Findings Of Fact On August 8, 1989, Respondent issued to prospective vendors a clear and unambiguous request for proposals (RFP) relating to the delivery to travel agency services for the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. All proposals were due no later than August 28, 1989. Review of proposals, to include any interviews Respondent deemed necessary, was to take place between August 29 and September 18, 1989. The following appears in Paragraph 1.1 of the RFP, in the introductory section: 1.1 This is a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide travel agency services to the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida; The School District operates 112 schools and 55 administrative departments in an area encompassing 2,332 square miles. The services include but are not limited to, purchases and delivery of air and other modes of travel tickets and related travel services. ... The introductory section of the RFP also provides the names, titles and telephone numbers of two persons to whom questions could be directed. The following appears in Paragraph 5.5 of the RFP, in the terms and conditions section: 5.5 The District reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to further negotiate any proposal, to request clarification of information submitted in any proposal, and to request additional information from any Proposer. Proposals relating to the provision of the following services are solicited in Paragraph 6.1 of the RFP, the scope of services section: 6.1 The following are to be included in the specific tasks to be performed by the Travel Agency; however, it is not considered as a complete list of tasks: A. Deliver tickets, itineraries and other travel documents to the specific office or school requesting same. Proposals from several vendors were received, including proposals from Petitioner and ETA Travel Agency. Petitioner's response to Paragraph 6.1(A) was as follows: Ticket Delivery: will be made as follows: An On-Site reservation and ticketing facility at a mutually acceptable location on School Board administration property. Deliveries will be made to other offices as follows: Scheduled. Emergency. Delivery receipts. Via agency and outside courier service. ETA's response to Paragraph 6.1(A) was as follows: E.T.A. provides immediate free delivery of airline tickets and documents to school board travelers as detailed below: E.T.A.'s radio dispatched couriers provide unlimited deliveries of tickets and travel documents to schools and school board offices from Jupiter to Boca Raton as often as required throughout the business day. At E.T.A. Travel we never limit deliveries to once of twice a day. Tickets are delivered according to the school board's schedule - not ours. In addition to office delivery, E.T.A.'s couriers will deliver tickets and documents to the traveler's home or to other designated place whenever required. Deliveries to west area schools and school board offices are provided through the school board's "pony express" mail system, time permitting, or through federal express overnight delivery services. Deliveries to out-of-county travelers, or to west area travelers requiring expedited delivery, are provided through federal express overnight delivery service. E.T.A. Travel Agency utilizes a delivery and pickup receipt system to insure tracking of all airline tickets. To insure accountability all tickets delivered and picked up must be signed for and receipted at the time of exchange. While in the process of evaluating the respective proposals, Dr. Henry Boekhaff, Respondent's Associate Superintendent for Administration, contacted Mr. James Bertino, the owner of Petitioner to seek clarification as to the operation of Petitioner's proposed on-site ticketing and reservation facility. Mr. Bertino explained that there would be located on school board property a satellite ticket printer that could print airline tickets at the school board site. However, Mr. Bertino did not make it clear to Dr. Boekhoff that the travel documents printed on the satellite ticket printer would be delivered by Petitioner to each office requesting the travel document. Mr. Bertino's verbal description of the manner in which the satellite ticket printer would operate, along with Petitioner's written response to Paragraph 6.1(A), caused Dr. Boekhoff to conclude that Petitioner was not proposing to deliver travel documents to each requesting office. Respondent, following its review of Petitioner's proposal and following Dr. Boekhoff's conversation with Mr. Bertino, construed Petitioner's proposal as making a distinction between deliveries to offices in the administrative building in which the satellite ticket printer was to be located and deliveries to other offices. Respondent construed the proposal to require that persons whose offices were in the same building as the satellite ticket printer to pick up from the printer the tickets, itineraries, and other travel documents they had requested, while deliveries to offices in other administrative buildings and schools would be made by Petitioner. Respondent's construction of Petitioner's proposal was a reasonable construction of the written proposal presented by Petitioner and of the comments Mr. Bertino made to Dr. Boekhoff. Petitioner did not make it clear in either its response to Paragraph 6.1(A) or during the conversation between Mr. Bertino and Dr. Boekhoff that the Petitioner was proposing to deliver tickets to each office in the administrative building where the satellite facility would be located, a service that is of primary importance to Respondent. Following the evaluation of awards the proposal of ETA was selected, subject to the resolution of any timely protest. The services to be afforded by the vendor and the cost of those services were the items of primary importance to Respondent in evaluating and selecting a vendor. Petitioner's protest of the intended award of the contract to ETA was filed on a timely basis. During the informal hearing held in an attempt to resolve this dispute and in the formal hearing held in this proceeding, Petitioner, through Mr. Bertino, maintained that it intended by its response to Paragraph 6.1(A) to state that it would deliver tickets, itineraries, and travel related documents to every School Board office. Petitioner contends that it should be permitted to clarify its intentions at this time. Although Petitioner's response to Paragraph 6.1(A) did not cause its proposal to be rejected by Respondent, the Petitioner's failure to clearly state that it would deliver tickets, itineraries, and other travel documents to each requesting office was the primary reason the proposal of Petitioner was not selected. The services that ETA proposed in its response was the deciding factor in its favor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order which rejects the bid protest filed by International Tours of Juno Beach and which accepts the proposal submitted by ETA Travel Agency. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 7th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6775BID The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected, in part, as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The evidence failed to establish that the proposal submitted by Petitioner was superior to the proposal submitted by ETA. What action the School Board may have taken had Petitioner clearly stated its proposal is speculative. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. While Mr. Boekhoff did contact ETA during the evaluation period regarding its organizational structure, there is no contention that such contact was improper. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are rejected as being conclusions of law instead of findings of fact. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in Paragraph 13 or as being conclusions of law and not findings of fact. 8-10. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8-10 are rejected as being conclusions of law and not findings of fact. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part by paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald R. Fountain, Jr., Esquire Lytal & Reiter 515 North Flagler Drive Post Office Box 024466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-4466 Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire School of Palm Beach County 3970 RCA Boulevard Suite 7010 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and if so, what remedy should be ordered.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Diana Sexton and Freddie Sexton were carriage drivers for Gam-San, Inc., which was known by the fictitious name of St. Augustine Transfer Company. They conducted ghost tours and history tours in the historic district of St. Augustine. No evidence was presented regarding Mr. Sexton's race or either Petitioners' age. At the time of the incident giving rise to this proceeding, Diana Sexton had worked for Respondent for approximately one and a half years. Freddie Sexton has worked for the company in the same type of position for a shorter period of time. Petitioners are married to each other. Petitioners drove carriages pulled by horses, and gave tours to the public. They sometimes stayed overnight at the barn owned by Respondent in order to water the horses. They did not have permission to stay at the barn, but Ms. Sexton considered it to be a benefit in exchange for watering the horses at night. Diana Sexton acknowledged that Petitioners had been informed that they were expected to find another place to stay before the end of the "Nights of Lights" (although no explanation was provided regarding what time frame this entailed), but denied that Petitioners were ever told to leave or not to stay at the barn. Employees hired by St. Augustine Transfer were usually hired as carriage drivers, stall people, or barn managers. Both stall people and barn managers were paid minimum wage. Carriage drivers, like waitresses, receive tips from customers as part of their pay. Generally, with tips, drivers are the highest paid employees of the business. It would not be considered a promotion to go from a position as driver to either stall person or barn manager. Petitioners did not work on December 25, 2007. They apparently spent the night at the barn the night before and left the work premises in the morning. At some time in the evening, Petitioners returned to the business premises, ostensibly to retrieve some of their belongings that were in the barn. While they were present on the property, the police came, indicating that they had received a call complaining of a disturbance. Petitioners were believed to be the cause of the disturbance and were asked to leave. Petitioners refused to leave without speaking to Stuart Gamsey, and denied creating any type of disturbance. Eventually they left the premises at the insistence of the police. They claim they were not allowed to return to retrieve their belongings for several days, and were discharged from their jobs. The evidence is in conflict over what, if anything, was occurring on the premises of the business the evening of December 25, 2007. However, the more credible admissible evidence indicates that at least two calls were made to Stuart Gamsey, the then owner of St. Augustine Transfer Co. The calls involved complaints about Petitioners' drinking, yelling, and generally creating a disturbance on the property. One call was made by police officers on the scene. Mr. Gamsey had not given Petitioners, or any other employees, permission to stay on the premises when not working. He could not say whether there was actually a disturbance on the premises, but confirmed that in response to the calls he received, he asked the police to do "whatever it took" to get Petitioners to leave the property. His goal was simply to end whatever disturbance might be occurring. Petitioners' employment was terminated by St. Augustine Transfer. It is not entirely clear from the evidence presented whether the December 25, 2007, incident formed the basis for the termination or whether other factors were involved. It is clear, however, that Petitioners resisted leaving the premises at a time when they did not have permission to be there. Stuart Gamsey sold the business in the summer of 2008. He currently has no responsibility for the hiring practices of St. Augustine Transfer Co. or its successor. No competent, credible evidence was presented indicating that any other employee was allowed to stay on the premises outside of work hours. Petitioners also claim that Mr. Sexton was discriminated against based upon his marital status because someone, presumably another employee, left K-Y jelly in his carriage, and on one occasion, a patron tipped another employee to make sure she could ride in his carriage and engage in inappropriate behavior designed to seduce him. However, no competent, credible evidence was presented to show who placed the K-Y jelly in Mr. Sexton's carriage or for what purpose, if any, it was left. Likewise, no competent, credible evidence was presented to support the allegation that placing the patron in Mr. Sexton's carriage was for any discriminatory purpose. No evidence was presented regarding any other proceedings of any type involving Petitioners and Respondent.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Petitioners' Petitions for Relief and denying Respondent's Motion for Attorney's Fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Freddie J. Sexton Diana J. Sexton Post Office Box 105 St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Regina Sargeant, Esquire 2820 US 1 South, Suite F St. Augustine, Florida 32086 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent, Patricia Sue Shelley, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0454282 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was effective 3/10/92, with a home address of 2413 Euston Road, Winter Park, Florida 32789-3416. From July 9, 1990 to December 5, 1990, the Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesperson with Don Gallagher, Inc. t/a The Prudential Gallagher Properties (Petitioner's Exhibit #4). Her status was property manager. While employed as the property manager the Respondent collected $1,450 in rental funds during November and December 1990, but failed to deliver the rental funds to her employing broker. The Respondent and the broker had an ongoing commission dispute and the Respondent kept the $1,450 because she felt that the broker owed her the money. On December 7, 1990, the Respondent delivered a check from her personal account in the amount of $1,450, to the broker notated: "$ rent for Curry Ford and Dover Circle". These were properties being managed by the broker. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1). On December 8, 1990, the broker deposited the Respondent's check into escrow, but the check was returned annotated: "payment stopped do not redeposit." (Petitioner's Exhibit #2). On December 17, 1990, employing broker Don Gallagher sent the Respondent a demand letter, but the Respondent refused to deliver the trust funds to Don Gallagher. (Petitioner's Exhibit #3). Petitioner's husband recommended that she keep the rental money and get with Don Gallagher about the commission. He later recommended that she just give the money back and is not sure why she did not. She has been under a physician's care for manic depression for about 1 1/2 years. Ms. Shelley's license record includes no other alleged violations or discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that a Final Order be entered, finding Patricia Sue Shelley violated Sections 475.25(1)(e) and (k), F.S., suspending her license for two years, with the condition that the suspension be lifted anytime after 90 days, if restitution of $1,450 is made to her former employer/broker. After suspension is lifted, Respondent should be placed on probation for one year under such conditions as may be appropriate, including participation in continuing education courses regarding the handling of deposits and other funds received in trust. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 29th day of October, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Patricia Sue Shelley, pro se 2413 Euston Road Winter Park, FL 32789-3416 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is James Newberry Jr., who was also the Petitioner in the underlying challenge to Emergency Rule 64B14ER98-1 of Respondent Florida Board of Orthotists and Prosthetists, designated as DOAH Case No. 98-1186RE. The underlying case was brought pursuant to Section 120.56(5), Florida Statutes, pertaining to "Challenging Emergency Rules; Special Provisions." Mr. Newberry prevailed therein. The instant costs and fees case has been brought, in the alternative, pursuant to Sections 120.595(3) and 57.041, Florida Statutes. These are the only statutes relied upon in the Petition. In oral argument, Petitioner's counsel acknowledged that no case law exists to support an award of fees and/or costs under Section 57.041, Florida Statutes. The Petition does not contain an allegation that Petitioner incurred the attorney's fees set out in the attached affidavit of Ryan Garrett. The Petition does not attach any contract for attorney's fees. Petitioner's counsel acknowledged orally that no contract for fees existed and that the statements of the attorneys representing Petitioner addressed to "The Board of Orthotists Certification" in Baltimore, Maryland were addressed in that way because of an agreement between that private corporate entity and Petitioner Newberry, who is one of its members. By that agreement, apparently not reduced to writing, the Maryland corporation agreed to provide Petitioner with an attorney and pay the attorney's fees and further advanced all Petitioner's costs. "The Board of Orthotists Certification," also known as "The Board for Orthotics and Prosthetics Certification," of Baltimore, Maryland was not a party to the underlying emergency rule challenge. No evidence of its standing, if any, to challenge the emergency rule nor even of its involvement with Mr. Newberry for fee purposes was presented in DOAH Case No. 98- 1186RE.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born in 1936. While on active duty in the United States Navy in 1955, he suffered an injury which subsequently led to the amputation of his left foot. When discharged from the Navy, his disability was rated by the Veterans Administration (VA) at 40 percent. Subsequent problems with the stump of the left leg, arthritis, and a spinal fusion led to VA disability increases, which disability rating at time of hearing was 100 percent. Petitioner applied for work with Delta Air Lines, Respondent, in 1966 and was employed as a reservations agent in Chicago. At this time his VA disability rating was 70 percent. In 1967 Petitioner, at his own request, was transferred by Respondent to Tampa, Florida. At this time Petitioner was able to move around the bay in which he worked with and without his crutches. In September 1979 Petitioner was hospitalized for stump revision and remained in an off-duty status until June 1980 when he returned to his position with Delta. At this time Petitioner carried out his duties as a reservation agent in a wheelchair. Following his return to work in 1981 Petitioner's performance of duty was marginal. Petitioner takes prescribed medication for pain. On one occasion the medication adversely affected his ability to perform his duties satisfactorily and he was told by his supervisor not to take medication at work. The doctor changed this prescription from 1-100 mg. daily to 4-25 mg. daily and Petitioner continued his medication as prescribed without further problems. On October 28, 1981, Petitioner was examined by Dr. Frazier, one of the physicians used by Delta for its employees. The purpose of this examination was to evaluate Petitioner's physical condition for continued employment. Report of this examination is contained in Exhibit 5 wherein Dr. Frazier concluded that Petitioner "has several progressive disabilitating diseases, that combined with his psychological state make him unemployable for Delta Air Lines. I would recommend because of his depression, amputation, hypertension, osteo-arthritis and spinal fusion problems that he be retired on disability." Respondent does not have a retirement for physical disability status. In lieu thereof it has short-term disability benefits and long-term disability benefits. Long-term disability benefits are calculated as a percentage of the employee's basic monthly salary less social security benefits the employee receives. Petitioner was in a long-term benefit status while recovering from stump revision in 1979-1980. Following Delta's receipt of the report of Dr. Frazier, Petitioner was sent home in a short-term disability status while the report was evaluated. Respondent subsequently advised Petitioner that he was qualified for sedentary work and directed him to return to his position with Delta Air Lines. Petitioner returned to work around June 1982 as a reservations agent. Fifteen or twenty reservation agents work in a "bay" where each has access to a telephone and computer terminal. These agents handle all reservation requests via telephone with no visual contact with the customers. They work an eight-hour shift with two 10 minute breaks and one-half hour off for lunch. While operating from his wheelchair, Petitioner usually took a station near the entrance to the bay which provided easier access for the wheelchair than a station farther down into the bay. He made no complaints about access to his station to Delta supervisory personnel. Reservation agents' telephone communications are monitored by supervisors on an intermittent basis to ensure the agent is carrying out his duties in a satisfactory manner and is providing proper information to the customers. In June 1972 Petitioner was placed on three months' probation. In September 1972 this probationary period was extended an additional three months. In July 1974 Petitioner was again placed on probation and given a "final chance" letter. In October 1977 he was given a letter for poor performance. Petitioner acknowledged that several times before 1982 he had been disciplined by Respondent but not fired. In December 1982 Charles Cortright, a retired architect, called the Tampa office of Delta Air Lines to get information on a flight to and from the West Coast interrupted with cruises while on the West Coast. Specifically, Cortright wanted to fly to Seattle, take a ferry trip to Alaska, perhaps two more sea cruises from West Coast ports, take a train from Seattle to San Francisco, and fly back to Tampa from San Francisco. He was referred to Petitioner, who quoted him a price of $278.00 on the air portion of this trip, but, since Petitioner did not think the cruises could be arranged by Delta, referred Cortright to a travel agency. Petitioner testified that he referred Cortright to three travel agencies located in the vicinity of Cortright's residence and did not specify the agency at which Petitioner's wife worked. Although Cortright testified that he was not referred to any one by name and did not know that Petitioner's wife worked at Tri-Cities Travel Agency, he went to Tri-Cities and his reservations were made by Malinda, who, in fact, was Petitioner's wife. It is likely that Cortright did not know that Malinda was Petitioner's wife, but it is believed that Cortright was told by Petitioner to ask for Malinda and he did so. When the airline tickets arrived at the travel agency, Cortright was advised by the agency the price of the air fare was $302.00. Cortright then, on December 14, 1982, called Delta and asked to speak to Petitioner to inquire about the difference in the fares quoted by Petitioner and the cost of the tickets at the travel agency, and to get the fare guaranteed that was quoted by Petitioner. At the time this call was received by another agent, Jennings King, King was being monitored by his supervisor, Carolyn Corvette. In this phone conversation Cortright said he had spoken to Petitioner two times before, that he went to the agency to which he had been directed by Petitioner, that he spoke to Malinda as directed by Petitioner, and that he was charged a higher fare than was quoted by Petitioner. Corvette had the call transferred to the customer service desk and authorized guarantee of the lower fare quoted. She promptly prepared a memo of the incident to Arthur Arden, Chief Reservation Supervisor (Exhibit 7). Arden called Cortright, who confirmed that Petitioner had directed him to Tri-Cities Travel Agency. Arden extracted from Delta's computer the reservation made for Cortright which disclosed the reservation was made by Malinda at Tri-Cities (Exhibit 8). Knowing that Malinda was Petitioner's wife, Arden, on December 15, told Petitioner that he was suspended from work and would be recommended for dismissal. On December 15, 1982, Arden signed a memo to Harry Dean, Delta's Regional Manager at Tampa, recommending that Petitioner be terminated (Exhibit 6). Dean concurred, sent the memo to Delta's Atlanta office, and Petitioner was fired. All reservation agent trainees are told that they should make every effort to arrange all of the transportation needs of the customers through Delta Air Lines, including tours requiring other modes of transport than air; and that they should never refer a customer to a specific travel agency. If a travel agency's services are needed by the customer, the customer should be referred to the yellow pages of the phone book to select a travel agency. This same information is contained in the Standard Practices Manual, which is available to all reservation agents. The reason for this rule is to eliminate, insofar as possible, conflicts of interest and to refrain from alienating some travel agents by appearing to favor other travel agents. This could create a serious problem for the air lines and is taken very seriously by air line company management. Petitioner's testimony that he did not refer Cortright to Tri-Cities Travel Agency and that he never referred a customer to a specific travel agency was rebutted by Betty Maseda, a fellow reservations agent who frequently sat alongside Petitioner at work and on several occasions overheard Petitioner giving specific instructions to customers on exactly how to get to Tri-Cities Travel Agency and to ask for Malinda. Ms. Maseda considers herself a good friend of Petitioner and did not volunteer this information to Respondent until after Petitioner had been fired.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the Respondents violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by inducing a seller to enter in a contract for sale of real estate, based on a $50,000.00 earnest money deposit that was never made.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Fred Marberry, Jr. is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker-salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0369879 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Bernon Earl Thomas is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0433736 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. During the relevant time, from July through September 1985, Fred Marberry was President of Marberry and Mack Development, Inc., and maintained an office in Altamonte Springs, Florida. James Mack was the Vice-president, Secretary and Treasurer of the company. During the relevant time, from July through September 1985, Bernon Thomas was a real estate salesman with General Realty Management Corporation. His office was in Kissimmee, Florida. In 1985, the two Respondents had worked together on the potential sale and development of a multi-family project in Kissimmee. Thomas was aware of the availability of some commercial property in Kissimmee known as Cross Creek that he felt would be a good deal and shared that information with Marberry. Thomas got his information on Cross Creek from Larry Heninger, who was working with the owner, R. S. Futch, in putting together a development package to present to potential buyers and developers. Heninger had expended considerable effort in working with an engineer and permit agencies and had made contacts with a number of businesses interested in locating on the property. The engineering reports, correspondence and figures supplied to Marberry by Thomas indicated that the parcel comprised 14.75 usable acres. There were letters from the City saying that sewage capacity, utilities and similar public services would be based on this amount. Marberry told Thomas that the development package looked good and to continue working on it. Some time in mid-July 1985, Larry Heninger informed Thomas that some third parties were also interested in the Cross Creek property and that if Marberry and Mack, Inc., wanted to present an offer, they would need to do so immediately as Mr. Futch was leaving on a vacation for several weeks. Thomas called Marberry to relay this information. The details of the conversation are in dispute, but it is uncontroverted that Thomas was made a Vice-president of Marberry and Mack, Inc., for the sole purpose of executing a sales contract immediately. Arrangements were made for Thomas to draw up the contract/offer and have it taken to the Orlando airport where R. S. Futch was either leaving or was en route on his vacation. Marberry and Thomas disagree on what was discussed with regard to an escrow deposit. Thomas contends that Marberry authorized him to provide for a $50,000.00 escrow deposit to be held by Fred Marberry, licensed real estate broker upon acceptance of contract. Marberry denies this and claims that he never maintained an escrow account, that escrow funds were always handled by his (Marberry's) attorney. Marberry claims that the day after signing, when he actually saw the contract, he said something to Thomas about his failure to delete the escrow language on the contract form. Thomas denies this. Both Marberry and Thomas agree that all parties should have known that the deposit could not be escrowed upon acceptance, since Marberry was not there for the signing. The contract was prepared and signed by Thomas in Thomas' Kissimmee office and was taken to the Orlando airport. The contract, prepared on the standard Florida Bar and Association of Realtors approved form, provided a purchase price of $1,600,000.00, the $50,000.00 escrow deposit, and closing on August 25, 1985. The contract provided that closing could be extended by the buyer for 30 days with an additional $50,000.00 deposit. The contract contained the following special clauses: Contingent upon financing. Above described property of [sic] being viable to building Comm. Prop. with all necessary zoning and available utilities. [Pet. Ex. #5] At the airport, R. S. Futch accepted the offer by Marberry and Mack, made a few changes on the contract, initialled them and signed the contract; the changes were also initialled by Bernon Thomas. Later Thomas called Marberry and told him about the changes. The morning after the contract was signed, Marberry and Thomas visited Heninger's engineer to review the project. They reviewed the engineering plans and learned that the property was in a floodplain. Drainage was a problem and parking was a problem and it appeared that only 4.3 acres was actually buildable. On leaving the engineer's office Marberry told Thomas that there was no way the project could work; they could never get financing for a $1.6 million parcel of 14.75 acres, with only 4.3 buildable acres. Marberry felt the contingencies in the contract could not be met and the contract was off. Thomas still believed in the project, and since he had already put so much time and effort in it, he wanted to keep working on pulling it together. Marberry did not dissuade him, but said only to keep him informed on what was going on. Thomas told Heninger that Marberry didn't want the contract. Heninger said he wanted the contract to stay intact and encouraged Thomas to keep working on it. He also tried to get Thomas to do the deal himself, but Thomas told him he did not have the funds. Thomas claims that Heninger told him not to worry about the $50,000.00; Heninger denies this. Nothing was communicated in writing regarding the contract being terminated. The $50,000.00 deposit was never made. The deadline for closing passed, and sometime in September 1985, Larry Heninger arranged a meeting between R. S. Futch and Fred Marberry in a motel in Orlando. The purpose of the meeting was to either extend the contract entered in July (according to R. S. Futch), or to negotiate a new contract for the property (according to Fred Marberry). During the meeting Futch was told that no $50,000.00 deposit had been made on the original contract. The meeting apparently terminated and shortly later Futch filed suit for the $50,000.00. The testimony of the principal witnesses in this case: Marberry, Thomas, Futch and Heninger, establish a picture of lack of communication, misunderstanding, bungling, and unprofessionalism. It is impossible to determine from the rambling and disjointed stories of these witnesses, that either Fred Marberry or Bernon Thomas, individually or together, engaged in "fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, and breach of trust..."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint against both Fred Marberry and Bernon Thomas, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of August, 1987, 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 11th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert D. Gatton, Esquire Maitland Center 1051 Winderley Place Maitland, Florida 32751 Bernon Earl Thomas 4226 Match Point Drive Augusta, Georgia 30909 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue At issue is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the petitioner's "notice of intent to impose administrative fine and to issue cease and desist order" and, if so, what administrative action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is a state agency charged, inter alia, with administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 559, Part XI, Florida Statutes, regulating "sellers of travel." Here, petitioner has charged that respondent had operated as a "seller of travel" without being registered as required by Section 559.927(2), Florida Statutes. The only proof offered to support such contention at hearing was a written inspection report prepared by James Kelly, an inspector employed by petitioner. 1/ That report recited that Mr. Kelly performed an inspection of respondent's premises on November 4, 1994, that he met with Denise Arencibia (who was later identified as respondent's vice president), and that the following events transpired: Went in undercover and asked about weekend cruises. Denise gave me a brochure for the Seaward & gave me prices at $329 per person. She can make all arrangements. They will accept a cashier's check payable to Escape Travel Services. Mr. Kelly did not, however, appear at hearing or otherwise offer testimony in this case. Consequently, for the reasons discussed in the conclusions of law, there is no competent proof of record to support a finding that respondent operated as a "seller of travel" on the date of Mr. Kelly's inspection as contended by petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the charges against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 12th day of September 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b),(e),(k), and Section 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61J-14.009, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Tam N. Shigley (Shigley) was provided notice of the final hearing in this case by Notice of Hearing by Video dated December 6, 1996. The final hearing was scheduled to commenced at 9:00 a.m. on January 31, 1997. The Administrative Law Judge and counsel for Petitioner waited until 9:15 a.m. to commence the hearing, but Shigley did not appear. Shigley did not advise either the Division of Administrative Hearings or the Petitioner that she would not be appearing at the final hearing. Shigley is now and was at all times material to this proceeding a licensed Florida real estate salesperson, issued license number 0465639. On March 27, 1994, Shigley was employed by First Nationwide Mortgage. She negotiated a contract between Bich Hue and Minh Huynh (hereinafter Buyers) and Lois A. Hopwood (hereinafter Seller) for the purchase of a house located in Sunrise, Florida. Shigley was listed as the contract escrow agent on the contract. Shigley received a check for $5,500 from the Buyers as a deposit to be held in escrow until the closing. Shigley cashed the check and did not deposit the proceeds of the check in an escrow account. Shigley’s employer was unaware that Shigley had accepted the check, had cashed the check, and had not deposited the check in the escrow account. At the closing of the real estate transaction, Shigley did not have the $5,500 which she had received from the Buyers and stated that she had lost the money. On May 23, 1994, Shigley entered into an agreement with the seller in which she agreed to pay the Seller the $5,500 within six months and that if she did not repay the money within the specified time that the Seller would report Shigley’s actions to the Real Estate Board. Shigley did not repay the money to the Seller. Michael Millard filed a complaint with the Broward County Sheriff’s Department in March, 1995, alleging that Shigley had absconded with $1350 which he had given her as a deposit on a lease. On March 14, 1995, Harvey Kosberg filed a complaint with the Department of Business and Professional alleging that Shigley, while registered as a salesperson with Rainbow Realty had acted as a broker and took and kept money in her name. The Department undertook to investigate the allegations of Mr. Kosberg and was unable to locate Shigley. She did not have a telephone listing, and the post office did not have a forwarding address for her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Tam N. Shigley violated Sections 475.25(1)(b),(e),(k), and 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61J2-14.009, Florida Administrative Code and revoking her license as a real estate salesperson. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of March, 1997. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey T. Kirk, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation/Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Tam N. Shigley 5834 Autumn Ridge Road Lake Worth, Florida 33463 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all relevant times, respondent, Passport Internationale, Inc. (Passport or respondent), was a seller of travel registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). As such, it was required to post a performance bond with the Department conditioned on the performance of contracted services. In this case, petitioner, Drewes R. Rogge, has filed a claim against the bond in the amount of $1060.00 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. In July 1990, petitioner purchased a travel certificate from Raka Concepts, a telemarketeer authorized by Passport to sell travel certificates on its behalf. Raca Concepts filed for bankruptcy shortly after the transaction occurred, but a Passport representative assured petitioner that it would honor all travel promised by its agent. The certificate, which cost $399.00, entitled the holder and a companion to lodging for four nights in the Bahamas, two nights in Orlando, and two nights in Daytona Beach. Also, the certificate included transportation to and from the Bahamas by a cruise line. After paying for meals on the ship, taxes and additional charges for his children, petitioner's total cost was $634.00. In his claim, however, petitioner has requested a refund of $1,060.00, which includes the cost of upgrades to better accommodations, extra meals, a "VIP package," taxi fares, and a tip. The derivation of this amount is found in petitioner's exhibit 1 received in evidence. All transportion and lodging arrangements were booked by Passport. During the trip, petitioner experienced numerous difficulties, which are described in detail in exhibit 1. Among other problems, he says the cruise ship was overcrowded and dirty, and the original accommodations in Freeport did not meet his expectations (i. e., they were unsafe) causing him to upgrade to better accommodations at a price higher than was represented by Passport's agent. The total cost of the hotel upgrade was $164.85. Also, he was not notified that his scheduled transportation via cruise line from Freeport to Fort Lauderdale was cancelled at the last minute causing him to spend an extra night in the Bahamas. The cruise line, however, paid for his additional night's lodging. When the cruise line returned the following day it sailed to Miami rather than Fort Lauderdale. Petitioner was then taken by bus to Fort Lauderdale at no charge. Finally, before the trip began, petitioner discovered that he was booked into a hotel in Haines City rather than Orlando. After petitioner lodged a protest, Passport agreed to change his accommodations to Orlando. Mainly because of these problems, petitioner has asked for a refund of virtually all of the money spent on the package. Except for the mispresentation regarding the quality of the originally assigned accommodations in Freeport and the price of the upgraded accommodations, which cost petitioner an extra $164.85, there was no showing that Passport was guilty of misrepresentation in its handling of this transaction or otherwise failed to substantially perform the contracted services. Therefore, petitioner should be reimbursed $164.85.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner against the bond of respondent be granted in part and he be paid $164.85 from the bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1994, 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 12th day of December, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Drewes R. Rogge 5804 Chesterfield Drive Chester, Virginia 23831 Michael J. Panaggio 2441 Bellevue Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Robert G. Worley, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
