The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if he did, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made. At all times material to this case the Respondent, Randall Warren Lefevers, was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CG C019413. At all times material to this case the Respondent was the qualifying agent for Homes America Builders, Inc. (Homes America). In early November 1987, Mrs. Maria Caneri contacted Respondent by telephone at his offices with Homes America Builders, Inc. This initial contact was in response to an advertisement published by Homes America. Mrs. Caneri discussed with Respondent that she wanted to remodel her bathrooms. Ben Riahi, the chief estimator for Homes America, visited Mrs. Caneri in the home she and her husband owned at 1271 Quail Avenue, Miami Springs, Florida, on November 7, 1987. Homes America, through Mr. Riahi, and Mrs. Caneri contracted by written agreement on November 7, 1987, for Homes America to do the remodeling work for Mrs. Caneri at a price of $2,500.00. The job included plumbing work that could only be done by a plumbing contractor. Neither Respondent nor Homes America is licensed to do plumbing work. On November 7, 1987, Mrs. Caneri paid to Homes America the sum of $250.00 by check given to Mr. Riahi and made payable to Homes America. On November 19, 1987, Mrs. Caneri paid to Homes America the sum of $1,000.00 by check given to Mr. Riahi. At Mr. Riahi's instructions, this second check was made payable to Randall W. Lefevers. In response to repeated telephone calls from Mrs. Caneri, Homes America made empty promises to perform the work and gave numerous excuses to Mrs. Caneri as to why the work had not been done. The only progress Homes America made toward performing its contract was the measuring of the rooms to be remodeled and the drafting of blueprints. The rooms were measured on two occasions. The first was by Mr. Riahi on November 7, 1987. The second occasion was in early December 1987 by the cabinet maker who had been subcontracted to do the cabinet work. None of the actual remodeling work was done by Homes America. On February 16, 1988, Mrs. Caneri demanded her money back from Homes America. On February 23, 1988, Mr. Riahi promised to refund Mrs. Caneri's money the next day Mr. Riahi never called Mrs. Caneri again and never responded to her numerous attempts to contact him. A final judgment was entered in favor of Mrs. Caneri against Homes America as the result of a civil action she filed against Homes America. As of the time of the final hearing in this matter, the final judgment had not been satisfied. Mrs. Caneri incurred costs and attorney's fees in securing the final judgment. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Petitioner filed an Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent which alleged, in pertinent part, as follows: Respondent exceeded the scope of his license concerning the type of work contracted to be performed, violating Florida Statutes Section 489.129(1)(j), 489.115(1)(b), 489.117(2), and 489.113(3), by contracting to perform plumbing work. There was financial mismanagement and/or misconduct in connection with the work contracted to be performed, attributable either to Respondent directly or to Respondent's failure to properly supervise, in violation of Florida Statutes Sections 489.129(1)(h), (m), as generally exhibited by, but not limited to, failing to keep proper financial records, taking a deposit and never beginning work nor refunding the unearned deposit within any reasonable time. Respondent denied the violations and timely requested a formal administrative hearing of this matter by the election of rights form he filed. Three prior letters of guidance have been issued by Petitioner to Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes; which suspends Respondent's contractor's license for a period of one year, which imposes a fine against Respondent in the amount of $5,000.00 for such violations, and requires that the fine be paid within ninety days of the entry of a final order in this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Rejected as being irrelevant. Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraph 4. Rejected in part as being unnecessary to the result reached. Addressed in part in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5 Addressed in part in paragraph 6. Rejected in part as being subordinate to the conclusion reached in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraphs 7-8. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 10. 12.-14. Rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 15.-17. Rejected as being legal conclusion and not findings of fact. Addressed in paragraph 14. COPIES FURNISHED: Jan L. Darlow, Esquire Adorno, Zeder, Allen, Yoss, Bloomberg & Goodkind, P. A. Bayview Executive Plaza 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Randall Warren Lefevers 730 Northwest 147th Street Miami, Florida 33168 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not Respondent failed to fulfill contractual obligations; willfully or deliberately disregarded and violated applicable local building codes and made misleading representations by issuing a warranty which he later refused to honor in violation of Section 489.129(1)(c), (d) and Section 455.277(1)a, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: By its Administrative Complaint filed herein, Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent, as licensee and against his license to practice contracting in the state of Florida. Respondent is a certified general contractor having been issued license number CBC006481. On June 6, 1981, Respondent, as qualifier for Behr Contracting, Inc., entered into a contract with Mrs. Susan Fuller to reroof her home at 811 Santiago Street, Coral Gables, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondent guaranteed to Mrs. Fuller that all materials furnished by Behr Contracting would be of standard quality, type and condition, free from defects, and that said labor and materials would be guaranteed against structural and material defects. Respondent pulled the required building permit and commenced the reroofing off Mrs. Fuller's residence on June 11, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) During the course of construction, several defects became apparent. As example, the tile was installed approximately two months after the contract was entered (August, 1981) and during the next month, September, 1981, leaks started which damaged the ceiling, pecky cypress, plaster in the dining and bedrooms, the kitchen walls, and other interior furnishings of the Fuller residence. When Mrs. Fuller observed the leaks in the roof, she immediately notified the Respondent that there was a problem with the roof and requested that he return to the site to inspect the roof and to correct same. Despite repeated demands, Behr refused to repair the interior damage to Mrs. Fuller's residence. During approximately June, 1982, Behr installed a solar system on the Fuller's residence. Respondent guaranteed the roof on the Fuller residence for a period of fifteen years including the texture coating to the roof and the slide of the residence. Respondent also agreed to abide by all ordinances, rules and regulation of the Building Department of the City of Coral Gables, Florida. Mrs. Fuller filed a formal complaint against Respondent on approximately May 24, 1982. Following the installation of the roof on the Fuller residence, several leaks lasted for extended periods of time and the Fullers including her roommate, Heather Stever, had to repeatedly place buckets in and around the Fuller residence to attempt to contain water which was entering the roof through various cracks in the roof. Evidence of the leakage was evident in at least three rooms of the Fuller residence. (Testimony of Robert Harvilla and Heather Stever) The Respondent contends that there was no defective workmanship or materials used or performed by him in the reroofing of the Fuller residence and that the cause of the leakage in the Fuller residence was precipitated by nuts, bolts and other foreign materials which were strewn over the roof when the solar system was installed. Respondent contends that the foundation of the roof was penetrated by the solar system which destroyed the integrity of the roof. In this regard, it is found herein that the leakage to the Fuller residence occurred immediately after the Respondent installed the new roof to that residence and that the leakage persisted until it was corrected months later after Mrs. Fuller had her home reroofed in December of 1982. Evidence adduced herein failed to establish that the leakage to the Fuller residence which ultimately caused damage to the interior of their residence, was a result of foreign matter attributable to any cause other than the installation of the new roof by Respondent. Finally, Respondent refused to complete other items he specifically contracted to perform for Mrs. Fuller including painting of the interior trim and to completely texture coat the exterior of the Fuller residence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's certified general contractor's license number CBC006481 be suspended for a period of one (1) year. 2/ DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Chapter 509, F.S. and Chapter 7C, F.A.C., as stated in the Notice to Show Cause dated January 4, 1979. Respondent appeared at the hearing without counsel and was advised as to his rights in an administrative proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. He elected to represent himself at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Alfred L. Merritt owns and operates the Stevens Hotel Apartments Annex located at 142 Northeast Ninth Street, Miami, Florida. This public lodging establishment has been issued license No. 23-4660H by Petitioner (Testimony of Brown, Merritt) On December 5, 1978, Petitioner's inspector, Roger Brown, conducted a routine inspection of the licensed premises. During the course of the inspection, while accompanied by the manager of the apartment building, Brown noted a number of apparent violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 7C, Florida Administrative Code. These were as follows: An electrical junction box located in the first floor hallway was not covered and electrical wiring was thereby exposed. (Rule 7C-1.04(4)) Reinspection on June 6, 1979, showed that this condition no longer existed. Cracked concrete wall on stairs leading from second to third floor on east side; ceiling ripped in apartments 29 and 31, exposing pipes; doors to apartments 29 and 30 kicked in and insecure; floor in apartment 31 in need of repair; window on first floor, north side, broken and required replacement. (Rule 7C-1.03(1)) Reinspection on June 6, 1979, showed that necessary repairs had been made for the foregoing deficiencies except that the ceilings in apartments 29 and 30 had not been completely repaired. No screens were present to cover crawl holes in the building foundation or for windows of apartments 29 and 31. (Section 509.221(8), F.S., Rule 7C-1.03(3), F.A.C.) Reinspection on June 6, 1979, showed that screens had been installed for the crawl spaces, but not for apartments 29 And 31. Roach and vermin dropings were present in cabinet drawers, closets, under cabinets and beds throughout the building. (Section 509.221(6), F.S., Rule 7C-1.03(3), F.A.C.) Reinspection on June 6, 1979, showed that the infestation problem had been reduced, but still existed. Weeds had not been cut on the east side of the premises, and trash and debris were present on the east side and rear of the building. (Rule 7C-1.03(7), F.A.C.) Reinspection on June 6, 1979, revealed that the weeds had been cut and the trash removed. Garbage cans had no lids and therefore were not waterproof, (Rule 7C-1.03(5), F.A.C.) Reinspection on June 6, 1979, showed that the cans had been sealed with plastic and were satisfactory. (Testimony of Brown) Respondent testified that he is a county employee who operates the apartment building in question as a means of future retirement income. He rents to a working class group who throw items through the screens and otherwise abuse the premises. The apartments need continuous repair and Respondent claims that he is doing "everything humanly possible" to maintain the building in satisfactory condition. (Testimony of Merritt)
Recommendation That a fine of $250 be imposed against Respondent Alfred L. Merritt t/a Stevens Hotel Apartments Annex pursuant to Section 509.261(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 COPIES FURNISHED: Francis Bayley Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Alfred L. Merritt t/a Stevens Hotel Apartments Annex 142 NE 9th Street Miami, Florida
Findings Of Fact On May 24, 1986, Joseph C. Devine, Petitioner, the complaining party, saw an advertisement in the Clearwater Sun for an apartment for rent. He called the number listed and was given directions to locate the restaurant which is adjacent to the apartment for rent. Devine proceeded to the location given and upon arrival some 10 minutes later was told that the apartment had already been rented. Ali Likmeta, Respondent, is the owner of the restaurant and of the 4- unit apartment building adjacent thereto. Likmeta was born in Albania, has been in the United States for 18 years and is a naturalized citizen. He speaks English with a heavy accent and does not fully understand everything said to him in English. Likmeta placed an ad in the Clearwater Sun to run for one week advertising a vacant apartment for rent. At the time this apartment became vacant, the tenants in the three other apartments were Albanian, Greek and Italian. On the evening of May 23, 1986, Mr. and Mrs. Agaj, the former owners of the apartments who had sold them to Respondent and were aware of the vacancy, drove to Safety Harbor where they picked up two Albanian men who had recently arrived in the United States. They drove these men to Respondent's place of business for the purpose of renting the apartment; however, the business was closed and the men were returned to Safety Harbor and instructed to return early the following morning to the restaurant. The vacant apartment was, in fact, rented to the Albanian, Gezim Muca, on May 24, 1986, who had been brought down the evening before by the Agajs. On June 2, 1986, Devine filed a complaint with the Clearwater Human Relations Commission alleging that he was discriminated against in housing because of his race (black). During the investigation and conferences between the parties that followed the filing of this complaint, Devine indicated he would accept payment in the amount of $1200 to drop the charges which Likmeta refused. Likmeta offered to rent to Devine the next apartment to become vacant which Devine refused for the reason as he testified at this hearing "I didn't want to risk my life in that environment." When asked by the Hearing Officer what he expected to obtain through these proceedings Devine replied, justice. When told that this tribunal lacked jurisdiction to place Likmeta in jail or award money damages to Devine, the latter responded that the Hearing Officer was prejudiced and it was obvious that he would not get justice at these proceedings and would take this case to the Supreme Court if neccesary.
The Issue Whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioner in violation of the Fair Housing Act1 as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) on January 7, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Prior to its sale to Mr. Aizenstat, Mr. Maine owned the Building in which Petitioner leased an apartment. Mr. Maine decided to sell the Building, and he employed Respondent Alvarez and his company to represent him as his real estate broker. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondents were acting as agents on behalf of Mr. Maine. There were four apartments in the building, one of which was the apartment leased by Mr. Maine to Petitioner. Respondents notified all apartment owners of Mr. Maine’s plans to sell the building and secured permission from each tenant, including Petitioner, to show the tenant’s apartment to prospective purchasers.3 During the course of deciding whether to purchase the Building, Mr. Aizenstat arranged with Mr. Alvarez to view and photograph the interiors of the apartments. With Petitioner’s permission, Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Aizenstat entered Petitioner’s apartment on February 11, 2004, and took a number of photographs. Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Aizenstat also photographed the interiors of the other apartments in the Building as well as photographs of the exterior of the Building. The reason for taking each photograph was business-related. Petitioner is a white male and Mr. Alvarez is of Hispanic origin. Petitioner alleged that Mr. Alvarez called him a “gringo” when he was trying to get Petitioner to sign some documents pertaining to his tenancy in the Building.4 The confrontation at which Mr. Alvarez allegedly made the racial slur occurred the first part of March 2004. Mr. Alvarez denied using any racial slur directed towards Petitioner. The undersigned finds that denial to be credible. Mr. Aizenstat was present during the confrontation at which Mr. Alvarez allegedly made the racial slur. Mr. Aizenstat testified that Mr. Alvarez made no racial slur towards Petitioner. The undersigned finds Mr. Aizenstat’s testimony to be credible. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that such a slur was made. During that confrontation between Petitioner and Mr. Alveraz in early March 2004, Mr. Alvarez asked Petitioner to sign certain documents so that Mr. Maine would not have to institute eviction proceedings against him. That statement was not a threat and it was not made because of Petitioner’s race. As a consequence of the sale of the Building by Mr. Maine to Mr. Aizenstat, all tenants had to move out of the Building. At the time of the final hearing, the Building was vacant. Mr. Aizenstat testified that he planned to tear down the Building and build another structure on the property. There was no evidence that Respondents treated Petitioner any differently than any other tenant in the Building either before or after the sale of the Building to Mr. Aizenstat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief that underpins this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the Fair Housing Act, Section 760.20, et seq., Florida Statutes (2008), by denying Petitioner housing based on her gender (female) and familial status (pregnant).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Victoire Merceron, is a single mother with three children. At all times relevant hereto, she was living at an apartment complex known as The Pines pursuant to a Lease with NDC Management. There was an Employee Lease Addendum dated February 2, 2008, attached to Petitioner's Lease. The Addendum was signed by Petitioner to reflect her status as an employee of NDC Management and, therefore, eligible for a reduction in her monthly rent. Respondent, The Partnership, Inc., is a real estate management company specializing in managing affordable housing properties which are experiencing problems or business difficulties. Respondent began managing The Pines on August 1, 2008. Prior to that time, The Pines had been managed by NDC Management. Petitioner had worked as a leasing consultant with NDC Management at The Pines from October 2007 until July 2008. During that time, she enjoyed the benefit of a 20 percent reduction in her rent (which was provided to all employees of NDC Management who lived in a managed property). The Pines is owned by Punta Gorda Pines, Ltd. It is a 336-unit apartment complex which provides low income housing (affordable housing) for qualified persons. One hundred percent of the units at The Pines are set aside for low income residents. Of the 336 units, 202 units (60 percent) have a rental amount which does not exceed 60 percent of the area median income. One hundred and one units (33 percent) have an even lower rental amount. The rental amounts and number of units is established annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Respondent was contacted by the owner of The Pines at some point in 2008 concerning the assumption of management of The Pines due to problems existing at the property. Respondent visited the property in July and met with some of the existing staff and management. Respondent then assumed management of The Pines on August 1, 2008. At that time, approximately 40 percent of the units at The Pines were not under lease to a tenant, i.e., the property was only 60 percent occupied. Sixty percent occupancy is evidence of a "problem affordable property" from Respondent's perspective. When Respondent took over management of The Pines, it terminated some of NDC Management's employees and retained some other employees. Petitioner was not retained by Respondent as an employee. The Employee Lease Addendum to Petitioner's Lease at The Pines included a clause that required Petitioner to vacate her apartment within 15 days of termination of her employment with NDC Management. Petitioner was terminated as of July 31, 2008. Upon termination of her employment, Petitioner requested from Respondent that she be allowed to remain in her current apartment beyond the 15-day extension period. That request was granted by Respondent, and Petitioner was ultimately allowed to stay in the apartment through the end of August 2008. As of July 31, 2008, Petitioner had two children and was pregnant with a third. Inasmuch as she would need a home for her family, Petitioner asked Respondent to consider her as a new, non-employee tenant. Respondent agreed to consider Petitioner's request and asked Petitioner to provide proof of income so that a predetermination review could be conducted. It was Respondent's policy to do a predetermination review prior to the formal application process. The stated reason for this practice was that Respondent did not want an applicant to have to pay the non-refundable application fee, if the applicant was unlikely to be qualified to obtain an apartment. Respondent made its predetermination of eligibility using an Income and Rental Rates Chart which Respondent had developed. The chart indicates the income necessary for rental of different size apartments within the complex. In response to Respondent's request for income verification, Petitioner provided Respondent with a form (or letter) indicating that she had applied for payment of unemployment compensation for a two-week period. The form indicated that Petitioner would receive $225.00 per week for that two-week period. Petitioner represented to Respondent's agents that she had been approved for up to six months of unemployment compensation at $225.00 per week.1 There was, however, no competent evidence of that fact presented to Respondent (or introduced into evidence at the final hearing). Respondent calculated the amount of Petitioner's anticipated income based on the stated unemployment compensation payments to be made. Two-hundred and twenty-five dollars per week for an entire year (52 weeks) would be a total of $11,700.00. However, inasmuch as Petitioner only represented that she might receive up to six months of unemployment compensation, her anticipated annual income would be one-half that amount, or $5,850.00. That amount of income was not sufficient to warrant approval for even the lowest priced units available at The Pines, i.e., $10,660.00 per year.2 Based upon its predetermination review, Respondent denied Petitioner's initial inquiry concerning eligibility for an apartment at The Pines. That being the case, Respondent did not provide Petitioner a formal application to fill out. It would have been a fruitless exercise based on Petitioner's stated level of income. Respondent does not appear to discriminate on the basis of gender or familial relationship when renting to other residents. In its Rent Roll from March 31, 2009, Respondent can point to over 70 single women with children living at The Pines. A large number of those women were at The Pines when Respondent took over management. Others became residents during Respondent's tenure as manager. Respondent based its decision to deny Petitioner's inquiry solely on the information provided by Petitioner. Petitioner did not suggest to Respondent that she was receiving child support, alimony, or any other kind of support from a third party. However, Petitioner maintains that the fathers of her children would provide support on an as-needed basis (but since Respondent didn't ask her about such support, she did not volunteer the information). In January 2008, when Petitioner filled out a Residency Application to obtain an apartment at The Pines, she said she was not receiving any alimony or child support, nor had any such support been court ordererd.3 Petitioner did not present any evidence at final hearing as to the amount or frequency of child support she received from her children's fathers. It is, therefore, impossible to impute any certain amount for the purpose of determining Petitioner's eligibility for an apartment at The Pines. When Petitioner was working at The Pines and a person seeking an apartment did not qualify financially, Petitioner would ask the person whether he or she could get someone to co-sign for him/her, guarantee his/her rent, etc., or whether he or she could receive child support. It is not clear at what point in the application process (i.e., during predetermination or upon filing of a formal application form) Petitioner would make this inquiry. It appears Respondent did not seek further financial information from Petitioner after the predetermination review indicated she would not qualify. However, there is no evidence that Respondent had a policy to make such inquiries. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner re-applied to Respondent with an updated or amended statement of income after she was denied. Upon being denied a new apartment, Petitioner remained in her then-current apartment for some time after her lease was terminated. Petitioner owed slightly over $1,000.00 in rent and fees for the apartment when she finally vacated it, but Respondent did not pursue payment of that arrearage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations upholding its Determination: No Cause and dismissing Petitioner, Victoire Merceron's, complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 21st day of May, 2009.
