyer shall be permitted access for inspection of property to determine compliance with this Standard. Respondent failed to give the buyers a reasonable opportunity to inspect the house or to have it inspected by a professional inspector. Buyers requested a pre-closing inspection approximately three or four times. Each time the buyers made their request through Respondent. The buyers asked Respondent to arrange for their access into the property for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Respondent ultimately accompanied the buyers through the premises the night before the closing. Respondent misrepresented the condition of plumbing in the house. During the walk-through the night before the closing, the buyers asked Respondent about a rag covering the goose neck under the kitchen sink. Respondent advised the buyers that the rag was left there after cleaning and that nothing was wrong with the plumbing. Respondent misrepresented the provisions of a warranty that was transferred to the buyers with the sale of the house. The house was sold to the buyers with a home owners warranty ("HOW") purchased by the listing broker. Respondent told the buyers they did not have to worry about the appliances in the house, including the air conditioning, because the entire property was covered by the warranty. Respondent specifically represented that the air conditioning system was in good working order. Respondent never read the HOW contract and did not explain to the buyers exclusions for preexisting conditions, prorations for other conditions, and the requirement that the buyers pay a $100 deductible for each covered defect. Respondent failed to familiarize himself with the house and failed to inquire of the sellers as to any problems that existed in the house. The kitchen sink backed up within a month after the date of closing because it was clogged with sand. The pipe was rusted completely through and there was a three inch gash in the pipe. The rag that had covered the pipe during the walk through concealed the defects in the pipe that otherwise would have been readily visible. The air conditioning system failed after closing. The repairs to the air conditioning system were not covered by the HOW contract. Representatives of HOW determined that the problems with the air conditioning system were preexisting and not covered under the terms of the contract. The air conditioning unit was replaced by the buyers who were reimbursed by the listing broker. The buyers experienced problems with a number of the components in the house. In addition to the previously mentioned air conditioning and plumbing problems, there were electrical problems and all of the appliances had to be replaced. Respondent misrepresented the amount of known repairs. The buyers knew prior to closing that the pool needed to be re-marcited. Respondent represented that the cost of such a repair would be approximately $1,000. The actual cost was approximately $3,000. Some of the problems experienced by the buyers were patent defects and some were latent defects. All of the problems, however, could have been discovered and corrected prior to closing if an inspection had been conducted by a Florida licensed person experienced in the construction, repair, and maintenance of such matters. Respondent failed to carry out his responsibilities as a real estate professional. It is customary practice in the community for the selling agent to arrange for pre-closing inspections done by professional licensed inspectors. The listing agent for the residence asked Respondent the day before the closing if Respondent had scheduled the pre-closing inspection. Respondent admitted that he had forgotten to schedule the inspection. When Respondent scheduled a walk through for the buyers the night before closing, there was insufficient time for the buyers to schedule an inspection by a professional inspector. The buyers relied upon the representations of Respondent with respect to the HOW contract and the condition of the house.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misrepresentation and culpable negligence in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, suspending Respondent's license for 90 days, imposing an administrative fine of $600, and placing Respondent on probation for one year. The Final Order should further provide that during the period of probation Respondent should complete 60 hours of post-licensure education. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of any or all of six alleged violations of the law governing lodging establishments and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a lodging establishment known as Salazar's at 412 South 2nd Street in Immokalee. Respondent holds license control number 21-01901H. Petitioner's inspector inspected the lodging establishment on April 10 and 30, 1997. On April 10, the inspector completed a report citing violations. The alleged violations were the presence of expired fire extinguishers, a missing floor drain in the men's restroom, a locked women's restroom, leaking shower faucets in the showers in the men's restroom, no hot water in the showers in the men's restroom, a broken toilet in the men's restroom, no backflow device for the hose threaded to the faucet in the men's room, a chirping smoke detector suggestive of dead batteries, no cold water in one of the stalls in the men's restroom, a torn screen in the men's restroom, a strong smell of urine in the men's restroom, no hot water in the wash basin outside the women's restroom, a dumpster on dirt, and peeling paint in the shower stalls in the men's restroom. The inspector characterized the report as a warning. She mailed the report to Mr. Christman, who is Respondent's manager, and she gave Respondent five days from receipt of the report to correct the violations. However, several items bore asterisks, and, according to the form, Respondent had to correct these violations immediately. These violations were for the fire extinguishers, smoke alarm, lack of hot and cold water, and odor of urine. On April 30, 1997, the inspector returned and reinspected the lodging. She found nine violations. The alleged violations were expired fire extinguishers, a missing floor drain in the men's restroom, a broken toilet in the men's restroom, no backflow device between the faucet and hose, no cold water in one stall of the men's restroom, a torn screen in the men's restroom, a locked women's restroom, a dumpster on the dirt, and peeling paint in the shower stalls in the men's restroom. The only urgent violations remaining from the last inspection were for the fire extinguishers and lack of cold water. On May 29, 1997, the inspector returned and performed a second reinspection. She found the same violations as found previously, except for those concerning the dumpster and peeling paint. The following day, Petitioner issued Respondent the Notice to Show Cause that commenced this case. Respondent failed to repair or replace the torn screen in the men's restroom within the allotted time after the first inspection. It is no defense that the screen is immediately redamaged. Respondent made the women's restroom reasonably available to guests of residents by giving the key to a resident who made it available to women as needed. Respondent failed to repair the cold water in the men's restroom within the allotted time after the first inspection. Respondent failed to replace the missing floor drain or repair the toilet within the allotted time after the first inspection. Respondent failed to install a backflow device between the hose and the faucet within the allotted time after the first inspection. However, Respondent did not understand what Petitioner was requiring, and Petitioner's inspection reports did not clarify this requirement. Respondent was not available during the correction period, and he later had some trouble trying to obtain help from Petitioner in explaining what he needed to do. Although a backflow device serves the important purpose of preventing contaminated water from backflowing up the hose and into the public water supply, the circumstances of this case do not permit a finding of a violation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order imposing a fine of $1300 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott R. Fransen Chief Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Robert J. Christman, Manager Salazar's 4799 State Road 29 South Punta Gorda, Florida 33935 Dorothy W. Joyce, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurant Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
