The Issue An administrative complaint dated March 18, 1992 alleges that Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b), F.S., by fraud, misrepresentation, false promises, concealment, dishonest dealing and breach of trust in a business transaction with George and Mable Bush. The issue in this proceeding is whether that violation occurred and if so, which discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dilsa M. Fish, was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0356415 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a salesperson, c/o Josef Heinrich Augustin, 25 NE 22nd Street, Miami, Florida 33127. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an officer and was the sole owner of I.E.P. Construction Company, Inc. (hereinafter, "IEP"). George Bush and his wife Mable Bush met Respondent in October 1989 at Respondent's office in Lehigh Acres, Florida. The Bushes were interested in buying property. Neither of the Bushes had previously bought real estate, and neither of them had completed high school. The Respondent had a map. Using the map, she gave the Bushes directions, and the Bushes, following those directions, found and looked at some lots in Lehigh Acres. The Bushes found a lot they liked on the corner of East 12th and Joel Boulevard. They went back to Respondent, and she marked their selection on her map. The Bushes gave her a check for $50 for a deposit on the lot. The idea was that IEP was going to build a house for the Bushes on the lot. The Bushes did not sign a contract. Respondent told them that when they returned home to New Jersey, they were to send an additional $2,950, and then she would send them a deed for the lot. The Bushes returned to their home in New Jersey and sent Respondent a check for $2,950 shortly thereafter. In March 1990 the Bushes returned to Lehigh Acres. At that time, the Bushes signed a contract with IEP. The contract was prepared by Respondent and was entitled "Contract of Purchase and Sale Property With Improvements To Be Constructed," and was dated March 14, 1990. The Bushes made selections concerning the decor of their house, and they gave Respondent a cashier's check for an additional $15,000. The lot specified in the contract was not the same lot as the lot which the Bushes had selected in October 1989. The lot specified in the contract was on East 8th and Hamilton. Respondent told the Bushes she changed lots in order to save money on fill dirt, and the Bushes agreed to the change. Later the Bushes were apprised that Respondent changed lots because the lot originally chosen by the Bushes was commercial property. During the Bushes' March 1990 visit to Lehigh Acres, the Bushes applied for financing at BancFlorida, a local bank selected by the Respondent. The Bushes' application was approved August 30, 1990. Paragraph 3 of the Bushes' contract with IEP, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, provided as follows: 3. TIME: Construction is to be completed within 120 days starting from the date of financial approval unless delayed by strike, act of God, material or labor shortages, or other causes beyond control of contractor. Around August 1990, the Respondent called the Bushes and told them that she was changing the lot again, this time to one on Lake and 6th Street, because it would be closer to where Respondent lived. The Bushes agreed to the change in order to get started with construction and because it was closer to Lehigh. The Respondent sent them a new contract page one to sign and return, which they did. In October 1990 George Bush and a co-worker of his, John Volk, came to Florida and stayed at Lehigh Resort Center, where Mr. Bush had a timeshare. Mable Bush did not come because she was in the hospital. Mr. Bush came because he wanted to see why construction of the Bushes' house was being delayed. Mr. Bush stayed for approximately one week. During that time dirt was placed on the lot on Lake and 6th Street, but there was no other visible construction progress. After Mr. Bush's return to New Jersey, the Bushes received two letters from the Respondent. The first, dated October 12, 1990, stated that "The construction of your home is under way." In the letter the Respondent promised to provide the Bushes with accommodations and storage pending completion of the Bushes' house, at no charge for the initial period November 15-December 15, 1990. The second letter, dated October 25, 1990, advised the Bushes that there was ". . . a title problem on the property." The letter also advised that "We can not have the house ready by the deadline." and that "They (the title company) are not telling me how long it will take to clear title. Therefore, my timing and schedule will be totally off." After receiving the October 26, 1990 letter, the Bushes discussed the possibility of cancelling the contract with IEP, and Mr. Bush called the Respondent and asked her how much it would cost ". . . to just forget the whole thing." The Respondent told him it would cost about $1,500, but then she persuaded the Bushes not to cancel by offering to change lots again, this time to a lot on East 5th and Greenwood. The Bushes agreed. They felt that since the Respondent had their money they didn't have much choice. The Bushes moved to Florida on November 13, 1990, and initially they stayed in a house in Lehigh Acres owned by the Respondent and which the Respondent also used as an office. It was the same office where the Respondents had originally met the Respondent in October of 1989. The Respondent promised to clear off the lot on East 5th and Greenwood, but she never did, and a "For Sale" sign continued to be displayed on the lot. After moving to Florida, the Bushes received correspondence from BancFlorida indicating that the bank was still under the impression that the Bushes were buying the lot on East 8th and Hamilton. Mable Bush called the bank and was told there would be a fee of $250 to change lots. The Bushes asked Respondent to pay the fee and she refused. After this incident the Bushes decided that they did not want to continue doing business with the Respondent. On December 14, 1990, the Bushes moved out of the Respondent's house/office, and on December 15, 1990 they moved into a nearby house in Lehigh Acres which they bought. The Bushes requested that the Respondent return the $18,000 they paid her, but, through and including the date of the hearing, she failed or refused to return any portion of it. During the course of the transaction between the Bushes and the Respondent, the Bushes did not have an attorney representing them because the Respondent told them they didn't need an attorney and because the Bushes trusted the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding the Respondent Dilsa M. Fish guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 and revoking the Respondent's license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 9th day of August, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Dilsa M. Fish 612 James Avenue Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936 Dilsa M. Fish c/o Eric Rivera 7291 N.W. 37th Streeet, Apt. C-6 Hollywood, Florida 33024 Theodore R. Gay, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issue in this case is whether respondent should be dismissed from her position as a teacher for the reasons given in the amended notice of proposed dismissal dated January 20, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Gwendolyn M. Beeks, was a classroom teacher employed by petitioner, Duval County School Board (Board). When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed at Pine Estates Elementary School in Jacksonville, Florida. Between July 9, 1994, and August 22, 1994, respondent had access to the bank account of the Pine Estates Elementary School Safety Patrol. Based on a complaint by parents of patrol members, an investigation of the bank account was conducted by the state attorney. On November 14, 1994, the state attorney filed an information against respondent charging her with violating Section 812.014(c), Florida Statutes, a third degree felony. Specifically, respondent was charged with the theft of approximately $1,600.00 from the Safety Patrol bank account. On December 15, 1994, respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charge. The circuit court withheld adjudication, placed her on eighteen months probation, required restitution, payment of costs and a letter of apology, and ordered that she perform fifty hours of public service. On January 20, 1995, the Board issued its amended notice of proposed dismissal. Respondent has been suspended without pay since that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Duval County School Board enter a final order discharging respondent as a classroom teacher for violating Sections 4(a) and (d) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, as amended. The charge that she has violated Section 4(b) should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of December, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Larry L. Zenke Superintendent of Schools Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Thomas E. Crowder, Esquire 600 City Hall 1300 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ms. Gwendolyn M. Beeks 9801 Baymeadows Road, Number 156 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Respondent, North Hill Manor, Inc., committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of assisted living facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. North Hill Manor is an assisted living facility which is owned by North Hill Manor, Inc. North Hill Manor is operated by the owner, Douglas Koontz, who is assisted by his wife, Kelly Koontz, as well as other family members. While North Hill Manor is a family business, both Mr. and Mrs. Koontz held employment elsewhere and are parents of five young children. North Hill Manor has a licensed capacity of 32 beds and is housed in a restored historic home located in Pensacola, Florida. The Surveys Pursuant to a complaint, Sandra Corcoran, a registered nurse specialist employed by Petitioner, conducted a survey on September 26, 2000, of Respondent's facility. Ms. Corcoran concluded that there were deficiencies in two areas. First, that the facility had failed to provide a separate bank account for advance payments (Tag A106) from one of its residents (hereinafter Resident #1) and that the facility had not provided a refund of these advance payments to Resident #1 in a timely manner after she no longer lived in the facility (Tag A323). Ms. Corcoran designated the date of correction for the Tag A106 deficiency to be 10/26/00 and the date of correction for Tag A323 to be "Immediately (9/29/00)." The Koontz's were cooperative and provided Ms. Corcoran with an accounting of Resident #1's charges and payments. The survey form used by AHCA provides space for a corrective action plan to be written. Mrs. Koontz inserted the following as to Tag A106 and Tag A323, respectively: North Hill Manor has changed its policy to no longer accept any advanced payments. In addition, all bookkeeping including accounts payable and receivable, are being transferred to an independent accountant. Transfer is to be completed by January 1, 2001. On October 11, 2000, an additional $31,200.00 was sent to guardian of client. The total amount refunded to date is $60,500.00. There is approximately $30,000.00 remaining. However, expenditures on behalf of client have to be adjusted from this amount. In addition, North Hill Manor is diligently working to secure the liquidity of the money needed to make final refund. We anticipate complete settlement within 30 days. Mrs. Koontz discussed this corrective action plan with Kathy Roland of AHCA. The notation, "POC accepted KR 10-19-00" appears on the corrective action portion of the form. On October 23, 2000, Mary Sweeney, a registered nurse specialist surveyor employed by Petitioner, conducted a follow-up survey of North Hill Manor. Ms. Sweeney concluded that the deficiencies referenced in the September 26, 2000 survey had not been met. However, at the time of both the September 26, 2000 survey and the October 23, 2000 survey, Respondent was no longer accepting advance payments from residents and was not co-mingling residents' funds with Respondent's business account (Tag A106). As for the issue of the refund (Tag A323), Mrs. Sweeney noted that the facility had not refunded a $30,000.00 balance to the resident. The date of correction was designated as 11/24/00 on the October 23, 2000 survey. The corrective action plan written by Mrs. Koontz stated in pertinent part as to Tag A323: HUD has approved the re-financing of the mortgage and the $30,000.00 minus the cost of armoire and drug bill will be completed within 45 days. We will also keep you updated by mailing a copy of the commitment letter to you from the HUD lender as soon as possible . . . . There is no indication on the October 23, 2000 form as to whether the corrective action plan was accepted or not by AHCA. The Koontz's continued to be cooperative with the investigation. Another follow-up survey of North Hill Manor was conducted on December 1, 2000, by Ms. Sweeney. The survey continued to cite Tag A106 regarding co-mingling of funds stating that this deficiency had not been corrected. However, funds were no longer co-mingled at the time of this report, as was the case on the dates of the two previous survey reports. As to Tag A323, Ms. Sweeney noted on the December 1, 2000, survey that, based on a telephone interview with Mrs. Koontz, the deficiency had not been corrected in that North Hill was still waiting for the HUD commitment letter and that funds would be available no later than December 31, 2000. Resident #1 Resident #1 moved into North Hill Manor in 1996. She had very little family involvement. As a consequence, the Koontz's did a lot of things for her on a more personal level than with other residents including taking her to their home on holidays and purchasing birthday presents for her. The Koontz’s considered Resident #1 to be part of their family. In March or April of 1998, Resident #1 began making prepayments to North Hill. Mrs. Koontz tried to persuade Resident #1 not to make prepayments but Resident #1 insisted. The prepayments were deposited into North Hill Manor's account and apparently were used for the operation of North Hill Manor.2 Accounting System/Computer Crashes During 1998, Resident #1 made $12,800.00 in advance payments to North Hill. At that time, North Hill used a computer program called Quick Books for its accounting system. There was a resident account for each resident that enabled the administrator to track payments by Resident #1 and credit them to her account. In May of 1998, North Hill Manor, Inc., began expanding by acquiring another facility in Milton, Florida. In March 1999, North Hill experienced the first of two computer crashes that erased all of its accounting records. The Koontz's contacted Tom Bacarro who is experienced with diagnosing computers with problems and computer troubleshooting. He determined that the computer was damaged and the information on the hard drive was lost. The first computer crash necessitated recreating all of the accounting records by hand. The process was extremely time consuming. While North Hill was in the process of recreating its accounting system, Resident #1 continued to make advance payments to North Hill. During 1999, Resident #1 made $61,200.00 in advance payments. In early 2000, Mrs. Koontz became concerned further about the advance payments made by Resident #1. She spoke to Resident #1 about getting a trust officer to look after her finances. Mrs. Koontz contacted Resident #1's bank to inquire as to whether they offered such services and was informed that it did not. Also in early 2000, North Hill experienced a second computer crash. The Koontz's had installed a security system at their new Milton facility and somehow a glitch in that system caused the North Hill computer to crash, once again wiping out their accounting records. Employees of the Milton facility had access to the computer which may have caused the computer problem. Thereafter, North Hill purchased a laptop computer with restricted access to use exclusively for maintaining their accounting system. Guardianship of Resident #1 On July 18, 2000, Mr. Carl Martin of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) came to North Hill Manor to make inquiries regarding the advance payments made by Resident #1. On July 25, 2000, Lutheran Services Florida, Inc. (Lutheran Services), was appointed Emergency Temporary Guardian of Resident #1. On July 26, 2000, Lutheran Services arrived at North Hill Manor and removed Resident #1. Lutheran Services did not provide any advance notice to North Hill of its intention to relocate Resident #1. When Lutheran Services removed Resident #1 from North Hill Manor, it also removed her belongings. Additionally, Lutheran Services removed some property that did not belong to Resident #1 but was property of North Hill Manor. The property belonging to North Hill Manor that was removed was a television set valued at $408.48 and an antique armoire estimated to be worth approximately $1,000.00. Resident #1 had also incurred charges related to medicine and medically related items during her stay at North Hill Manor, in the amount of $302.66. Partial Refund of Resident #1's Advance Payments On July 28, 2000, the attorney for Lutheran Services wrote to Mr. Koontz requesting that he transfer any remaining items of Resident #1 including all funds held in trust. On August 3, 2000, North Hill made a payment of $16,500.00 to Lutheran Services’ attorney. This amount was what Mr. Koontz calculated to be due Resident #1 for the year 2000. His letter accompanying the $16,500.00 check stated that they were attempting to reconstruct records for the other years. On August 15, 2000, Mr. Koontz again wrote the attorney for Resident #1 and enclosed a check for $12,800.00 which was the amount of overpayment he calculated for 1999. In that letter, he also advised that the armoire had been removed by the movers, and that while there was no hurry, he wanted the armoire to be returned. On September 21, 2000, Mr. Koontz again wrote to the attorney for Lutheran Services and stated that an accounting of 1999 records revealed a credit balance due Resident #1 in the amount of $61,200.00, subject to final verification for Resident #1’s medication and other expenses. He enclosed a check for $31,200.00 also dated September 21, 2000. The Koontz's then began to explore and pursue other avenues to secure enough money to repay the remainder of the refund. On May 15, 2001, the attorney for North Hill Manor wrote the attorney for Lutheran Services and enclosed a check for $26,852.77 with the words, "Full/Final Advance Pmts" on the face of the check. The letter stated: This amount represents the remainder of the advance payments made by [Resident #1] less several offsets. These offsets include: $1,612.90 for prorated rent from August 1, to August 25; 2) $234.33 for the twenty-five inch color television that was removed by the movers; 3) $1,000.00 as was the estimated cost of replacing the antique wardrobe closet that was removed from the facility; and finally 4) $300 for the estimate cost of medication related charges incurred by [Resident #1]. The attorney for Lutheran Services returned the check objecting to the reference to full and final advance payments on the check. She also requested that any offsets not be included in the calculation and requested a detailed itemization for any requested reimbursement for the items which North Hill asserted were mistakenly taken the day Resident #1 was removed from the facility. On May 31, 2001, North Hill’s attorney again tendered a check in the amount of $26,852.77 to the attorney for Lutheran Services without reference to full and final payment. The letter stated: In regards to the offsets, while we appreciate that you may dispute North Hill Manor’s entitlement to these offsets, we believe they are legitimate offsets. However, we again emphasize that the tender of this check is made in good faith and without prejudice for you to contest any of the offsets. (emphasis in original) This check was also returned by Lutheran Services with a request that the offsets not be included and that a detailed itemization with supporting documentation regarding the offsets claimed by North Hill be provided. On June 19, 2001, the attorney for North Hill again tendered a check for $26,852.77 which apparently was accepted by the attorney for Lutheran Services. At the time Resident #1 was removed from North Hill, her rent was $2,000.00 per month. The document entitled, "Admission/Retention/Discharge Policies" in effect between Resident #1 and North Hill Manor contains a provision which states in pertinent part: A resident’s occupancy at North Hill Manor will be terminated with a notice of at least 30 days, under the following conditions: * * * d. the resident and his or her family decide to seek residency elsewhere. A document entitled, "North Hill Manor's Accounting of Personal Funds & Refund Procedures" reads in pertinent part: Occupancy at North Hill Manor is on a month to month basis. . . . North Hill Manor asks that a notice of at least 30 days be given when a resident decides to move. If the move is by choice only, and not based on the appropriateness of placement, then no refund for days remaining in the month paid for is issued . . . . Lutheran Services acknowledges that it was aware that the contract used by North Hill Manor contained a 30 day notice provision and that such provisions are very common. The total amount repaid from North Hill to Lutheran Services is $87,352.77. That amount reflects Resident #1's prepayments, less the value of the armoire ($1,000), the cost of the television set ($408.48), and miscellaneous medically related expenses ($302.66). Further, this took into account a $1,612.90 charge for the remainder of rent for August 2000, as North Hill was entitled to a 30 day notice. These offsets, which totaled $1,711.14, were legitimate offsets against the total amount North Hill was to repay Resident #1. Further, North Hill notified the attorney for Lutheran Services in correspondence dated August 15, 2000, and September 21, 2000, regarding these items. These items were again referenced in correspondence from North Hill's attorney to Lutheran Services' attorney.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order imposing fines in the amounts of $100.00 for the Class III violation of Tag A323 and $173,627.88 pursuant to Section 400.424(3)(a), Florida Statutes. This recommendation is not intended to discourage the parties from negotiating a reduction of the fine imposed under Section 400.424(3)(a), Florida Statutes, if so inclined. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 2001.
The Issue Whether Cindy Cammarota and Quail Oaks Apartments violated the Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance (Ord. 88-9 as amended) by discriminating on grounds of race and religion against Petitioners, Reverends William and Jacqueline Caractor with respect to an attempted eviction action.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cammarota is the resident manager of Quail Oak Apartments. Respondent Quail Oak is an apartment complex in Hillsborough County which is subject to the Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance. Petitioners, who are black, are husband and wife. They are ordained ministers, who reside in Quail Oaks. They have used the community center at the apartment complex for services and frequently pray with other residents. They wear clerical garb and read their Bible in common areas at the complex. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Cammarota knew Petitioners were ministers at Mt. Carmel African Methodist Espiscopal Church. On July 30, 1990, a written rental agreement was entered into between Quail Oaks, lessor, and Petitioners, lessees, for an apartment at the complex. The term of the lease was from September 1, 1990 through August 31, 1991. At the option of Quail Oaks, payment of rent could be accepted conditionally by means of a personal check from the lessees. If the check was rejected for insufficient funds, Quail Oaks could require rent plus late charges to be paid by cashier's check, certified check or money order. In addition, Quail Oaks could terminate the lease for nonpayment of rent. Prior to leaving for vacation in November 1990, Petitioner Jacqueline Caractor issued a check in the amount of $645.00 for the November rent. The check was drawn upon the personal checking account belonging to her and her husband at Citizens and Southern National Bank (C & S). It was payable upon demand to Quail Oaks. Although a C & S counter check was used, all of the information on the check was correct. This check was accepted by Respondent Cammarota on behalf of Quail Oaks. It was presented to Barnett Bank of Tampa (Barnett) for collection and the bank was instructed to deposit the funds in Quail Oaks' account at the bank. Barnett Bank did not exercise ordinary care in regard to the check as required by the Uniform Commercial Code. Instead of collecting the funds from the payor bank, Barnett returned the check unpaid to Quail Oaks on November 5, 1990. Notice of the bank's dishonor was sent to Quail Oaks in a notice of debit with respect to the instrument together with the check itself. No reason was given by the bank for the dishonor. The provisional settlement of the check made by Barnett with Quail Oaks was revoked and the amount of credit given was charged back to Quail Oaks' account. Respondent Cammarota, who managed the Quail Oaks account with Barnett, misinterpreted this activity in the account as nonpayment of rent. A "three day notice" was issued by Quail Oaks to Petitioners for payment of rent or possession of the premises on November 7, 1990. The deadline for payment was November 13, 1990. Petitioners received actual notice on November 16, 1990, when they returned from vacation and found the notice posted on the front door of their apartment. A message concerning the matter was also on their answering machine. The message advised them that their check had been returned for insufficient funds. Petitioners went to their bank to determine why their check had not been honored. They had always paid their rent on time and they were concerned about the current state of affairs. The C & S Bank investigated the matter and discovered the check had never been submitted to it for payment. While Petitioners were present, a representative of the bank telephoned Respondent Cammarota and told her a bank error must have occurred as sufficient funds had always been available in Petitioners' account to cover the check, which had never been submitted to C & S for collection. Once Petitioners established that insufficient funds was not the basis for a dishonor of their personal check, they went to Respondent Cammarota to discuss the resolution of the problem. Respondent Cammarota was asked to resubmit the personal check for payment. She refused and requested a money order that included additional charges for the costs Quail Oaks incurred as a result of Barnett Bank's dishonor of the check. Respondent did not believe Petitioners' claim that the original check was a good check. Petitioners advised that they would not pay additional charges because they had complied with all of their responsibilities. They asked for the return of the original check and offered to pay the rent only by money order. Respondent Cammarota refused this potential solution of the problem. Respondent Cammarota did not believe Petitioners were at the office in order to make the check good. She did not believe that Petitioners were merely asserting their legal rights under the lease and negotiable instruments law. As a result, she was suspicious and unyielding during the discussion. She wanted them to pay late fees in order to remain in possession of their apartment. Petitioners, who were tired from their journey and surprised by Respondent Cammarota's lack of receptiveness to very reasonable requests, became somewhat excited by the fact that the process to remove them from their home had begun and they were being told to pay more money than they legally owed to remain in possession. In their response to the situation, Petitioners reminded Respondent Cammarota that they were Reverends. A suggestion that Respondent Cammarota should listen to God was construed by her as "preaching". The excited utterances from Petitioners caused the leasing agent in the office to ask them to leave, which they refused to do until they had read the notice of debit Respondent had received from Barnett Bank about their check. After the notice of debit was read and returned to Quail Oaks, Petitioners began to take their leave. At this point, Respondent Cammarota said something like, "And you people call yourself ministers". On November 20, 1990, Petitioner Jacqueline Caractor gave Quail Oaks a second November 1990 rent payment in the form of a money order. A letter dated the same day from Quail Oaks advised Petitioners that the money order could not be accepted because their account had already been turned over to Quail Oaks' attorney for eviction proceedings. On November 21, 1990, eviction proceedings were filed against Petitioners by Respondent Quail Oaks for nonpayment of rent. On November 28, 1990, Petitioners filed a housing discrimination complaint against Respondents. Attempts to resolve the housing discrimination complaint through conciliation was unsuccessful. Respondent Cammarota uses the term "you people" in conversation whenever she refers to two or more people in her presence. Ordinarily, it is not used to differentiate blacks from whites. In her conversation with the Petitioners, however, the term referred to their race or religion or both. It is Respondent Cammarota's opinion that ministers should behave differently than the Petitioners were behaving when they were asserting their legal rights in her office on November 16, 1990. Respondents did not articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the eviction action for non-payment of rent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of County Commissioners enter a Final Order finding that an unlawful discriminatory housing practice occurred when Respondent Cammarota, agent for Respondent Quail Oaks, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioners because of race or color and religion. That Respondents be required to pay a $500 fine to Hillsborough County. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 September, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See See HO HO #2. #11. 4. Accepted. See HO #3. 5. Accepted. See HO #5. 6. Accepted. See HO #10. 7. Accepted. See HO #11. 8. Accepted. See HO #12. 9. Accepted. See HO #13. 10. Accepted. See HO #14. 11. Accepted. See HO #14. 12. Accepted. See HO #14. 13. Accepted. See HO #18. 14. Accepted. See HO #20. 15. Accepted. See HO #21. 16. Accepted. 17. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Docket speaks for itself. See HO #22. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #22. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact and loose agreements. Rejected. Inconclusive evidence. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #16. Rejected. Argumentative. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. #17. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. Redundant. 49.-57. Rejected. Irrelevant. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #5, #7 and #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #12. Accepted. See HO #13-#14. Rejected. Self serving. Accepted. See HO #21. Accepted. See HO #22. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to lease. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact and legal test for unlawful discrimination. COPIES FURNISHED: Cretta Johnson, Director Hillsborough County Equal Opportunity and Human Relations Department P.O. Box 1110 Tampa, FL 33601 John McMillan, Esquire Levin & McMillan 9385 N. 56th Street, #200 Temple Terrace, FL 33617-5594 Catherine P. Teti, Esquire Assistant County Attorney P.O. Box 1110 Tampa, FL 33601 Reverend William Caractor Qualified Representative 4747 W. Waters Avenue #3807 Tampa, FL 33614
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the respective Administrative Complaints, and, if so, whether Petitioner should impose against Respondent an administrative fine, penalty, and survey fee.
Findings Of Fact DOAH Case No. 13-2011: Failure to Properly Train, Supervise, and Perform CPR Pine Tree Manor is licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration to operate a 24-bed assisted living facility. The facility's license number is 8317, and it expires on November 13, 2014. On February 12, 2013, the date of the incident that provides the basis for the instant action, Aurelia Cristobal was employed as a staff member at the facility operated by Pine Tree Manor. Spanish is Ms. Cristobal's native language, and her ability to speak English is very limited. Brent Sparks, the owner and administrator at Pine Tree Manor, acknowledged, when interviewed as part of the post-incident investigation, that Ms. Cristobal struggles at times with English, especially when under stress. Mr. Sparks was aware of Ms. Cristobal's limitations with English prior to February 12, 2013. Within a few days of B.Y.'s death, Ms. Cristobal left the United States and is believed to be currently living in Mexico. Ms. Cristobal did not testify during the final hearing. For the period June 15, 2011, through June 15, 2013, Ms. Cristobal was certified by the American Safety & Health Institute in the areas of automated external defibrillation (AED), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and basic first aid. In the spring of 2011, Ms. Cristobal received training from Pine Tree Manor in the areas of facility emergency procedures and do not resuscitate (DNR) orders. Pine Tree Manor's written emergency procedures provide, in part, as follows: In all emergencies, it is important to remain calm and display a sense of control. Upsetting our residents will only induce undue stress. DIAL "911" EMERGENCY in the following cases: A medical emergency such as serious injuries or life threatening incidences. Fires Bodily harm to staff or residents such as terrorism, robbery, inclement weather. Call the administrator if there is any question concerning injury or illness, a resident is missing, security of facility is in doubt, or inspectors enter the facility. In the case of any significant changes or emergency, call the family, guardian and a health care provider. Also, contact the administrator. In cases of non-emergency need for transportation to the hospital or emergency room, call SUNSTAR AMBULANCE SERVICE @ 530-1234. In all cases, use common sense and remain calm, and remember to contact the administrator if in doubt. Pine Tree Manor's policy regarding DNR orders provides that: In the event a resident with a signed DNR experiences cardiopulmonary arrest, our policy is for staff trained in CPR/AED to withhold resuscitative treatment. Staff will report to the administrator immediately and in turn notify [the] resident's medical providers and resident representative. For example, staff on duty shall call 911 to report the condition, or if on Hospice [place] a call to (727) 586-4432, the Lavender Team Patient Leader. B.Y. became a resident of Pine Tree Manor on or about December 23, 2010. B.Y. did not execute a DNR directive. On February 12, 2013, between the hours of approximately 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., Ms. Cristobal was the only employee on site at Pine Tree Manor. According to J.M., who on February 12, 2013, was a resident at Pine Tree Manor, B.Y. entered a common area of the facility where J.M. and other residents were located. J.M. advised that B.Y. sat on the sofa, and started watching television. While on the sofa, B.Y. stopped breathing. The evidence is inconclusive as to how long B.Y. was incapacitated before others learned of her condition. Although it is not clear from the testimony how Ms. Cristobal was informed of B.Y.'s peril, she did, at some point, learn that B.Y. was incapacitated and was experiencing a medical emergency. After learning of B.Y.'s situation, Ms. Cristobal, according to J.M., became nervous and "didn't know what to do." In fact, Ms. Cristobal was so nervous that she did not call 911, she did not check B.Y. for a pulse, and she did not perform CPR on B.Y. Ms. Cristobal did, however, make several attempts to contact Mr. Sparks. Ms. Cristobal eventually reached Mr. Sparks and advised him of the situation with B.Y. The evidence does not reveal how long B.Y. remained incapacitated before Ms. Cristobal was able to speak with Mr. Sparks. When Mr. Sparks received the call from Ms. Cristobal, he was at his residence in Hillsborough County. Pine Tree Manor is located in Pinellas County. Because Mr. Sparks was in Hillsborough County when he received the call from Ms. Cristobal, he was not able to call 911 and be immediately connected to an emergency operator in Pinellas County. Understanding this limitation, Mr. Sparks called the non-emergency number for the Pinellas County Sheriff's office, who, in turn, contacted the 911 operator and informed them of the emergency. In the course of discussing the emergency situation with Ms. Cristobal, Mr. Sparks learned that she had not called 911. Knowing the emergency nature of the situation and the fact that he could not call Pinellas County 911 directly, Mr. Sparks should have directed Ms. Cristobal to call 911, since she was located in Pinellas County, but he did not. Mr. Sparks should have also instructed Ms. Cristobal to start CPR on B.Y., but he did not. According to the Pinellas County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Patient Care Report for B.Y., the 911 call was received by the 911 dispatcher at 6:11 p.m. and an EMS unit was dispatched to Pine Tree Manor at 6:12 p.m. The EMS unit arrived at the facility at 6:15 p.m. and commenced treating B.Y. at 6:16 p.m. EMS personnel worked for nearly 30 minutes to revive B.Y., but their efforts were unsuccessful. Richard Sherman (EMT Sherman) is a firefighter and paramedic for the Pinellas Suncoast Fire District. EMT Sherman was the first paramedic to arrive at Pine Tree Manor on the day in question. Upon arrival at the facility, EMT Sherman attempted to enter through the facility's main door, but could not gain immediate entry because the door was locked. EMT Sherman rang the doorbell and knocked on the door in an attempt to gain entry into the facility. Resident J.M. opened the door, and EMT Sherman entered the facility. Upon entry, EMT Sherman noticed that B.Y. was unresponsive on the sofa. He also observed at the same time that there were several residents in B.Y.'s immediate area and that there was no staff present. When EMT Sherman arrived, Ms. Cristobal was in another part of the facility assisting a resident who had become upset because the resident was having difficulty satisfying her toileting needs. Approximately a minute after EMT Sherman started resuscitation efforts on B.Y., Ms. Cristobal appeared in the area where B.Y. was located. Because Ms. Cristobal was wearing scrubs, EMT Sherman correctly identified her as a facility employee. EMT Sherman asked Ms. Cristobal if she knew anything about B.Y. and the circumstances surrounding her collapse. Ms. Cristobal did not respond to EMT Sherman's questions. EMT Sherman testified that Ms. Cristobal, after not responding to his questions, simply "looked at [him] and then turned and walked away" towards the main doors of the facility. While continuing to attempt to resuscitate B.Y., EMT Sherman noticed that Ms. Cristobal appeared to be locking the doors that he had just entered. EMT Sherman instructed Ms. Cristobal several times to not lock the doors because more emergency personnel would soon be arriving. Apparently not understanding EMT Sherman's directives, Mr. Cristobal locked the doors. A few minutes later, district fire chief John Mortellite arrived at the facility. EMT Sherman, while continuing to work on B.Y., heard District Chief Mortellite banging on the locked main doors in an effort to gain entry to the facility. A resident eventually unlocked the doors, and District Chief Mortellite entered the building. When asked why Ms. Cristobal would call him in an emergency situation and not 911, Mr. Sparks explained that it was Ms. Cristobal's practice to always call him in an emergency and that he would, in turn, manage the situation. Mr. Sparks, by allowing Ms. Cristobal "to always call him" in emergency situations instead of 911, created an alternative practice that was directly contrary to the facility's written policy which clearly directs employees to "DIAL '911'" when confronted with a medical emergency. Ms. Cristobal was, therefore, not properly trained. Mr. Sparks, by establishing and, indeed, encouraging a practice that shielded Ms. Cristobal from directly communicating with 911, placed B.Y. in a position where there was an unacceptable delay, though not precisely quantifiable, in contacting emergency personnel on her behalf. In a life or death situation such as that experienced by B.Y., every second matters because, as noted by EMT Sherman, "the longer the delay [in receiving medical treatment] the less probability of a positive outcome." When EMT Sherman arrived at Pine Tree Manor, he was completely unaware of the fact that the only employee on site spoke little, if any English. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that Mr. Sparks failed to inform either the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office or the 911 operator of Ms. Cristobal's limitations with the English language. By Ms. Cristobal's not calling 911, and Mr. Sparks' not disclosing to the 911 operator that the only employee on site had limited English language skills, decedent B.Y. was placed in the unenviable position of having EMT Sherman's attention divided between resuscitation efforts and worrying about whether Ms. Cristobal was able to comply with his instructions. EMT Sherman testified that Pinellas County EMS, including 911 operators, has protocols in place for dealing with individuals that may not speak English. Had either Mr. Sparks disclosed to the 911 operator Ms. Cristobal's language limitations or had Ms. Cristobal herself called 911, protocols could have been implemented by emergency personnel that would have triggered certain safeguards designed to ensure that Ms. Cristobal's language limitations did not interfere with the delivery of emergency services to B.Y. DOAH Case No. 13-2397: Failure to Remain Generally Aware of the Whereabouts of Resident Most recently, R.D., on September 27, 2010, became a resident of Pine Tree Manor. A demographic data information survey was prepared as part of R.D.'s new resident intake process. R.D.'s intake data showed that he was independent in the areas of ambulation, bathing, dressing, toileting, eating, and transferring. R.D. was identified as needing supervision when performing tasks related to personal grooming. It was also noted that R.D. suffered from anxiety and panic attacks. According to R.D.'s brother Tom, R.D. was under the care of a psychiatrist for many years and "suffered from debilitating panic attacks." When suffering a panic attack, R.D. would often lay on the ground or floor, most often in a fetal position, and remain in this position until help arrived. As a part of the new resident intake process, R.D. was assessed for his risk of elopement. The assessment revealed that R.D. was not at risk for elopement and that he was free to "come and go [from the facility] as he pleases" and that he needed to "sign out" whenever leaving the facility. By correspondence dated March 14, 2011, the administration of Pine Tree Manor reminded R.D. that he needed to adhere to the facility's resident sign-out procedure whenever leaving from and returning to the facility. Approximately ten months after reminding R.D. of the facility's sign-out procedure, Mr. Sparks, on January 2, 2012, updated R.D.'s risk assessment form and again noted thereon that R.D. "may come and go as he pleases" and he "[n]eeds to remember to sign out" when leaving the facility. On May 23, 2012, R.D. was evaluated by a physician and it was noted, in part, that R.D. could function independently in the areas of ambulation, bathing, dressing, eating, grooming, toileting, and transferring. As for certain self-care tasks, the evaluating physician noted that R.D. needed assistance with preparing his meals, shopping, and handling his personal and financial affairs. It was also noted that R.D. needed daily oversight with respect to observing his well-being and whereabouts and reminding him about important tasks. The evaluating physician also noted that R.D. needed help with taking his medication.1/ The evaluation was acknowledged by Mr. Sparks as having been received on May 25, 2012. R.D.'s most recent itemization of his medications shows that on October 10, 2012, he was prescribed Clonazepam and Buspirone. The Clonazepam was administered three times a day at 8:00 a.m., noon, and 8:00 p.m. The Buspirone was administered four times a day at 8:00 a.m., noon, 5:00 p.m., and 8:00 p.m. These medications are often prescribed for anxiety, however, R.D.'s medications listing form does not expressly denote why the drugs were prescribed. At 7:58 a.m., on November 10, 2012, an ambulance from the Pinellas County EMS was dispatched to Pine Tree Manor. When the EMS unit arrived at 8:00 a.m., R.D. was found "on the ground or floor" and was complaining of feeling anxious. While being treated by EMS, R.D. took his 8:00 a.m. dose of Clonazepam and was transported to "Largo Med." Less than 24 hours later, EMS, at 4:29 a.m., on November 11, 2012, was dispatched to 13098 Walsingham Road, because R.D. was again complaining of feeling anxious. This location is apparently near Pine Tree Manor, as the EMS Patient Care Report for this service call notes that R.D. "walked to [the] store." Following the evaluation by EMS, R.D. was again transported to "Largo Med." At 12:24 p.m., on November 18, 2012, EMS was dispatched to a location near Pine Tree Manor where R.D. was found "lying supine on [the] sidewalk." According to the EMS report, R.D. advised that he became lightheaded and fell to the ground. R.D. did not complain of any other symptoms and was transported to a medical facility in Largo for further evaluation. At 1:27 p.m., on November 25, 2012, EMS was dispatched to a 7-11 store near Pine Tree Manor. Upon arrival at the store, EMS personnel found R.D. and, when questioned, he advised that he was again feeling anxious. Per R.D.'s specific request, as noted on the EMS report, he was transferred to St. Anthony's Hospital in St. Petersburg. On November 28, 2012, Mr. Sparks made an entry into R.D.'s file and noted that a neurosurgeon evaluated R.D.'s shunt on that date in an attempt to determine if a malfunction was the cause of R.D.'s panic attacks. Mr. Sparks noted in the record that the doctor advised that the shunt was working properly and that the shunt was ruled out as the "cause of [R.D.'s] panic attacks." As of November 28, 2012, Mr. Sparks was aware that R.D. had recently complained of experiencing panic attacks and that the cause of the same had not yet been determined. It was not confirmed, although it was certainly believed by Mr. Sparks, that R.D. was manipulating medical personnel at local treatment facilities for the purpose of securing medication beyond that prescribed by his regular treating physicians. This belief by Mr. Sparks is reasonable especially in light of R.D.'s request to EMS personnel on November 25, 2012, that he was to be transported to a medical facility other than "Largo Med" for treatment related to his feelings of anxiety.2/ R.D.'s medication record for December 4, 2012, shows that he was given his prescribed medication for the 8:00 a.m. dispensing time. Soon after receiving his medication, R.D. left Pine Tree Manor for the purpose of visiting his local congressman's office. According to the survey notes from the investigation related hereto, the congressman's office is located approximately two miles from Pine Tree Manor. Although it cannot be confirmed, it reasonably appears that R.D. walked to the congressman's office. R.D. did not sign out of the facility when he left Pine Tree Manor on the morning of December 4, 2012. R.D. did, however, inform facility staff that he was going to the congressman's office to discuss an issue.3/ Security video from the building where the congressman's office is located established that R.D. arrived at the congressman's office at 9:50 a.m. At approximately 10:45 a.m., a representative from the congressman's office called Pine Tree Manor and informed them that R.D. was ready to return to the facility. The person receiving the message from the congressman's office contacted Mr. Sparks and informed him that R.D. was requesting a ride back to Pine Tree Manor from the congressman's office. Mr. Sparks was assisting another resident at a local hospital when he received the request to transport R.D. and was, therefore, unable to transport R.D. from the congressman's office. Pine Tree Manor had no obligation to provide transportation services to R.D. Surveillance video from the building where the congressman's office is located confirmed that R.D. exited the building on December 4, 2012, at approximately 10:50 a.m. R.D.'s body was found on December 12, 2012. It is not known what happened to R.D. between the time he left the congressman's office and when his body was eventually discovered.4/ When Mr. Sparks returned to Pine Tree Manor on December 4, 2012, he was advised by staff that R.D. had not returned from the congressman's office. According to the posted work schedule for December 4, 2012, Mr. Sparks worked from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. When Mr. Sparks left Pine Tree Manor on December 4, 2012, R.D. had not returned. Mr. Sparks, upon leaving the facility for the day, instructed staff (Aurelia Cristobal) to call him when R.D. returned. Ms. Cristobal's shift ended at 8:00 p.m. Pine Tree Manor employee Laura Munoz worked from 7:00 p.m. on December 4, 2012, to 7:00 a.m. on December 5, 2012. Ms. Munoz was not responsible for assisting R.D. with his medication, so it is unlikely that she would have known that R.D. missed receiving his medication prior to her arrival at work. Because Mr. Sparks left Pine Tree Manor on December 4, 2012, before Ms. Munoz arrived for work, he called Ms. Munoz after her shift started (precise time unknown) and requested that she call him upon R.D.'s return. There were no instructions given to Ms. Munoz by Mr. Sparks as to what she should do if R.D. did not return by some time certain. On December 4, 2012, Mr. Sparks knew that R.D. had never spent the night away from Pine Tree Manor without someone at the facility knowing R.D.'s whereabouts and that R.D. had never gone unaccounted for a period greater than 12 hours. On December 5, 2012, Mr. Sparks' scheduled work time was from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Prior to reporting to the facility on the morning of December 5, 2012, Mr. Sparks learned that R.D. had not returned to his room during the night shift. The exact time is not known when Mr. Sparks acquired this information, but it was likely sometime around 6:30 a.m. After learning that R.D. was still unaccounted for, Mr. Sparks immediately began canvassing the area near Pine Tree Manor. Around this same time, Mr. Sparks contacted R.D.'s brother and apprised him of the situation. At approximately noon on December 5, 2012, Mr. Sparks contacted the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office and reported R.D. missing. Pine Tree Manor has an elopement and missing residents policy that provides, in part, as follows: Residents may come and go as they please and shall not be detained unless family/resident representative and administrator agree supervision is required. A resident leaving the facility should either sign out by the front door or inform a staff member of their departure and provide an estimated time of return. The staff person should sign the resident out and notify other staff on duty. . . . If a resident . . . is deemed missing, staff shall immediately search the entire facility inside and around the facility grounds. . . . Whenever a resident is not found within the facility or its premises, the Administrator will: Notify the resident's representative. Notify the County Sheriff's Department by calling 911. Provide staff and searching parties with information and photo I. D. Instruct the staff to search inside the facility and the premises, the adjacent residential properties to the facility, up and down 131st Street, 102nd Avenue and the cross streets.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration: Enter in Agency Case No. 2013002572 (DOAH Case No. 13-2397) a final order finding that Respondent, Pine Tree Manor, Inc., d/b/a/ Pine Tree Manor, committed a Class II violation and assessing an administrative fine of $5,000.00 and a survey fee of $500.00. Enter in Agency Case No. 2013004620 (DOAH Case No. 13-2011) a final order finding that Respondent, Pine Tree Manor, Inc., d/b/a/ Pine Tree Manor, committed a Class I violation and assessing an administrative fine of $8,000.00. It is also RECOMMENDED that the final order not revoke Respondent's license to operate an assisted living facility in the State of Florida, but, instead, suspend Respondent's license for a period of 60 days.7/ DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 5th day of December, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of discrimination based on her sex or handicap in leasing her apartment from Respondent in violation of Sections 804d and 804d or f of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988 and the Florida Fair Housing Act, Chapter 760.23(2) (4), Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resided at Respondent’s Thacker I property for at least a year prior to her move to Respondent’s Pinewoods Place Apartments located at 5929 Pinewoods Place, Milton, Florida 32570. Petitioner moved to Pinewoods, Apartment 25, around March or April of 2003. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent had any material problems with each other during her residency at Thacker I. Her move to Pinewoods resulted from her request to move to a larger apartment. Pinewoods is a large complex managed by Respondent. Some of the units are subsidized by HUD. A list of tenants in the Pinewood complex reflect 58 tenants. Of the 58 tenants, 34 are female. Eleven of the tenants have a disability. In fact, Respondent contracts with providers who serve the disabled to provide apartments to their clients and provides such apartments regularly. Respondent accommodated Petitioner’s request to move to Pinewoods by not requiring a full year’s lease since she had already completed a year at Thacker I and by allowing Petitioner to transfer her deposit from the Thacker I apartment to the Pinewoods apartment. Because of these accommodations, Petitioner was permitted to lease her Pinewoods apartment on a month-to-month lease with an additional deposit of $95. Respondent also accommodated Petitioner in her move by leaving her rent amount the same as it was at Thacker I. Thus, Petitioner paid $400 a month rent instead of the normal $450 a month rent paid by other tenants in comparable apartments. Petitioner did not visit Unit 25 prior to her move to Pinewoods because it was occupied. No other units were available for her to inspect prior to her move. Additionally, HUD inspected the Unit 25 prior to Petitioner’s move and found no violations and that the apartment met HUD standards for being mechanically sound and safe. There was no evidence of any representations made by Respondent to Petitioner regarding Unit 25, and Petitioner did not introduce any evidence of such misrepresentations. Clearly, contrary to Petitioner’s assertions of misrepresentations about her apartment or her assertion that she looked at her Unit or a model, her apartment was not misrepresented to her prior to her move to Pinewoods, and no discrimination on the basis of sex or handicap occurred. Sometime after her move, Petitioner began to complain about her apartment. The evidence was vague regarding most of her complaints, and Petitioner declined to testify about many of her allegations. For instance, there was a vague complaint about leaves being blown into her yard from the sidewalk when the maintenance crew would clear the sidewalk of leaves. However, this method of clearing the sidewalk occurred throughout the complex and was not directed toward Petitioner. Likewise, there was a vague complaint about the trash lady disturbing Petitioner’s morning coffee by performing her assigned duty of picking up trash around the apartment complex. Again, there was no evidence of any activity being directed at Petitioner based on her sex or handicap. At some point, Petitioner complained to Respondent about her dryer vent not working properly. After several complaints and in an effort to resolve Petitioner’s complaint, Respondent’s maintenance person put an interior box-style lint trap, in her Unit. Respondent stated he felt this was the best solution because a member of the maintenance staff used the same type lint trap at his home. Petitioner, for a variety of reasons, was not satisfied with Respondent’s solution and vented the dryer to the outside herself. There is some dispute over whether Petitioner’s repair was safe or done correctly. There is no evidence that indicates Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of sex or handicap. Petitioner also complained about the sliding glass doors being fogged and wanted them replaced. Respondent explained that the doors were safe and that 55 other residents have fogged glass doors. Respondent refused to replace the glass doors. The next day Petitioner complained to HUD about the fogged glass door being “non-operable.” Because of the complaint, Robert Youngblood from the HUD office in Milton met Respondent’s maintenance staff at Petitioner’s apartment and discovered that the slider had been knocked off its track. Mr. Youngblood reported to Respondent that it was very clear the door had been sabotaged because he had just inspected that same door just days before because of a prior complaint. Respondent fixed Petitioner’s door again. Additionally, the sliding glass door that Petitioner complained about was inspected by both Santa Rosa Glass and Milton Glass. Petitioner also kept an untagged vehicle in the parking lot and threatened to sue if it were towed. All the Pinewoods’ leases contain a provision that untagged vehicles are not permitted on the premises and will be towed. In order to avoid the vehicle being towed, Petitioner switched the tag from her tagged vehicle to her untagged vehicle and back again as notice was given to her. Petitioner again felt this action was discrimination. Again there was no evidence to support Petitioner’s claim. On January 5, 2006, a little more than two years after she moved to Pinewoods, Petitioner complained, when she came to the office to pay her rent, that her garbage disposal did not work. The staff person who took Petitioner’s rent sent a maintenance person that day to look at Petitioner’s garbage disposal. The maintenance person looked at the alleged disposal location and discovered that Petitioner did not have a garbage disposal. There was no plumbing for one. The evidence showed that many units did not have a garbage disposal and that disposals were removed from each unit as they broke down. Petitioner insisted that she should have a garbage disposal since there was a switch on the wall for one. Because of her actions concerning the garbage disposal, Petitioner was given a Notice of Non-Renewal, dated January 6, 2006. Petitioner refused to pay any rent and refused to vacate the apartment based on her belief that Respondent had discriminated against her based on her sex and handicap. She maintained this belief even though she testified that “everybody had problems getting things fixed.” Indeed, her only witness corroborated that men and women, handicapped and non-handicapped have trouble getting things fixed. No reason was given for the non-renewal. Respondent testified that he was tired of Petitioner’s actions and deceitfulness. Petitioner chose to withhold her rent when it was due in February 2006, so that Respondent would bring eviction proceedings against her. Respondent eventually brought eviction proceedings against Petitioner. At the eviction hearing, Petitioner told the judge she wanted to be evicted so it would become public record. Respondent was awarded possession of the premises. After Respondent was given possession, the next morning he received a copy of a letter to the judge requesting that he rescind his decision and requesting another judge. Petitioner has since moved to another apartment. As with the other incidents described above, the evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex or handicap. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
