Findings Of Fact Respondent Lois Davis, who does business under the name of The Cotton Club, holds License No. 60-00245, a Series 2-COP license issued by petitioner authorizing her to sell beer and wine for consumption on the licensed premises, which are located at 233 Southwest Fifth Street, Belle Glade, Florida. At one time Ms. Davis held License No. 60-576 which authorized sale of hard liquor as well as wine and beer for consumption on the premises of The Cotton Club. On January 25, 1980, as a result of foreclosure proceedings against respondent's landlords, an order was entered directing that "all right, title and interest to Alcoholic Beverage License 60-576" be conveyed to Mr. and Mrs. Robert Daniel. Robert Daniel, et ux. v. Gilbert Adams, et al. v. Lois Davis, No. 78-4667 CA (L) 01 G (Fla. 17th Cir.). At the time respondent applied for her current license, shortly before the previous license expired, she asked that the latter be extended so that she could sell off her stock of hard or spirituous liquors. Petitioner's Lieutenant Little explained that the matter was before a court but agreed to approach the judge. In September of 1980, L. Dell Grieve, a six-year veteran of the Belle Glade Police Department, visited The Cotton Club, saw liquor in a storeroom, and told the bartender that it should be removed. The bartender protested that it was all right to store the liquor while something was being worked out about the license, or words to that effect. Beverage Officers Ramey and Rabie accompanied Officer Grieve on November 15, 1980, on a visit to The Cotton Club, where they found Andre Lavince Moore, respondent's son, tending bar. In the storeroom, they found numerous bottles of spirituous liquors which they confiscated. Petitioner's Exhibit No. Wine and beer were stored in a separate place in the same storeroom. At no time after she lost License No. 60-576 did respondent or her agents or employees sell any alcoholic beverages other than wine or beer at The Cotton Club, or have any intention of doing so without petitioner's permission.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 14th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Lt. J. E. Little 725 South Bronough Street Post Office Drawer 2750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 West Palm Beach, FL 33402 Lois Davis The Cotton Club 233 Southwest Fifth Street Belle Glade, Florida
Findings Of Fact Prior to October 1977 the Nite Gallery, Inc., a nightclub featuring topless dancers, held license 2-COP No.58-1175 and the stock was owned by Sherrill Ann Perkins and Dorothy Jean Copeland. The owners were anxious to sell and placed an advertisement which was seen by Robert Waldorf, who visited the bar to discuss price. Waldorf was accompanied by Richard Bragg and Mary Jo Kelly. Following discussion, Waldorf, who did all the talking for the purchasers, agreed to purchase the business for $12,000 and gave each of the owners a check for $1,000, receipt of which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. On 13 October 1977 the operation of the bar was taken over by Waldorf, although the two owners were still holders of the license. The $1,000 checks given as down payment were on the account of Sharon's Novelties, at Winter Park National Bank, an account on which Waldorf was the only one authorized to sign checks. During the next few weeks, Waldorf wrote numerous checks on this same account to pay for various equipment, supplies and labor for the Nite Gallery. In Application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License stamped 8 November 1977 (Exhibit 6), Dorothy Copeland signed the Affidavit of Seller stating the license was transferred to Mary Jo Kelly who signed the affidavit of buyer that "no other person except as indicated herein, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license for which these statements are made." Nowhere in the application was reference made to Waldorf. In 1973 Waldorf was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee of offenses involving the transportation in interstate commerce of forged securities and was sentenced to three years confinement with a three years probation period running concurrently with the confinement. (Exhibits 1 and 2). As a result of these felony convictions, Waldorf is ineligible to hold an alcoholic beverage license in Florida. At the time of these transactions, Waldorf and Mary Jo Kelly had been living together for approximately two years. She worked as a dancer and B-girl in various nightclubs, usually in a club where Waldorf also worked. Kelly had no experience or knowledge respecting the operation of a bar or any other business, and all decisions, including the decision to buy the bar and all management decisions thereafter, were made by Waldorf. The sellers, Copel and and Perkins, were informed that Waldorf was the one purchasing the bar and that the license was being put in Kelly's name because Waldorf was ineligible to hold the license. This information came from Waldorf. On November 2, 1977 Waldorf signed a promissory note (Exhibit 5) promising to pay Copeland $300 per month until the balance of the $5,000 owed her for the purchase of the Nite Gallery was paid. Immediately prior to and following the transfer of the license to Respondent, Kelly danced at the Nite Gallery occasionally but otherwise had little, if anything, to do with the business. Waldorf did the hiring and firing, kept the accounts, signed checks for the bills owed, zeroed out the cash register, provided the bartender with funds each day to open the bar, and held himself out and performed all the functions of an owner in fact. Waldorf made arrangements for radio advertising for the Nite Gallery and paid for this service. (Exhibit 10). In his application for telephone service ordered 4-2-78 for his residence, Waldorf stated his occupation for the past two years was owner of the Nite Gallery. (Exhibit 12). After the license was transferred to Mary Jo Kelly, Waldorf opened another bank account on which both he and Kelly were authorized to sign checks. Kelly often signed blank checks which Waldorf completed to pay various expenses of the Nite Gallery. Kelly made no deposits in this account, maintained no record of expenditures from this account, and she had no information regarding the disposition of, or the amount of, money passing through the cash register at the Nite Gallery. Respondent testified that she provided all of the money used to purchase the Nite Gallery and to pay the initial bills from her earnings as a dancer. She also testified that this same source of funds provided the capital needed to buy a house, boat and two or three cars including a Continental Mark IV driven by Waldorf. Respondent further testified that she made $400 per week from tips as a dancer at the. Fiesta Club in Orlando immediately before purchasing the Nite Gallery and that she made $400-$500 per week in tips at the Nite Gallery. Her testimony was that the dancers worked on tips only. Exhibit 8, which is a cash and expense report for the Nite Gallery for December 1, 1977, shows that four dancers shared $17 for their work that evening. Although this was shown on Exhibit 8 as Commissions, other testimony indicated it was accumulated at $1 for each drink the customers bought for four dancers in one evening. These figures strongly militate against Respondent receiving $400-$500 per week in tips at this establishment. Respondent's testimony that her earnings provided the funds for a house, boat, and three cars in addition to the costs involved in opening the Nite Gallery is simply not credible. The testimony by Orange County Sheriff's deputies that one of them was struck by an employee of the Nite Gallery while on the premises was unrebutted All of the witnesses, including Respondent, testified that Respondent performed no role in the day-to-day management of the Nite Gallery and that Respondent did not have the experience or ability to run a business. At the time Respondent surrendered her license to Petitioner in March, 1979 she voluntarily submitted to questioning and the tape of that interrogation and the transcript of the tape were admitted into evidence as Exhibits 21 and Therein Respondent gave her age as 20 years old and stated that Waldorf had directed her absence from the first hearing. At Waldorf's direction she went to Pennsylvania and entered the hospital for a short period so she could truthfully advise her attorney that she was in the hospital in Pennsylvania during the March hearing. During this interrogation Kelly stated that she received no income from the Nite Gallery, that Waldorf ran the business, and that she had no knowledge of how the business was doing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent's license number 42-55 be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. C.A. Nuzum Director Division of Beverage 210 Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Charles F. Tunnicliff Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Room 210, Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. White Route 2, Box 13B Marianna, Florida 32446
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Jamestown In The Grove Apartments Club, Inc., d/b/a Suzanne's In The Grove, (hereinafter referred to as "Suzanne's") holds alcoholic beverage license number 23-1193, license series 11-C. Respondent has held the subject license since December of 1971. For a number of years the Respondent operated at its present location in much smaller premises. Several years ago the buildings where Respondent was located were demolished and a highrise condominium building was erected on the site. Respondent obtained space in the new building and embarked upon a plan to create a larger and fancier facility then it had previously operated. The new improved facility began operations in May of 1983 under the present name of Suzanne's In The Grove. The new improved facility is, in the words of one of the witnesses, "... a high fashion, beautiful people-type disco nightclub in Coconut Grove." The property and furnishings for the new improved facility required an investment in excess of two million dollars. During the planning stages for the new improved facility which opened in May of 1983, Suzanne's retained the services of a consultant who was an expert in the planning and operation of limited membership clubs. The consultant worked with the management of Suzanne's in designing the layout of the premises and in instituting operational procedures designed to maximize the ability of management to control access into the premises. The concepts employed by the consultant were modeled on the procedures used at limited access private clubs on military bases. The premises were specifically designed to facilitate the limitation of access to members and their guests. To that end, the premises had a small doorway, had a desk for checking membership just inside the doorway, and had a narrow stairway that led from the reception desk to the main area of the club. Suzanne's also issued plastic membership cards embossed with the member's name in raised letters. The operations procedures included provisions for a doorman, at least one receptionist at the desk, and at least one employee at the top of the stairs. Often they had more than one employee at the desk and at the top of the stairs. Due to unexpected extremely large crowds of patrons when Suzanne's first opened, they also contracted for additional security personnel to assist their regular employees with access control. As part of the preparation for the opening of Suzanne's the management of the club formulated a set of written policies for employees. Included in these written policies were specific prohibitions against any conduct which would constitute a violation of the alcoholic beverage laws. Each employee was given a copy of these written policies and was required to read the policies and then sign a statement agreeing to comply with the policies and acknowledging that he or she would be fired for any violation of the policies. These policies included a specific prohibition against admitting anyone who was not a member or a bona fide guest of a member. Between the opening of Suzanne's and the dates of the violations charged in this case, Suzanne's had fired employees for admitting people who were not members. Prior to opening in May of 1983, Suzanne's also instituted a policy of requiring periodic polygraph examinations of all employees. The consultant helped them formulate the questions to be asked during the polygraph examinations. The polygraph examinations specifically covered questions as to whether the employee was aware of the members-only regulations, whether the employee had ever distributed a membership card without collecting a membership fee and turning the fee over to the club, and whether the employee had ever let anyone into the club who was not a member or a bona fide guest of a member. If the results of the polygraph examination indicated that an employee was being deceptive about whether he or she had admitted non-members to the club, the employee was terminated. The consultant also assisted the management of Suzanne's in the selection of key employees and participated in the interviews of those employees. From the date of opening through August 28, 1983, Suzanne's sold 3,025 memberships at $50.00 each. Since August 28, 1983, Suzanne's has taken in an additional $198,000.00 in membership fees. Because of the large amount of revenue generated by the sale of memberships, Suzanne's has always been very interested in strict enforcement of the members-only policy. It is in Suzanne's best economic interests to maintain strict enforcement because without such enforcement there would be no reason for anyone to buy a membership and Suzanne's would in all likelihood lose substantial membership revenues. Suzanne's entire marketing concept would have been ruined if people could get in easily without having a membership card. When Suzanne's first opened in May of 1983, all employees were required to attend a meeting at which an attorney specializing in alcoholic beverage law told them about the requirements of the liquor laws in general and about the special provisions of the liquor laws relating to 11-C licenses. All of the employees were specifically told that the sale of alcoholic beverages was restricted to members and their guests. The consultant employed by Suzanne's recommended an emphasis on access control at the door rather than a system of point of sale control because Suzanne's did not have an in-house credit or charge system, which is the best system to use for a point of sale control system. An in-house credit system was prohibitively expensive where membership dues were only $50.00 per person. A typical Dade County club with an in-house credit system has an annual membership fee of $460.00 in addition to an initial fee of $1,000.00 to join. Since the dates of the violations charged in this case Suzanne's has maintained its access control procedure at the door and has added a point of sale control system as well. The point of sale control includes imprinting the membership card on all sales slips. On August 28, 1983, two investigators of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to Suzanne's at about 2:20 a.m. They told the doorman ("Robert") that they were not members but that they wanted to go in and look around. The doorman let them in, but told them that if anyone asked they should say they came in with a member. Once inside the premises, each of the DABT investigators ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. None of the bartenders or barmaids asked if they were members. On September 7, 1983, the same two investigators returned to Suzanne's at approximately 11:40 p.m. They walked past the doorman and other employees and entered the premises. No one tried to determine if they were members. Both investigators ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. On September 10, 1983, two DABT investigators (one who had been on both prior occasions and one who had not been there before) went to Suzanne's. A line of approximately 300 people were waiting outside to enter Suzanne's. To avoid waiting in the line, the two investigators went near the front of the line and waited until the one who had been there before could get the attention of Robert, the doorman. When he got Robert's attention, he asked Robert if Robert could do them a favor about the line and gave Robert $5.00. Robert took the money and admitted the two investigators without asking whether they were members. One of the investigators was able to order and be served an alcoholic beverage. It was so crowded inside that the other investigator was not able to place an order for an alcoholic beverage. On September 21, 1983, the two DABT investigators who had visited Suzanne's on the first occasions described above returned to the premises. Again they were able to enter without being asked about their membership status and both ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. None of the DABT investigators who went to Suzanne's on the four occasions described above were members of the Suzanne's, nor were they bona fide guests of anyone who was a member. On each occasion when they were served alcoholic beverages, they paid the regular price for the beverages, approximately $3.50 each. On all four of the occasions described above when the DABT investigators entered Suzanne's and purchased alcoholic beverages, the club was very crowded. The extent of the crowds on those nights is reflected by the gross receipts for those four nights which were, respectively, $10,099.35, $5,125.60, $9,973.25, and $5,034.15. On all four of the occasions described above when DABT investigators entered Suzanne's, there were several employees of Suzanne's both in the area of the reception desk at the bottom of the stairs as well as at the top of the stairs attempting to control access to the premises and maintain control over the crowds. During 1983 Suzanne's was obtaining security services from Dade Federal Security. The security company would provide plainclothes guards to assist Suzanne's employees check membership, to help maintain order, and to help control the line outside when it was especially crowded. Sometime during 1983 the management at Suzanne's complained to Dade Federal Security that they suspected that some of the guards provided by Dade Federal Security had been taking money to admit non-members into the premises. Dade Federal Security confronted its employees with this complaint and one of the employees confessed to having taken money to admit non-members to Suzanne's. The employee was fired. The foregoing findings of fact contain the substance of the vast majority of the findings proposed by both parties. Proposed findings which are not incorporated in the foregoing findings are specifically rejected as irrelevant, as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, or as unsupported by persuasive competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order in this case dismissing all charges against the licensee. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sy Chadroff, Esquire 2700 Southwest 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked for violating a stipulation stated on the record in a prior license revocation proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2337, Series 2-APS and owns and operates Hammer's Package Store, the licensed premises, at 3231-A West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1981, DABT filed two administrative actions to revoke respondent's alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The charges were, apparently, disputed and a hearing officer requested, since the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Thereafter, on April 18, 1981, Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton, II, conducted a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the charges. At hearing, both parties were represented by counsel: DABT by James N. Watson, Jr., a staff attorney for the Department of Business Regulation; respondent by Ray Russell, whose address was 200 S. E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. At the outset, counsel for both parties advised Hearing Officer Benton that they had reached "an agreement" (P-1, p. 3), thus obviating the need for a hearing on the charges. Counsel then recited, on the record, the terms of their settlement agreement: respondent was given 90-days in which its corporate entity could be sold, with the period beginning to run from March 19, 1981--the next day--and ending on June 16, 1981; when the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period expired, whichever occurred first, respondent was to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation; respondent waived its right to an evidentiary hearing on the charges and to appeal any matters covered by the agreement; and, from the time the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period for sale expired, no corporate officers, directors, or shareholders of respondent would again engage in the alcoholic beverage business, make any application for a beverage license, apply for transfer of a beverage license, or hold an interest in any business involved in the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (DABT Ex. 1, p. 5-8). Without objection from respondent's counsel, DABT's counsel described the consent order (or settlement agreement) as "in the nature of a final administrative action and [respondent] acknowledges that its failure to abide by such would subject him to the provisions of Florida Statutes 120.69 (P-1, p. 6). Although this settlement agreement was effective and began to operate immediately (the 90-day period for sale commenced the next day) DABT's counsel contemplated that a written and signed consent order embracing the terms of the settlement agreement would be subsequently issued. Although such follow-up action was intended, it never occurred. DABT never issued a written order, consent or otherwise, embracing the terms of the settlement agreement. Hearing Officer Benton and, at least one party, thereafter relied on the settlement agreement. The hearing officer closed both Division of Administrative Hearings files, and DABT no longer prosecuted respondent under the pending charges. Since June 16, 1981, the expiration of the 90-day period provided in the agreement, respondent has continued to operate its licensed alcoholic beverage premises, has failed to sell its corporate entity, and has failed to surrender its alcoholic beverage license. Respondent has presented no evidence justifying or excusing its failure to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation on or before June 16, 1981. Neither does it seek to withdraw from or set aside the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 26th day of May, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the holder of Beverage License No. 26-150, Series 2-COP, allowing the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, located at 5212 Heckscher Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. This beverage license was previously held by Respondent's husband, Glenn F. Rodgers, and brother-in-law Don E. Rodgers. Following their felony convictions, the Rodgers brothers agreed by stipulation signed on February 19, 1979, to divest themselves of all interest in the licensed operation. This stipulation was incorporated in Petitioner's Order signed April 3, 1979, which directed transfer of the license to a qualified applicant. Mary J. Rodgers applied for the transfer of said beverage license and included an affidavit filed with Petitioner on February 14, 1979, averring that she was purchasing the business from her husband and brother-in-law and would be the only person with any interest, direct or indirect, in the business. In reliance on this statement and the stipulation, Petitioner transferred the beverage license to Respondent. During an undercover inspection at Brown's Creek Fish Camp on June 6, 1980, beverage officers observed Respondent's husband, Glenn F. Rodgers, working on the licensed premises. On a June 27, 1980, follow-up inspection, beverage officers observed him giving instructions to a waitress. In a casual conversation, Glenn Rodgers told Beverage Officer Cunningham that the business was his and that he had owned it for three years. During Glenn F. Rodgers' prison work-release parole in 1980, he worked full-time at Brown's Creek Fish Camp. He is now employed in a construction job, but continues to work in the licensed premises on a part-time basis. Following the June premises inspections, Petitioner investigated Respondent's business relationships end discovered that the lease agreement on the property housing the licensed premises remained in the names of Glenn F. end Don E. Rodgers. When the Rodgers brothers originally purchased the business they co-signed a Small Business Administration loan for $30,000 and a promissory note to the prior owners for $10,000. Their names also remain on these business loans. Respondent paid $3,000 for the business, and makes lease and lean payments. She has not, however, assumed the underlying obligations to the lenders. Records of the Lake Forest Atlantic Bank, where Respondent conducts her banking, revealed that an account was opened on May 4, 1977, under the names of Glenn F. end Don B. Rodgers, a general partnership. The name of Mary J. Rodgers was added to the signature card on January 18, 1979, and on the date of the hearing, all three names remained on the account records. By late-filed exhibit, Respondent demonstrated that the bank account has now been transferred to her. Respondent's business records include invoices from the Eli Witt Company, Post Office Box 6887, Jacksonville, Florida. An Eli Witt receipt dated July 18, 1980, for supplies delivered to Brown's Creek Fish Camp carries the signature of Glenn Rodgers, Respondent's husband. North Florida Premium Finance Company and the Robert S. Shute, Inc. Insurance Agency records reveal that Glenn F. Rodgers also signed for the financing of business insurance policies issued to Mary O. Rodgers d/b/a Brown's Creek Fish Camp for the policy period June, 1980 to June, 1981.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of failure to disclose the interest of Glenn F. Rodgers at the time of making application for a beverage license in violation of Section 861.17, Florida Statutes (1979. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of failure to comply with Petitioner's Administrative Order directing divestment by Glenn F. Rodgers of any interest in operation of the licensed premises. It is further RECOMMENDED that Beverage License No. 26-150, Series 2-COP, held by Mary J. Rodgers, be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, 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 27th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald G. Nichols, Esquire Post Office Box 40011 Jacksonville, Florida 32203
The Issue Whether the Petitioners are entitled to a transfer of the quota license they attempted to apply for in their initial application. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an alcoholic beverage license for a restaurant based upon their second application. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an alcoholic beverage license based upon their third application in spite of the county's refusal to approve the zoning of the proposed location until a pending declaratory judgment before the circuit court is resolved. Whether the Respondent is estopped to deny any of the applications because of the representations made by a field agent for the agency that to his knowledge, there were no problems at the proposed location.
Findings Of Fact The joint stipulation of facts entered into by the parties on December 21, 1988, are adopted as the findings of fact in this proceeding. A copy of the stipulation is attached and made part of this Recommended Order.
The Issue One issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioners are entitled to a transfer of License No. 16-1333 SRX (4-COP), an alcoholic beverage license which currently allows Jacob's Ladder, Inc., to serve liquor, wine and beer as Part of its restaurant business pursuant to Sections 561.32 and 561.321, Florida Statutes. Also at issue is whether or not the Petitioners are entitled to have a default judgment for removal of tenant," issued by the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, against Jacob's Ladder, Inc., recorded by Respondent as a lien pursuant to Chapter 561.65, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received including a stipulation by the parties, the following relevant facts are found. License No. 16-1333 SRX (4-COP) is issued to the premises at 1480 South Ocean Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida. Petitioners are owners in fee simple to this property. Petitioners leased this property to the past licensee, Jacob's Ladder, Inc. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1). Petitioners transferred the subject license to the lessee, Jacob's Ladder, Inc., for use while they operated a restaurant at the subject location (1480 South Ocean Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida). The transfer of the license was not a subject of the lease agreement and the record does not reflect that any consideration was exchanged for the license. Petitioner and Jacob's Ladder, Inc., subsequently executed a transfer application transferring the subject license back to Petitioners. The transfer application was then placed in escrow for the stated purpose of facilitating a license transfer in the event that the lessee defaulted on the lease agreement. (Petitioners' Exhibit Nos. 2 and 12.) Petitioners later learned that the property had been converted to a bar instead of a "family type restaurant." Thus, Petitioners concluded that the "conversion" resulted in a use of the premises in a function inconsistent with the lease and Florida's alcoholic beverage laws. Petitioners, therefore, sought and obtained a court order evicting Jacob's Ladder, Inc., from the premises (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 3). Respondent had notice that the Petitioners were lessors and owners of the property to which the subject license was issued both when Petitioners transferred the license to Jacob's Ladder, Inc., and when the Petitioners' attorneys informed Respondent of Petitioners' status as lessors and owners of the subject property. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4.) On January 22, 1979, Respondent, through its District Supervisor, filed charges and prepared an Administrative Complaint for Rule violations against Jacob's Ladder occurring in June of 1978. On February 1, 1979, Petitioners' attorneys met for an office conference with Respondent's Director and other staff personnel concerning the subject license. During this meeting, Respondent, in addition to being advised that Petitioners were the lessors of the subject premises, was also advised that Petitioners had taken possession and was seeking transfer of the license to Petitioners. During this meeting, Petitioners were advised by Respondent that Jacob's Ladder had continuously violated rules governing the special restaurant license which was issued; that Respondent intended to revoke the license and was presently proceeding to that end. On February 5, 1979, Petitioners signed a letter of agreement, stipulating to their future conduct and to the conduct of any future lessee. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 6.) On February 9, 1979, Petitioners executed an application for transfer of License No. 16-1333 SRX (4-COP)(Petitioners Exhibit No. 12). Also on February 9, 1979, Respondent executed and forwarded two documents captioned a Notice to Show Cause/Notice of Informal Conference and a Notice of Informal Conference both of which were received at two locations by J. Epsimos, President of Jacob's Ladder, Inc., on February 13 and 15, 1979. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 7.) Petitioners' letter of agreement, application for transfer and request for lien filing were mailed to Respondent on February 16, 1979. On March 8, 1979, Respondent returned Petitioners' transfer application, request for lien recording and letter of agreement. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 5.) In May, 1979, Respondent drafted a revocation order which was not executed, at least in Part, due to Petitioners application for and receipt of a temporary injunction enjoining Respondent from executing the revocation order. The file on the revocation proceedings was closed on May 29, 1979. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 3.) Following the March 8, 1979, letter wherein Respondent returned Petitioners' application and advised that a revocation proceeding was Pending, Respondent proceeded with this effort to suspend or revoke License No. 16-1333 SRX (4-COP). (DOAH Case No. 79-898.) The licensee, Jacob's Ladder, Inc., communicated to Respondent that it did not contest the charges in the Notice to Show Cause filed February 9, 1979, and therefore, did not want a hearing. The matter was, therefore, closed by this Division on May 29, 1979. (See Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3.) The licensed premises is one unit of a 57-unit condominium. The remaining 56 units are all residential. There are currently 41 Parking spaces which serve the condominium. According to the Director of Building and Zoning Enforcement for Broward County, the 41 Parking spaces are inadequate to serve the condominium units and are "clearly inadequate to serve 56 residential units in addition to the subject restaurant. Since the Premises were first licensed to serve alcoholic beverages in 1974, condominium residents have complained to the Director of the Respondent about problems they perceived were being created by the service of alcoholic beverages at the restaurant. (Testimony of Nuzum and Nerzig.) Respondent's Director denied the license transfer for two reasons. First, the premises could never serve as a legitimate restaurant but would continue to operate as a bar due to inadequate parking facilities and thus, would be unable to comply with pertinent rules, regulations and statutes governing special restaurant licenses. (Chapter 561, Florida Statutes.) This is so due to the inadequacy of the parking facilities. Secondly, the licensee bad been in violation of the beverage law in 1977 for the same type of violations charged in the subject complaint when the transfer application was submitted. 2/ The Department (Respondent) has an ongoing policy of refusing to record documents pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, when the license against which the document is to be recorded is in a revocation proceeding. (Testimony of C. L. Ivey, Regional Supervisor, Barry Schoenfield, Bureau Chief of Licensing, and C. Nuzum, Respondent's Director.) Also, Chief Schoenfield testified to Respondent's policy of only recording liens from lenders that are licensed by the State. This policy appears to be sanctioned by Chapter 561.65, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the action of Respondent in refusing to transfer License No. 16-1333 SRX (4-COP), and refusing to record Petitioners' judgement and lien filings be SUSTAINED. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1981.
Findings Of Fact On November 7, 1985, Marcos E. Cardenas, store manager of the Save-A- Step store, the licensed premises operated by the Respondents, DeCardenas and Bates, at 11005 N.E. 6th Avenue in Miami, Florida, under 2APS alcoholic beverage license 23-01862, sold, gave, served or permitted to be served a six- pack of 12 ounce cans of Budweiser beer to E.O., an individual 18 years of age. As a result of this sale, which was observed by Officer Beverly Jenkins, the Respondents were issued an official notice indicating that the offense had taken place and what it was. The purpose of this violation notice is to give the Respondent/licensee a warning of the OABT's policy regarding sale of alcoholic beverages to minors and the laws of the State of Florida prohibiting such activity. Ordinarily a disciplinary charge does not result from a first offense. Somewhat later, on February 5, 1986, however, the Respondents, this time through employee Enrique Mario Ribas, a clerk at the same store, also sold, gave, served or permitted to be served a 12 ounce container of Michelob beer to a 17 year old individual, K.A.W. On this second occasion, the Respondents were served with a final letter of warning indicating that this was the second offense and urging the licensees to strongly and personally address the problem. The licensee was also advised that if he or an employee violated the law for a third time, a Notice to Show Cause would be filed including past violations and as a result, the license would be subject to discipline. Notwithstanding this, on May 28, 1986, Eric William Guzman, a store clerk in Licensees' facility, sold, gave, served or permitted to be served a 12 ounce can of Old Milwaukee Light beer to a 19 year old underage individual, H.M. All three violations took place on the licensed premises and all three constituted a violation of the statutes. As a result of this third violation, and consistent with the terms of the final letter of warning, a Notice to Show Cause was filed alleging all three violations. It is the policy of DABT to impose, for a third offense of this nature, a $1,000.00 fine and a 20 day suspension of the license. There is, however, an opportunity for this penalty to be mitigated and counsel for Petitioner stipulated that a suspension is not always included as an action for violations of this nature. Mitigation activity, however, is that activity shown by the licensee to indicate what efforts he or she has made to prevent repeated actions of the nature involved here. It is not sufficient that the offending employee be discharged upon commission of the offense, though there was no evidence that was done here. Mitigation would be those actions take in advance of the offense, of a prophylactic nature, to insure as best as is possible that future offenses do not occur. Here, according to Sergeant Jenkins, who was present at the first violation, the licensees had displayed no signs or other indications on the licensed premises that individuals under the lawful drinking age would not be allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages. In short, Respondents offered no mitigation evidence to reduce the gravity of the offense. The personal representative's argument will be considered.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Respondents' 2 APS alcoholic Beverage license number 23- 01862 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 W. Douglas Moody Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Rene M. Valdez, pers. rep. 1830 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 =================================================================
