The Issue Whether Sections 301 and 302 of the DABT's policy manual and form DBR 700L are unpromulgated rules which cannot be used as a basis for the DABT's decision to refuse three applications for alcoholic beverage licenses submitted by the Petitioners. Whether the agency's requirement that an applicant have county zoning approval before a state alcoholic beverage license will be granted is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Whether form DBR 700L is an invalid rule because of DBR's failure to file forms with the Secretary of State.
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 Final Order.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s request to renew a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62- 08383 on or about July 8, 2011, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561- 568, Florida Statutes, including recordation of liens against alcoholic beverage licenses and provision of notice to lienholders pursuant to section 561.65. Petitioner is the holder of a recorded lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62-08383, a 4COP spirituous alcoholic beverage license, commonly referred to as a quota license, which was issued pursuant to sections 561.20(1) and 565.02(1)(a)-(f) for use in Pinellas County. Liens and Security Interests in Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Section 561.65 governs mortgages, liens, and security interests against spirituous alcoholic beverage licenses. DABT has a lien section within its Bureau of Licensing that is responsible for the oversight of lien recordings and lien searches. To perfect a lien or security interest in a spirituous alcoholic beverage license that may be enforceable against the license, the entity holding the security interest or lien must record it with DABT within 90 days of the date of creation of the lien or security interest, using forms authorized by DABT. The forms adopted by DABT require the names of the parties and the terms of the obligation being recorded. § 561.65(4), Fla. Stat. Form DBPR ABT-6022, Application for Mortgagee’s Interest in Spirituous Alcoholic Beverage License, is used to record a new lien, a lien assignment or assumption, or a lien renewal or extension. The form is adopted by rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-5.0012. Upon receipt of a request to record a lien or the renewal of an existing lien, DABT will review the provided documentation and, if the documentation is in order on approved forms and accompanied by the security agreement and statutorily- required payment, will record the lien or lien renewal. If there is a deficiency noted during review of the lien documentation submitted, DABT will issue a 14-day deficiency notice to the requesting entity to provide any missing information. If timely corrected, DABT will record the lien or lien renewal. Section 561.65(4) provides that any lien or security interest filed with DABT on or after July 1, 1995, expires five years after recordation by DABT unless renewed by the lienholder within six months prior to its expiration date. Statutory Notice Requirements to Lienholders Recording a lien not only makes it enforceable, but provides assurance to the lienholder that it will receive notice of pending actions by DABT against the license that may compromise the lien’s vitality. Section 561.65 also sets forth requirements for DABT to provide notice to lienholders of both pending actions against encumbered licenses and any suspension or revocation of a license subject to a lien. Specifically, section 561.65(3) provides that “such lienholder shall be notified in writing of the filing of an order to show cause as to why the license should not be suspended or revoked; and also the lienholder shall be furnished a copy of any order of suspension or revocation.” (Emphasis added). In other words, two separate notices are required: one when the agency institutes proceedings against the licensee and a second if the agency action against the licensee results in a suspension or revocation of the license. Respondent does not assert and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that Petitioner had knowledge of or participated in the cause for revocation of the license at issue in this proceeding, or that Petitioner would not otherwise be entitled to notice of the revocation proceeding. The holder of a recorded lien is entitled to notice because the lienholder has the right to enforce the lien against the licensee within 180 days after the entry of any order of revocation or suspension of the license. Section 561.65(3) specifies that “the 180 days within which to file for enforcement of the lien by the lienholder shall commence running from the date of the mailing of the copy of the order of revocation or suspension.” Thus, the 180-day period runs from when notice is sent to the lienholder, not from the entry of the final order of suspension or revocation. Once notice is provided to the lienholder, any enforcement of the lien is through foreclosure proceedings in circuit court. The process for foreclosure proceedings is outlined in section 561.65(5). Most importantly, both section 561.19(2) and section 561.65(1) provide that no revoked quota beverage license encumbered by a lien or security interest perfected in accordance with section 561.65 shall be issued until the 180-day period (from mailing of the suspension or revocation order) has elapsed or until such enforcement proceeding is final. Re-issuance Through Double Random Drawings Quota licenses may become available three ways: 1) when a dry county goes wet (i.e., a county that previously prohibited the sale of alcohol decides to allow it), three initial quota licenses are issued for the county; 2) when there are population increases in a county, an additional quota license is issued for every population increase of 7,500; and 3) when a quota license in a county has been revoked. When any of those instances occur, pursuant to the directive in section 561.19(2), quota licenses are issued through the use of a double random public drawing. While a revoked quota license may be reissued in a double random quota drawing, if a revoked quota license is encumbered by a perfected and recorded lien or security interest, as discussed previously, it may not be reissued until the 180-day period has elapsed or until enforcement/foreclosure proceedings are final. Damon Larry is currently the assistant bureau chief of licensing, and oversees the annual quota drawing. Each year, he runs a report of all revoked quota licenses and, if the revocation is final, determines whether the 180-day period has elapsed. Before a revoked quota license is placed in the double random drawing, there is communication between staff in different sections within the Department to determine if a license is eligible for inclusion in the quota drawing. The communications involve the quota drawing section, the licensing section, the administrative case unit, the Office of the General Counsel, and the lien section. During this process, DABT staff will determine whether there is a lien attached to the license and, if so, whether there was notice to the lienholder, and whether the 180 days has elapsed or foreclosure proceedings no longer remain pending. If all of these conditions have been met, the revoked license is placed in the quota drawing for reissuance under a new license number. The revoked license number is then deleted from the Department’s database. Petitioner’s Lien Against Alcoholic Beverage License No. 62-08383 Turning to the facts of this case, Daniel A. King, as debtor, executed and delivered a Demand Promissory Note in favor of Rebco on or about April 18, 1997, in the principal amount of $61,000, and simultaneously executed a security agreement in favor of Rebco, as the secured party, pledging license number 62-08383 (the License) as collateral for repayment of the sums due and owing under the Promissory Note. Rebco submitted the promissory note and security agreement to DABT for initial recordation as a lien against the License on or about May 1, 1997, within 90 days of the date of the creation of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien against the License effective May 8, 1997. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on May 8, 2002. Rebco submitted a request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about November 7, 2001, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement, and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective November 7, 2001. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on November 7, 2006. Rebco submitted a second request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about July 26, 2006, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective August 1, 2006. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on August 1, 2011. The License Revocation Proceedings On or about November 16, 2006, at a time when the lien was recorded in the records of DABT, DABT filed administrative charges against Daniel J. King, holder of the License, in Case number 2006-049240, alleging that the licensee failed to operate the License in accordance with section 561.29(1)(f). DABT was unable to achieve personal service on Mr. King, so it published notice of the administrative action in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. The published notice did not identify Petitioner, and no evidence was presented to indicate that DABT sent a copy of the notice to Rebco. Rebco clearly had a recorded lien against the License when the disciplinary action was filed against the License. DABT did not notify Petitioner of the pending action. On or about June 22, 2007, after receiving no written defense in the disciplinary proceeding, DABT issued a Final Order revoking the License effective July 31, 2007. The Final Order of Revocation was not served on Rebco, the owner of the security interest in the License. Petitioner had a recorded lien against the License on file with DABT both when proceedings were instituted against the License and on the date of the entry of the Final Order of Revocation. Stephanie Coxwell works in the administrative case unit of DABT and has done so for at least the last 14 years. The administrative case unit is responsible for determining whether an alcoholic beverage license that is pending revocation or suspension is encumbered by a lien and for notifying any lienholder of the revocation or suspension of an encumbered license. DABT’s practice was to mail any lienholder notice of the license suspension or revocation, along with a copy of the final order, soon after entry of the final order. It is this mailing of the notice and final order that commences the 180 days referenced in section 561.65. For at least the last 14 years, DABT has used a form “notice to lienholder” to notify lienholders of the revocation or suspension of an alcoholic beverage license, accompanied by a copy of the final order revoking or suspending the license. The notification form is a public record maintained by DABT. It is this notification, and not the publication of the pending action, that provides notice to the lienholder. Internal correspondence from Ms. Coxwell within the licensure file for the License indicates that in December 2006, she requested a lien search with respect to the License. Ms. Coxwell was advised by return e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the license. On or about March 21, 2007, Ms. Coxwell requested research for any bankruptcy proceedings affecting the License. She was again informed by intra-agency e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the License. Ms. Coxwell replied by e-mail that she was aware that there was a lien, but that they would notify the lienholder of the administrative action “in the usual way.” However, Ms. Coxwell’s March 27 e-mail was sent three months before the final order revoking the license, not simultaneous to the Order. There is no record that notification was sent to Rebco, either at the time of the administrative action, or after issuance of the final order. Beverly Peebles works in Rebco’s corporate office located at 701 Tennessee River Drive, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35661, and has done so since 1990. She is responsible for receiving, retaining, and disbursing any mail received by Rebco. Ms. Peebles testified regarding the process used to copy, scan into the company’s electronic database, and distribute any mail received by Rebco. Rebco did not receive any notice concerning the administrative action or the revocation of the License until Rebco received the letter denying the recordation of its lien renewal against the license in 2011. Rebco’s address was at all times on file with the DABT since the inception of the lien against the license in 1997. It is found that the DABT did not notify Rebco that there was an administrative action filed against the License, and did not notify Rebco of the Final Order of Revocation against the License. The licensure file contains all other expected documents from the first recordation of the lien in 1997 to the present. It does not include a copy of notice to Rebco of either the pending action or the Final Order of revocation. Moreover, both a letter dated August 19, 2011, to counsel for Rebco, as well as an e-mail dated March 21, 2007, from Ms. Coxwell, contain handwritten notes regarding the failure to send proper notification. The notes, which are clearly hearsay, are part of public records maintained in the normal course of business, and corroborate Ms. Peebles’ testimony that no notification was received. They also corroborate evidence of the absence of any record of notification to Rebco in DABT’s records of regularly-conducted activity. The August 19, 2011, letter contains a handwritten note at the top stating, “$61K lien no lien ltr sent,” and the e-mail dated March 21, 2007, referenced in paragraph 32, contains the following note: “are we the only group/people who check for current liens recorded before deleting the license? It was deleted on 5/4/2011. Lien was still recorded at that time.”2/ Respondent has presented no credible evidence to indicate that the notice was somehow sent despite the lack of any documentation to that effect contained in the DABT’s records. While the handwritten notes standing alone do not establish that no notice was sent, they do indicate that a question was raised internally regarding whether adequate notice was provided. Despite the failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the License was placed in the 2010 double random drawing held on March 10, 2011, at a time when a valid lien against the License was duly recorded. Only one license for Pinellas County was included in the drawing for that year, and no licenses for Pinellas County have been issued in a double random quota drawing since then. Shortly after the random drawing, the license number assigned to the License was removed from the Department’s system and a new number assigned to the license issued as a result of the drawing. While there is no direct testimony on the issue, it can be inferred that the purchaser of the new license received the license with no notice that there was any outstanding lien on the right to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages in Pinellas County under the new license. While it is DABT’s practice to delete a revoked license number from its database, no evidence or statutory reference was presented to support the premise that there is a legal impediment to renewing an existing lien for a revoked license when no notice of the revocation was provided. Given the Department’s failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the 180-day period identified in section 560.65 never began to run. On or about July 6, 2011, Rebco timely submitted a third request to DABT to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division, which request was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement. DABT notified Rebco by letter dated July 19, 2011, that it was unable to record the lien renewal because it was not submitted for recordation within 90 days of its creation. The July 19, 2011, notice of denial was issued based upon a review of the lien renewal request submitted to DABT, because the executed ABT6022 lien-recording form submitted with Rebco’s third renewal request mistakenly identified the effective date of the lien renewal as April 18, 1997, the date of the creation of the original lien. On or about July 25, 2011, Rebco submitted an amended form ABT6022 correcting the effective date for renewal of the lien as August 1, 2011. On August 3, 2011, DABT notified Rebco that it was unable to record the renewal of the lien against the License because “the alcoholic beverage license being pledged as collateral was revoked by the Division on July 31, 2007,” following service of a Notice of Action through publication in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. No action taken by Rebco compromised the vitality of its recorded lien against the License. To the contrary, Rebco faithfully adhered to the recording requirements outlined by statute to record and renew its lien. DABT, however, failed to take the action required by section 561.65 to provide notice to Rebco of the pending action and subsequent revocation of the License. As a result, the 180- day period required by section 561.65 did not run before the License was placed in the quota drawing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order approving the renewal of Rebco’s lien in the License at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 17th day of July, 2015.
The Issue This case arises out of a Notice to Show Cause dated January 13, 1982, served by the Petitioner upon the Respondent requiring that the Respondent show cause as to why his Beverage License No. 26-02065 should not be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for having committed violations of the laws of Florida, and thus, a violation of Florida Statutes 561.29(1)(b). On January 28, 1982, the Respondent, by and through his attorney, Lacy Mahon, Jr., requested, in writing, a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. On March 30, 1983, a Notice of Hearing scheduling the formal hearing in this matter for April 28 and 29, 1983, was served upon Mr. Lacy Mahon, Esquire, attorney for the Respondent. Prior to the formal hearing, Mr. Mahon contacted Mr. Watson, counsel for the Petitioner, and informed him that his client, Mr. Billy Freeman, had requested that he not appear at the hearing on behalf of Mr. Freeman and that Mr. Freeman also would not appear. The undersigned Hearing Officer also received an ex parte communication from the Respondent, Mr. Billy Freeman, inquiring as to the purpose of the formal hearing, and I explained to him that a Notice to Show Cause had been filed against his beverage license and that if he had any further questions, he should contact either his attorney or Mr. James Watson of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The Respondent nor his attorney appeared at the formal hearing in this matter. The petitioner presented as its evidence three exhibits. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is an indictment charging the Respondent with burglary and arson dated June 4, 1982. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is a certified copy of a judgment convicting the Respondent of arson in violation of Florida Statute 806.01(2). And Petitioner's Exhibit 3 was a late filed exhibit reflecting the license status and license number of the Respondent's beverage license. The Respondent did not appear, and, therefore, did not present any evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Billy Freeman d/b/a The Mug, holds Beverage License No. 26-02065, Series 2-COP. On August 10, 1982, the Respondent, Billy Freeman, was convicted of arson, a second degree felony, in violation of Florida Statute 806.01(2). The Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 18 months. The conviction occurred in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, Case No. 81-11038CF.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Beverage License No. 26-02065, 2-COP be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lacy Mahon, Esquire 350 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Did the licensee repeatedly sell alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21?
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jayprakash Patel, d/b/a United Discount Beverage, held alcoholic beverage license number 11-00952, Series 2-APS, for a premises known as United Discount Beverage, each side of U.S. Highway 301, Hawthorne, Florida. Joseph Donnelly, a person under the age of 21, purchased alcoholic beverages on April 27, 1990, to wit: three six packs of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine, without identification at United Discount Beverage from Kirtie B. Patel, an employee of the business. Joseph P. Donnelly had purchased alcoholic beverages without identification on previous occasions at United Discount Beverage from Kirtie B. Patel. Madonna Bristow observed Joseph B. Donnelly purchase alcoholic beverages from United Discount Beverages on April 27, 1990 and on several other occasions previous to that date. Mr. Glen Molander observed Joseph P. Donnelly and Madonna Bristow carrying packages from United Discount Beverage on April 27, 1990. A vehicle driven by Joseph P. Donnelly was involved in an automobile accident on April 27, 1990, and was towed to a secured impoundment on that date. His mother, Kathlene L. Donnelly, recovered six cans of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine from the car. Mrs. Donnelly took the beer and wine to her residence where she concealed it. On May 2, 1990, Inv. Jernigan the six cans of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine obtained from the Donnelly's residence. Inv. Jernigan marked these items as evidence and stored in the vault at the Gainesville Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco District Office. Investigator Jernigan identified at hearing the six cans of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine he had recovered from the Donnelly's residence. Joseph P. Donnelly identified this evidence at hearing as a portion of the alcoholic beverages which he had purchased at United Discount Beverage from Kirtie B. Patel on April 27, 1990. Joseph Donnelly and Madonna Bristow observed many other individuals who they knew to be under twenty-one years old purchase alcoholic beverages from United Discount Beverage without identification. Kirtie B. Patel plead guilty to a charge of selling alcoholic beverages to a person under age 21 in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Petitioner's exhibit number 1, to wit: underage operative M. Goldtrap on December 14, 1989. Kirtie B. Patel plead nolo contendere to a charge of selling alcoholic beverages to a person under age 21 in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Petitioner's exhibit number 2, to wit: Joseph P. Donnelly on April 27, 1990. Licensee, Jayprakash Patel, has previously admitted in an administrative proceeding to have been in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a) within Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, to wit: three sales of alcoholic beverages by his employees to persons under the age of 21 during the period May 11, 1989 through December 14, 1989. Jayprakash Patel has become a Responsible Vendor since April 27, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the alcoholic beverage license held by Respondent, Jayprakash Patel, d/b/a United Discount Beverage, license number 11-00952, Series 2-APS, be suspended for six (6) months and a $1,000.00 civil penalty be imposed. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric S. Haug Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Don Reid Post Office Box 133 Gainesville, FL 32602 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
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.
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for allegedly serving alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 19 contrary to Section 562.11(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license No. 64-00061, Series 6-COP. Under this license, it operates a liquor store and lounge, where it serves alcoholic beverages, at ABC Liquors #65 ("lounge #65" or "licensed premises"), 2527 Reid Street, Palatka, Florida. (Testimony of Ewing, Holloway, Ottens.) I. At approximately 7:00 p.m. on October 23, 1981, Clay Lamar Strickland, 16 years old, entered respondent's lounge in the company of several friends--one was 20, the others were 19 years old. During the two hours which followed, he ordered and was served by two barmaids, a beer and eight or nine mixed alcoholic drinks. Neither barmaid requested identification. (Testimony of Strickland.) At approximately 9:30 p.m., he left the lounge for twenty minutes, then returned and ordered additional mixed drinks. Again, the barmaids did not check his identification. (Testimony of Strickland.) When he left the lounge at the end of the evening, he was involved in a car accident and charged with driving while intoxicated and wanton reckless driving. After a test was administered, he was informed that the alcohol content of his blood was 0.12 percent. (Testimony of Strickland.) The two barmaids who served Mr. Strickland, Mary Tyler and Brenda Adams, did not intentionally serve alcohol to a minor. They believed he was 19 or older. At that time, he played football for Palatka High School; he was approximately 5'll" tall and weighed 170 pounds. Because of his size and mature-looking face, he could easily have been mistaken for an adult. (Testimony of Adams, Tyler, Strickland.) October 23, 1981, was not r. Strickland's first visit to the lounge. Once before, he had succeeded in purchasing one beer; on other occasions, his identification had been checked and service was refused. He was well aware that he was underage and could not legally purchase alcohol. (Testimony of Strickland.) II. Respondent operates 148 similar liquor stores and lounges throughout Florida. It has announced and repeatedly emphasized to its employees a policy prohibiting sales of alcohol to minors. Its regulations inform new employees of the law against sales of alcohol to persons under 19, and require that bartenders check I.D.s of anyone who "doesn't look 23" or older. Periodic bulletins which must be signed and returned by employees, and posted notes of supervisors' meetings have reiterated respondent's company-wide policy against the sale of alcohol to minors. Further, the manager and night manager of store #65 frequently reminded their employees of the policy against sales to minors and the requirement to check I.D.s when in doubt about a customer's age. Ms. Tyler and Ms. Adams, the barmaids who served Mr. Strickland, were aware of this policy. (Testimony of Holloway, Tyler, Adams; R-1, R-2, R.-3.) On the whole, respondent has been successful in preventing sales of alcohol to minors in its stores and lounges. In the last ten years, it has been cited only ten times for violations relating to the unlawful sale of alcohol to minors. But a disproportionate number of those violations occurred at the Palatka #65 lounge. On two previous occasions, in 1979 and 1981, respondent admitted to unlawful sales of alcohol to minors at the #65 lounge and paid civil penalties. (Testimony of Holloway; P-1, P-6.) Yet, after each of these violations, including the incident involving Mr. Strickland in October, 1981, respondent's remedial action was simply to reinstruct employees at #65 of its policy not to serve alcoholic beverages to minors and to prevent such incidents from occurring. This action was not substantially different from the routine reminders it periodically issued to its employees in the past. (Testimony of Holloway, Ottens, Lindholtz.) At lounge #65, signs were not posted calling attention to its policy that sales to minors were prohibited. Neither did it post an employee at the main entrance to check I.D.s and keep minors out of the premises. (Testimony of Holloway, Ottens, Lindholtz.) III. The foregoing findings support a factual inference that respondent was not reasonably diligent in taking steps to prevent further repetition of sales to minors at its #65 lounge. Having been placed on notice that such incidents were occurring in disproportionate number at #65 lounge, it had a duty to investigate, to determine why such a phenomenon had occurred, and to take further precautionary measures. Instead, it was satisfied to simply remind the employees of store #65 of longstanding company policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license for lounge #65 be suspended for thirty days from entry of the final order in this proceeding. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 1st day of October, 1982.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent failed to maintain separate records of purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141, and if so, what penalty, if any, is appropriate. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect of the date of this Recommended Order).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 69-02639, series 4COP SRX. An SRX license authorizes Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Jon's Bar & Grill, located at 2485 N. Highway 17-92, Lake Monroe, Florida ("the licensed premises"). Persons issued "SRX" licenses must meet certain statutory requirements to ensure that they are operating bona fide restaurants. Among other requirements, Respondent must maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food. Respondent's license application specifically informed Respondent that he must meet the specific requirements of this type of license. On March 17, 1997, Petitioner's Special Agent Richard Hurlburt met with Respondent for the purpose of conducting an SRX inspection to determine Respondent's compliance with SRX license requirements. An SRX inspection includes an audit of the licensee's records to determine the percentage of gross revenue derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Respondent was unable to produce the records he is statutorily required to maintain. Agent Hurlburt issued a notice to produce records relating to the operation of the restaurant. On August 12, 1997, Petitioner issued a notice of administrative complaint against Respondent for failure to maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales for non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20. Respondent has not produced the records he is statutorily required to maintain.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $1,000 civil penalty against Respondent and revoking alcoholic beverage license no. 69-02639, series 4COP SRX, without prejudice to obtain any other type license, but with prejudice to obtain another SRX special license for 5 years from date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon county, Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George Lewis, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon Gustafson, pro se 956 Lake Ashby Road New Smyrna, Florida 32069
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Cornelia T Brown, doing business as the Oasis Restaurant Bar and Lounge, is the holder of beverage license No. 45-356, Series 2-COP. This license allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, located on Douglas Road, Groveland, Florida. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is an agency of the State of Florida which has its responsibility the licensure and regulation of beverage license holders in the State of Florida. On June 12, 1980, pursuant to a search warrant, Lake County Sheriff and Groveland Police officials accompanied by Petitioner's Beverage Officer, conducted a search of the licensed premises. Respondent was present throughout the investigation. Among the items seized as suspected controlled substances were seven plastic baggies and eight small manila envelopes containing a total of 52.1 grams of cannabis. Currency in the amount of $2,273,67 was also seized. The cannabis and currency were contained in a purse belonging to Respondent. The purse was discovered in the kitchen of the licensed premises, an area not open to bar/restaurant patrons or other members of the public.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violations as alleged in Counts 1, 2 and 4. It is further RECOMMENDED that County 3, which duplicates County 2, and Count 5, be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's License No. 45-356 be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 30th day of September 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Cornelia T. Brown Route 1, Box 350-7 Groveland, Florida 32736 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented concerns the entitlement of the named Petitioners to he granted a new Series 2-COP beverage license from the Respondent, in the face of a disapproval letter entered by the Director of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco.
Findings Of Fact Bruce F. Eggett and Timothy R. Miller, the named Petitioners in this cause, have made application for the issuance of a new Series 2-COP beverage license. This application has been made with the Respondent, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and in response to this request the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco wrote the Petitioners on July 10, 1980, and in the course of that correspondence indicated his intent to deny the license application. The stated ground for denial was that "one of the applicants convicted of felonies within past fifteen years." The stated authority for the denial was Section 561.15, Florida Statutes. 1/ The Petitioners did not agree with the decision of the Director and orally requested an administrative hearing in this cause. This request was made with Captain Jack Wallace, Beverage Officer and District Supervisor for the Orlando, Florida, District. After receiving the oral request, this matter was made known to the legal staff of the Respondent and one of the staff attorneys, acting at the behest of the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, asked the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The hearing was conducted on September 8, 1980, and although the Petitioners had been duly noticed of the hearing, the Petitioners did not attend nor offer anything in behalf of their request for license. The Respondent presented copies of the license application request of both Bruce Francis Eggett and Timothy Robert Miller. The application form mentioned here is a personal questionnaire, individually, completed by the Petitioners. (Copies of those personal questionnaires pertaining to Eggett and Miller may be found as the Respondent's Exhibits No.1 and 2 admitted into evidence respectively.) Question 6 of the questionnaire asks the following: Have you ever been: Arrested for violation of any other law of this state, any other state or the United States? (excluding minor traffic) If answer to any of these questions is yes, list aliases and give full disclosure of charges, dates, arresting agencies and places of arrest." To this question, the Petitioner Eggett marked "yes" and stated (1) 1971 breaking and entering and (2) 1977, delivery of Methaquaalude. In response to the same question, Petitioner Miller answered that he had been arrested in 1968 for public intoxication and blocking traffic in Canton, Ohio. No further proof was offered by the Respondent on the question of these arrests and the disposition made of the matters.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Director of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic beverage and Tobacco, deny the Petitioners, Bruce F. Eggett's and Timothy P. Miller's request to be granted a new Series 2-COP beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 24th day of September, 1980. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1980.
