The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s request to renew a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62- 08383 on or about July 8, 2011, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561- 568, Florida Statutes, including recordation of liens against alcoholic beverage licenses and provision of notice to lienholders pursuant to section 561.65. Petitioner is the holder of a recorded lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62-08383, a 4COP spirituous alcoholic beverage license, commonly referred to as a quota license, which was issued pursuant to sections 561.20(1) and 565.02(1)(a)-(f) for use in Pinellas County. Liens and Security Interests in Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Section 561.65 governs mortgages, liens, and security interests against spirituous alcoholic beverage licenses. DABT has a lien section within its Bureau of Licensing that is responsible for the oversight of lien recordings and lien searches. To perfect a lien or security interest in a spirituous alcoholic beverage license that may be enforceable against the license, the entity holding the security interest or lien must record it with DABT within 90 days of the date of creation of the lien or security interest, using forms authorized by DABT. The forms adopted by DABT require the names of the parties and the terms of the obligation being recorded. § 561.65(4), Fla. Stat. Form DBPR ABT-6022, Application for Mortgagee’s Interest in Spirituous Alcoholic Beverage License, is used to record a new lien, a lien assignment or assumption, or a lien renewal or extension. The form is adopted by rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-5.0012. Upon receipt of a request to record a lien or the renewal of an existing lien, DABT will review the provided documentation and, if the documentation is in order on approved forms and accompanied by the security agreement and statutorily- required payment, will record the lien or lien renewal. If there is a deficiency noted during review of the lien documentation submitted, DABT will issue a 14-day deficiency notice to the requesting entity to provide any missing information. If timely corrected, DABT will record the lien or lien renewal. Section 561.65(4) provides that any lien or security interest filed with DABT on or after July 1, 1995, expires five years after recordation by DABT unless renewed by the lienholder within six months prior to its expiration date. Statutory Notice Requirements to Lienholders Recording a lien not only makes it enforceable, but provides assurance to the lienholder that it will receive notice of pending actions by DABT against the license that may compromise the lien’s vitality. Section 561.65 also sets forth requirements for DABT to provide notice to lienholders of both pending actions against encumbered licenses and any suspension or revocation of a license subject to a lien. Specifically, section 561.65(3) provides that “such lienholder shall be notified in writing of the filing of an order to show cause as to why the license should not be suspended or revoked; and also the lienholder shall be furnished a copy of any order of suspension or revocation.” (Emphasis added). In other words, two separate notices are required: one when the agency institutes proceedings against the licensee and a second if the agency action against the licensee results in a suspension or revocation of the license. Respondent does not assert and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that Petitioner had knowledge of or participated in the cause for revocation of the license at issue in this proceeding, or that Petitioner would not otherwise be entitled to notice of the revocation proceeding. The holder of a recorded lien is entitled to notice because the lienholder has the right to enforce the lien against the licensee within 180 days after the entry of any order of revocation or suspension of the license. Section 561.65(3) specifies that “the 180 days within which to file for enforcement of the lien by the lienholder shall commence running from the date of the mailing of the copy of the order of revocation or suspension.” Thus, the 180-day period runs from when notice is sent to the lienholder, not from the entry of the final order of suspension or revocation. Once notice is provided to the lienholder, any enforcement of the lien is through foreclosure proceedings in circuit court. The process for foreclosure proceedings is outlined in section 561.65(5). Most importantly, both section 561.19(2) and section 561.65(1) provide that no revoked quota beverage license encumbered by a lien or security interest perfected in accordance with section 561.65 shall be issued until the 180-day period (from mailing of the suspension or revocation order) has elapsed or until such enforcement proceeding is final. Re-issuance Through Double Random Drawings Quota licenses may become available three ways: 1) when a dry county goes wet (i.e., a county that previously prohibited the sale of alcohol decides to allow it), three initial quota licenses are issued for the county; 2) when there are population increases in a county, an additional quota license is issued for every population increase of 7,500; and 3) when a quota license in a county has been revoked. When any of those instances occur, pursuant to the directive in section 561.19(2), quota licenses are issued through the use of a double random public drawing. While a revoked quota license may be reissued in a double random quota drawing, if a revoked quota license is encumbered by a perfected and recorded lien or security interest, as discussed previously, it may not be reissued until the 180-day period has elapsed or until enforcement/foreclosure proceedings are final. Damon Larry is currently the assistant bureau chief of licensing, and oversees the annual quota drawing. Each year, he runs a report of all revoked quota licenses and, if the revocation is final, determines whether the 180-day period has elapsed. Before a revoked quota license is placed in the double random drawing, there is communication between staff in different sections within the Department to determine if a license is eligible for inclusion in the quota drawing. The communications involve the quota drawing section, the licensing section, the administrative case unit, the Office of the General Counsel, and the lien section. During this process, DABT staff will determine whether there is a lien attached to the license and, if so, whether there was notice to the lienholder, and whether the 180 days has elapsed or foreclosure proceedings no longer remain pending. If all of these conditions have been met, the revoked license is placed in the quota drawing for reissuance under a new license number. The revoked license number is then deleted from the Department’s database. Petitioner’s Lien Against Alcoholic Beverage License No. 62-08383 Turning to the facts of this case, Daniel A. King, as debtor, executed and delivered a Demand Promissory Note in favor of Rebco on or about April 18, 1997, in the principal amount of $61,000, and simultaneously executed a security agreement in favor of Rebco, as the secured party, pledging license number 62-08383 (the License) as collateral for repayment of the sums due and owing under the Promissory Note. Rebco submitted the promissory note and security agreement to DABT for initial recordation as a lien against the License on or about May 1, 1997, within 90 days of the date of the creation of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien against the License effective May 8, 1997. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on May 8, 2002. Rebco submitted a request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about November 7, 2001, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement, and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective November 7, 2001. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on November 7, 2006. Rebco submitted a second request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about July 26, 2006, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective August 1, 2006. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on August 1, 2011. The License Revocation Proceedings On or about November 16, 2006, at a time when the lien was recorded in the records of DABT, DABT filed administrative charges against Daniel J. King, holder of the License, in Case number 2006-049240, alleging that the licensee failed to operate the License in accordance with section 561.29(1)(f). DABT was unable to achieve personal service on Mr. King, so it published notice of the administrative action in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. The published notice did not identify Petitioner, and no evidence was presented to indicate that DABT sent a copy of the notice to Rebco. Rebco clearly had a recorded lien against the License when the disciplinary action was filed against the License. DABT did not notify Petitioner of the pending action. On or about June 22, 2007, after receiving no written defense in the disciplinary proceeding, DABT issued a Final Order revoking the License effective July 31, 2007. The Final Order of Revocation was not served on Rebco, the owner of the security interest in the License. Petitioner had a recorded lien against the License on file with DABT both when proceedings were instituted against the License and on the date of the entry of the Final Order of Revocation. Stephanie Coxwell works in the administrative case unit of DABT and has done so for at least the last 14 years. The administrative case unit is responsible for determining whether an alcoholic beverage license that is pending revocation or suspension is encumbered by a lien and for notifying any lienholder of the revocation or suspension of an encumbered license. DABT’s practice was to mail any lienholder notice of the license suspension or revocation, along with a copy of the final order, soon after entry of the final order. It is this mailing of the notice and final order that commences the 180 days referenced in section 561.65. For at least the last 14 years, DABT has used a form “notice to lienholder” to notify lienholders of the revocation or suspension of an alcoholic beverage license, accompanied by a copy of the final order revoking or suspending the license. The notification form is a public record maintained by DABT. It is this notification, and not the publication of the pending action, that provides notice to the lienholder. Internal correspondence from Ms. Coxwell within the licensure file for the License indicates that in December 2006, she requested a lien search with respect to the License. Ms. Coxwell was advised by return e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the license. On or about March 21, 2007, Ms. Coxwell requested research for any bankruptcy proceedings affecting the License. She was again informed by intra-agency e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the License. Ms. Coxwell replied by e-mail that she was aware that there was a lien, but that they would notify the lienholder of the administrative action “in the usual way.” However, Ms. Coxwell’s March 27 e-mail was sent three months before the final order revoking the license, not simultaneous to the Order. There is no record that notification was sent to Rebco, either at the time of the administrative action, or after issuance of the final order. Beverly Peebles works in Rebco’s corporate office located at 701 Tennessee River Drive, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35661, and has done so since 1990. She is responsible for receiving, retaining, and disbursing any mail received by Rebco. Ms. Peebles testified regarding the process used to copy, scan into the company’s electronic database, and distribute any mail received by Rebco. Rebco did not receive any notice concerning the administrative action or the revocation of the License until Rebco received the letter denying the recordation of its lien renewal against the license in 2011. Rebco’s address was at all times on file with the DABT since the inception of the lien against the license in 1997. It is found that the DABT did not notify Rebco that there was an administrative action filed against the License, and did not notify Rebco of the Final Order of Revocation against the License. The licensure file contains all other expected documents from the first recordation of the lien in 1997 to the present. It does not include a copy of notice to Rebco of either the pending action or the Final Order of revocation. Moreover, both a letter dated August 19, 2011, to counsel for Rebco, as well as an e-mail dated March 21, 2007, from Ms. Coxwell, contain handwritten notes regarding the failure to send proper notification. The notes, which are clearly hearsay, are part of public records maintained in the normal course of business, and corroborate Ms. Peebles’ testimony that no notification was received. They also corroborate evidence of the absence of any record of notification to Rebco in DABT’s records of regularly-conducted activity. The August 19, 2011, letter contains a handwritten note at the top stating, “$61K lien no lien ltr sent,” and the e-mail dated March 21, 2007, referenced in paragraph 32, contains the following note: “are we the only group/people who check for current liens recorded before deleting the license? It was deleted on 5/4/2011. Lien was still recorded at that time.”2/ Respondent has presented no credible evidence to indicate that the notice was somehow sent despite the lack of any documentation to that effect contained in the DABT’s records. While the handwritten notes standing alone do not establish that no notice was sent, they do indicate that a question was raised internally regarding whether adequate notice was provided. Despite the failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the License was placed in the 2010 double random drawing held on March 10, 2011, at a time when a valid lien against the License was duly recorded. Only one license for Pinellas County was included in the drawing for that year, and no licenses for Pinellas County have been issued in a double random quota drawing since then. Shortly after the random drawing, the license number assigned to the License was removed from the Department’s system and a new number assigned to the license issued as a result of the drawing. While there is no direct testimony on the issue, it can be inferred that the purchaser of the new license received the license with no notice that there was any outstanding lien on the right to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages in Pinellas County under the new license. While it is DABT’s practice to delete a revoked license number from its database, no evidence or statutory reference was presented to support the premise that there is a legal impediment to renewing an existing lien for a revoked license when no notice of the revocation was provided. Given the Department’s failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the 180-day period identified in section 560.65 never began to run. On or about July 6, 2011, Rebco timely submitted a third request to DABT to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division, which request was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement. DABT notified Rebco by letter dated July 19, 2011, that it was unable to record the lien renewal because it was not submitted for recordation within 90 days of its creation. The July 19, 2011, notice of denial was issued based upon a review of the lien renewal request submitted to DABT, because the executed ABT6022 lien-recording form submitted with Rebco’s third renewal request mistakenly identified the effective date of the lien renewal as April 18, 1997, the date of the creation of the original lien. On or about July 25, 2011, Rebco submitted an amended form ABT6022 correcting the effective date for renewal of the lien as August 1, 2011. On August 3, 2011, DABT notified Rebco that it was unable to record the renewal of the lien against the License because “the alcoholic beverage license being pledged as collateral was revoked by the Division on July 31, 2007,” following service of a Notice of Action through publication in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. No action taken by Rebco compromised the vitality of its recorded lien against the License. To the contrary, Rebco faithfully adhered to the recording requirements outlined by statute to record and renew its lien. DABT, however, failed to take the action required by section 561.65 to provide notice to Rebco of the pending action and subsequent revocation of the License. As a result, the 180- day period required by section 561.65 did not run before the License was placed in the quota drawing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order approving the renewal of Rebco’s lien in the License at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for a violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, a provision of the Florida Beverage Law, which prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses: Thomas L. Stout, Bernard W. Cooper, Timothy J. Culley, and Craig Brady Cooper. Mr. Antonino Sciarrino testified on behalf of respondent. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence two exhibits and the Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence. Both the Respondent and counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the hearing officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions contained within this order they were considered by the hearing officer and rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this action the Respondent was the holder of beverage license number 21-478, Series 2COP. This license was issued for the licensed premises located at 499 Goodlette Road, Naples, Florida. The licensed premises is a convenience store that also sells various types of food and dry good items plus sandwiches and beer. The Goodlette Food Mart, Inc. is owned and managed by Antonino Sciarrino, the President of the Respondent corporation. The Goodlette Food Mart opened for business on January 1, 1982. Prior to this time Mr. Sciarrino operated a deli in New York City where he also sold beer. Sometime during October, 1982 (the specific date being unknown) , Craig Cooper, a minor, 16 years of age was stopped by a Naples police officer and found to be in the possession of a six-pack of beer. This beer had been purchased by Craig Cooper at the Goodlette Food Mart and he informed the police officer of this fact. Mr. Cooper was asked by the police officer if he would be willing to cooperate in a controlled buy at the Goodlette Food Mart. Mr. Cooper indicated that he would. Subsequent to the October stop Craig Cooper agreed to cooperate with the police in making a controlled purchase of alcoholic beverages at the Goodlette Food Mart and on November 6, 1982, Mr. Cooper was contacted by a Naples police officer and was given cash. He was asked to go to the Goodlette Food Mart and to use the cash he had been given to attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages. From the police station Craig Cooper drove to the Goodlette Food Mart and Officer Culley of the Naples Police Department followed him. While Craig Cooper went inside the Goodlette Food Mart Officer Culley observed from the parking lot, Craig Cooper entered the Goodlette Food Mart and went directly to the cooler area where soft drinks and alcoholic beverages are kept. He removed a six-pack of Heineken Beer. He then proceeded to the cash register and paid for the beer. The cashier on duty was Robert Peterson. He did not question Craig Cooper or ask him for any identification at the time that Mr. Cooper paid for the beer. Mr. Cooper then left the store and turned the beer over to Officer Culley. At the time of the purchase by Craig Cooper, the manager Antonino Sciarrino was not present in the store. Mr. Sciarrino, was in the store 10 to 12 hours a day, but was generally not present in the evenings. Robert Peterson had been hired as a part-time employee approximately two or three months prior to November 6, 1982. Mr. Sciarrino had no prior problems with Robert Peterson and was not aware of any instances where he had sold beer to minors. At the time Robert Peterson was hired, he was instructed to not sell to minors and to always ask for and check identification prior to selling alcoholic beverages. There was also a sign posted in the employees room where they clock in and clock out which warned them that they could be criminally prosecuted for failing to check identification and for selling alcoholic beverages to minors. The Goodlette Food Mart had a policy against selling to minors and all employees were instructed regarding this policy and were required to check identification prior to selling alcoholic beverages. There were signs posted on the cooler and the cash register informing customers that minors were prohibited from purchasing alcoholic beverages and that identification was required, There was also a sign next to the cash register which reminded the cashier to check the customers' I.D. when purchasing alcoholic beverages. This sign also gave the date and year which the birthdate on the identification had to predate in order for the person to purchase alcoholic beverages. The purpose of this sign was to enable employees to more efficiently and more accurately check identifications. Immediately following notification of the November 6, 1982, sale to Craig Cooper, Mr. Sciarrino terminated Robert Peterson's employment with the Goodlette Food Mart.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That thee Respondent be found not guilty of the violation charged in the Notice to Show Cause and that the charge be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice G. Scott, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Antonino Sciarrino, President Goodlette Food Mart, Inc. 499 Goodlette Road Naples, Florida Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the terms of probation of the Consent Agreement, effective January 12, 1990. Whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the notices to Show Cause.
Findings Of Fact As to Case No. 90-2711: At all times pertinent to this case, Respondents were doing business at 3200 South Orlando Drive, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida as Cesare's Palace, under alcoholic beverage license number 69-00467, series 4-COP-S. On April 19, 1989 a formal hearing was conducted in Sanford, Florida, and presided over by Hearing Officer Mary Clark of the Division of Administrative Hearings, in which the parties were the same. On August 4, 1989, a Final Order was issued in which the Division Director adopted in toto Hearing Officer Clark's findings of fact, all but one of her conclusions of law, and adopted her recommendation for a finding of guilty. The Division Director changed the recommended penalty to a twenty day suspension and a $1,000.00 civil penalty. The twenty day suspension was to commence, and the $1,000 civil penalty was to be paid on August 23, 1989. Respondents timely appealed Petitioner's Final Order on August 14, 1989. On August 22, 1989, Petitioner stayed the imposition of the penalty pending appellate review. Respondents and Petitioner executed a Consent Agreement in settlement of the case. Accordingly, Respondents withdrew their appeal, and timely paid the $1,000.00 civil penalty. Petitioner suspended imposition of the 20 day license suspension for 12 months commencing on January 12, 1990. The Agreement and the Addendum thereto were signed by both Respondents and their attorney. Respondents agreed to abide by certain terms of probation, as set forth in the Consent Agreement, and acknowledged that violation of one or more of the terms of probation would result in the imposition of the 20 day license suspension. The terms of probation called for Respondents to affirm in writing not later than 30 days after the effective date of the Consent Agreement, to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, that certain specified tasks had been accomplished. The Consent Agreement became effective on January 12, 1990 when it was accepted by the Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On or about February 11 (a Sunday) or February 12, 1990, Law Enforcement Investigator David Ramey went to the licensed premises to ascertain whether Respondents had accomplished the tasks which were to be affirmed in writing to the Division as being accomplished. The task of posting signs indicating that identification was required had been accomplished. The task to provide "written policies and procedures for employees to ensure that they are familiar with Florida drivers licenses, Florida identification cards, and passports; that they are sensitive to the importance of ensuring that alcoholic beverages are not sold to the underaged; that they are capable of, given a birth date, computing age; and that they understand that service of alcoholic beverages must be refused to those whose age and/or identification appear questionable to the employee" was not accomplished. The task of training and instructing all employees on the written policies and procedures relative to identification was not accomplished. The task of carefully monitoring employees to ensure that they are following company policy was not accomplished. No written affirmation reporting accomplishment of the above tasks was forwarded to the Division either within or without the thirty day period. The Consent Agreement included as a term of probation that Respondents become certified responsible vendors by March 1, 1990. Respondents' Application for Certification as a Responsible Vendor is dated March 5, 1990; the application was not forwarded to the Bureau of Vendor Training until April 7, 1990. Respondents had not become certified responsible vendors by March 1, 1990. William Walter Proctor was born on October 1, 1970 and has been serving as an underaged operative with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco since late January or early February 1990. When serving as an underaged operative, Mr. Proctor is to bring his drivers license, and to possess only the money given to him by the investigators. If asked for identification, Mr. Proctor is instructed to provide his drivers license which accurately reflects his date of birth. If asked his age, Mr. Proctor is instructed to answer truthfully. On March 6, 1990, Proctor was serving as an underaged operative with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He was working with Investigators Dave Ramey and Mark Douglas. During the evening Proctor entered the licensed premises, Cesare's Palace, located at 3200 South Orlando Boulevard, Sanford, Florida. Investigator Douglas also entered the premises. Proctor went to the bar and took a seat. The bartender took Proctor's order for a Michelob light beer, and asked to see Proctor's identification. Proctor gave the bartender his drivers license. The bartender took the license to the end of the bar, held it under a light, and then returned the license to Proctor and handed him the beer he had ordered. Proctor observed the bartender open the Michelob Light beer, and place the beer in front of Proctor. Proctor took possession of the beer, and the bartender took possession of the $1.85 provided by Proctor in payment for the beer. Proctor immediately turned the Michelob Light beer over to Investigator Douglas. Proctor identified Petitioner's Exhibit 3 as the drivers license he provided the bartender at Cesare's Palace on March 6, 1990. Mark Douglas is a law enforcement investigator for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He, along with Investigator Ramey were working with the underaged operative William Walter Proctor on March 6, 1990. Investigator Douglas entered the licensed premises, Cesare's Palace around 9:15 p.m. on the 6th of March. Some ten minutes later, underaged operative Proctor entered the premises. Investigator Douglas observed Mr. Adams open a bottle of Michelob Light beer and place it in front of Mr. Proctor. Investigator Douglas deals with alcoholic beverages every day of his working life. He is familiar with Michelob beer, and has seen bottles of Michelob Light before. The bottle of Michelob Light he received from Mr. Proctor on the 6th of March looked like the other such bottles he had seen. Additionally, Investigator Douglas took a sample of the beer prior to destroying the remaining contents of the bottle. Investigator Douglas has been trained in identifications; drivers licenses in particular. He knows that the yellow background against which Proctor's picture is depicted on Petitioner's Exhibit 3 means that the individual to whom the license was issued was under 21 at the time of the issuance. Investigator Douglas identified Respondent Polidoro as having been seated at the end of the bar when the sale to Proctor occurred. When Mr. Adams was looking at Mr. Proctor's drivers license, Respondent Polidoro leaned forward and looked down the bar. Respondent Polidoro has very bad vision; he is both nearsighted and farsighted. His glasses were not on at the time of the events involving Adams and Proctor. Respondent Polidoro has known Adams for two years and has complete confidence in him. On March 6, 1990, Respondent Polidoro was not aware that his bartender, Adams wore reading glasses. Adams made the mistake of forgetting his glasses. He left them in his room. Thus he was without his reading glasses while tending bar at the licensed premises on March 6, 1990. Respondent Polidoro is of the opinion that he has twice been entrapped by Petitioner into selling an alcoholic beverage to a minor, and that Petitioner, on 15 other occasions has failed to entrap Respondents. As to Case No. 90-5983: Marino Benevides went to work for Respondents as the housekeeping manager of the Cavalier Motor Inn, located at 3200 South Orlando Drive, in April, 1988. On or about May 1, 1989, Benevides leased from Respondents the lounge that is part of the Cavalier Motor Inn complex. The rent was $7500 a month, and was paid to Respondent Polidoro. Although the lease agreement was reduced to writing, it was never signed. Benevides hired and paid the employees of the lounge. Benevides hired and paid for the entertainment in the lounge. Benevides paid the utility bill for the lounge. Had there been net profits generated by the lounge, the net profits would have been received by Benevides. Benevides' obligation to Respondents was to pay them a fixed sum of $7500 a month. Payment of distributors for alcoholic beverages was made by the Respondents who were then reimbursed by Benevides. Benevides could not pay the distributors directly because the liquor license was not under his name. Respondent Milazzo was aware that leasing the lounge was a violation. The Respondents had the authority to "kick out" Benevides and that is what they did on January 27, 1990. "No violations of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes during the probationary period" is a term of probation in the Consent Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondents be found guilty of the following offenses: Respondents violated the terms of probation contained in the Consent Agreement, dated January 12, 1990, as follows: Respondents did not affirm to the Division, prior to February 12, 1990, that written policies and procedures for employees to ensure compliance with the Florida Beverage Laws had been established; that all employees had been properly trained in the identification of underaged persons; and did not carefully monitor all employees to ensure that they were following company policy. 1990. Respondents did not become certified responsible vendors by March 1, On March 6, 1990, during the probationary period, a bartender employed by Respondents, on the licensed premises, sold an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age. On March 6, 1990, a bartender employed by Respondents sold an alcoholic beverage on the licensed premises to a person under 21 years of age, in violation of Sections 562.11 and 561.29, Florida Statutes, and Respondents were negligent in failing to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees and maintaining surveillance over the premises. Respondents failed to maintain control of the licensed premises by leasing the premises to an independent contractor contrary to Rule 7A-3.017, Florida Administrative Code. It is further RECOMMENDED that: Respondents' probation be revoked and that the alcoholic beverage license held by Anthony J. Milazzo and Cesare A. Polidoro, License No. 69-00467, Series 4-COP-S be suspended for 20 days. Based on the sale of an alcoholic beverage to a person under age 21 and for failure to maintain control of the licensed premises, Respondents' alcoholic beverage license, No. 69-00467, Series 4-COP-S, be suspended for 90 days, to run concurrently with the suspension for violation of probation, pay a fine of $1,000 and submit proof of compliance with the terms of the Consent Agreement prior to reinstatement of the license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in substance: paragraph 1 through (blank on original document-ac) Respondent did not file proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: John B. Fretwell Deputy General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Richard A. Colegrove, Jr., Esquire 101 W. First St., Suite C Sanford, FL 32771 Leonard Ivey, Director Dept. of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Joseph Sole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent, Club Manhattan Bar and Grill, LLC, d/b/a Club Manhattan Bar and Grill (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaints dated September 13, 2010, and December 1, 2010, and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. Respondent is licensed under the Florida beverage law by the Department. Respondent holds a 4COP/SRX special restaurant license issued by the Department with Alcoholic Beverage License No. 68-04347. Ms. Stokes is the licensee of record for Respondent. Consequently, Respondent is subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent's series 4COP/SRX is a special restaurant license that permits it to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises. Additionally, the licensee must satisfy seating and record-keeping requirements and must comply with 51 percent of its gross sales being food and non- alcoholic beverages. See § 561.20(2)(a)4., Fla. Stat. Respondent's restaurant is located in Sarasota County, Florida, and, pursuant to the 4COP/SRX license, must have seating and capability to serve 150 customers at any one time. On August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn conducted an inspection of Respondent's business premises. He conducted the inspection based on complaints made to the Department that Respondent was operating as an after-hours bar, rather than a restaurant. At this initial inspection, which occurred at 2:30 p.m. on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn found the restaurant did not have any customers or menus. Further, he noticed that the premises had seating for only 92 people and a large dance floor. Further, he observed that the walls had signs advertising drink specials and late-night parties. Special Agent Flynn met Ms. Stokes, Respondent's manager and holder of the license, and informed her that the beverage license required that Respondent be able to serve 150 customers at one time. Also, Special Agent Flynn requested the required business records concerning the purchase of alcoholic beverage invoices from the distributors for a 60-day proceeding period. Ms. Stokes did not have the requested records on the premises. On August 19, 2010, Special Agent Flynn sent Ms. Stokes a written request, requesting alcoholic purchase invoices for a 60-day period before August 19, 2010. The request allowed Ms. Stokes 14 days to compile the records and to provide the records to the Department. The record here showed by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not produce records for the audit period. On September 8, 2010, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Special Agent Flynn returned to Respondent's premises. Again, he found that Respondent did not have the required seating number and ability to serve 150 customers at one time. Special Agent Flynn offered credible testimony that, during the September 8, 2010, inspection, he found Respondent had only 106 available seats. Further, consistent with his inspection on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed facts showing that Respondent was a late-night bar, as opposed to a restaurant. The evidence showed that on September 8, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed that Respondent did not have any customers, menus, and very little food in its small kitchen. Special Agent Flynn, however, did observe that Respondent continued to have its large dance floor, disc jockey booth, advertised drink specials, and posters advertising late-night parties. Clearly, Respondent was being operated as a bar, rather than a restaurant as required by its license. At the September 8, 2010, inspection, Special Agent Flynn again requested Respondent's business records that he had previously requested for the 60-day time period before August 19, 2010. Ms. Stokes provided a few invoices for purchases of food and non-alcoholic beverages. These invoices were dated after the August 19, 2010, date that Special Agent Flynn had requested and did not cover the requested 60 days prior to the August 19, 2010, request. These records included food and beverage purchases by Respondent from retailers, but did not contain any records concerning the points of sale at the restaurant. Ms. Nadeau, an auditor for the Department, offered credible testimony concerning the Department's request for business records from Respondent for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. On August 27, 2010, Ms. Nadeau set up an audit request for the period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, based on information provided by Special Agent Flynn. The Department provided Ms. Stokes with an audit engagement letter that requested business records. Ms. Nadeau testified that on September 10, 2010, she was contacted by Ms. Stokes. Ms. Stokes informed Ms. Nadeau that Ms. Stokes had become the owner of the restaurant in June 2010 and that she did not have the required records. Ms. Nadeau informed Ms. Stokes to provide all the records requested in the audit engagement letter that Ms. Stokes had and to try to obtain the prior records from the previous managing member of Respondent. On September 22, 2010, Ms. Stokes mailed to the Department records she claimed met the audit period. The records consisted of guest checks for July and August 2010, which only showed food purchases and no alcoholic beverage purchases. Further, Ms. Nadeau found that the records were not reliable, because the records contained numerous personal items not related to the restaurant, such as baby wipes, cotton swabs, and boxer shorts. Consequently, the record clearly and convincingly shows that Respondent failed to provide the required business records for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. Next, based on Respondent's failure to provide any reliable records, the Department was unable to conduct an audit of the business. Records provided by Respondent indicated that the only sales that occurred on the premises were for food. However, the testimony showed that Respondent's business included the sale of alcohol and marketed the sale of alcoholic beverages for late-night parties. Mr. Torres, the senior auditor for the Department, credibly testified that he conducted an independent review of Ms. Nadeau's initial audit findings. Mr. Torres, who has been employed with the Department for 27 years, reviewed the records provided by Respondent. He credibly testified that Respondent's guest checks were very questionable because they showed all food sales, but no alcohol, which was not consistent with Special Agent Flynn's observations. The evidence further showed that Ms. Stokes became the managing member of Respondent in June 2010. Ms. Stokes provided the Department with a change of corporate officers and named herself as registered agent, rather than apply for a new license. This distinction would later become important because, as explained by Ms. Nadeau, in the Department's eyes, there is a continuation of ownership. Under a continuation of ownership, Ms. Stokes was required to have business records for the time period before she became the managing member of Respondent. Ms. Stokes credibly testified that she did not have any records before June 20, 2010; thus, Respondent was unable to provide records for the audit period. Ms. Stokes candidly admitted that her restaurant had been struggling financially, which is why she had worked to catering special events to draw foot traffic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license and finding that Respondent violated: 1. Section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by failing to provide the required service area, seating, and equipment to serve 150 persons full-course meals at tables at one time as required by its license; 2. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, by not providing the requested business records; and 3. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by not providing the requested business records. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find that the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 23rd day of September, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated March 9, 1988, filed by Ocie C. Allen, Jr., should be approved by the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Ocie C. Allen, Jr., d/b/a OCA, filed an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated March 9, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Division. In the Application, Mr. Allen indicated under "Type of Application" that the Application type was "Other - ownership change because of contract and change of location." Mr. Allen listed himself as the "Applicant" and signed the Application as the "Applicant." The "Current License Number" listed in the Application to be transferred to Mr. Allen is 62-03498, current series 4 COP. The holder of this license was Terri Howell. At the end of the Application there is an "Affidavit of Seller(s)" to be executed by the licensee from whom the license is to be transferred. This affidavit has not been completed in the Application. The purchase price for the business was listed as $86,250.00. By letter dated March 16, 1988, the Division returned the Application to Mr. Allen and informed him that it was being returned for the following reasons: (1.) Need copy of loan in the amount of $86,250.00. (2.) If there are other agreements concerning this change, we will need copies. (Closing Statements) (3.) Need Affidavit of Seller signed by Ms. Howell making sure signature has been notarized on both applications. (4.) If no business name, please use applicants [sic] name also in that blank. Mr. Allen returned the Application to the Division with a letter dated March 21, 1988, and indicated, in part, the following: The Loan of $86,250.00 is 75% of the appraised value for which a 4 COP license was sold in Pinellas County prior to Ms. Howell winning the drawing. This amount is reduced by the amounts she has received from the operation of Spanky's. Thereby the actual amount owed by me to Ms. Howell is $86,250.00 LESS the amount she has received during the operation of Spanky's, approximately, $60,000.00. The Application was not modified by Mr. Allen. In a letter dated March 24, 1988, the Director of the Division requested the following additional information from Mr. Allen: (1.) Need Affidavit of Seller signed by Ms. Howell making sure signature has been notarized on both applications. (2.) Complete (No.5) Type of License Desired: (Series ). By letter dated March 28, 1988, Mr. Allen responded as follows to the Division's request for information: Enclosed is the application for transfer. Ms. Howell signature [sic] on the Independent [sic] Contractor Agreement is the only signature of hers that will be furnished to you. By letter dated April 4, 1988, the Division informed Mr. Allen that Terri Howell, the licensee, needed to sign the Affidavit of Seller. The Division notified Mr. Allen that it intended to deny the Application in a letter dated May 31, 1988. Mr. Allen was provided a Notice of Disapproval of the Application in a letter dated June 29, 1988. The following reasons were given for denial of the Application: Application to transfer the license does not bear the signature of the current licensee and, therefore does not evidence a bonafide [sic] sale of the business pursuant to [Section] 561.32, Florida Statutes. Application incomplete as applicant has failed to provide complete verification of his financial investment. Also, applicant has failed to provide records establishing the annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three years immediately preceding the date of the request for transfer. The Division is, therefore, unable to fully investigate the application pursuant to Florida law. By letter dated July 19, 1988, Mr. Allen requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the Division's denial of the Application. Mr. Allen sent a letter to the Division dated October 27, 1988, with an Affidavit requesting permission to pay a transfer fee of $5,000.00 "in lieu of the 4-mill assessment."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing the case with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 17th day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Ocie C. Allen, Jr. Post Office Box 10616 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lt. B. A. Watts, Supervisor Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 345 S. Magnolia Drive, Suite C-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry Hooper Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927
The Issue The issues for disposition are whether Respondent sold alcoholic beverages to an underage person in violation of section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Petitioner’s Administrative Action dated February 20, 1996, and if so, what penalty or discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the holder of alcoholic beverage license no. 69-01472, Series 2APS, for a licensed premises doing business as Superette #3, located at 199 North Country Club Road, Lake Mary, Seminole County, Florida. On February 8, 1996 and at all relevant times, Salim Dhanani was the sole corporate officer and sole shareholder of Superette #3, Inc., the holder of the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. The “City/County Investigative Bureau” (CCIB) is a task force of officers from the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department and surrounding cities assigned to investigate crimes relating to drugs, alcohol and vice, including the sale of alcohol to minors. CCIB acts on complaints and works with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT). Darrell Brewer, born March 18, 1976, was a police explorer who was asked to help the CCIB investigate sales of alcohol to underage persons. On February 8, 1996, he was 19 years old and was working with Officers Johnson and Hartner. On February 8, 1996, in the evening around 8:00 p.m., Brewer and a CCIB agent entered the licensed premises, Superette #3. Brewer wore jeans and a tee-shirt and carried cash and a valid ID, which he was instructed to present if requested. Brewer picked out a 6-pack of Miller Genuine Draft beer and took it to the counter, where he purchased it without being asked for identification or any question regarding his age. Brewer turned over the beer to Officer Johnson, who returned to the store and arrested the clerk who had made the sale, Salim Dhanani. In May 1996, Dhanani went to court and pled no contest to the criminal charge of sale of alcohol to an underage person. He paid a fine. In his eleven years in the United States, this is the only violation by Dhanani. He worked in several places before taking over Superette #3 in November 1993, and he never had problems with DABT. After the Brewer incident, Dhanani hired a private consultant to train his wife and him and their one employee. They learned to “ID” everyone, including regular customers; they posted signs and notices informing customers of their “responsible vendor policy” and their intent to prosecute minors attempting to purchase alcohol. Dhanani admits that he sold beer to Brewer without asking for identification and without questioning his age. Brewer is a large, mature youth who, at the time of hearing, looked to be in his mid-20’s. To Dhanani, at the time of sale, Brewer appeared to be “28 or so”. Under the responsible vendor program any customer who appears to be under the age of 30 must be required to present proper identification. Through Capt. Ewing, DABT presented unrebutted evidence that the premises in Lake Mary has been vacated by the licensee, Superette #3, Inc., and a new license was issued to the landlord of the premises. Cancellation of the Superette #3 license is in abeyance pending this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcohol Beverages and Tobacco enter its final order finding that Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Action, assessing a fine of $1000.00, and suspending the license for 7 days, or until Respondent has found an approved new location. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April 1997 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 17th day of April 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Winokur, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Steven G. Horneffer, Esquire Suite 109 101 Sunnytown Road Casselberry, Florida 32707 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the amended notice to show cause dated November 27, 1990, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent, Jose Julio Alves, owns or holds an alcoholic beverage license for a business known as Royal Garden which is a restaurant located at 1257 U.S. 1 South, Rockledge, Florida 32955. The license for the premises, #15-01801 2-COP, was obtained in 1989. Respondent is originally from Portugal, but he has resided in Brevard County for several years. Respondent speaks and understands English and has successfully handled the business operation of the Royal Garden since 1989. In April of 1989, Respondent executed a form entitled "APPLICATION FOR AND CERTIFICATION OF A PERMIT TO IMPORT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES INTO FLORIDA". That form represented that the alcoholic beverages to be imported had been legally purchased outside the U.S.A. by Respondent personally, and that the shipment to his Florida residence was for his personal consumption. Along with that application Respondent submitted the appropriate excise tax amount to cover 24 cases of red port wine. The subject wine bore the name "Vintage Port" 1985. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 561.11 and 562.15, Florida Statutes, together with Rule 7A-2.10, Florida Administrative Code, the Department granted Respondent permission to bring the beverages into the State of Florida and acknowledged that the excise taxes on the beverages had been paid. On or about August 8, 1990, Agent Rigsby conducted an inspection of the Royal Garden restaurant and was accompanied by the Respondent. During that inspection, Agent Rigsby found and seized 11 bottles of Vintage Port 1985 wine which were located within the restaurant's walk-in cooler. Additionally, Agent Rigsby seized two empty bottles bearing the same labels from a shelf outside the restaurant's office. Since the bottles did not bear indications that taxes had been paid, the Department charged Respondent with having possession of alcoholic beverages for which the taxes had not been paid and for purchasing same from an unlicensed vendor. According to Respondent, all taxes due and payable on the wine described in paragraphs 3 and 4 had been properly paid at the time of its importation into Florida. Respondent acknowledged that the wine was not purchased from a licensed vendor since he admitted that the port seized on the Royal Garden premises was from the cases he had imported for personal consumption. Why and how the wine made its way from Respondent's residence to Respondent's restaurant is less than clear. According to Respondent, the wine was stored in the restaurant's walk-in cooler and was only used for cooking or as a complimentary drink to friends or special customers. Respondent maintains that the wine was never sold to customers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.14(3), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, in accordance with Section 561.29(3), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin L. Suarez Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 George B. Turner 65 E. Nasa Boulevard, Suite 106 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 APPENDIX RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. Paragraph 7 is rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. With the deletion of the word "luxury" paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: With regard to paragraph 1 it is accepted that Agent Rigsby conducted an investigation of the Royal Garden in August, 1990. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the Respondent's admissions. The Respondent admitted he gave the wine to his special customers/friends as a complimentary drink and that such gifts sometimes occurred incidental to their meals at the restaurant. Paragraph 7 is rejected as hearsay, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are rejected as irrelevant.
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation filed September 11, 1986, the parties agreed to findings of fact 1-11. Donna Sawyer filed a preliminary application to participate in the state lottery for liquor license on January 20, 1984, on Department of Business Regulation form No. 747L. On September 18, 1984, Donna Sawyer was notified by Respondent that she had been selected in the lottery held on September 12, 1984, to be eligible to apply for a state quota liquor license. That on or about November 2, 1984, Donna Sawyer, acting through her wholly owned corporation, Sarasota County Liquors, Inc., filed a sworn "application for Alcoholic Beverage License" (Department of Business Regulation Form No. 700L), with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. That application included a description of a location which was to be the licensed premises. A Personal Questionaire, Department of Business Regulation Form 710L, was also included by Petitioner with said application. The license application was denied by Respondent on March 8, 1985. The grounds for the denial as stated in the denial letter were Petitioner's failure to provide: (1) proof of right of occupancy to the premises Petitioner was seeking to license; (2) verification of financial investment; (3) business name, and (4) sketch of the premises affixed to the application. On April 10, 1985, Sandra Allen, Esquire, acting on behalf of Petitioner, requested an administrative hearing in order to contest the March 8, 1985, denial of the subject license. Joseph Forbes, Esquire, of Gainesville, Florida, was then retained by Petitioner to resolve the denial of the requested license, which was then pending before the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, as an informal administrative proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In this capacity, Forbes, among other things filed a Motion for Continuance and Stipulation in this case attached to a June 6, 1985 cover letter. Forbes thereafter reached an agreement in the informal proceeding with Thomas Klein, Esquire, then counsel of record for Respondent, evidenced by letter dated October 1, 1985, which in its relevant portions indicated: This is to continue our telephone conversation of October 1, 1985, in which the following was discussed and agreed upon: Sarasota Liquors - your client will have 45 days from the date of this letter to cure the defects set forth in the March 8, 1985 letter of denial. Please direct your client to respond to the Tallahassee office. In order to rectify the original deficiencies causing the license denial, Petitioner re-filed an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License, Department of Business Regulation Form 700L, including exhibits, with Respondent, on or about November 13, 1985. Petitioner's re-filed license application was denied by Respondent on February 19, 1986, for two reasons: (1) "Application incomplete as applicant does not have right of occupancy to the premises for which she is seeking to license," and (2) "Division is unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation." On or about November 4, 1985, while searching for a location to submit as the licensed premises, in the re-filed application of November 13, 1985, Donna Sawyer and Ocie Allen met with Alton Allen at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida, who was an agent for Walter Spector, owner of several retail store spaces at that address. Ocie Allen, acting on behalf of his corporation, Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, entered into a lease for a store at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. On or about November 4, 1985, Ocie Allen, acting on behalf of his corporation Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, purportedly subleased the premises at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida to Petitioner. That Petitioner had submitted a letter dated November 4, 1984, signed by Jim Irey, as President of Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., which is attached to the November 13, 1985 application, which stated that certain financial support would be available to the subject alcoholic beverage sales contemplated by Petitioner. That as a result of the investigation following the November 13, 1985 application, Respondent was "unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation," since Respondent's agents were unable to locate Jim Irey or his company at the address indicated on the November 4, 1984 letter. Based upon the evidence presented, the following additional findings of fact are made: Donna Sawyer's preliminary application to participate in the state lottery for a quota liquor license included instructions to the applicant that it was the first part of a two part application and that the second part would require proof of occupancy for the premises to be licensed. The second part of the application was that license application filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco on November 2, 1984, and again on November 13, 1985. As part of the notification that she was eligible to apply for a state quota liquor license, Donna Sawyer was advised that she had 45 days to file a full and complete application and that if she failed to do so, this failure would be deemed as a waiver of her right to file for a new quota liquor license. The letter also advised her that the Division had 180 days from the date of the drawing to act upon her application. The Petitioner's first quota liquor license application was denied on March 8, 1985. March 8, 1985, was within 180 days of the applicable lottery drawing held on September 12, 1984. The agreement of the parties to resolve the March 8, 1985, denial of the subject license evidences an tacit agreement by the parties to waive any applicable time limits existing at that time in order to allow the Petitioner to resubmit a corrected application within 45 days as allowed by the Thomas Klein letter of October 1, 1985. The Division investigated the Petitioner's second application and determined that the applicant did not have a right of occupancy to the premises sought to be licensed, 258 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida, because Petitioner only had a purported sublease for the subject premises from Ft. Myers A & T Corporation. Ft. Myers A & T Corporation had obtained a lease for the property on November 4, 1985, from Walter Spector, deceased at the time of the administrative hearing. Said lease between Walter Spector, lessor, and Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, lessee, provided that subleases must be approved by the lessor and be in writing. The Petitioner did not produce evidence of written authorization by Walter Spector to allow Ocie Allen or Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, Inc., to sublease the subject premises to the Petitioner or to any other person. The only evidence of such authorization was the hearsay statement by Ocie Allen that Walter Spector had orally given such authorization. Furthermore, Mr. Alton Allen, then agent for Mr. Spector for leasing this property testified he had no knowledge that Mr. Spector was ever informed of a sublease. Therefore it is found that the sublease violated a material provision of the underlying lease from Walter Spector to Ft. Myers A & T Corporation. Mr. Ocie Allen, agent for the Petitioner and Donna Sawyer, testified and it is found that there was no intention for the Petitioner to operate an alcoholic beverage license at the 258 Tamiami Trail location. Petitioner's November 13, 1985, license application was also denied on February 19, 1986, for: Application incomplete as . . . the Division is unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation. This denial was due to the Division's agents being unable to verify the availability of financial funding from Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc. The Petitioner had submitted a November 9, 1984 letter from that corporation in its November 13, 1985 license application offering certain funding. Upon checking phone directories and making attempted telephone calls to the source named in that letter, the Division was not able to find the named business as source of funding. The Division further investigated Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc. as an alleged source of funding by sending an agent, Robert B. Baggett, to the address supplied by the applicant in a November 9, 1984 letter from Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., only to find that no such business was located there and no neighbors knew of a new location. Sandra Allen, Esquire, testified that the source of the funding at the time of the second application was a new company run by the same person who was behind Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., which was named as the source in the November 9, 1984 letter. However, this new company's name and address and verification of continued financial support to the Petitioner could not reasonably be determined by the Division and no evidence was presented that the Division had ever been provided with said new company's name or location prior to the denial of the second license application. Contradictory testimony was presented by Lt. Ewing and Sgt. Mills as to the existence of a policy requiring a "14 day" deficiency notice letter to applicants. It is clear that that policy was not recognized in the office supervised by Sgt. Mills. It was also not established that Lt. Ewing had the authority to set or enunciate policy for the Division.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc., holds alcoholic beverage license number 69-255, Series 12, RT, which licensed premises is located at Seminole Greyhound Park, a greyhound racing facility in Casselberry, Florida. The officers of this corporation who are accused of filing false personal questionnaires with Petitioner are Paul Dervaes, Jack Demetree, William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick. Paul Dervaes and William Demetree also filed a certificate of incumbency and stock ownership which is also alleged to have been false. The principal issue concerns the involvement of John Fountain in the affairs of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. Fountain is a convicted felon who was adjudicated guilty of bookmaking in the Jacksonville Federal District Court in October, 1972. The principal parties to this matter, Paul Dervaes, Jack and William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick knew from the outset that John Fountain was a convicted felon ineligible for licensing in this state under either the pari- mutuel or beverage laws. John Fountain conceived the idea of acquiring Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc., a money-losing harness racing facility, and obtaining necessary legislation to convert the facility to greyhound racing. Fountain first brought this idea to his long-term friends and business associates, Jack and William Demetree, in the mid to late 1970's. Fountain also initiated the involvement of another longtime friend, Paul Dervaes, as President of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. When the enterprise was short of cash in late 1978 and early 1979, Fountain made successive loans of $152,000 and $169,499.82 to the corporation through Paul Dervaes for use in converting and operating Seminole Park. When the necessary legislation was passed to convert to a greyhound facility, John Fountain, for several months, worked long hours without any salary as head of the physical conversion project for the Demetrees. Fountain originated the Super 8 betting feature at Seminole Park, one of the cornerstones of the track's promotion and publicity endeavors. Fountain also, after the conversion was complete and the facility was opened for business, authorized complimentary meals and drinks at the licensed premises at Seminole Park and authorized petty cash disbursements for a wedding present for a newspaper reporter and the distribution of gasoline without charge from Seminole Greyhound Park's fuel tanks. On March 31, 1980, Paul Dervaes, who at the time held 53 percent of the outstanding stock of Seminole Greyhound Park, sent a memo to William Demetree and sought to extricate himself from a managerial position at the track on the basis that the Demetrees appeared not to be satisfied with his managerial abilities. In this memo, Dervaes identified himself as a minority stockholder of the enterprise, despite his then ownership of a majority of 53 percent of the shares of stock. Respondent has sought to explain such incongruity by candidly admitting that Dervaes was fronting for John Fountain as to 43 shares or 43 percent of the stock in Seminole Park. As this time, Ernest Drosdick, who had for years handled all legal affairs for Seminole Park as well as for William Demetree, advised Dervaes and Jack and William Demetree that the loans to Seminole from John Fountain through Paul Dervaes had to be repaid so that the involvement of Fountain could be terminated. Drosdick's advice was predicated on Fountain's felony conviction and he noted that Fountain's continued involvement in such manner would be violative of the pari-mutuel and beverage licensing laws. The corporation thereupon obtained $321,499.82 in early April of 1980, such sum being the total of the principal but not interest due on the $152,000 and $169.499.82 loans made from John Fountain to Seminole Park through Paul Dervaes. Drosdick's advice was not consistently applied, however, with regard to recalling the loans from John Fountain. The $321,499.82 was paid by check to Paul Dervaes on April 1, 1980, which Dervaes deposited in his bank account. William Demetree then asked Dervaes if $160,000 of the funds just paid him could be borrowed back from Fountain despite Drosdick's advice against such loans. The re-loan was agreeable with Fountain and on April 9, 1980, Dervaes wrote a check in the amount of $160,000 back to Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, and on April 21, repaid the remaining $161,499.82 to Fountain. The $160,000 loan was reflected in an April 9, 1980, note signed by William Demetree as Chairman of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. It was also acknowledged by William Demetree that he knew the money was coming from John Fountain. It is this loan, which was repaid as to principal only in November of 1980, that was not reflected on the personal questionnaires of each of the principal parties. At the time the April 9, 1980, $160,000 loan was made by Fountain to Seminole Park through Dervaes, all of the principal parties, Paul Dervaes, Jack and William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick, knew that John Fountain was a convicted felon and knew that his involvement through loans would be impermissible under pari-mutuel and beverage licensing statutes. It was established that the $160,000 loan was not listed on the personal questionnaires filled out in July of 1980, by each of the aforementioned individuals despite the clearly expressed directive of such questionnaire forms, which states: List the total amount and sources of money you personally are investing in the proposed operation. Also, list any persons, corporations, partnerships, banks, and mortgage companies who have or will invest or lend money in the proposed operation. Immediately prior to the applicant's signature line on the personal questionnaire form is the following statement: I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury as provided for in Florida Statute 837.06 that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge, and that no other person, persons, firm or corporation, except as indicated herein, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license for which these statements are made. Immediately under the signature line is a boxed-in passage entitled "WARNING" with the word "warning" capitalized and underlined and the following: Read carefully, this instrument is a sworn document. False answers could result in criminal prosecution, subject to fine and/or imprisonment. The principal parties seek to excuse their failure to include the Fountain loan on their personal questionnaires by claiming that Drosdick, who is now deceased, was unaware of the $160,000 loan, that he filled out the questionnaires for them and that they merely signed them under oath and attested to their veracity without reading them. This testimony is not credible in view of the material, self-serving omission made on these questionnaires. Therefore, Respondent's agents, who are experienced businessmen, must be held responsible for their sworn statements. The principals have also sought to excuse their conduct on the basis that any matters which transpired between John Fountain and Paul Dervaes in connection with the loan were personal matters between Dervaes and Fountain and thus immaterial to the corporation. However, this theory avoids recognizing that personal questionnaires were submitted by four individuals and not by the corporate entity. It was established that each of the four individuals had knowledge of the $160,000 loan in question and thus were required to list such loan on their personal questionnaires. It was Fountain who conceived the idea of conversion, who supplied the capital necessary to effectuate the conversion, who without salary headed the physical conversion of the facility and who after the opening of the track authorized the expenditure of funds and the giving of certain gratuities at the track. Fountain was clearly and intimately involved with the overall success of the track. Indeed, the original loans in the amount of $152,000 and $169,499.82 from Fountain called for the payment of 10 percent interest and the $160,000 loan called for the payment of 15 percent interest, none of which has ever been paid. Such interest, as of September 30, 1982, had accrued in the amount of $15;173. Dervaes acknowledged that such interest was but a "paper transaction" in that the principal parties and Fountain all knew and agreed that Fountain would not be paid until such time as the track paid Dervaes the interest. Consequently, Fountain has held with the full knowledge of all the principal parties, an impermissible pecuniary interest in the licensed facility which continues to the present time. The Certificate of Incumbency and Declaration of Stock Ownership submitted as part of the beverage license application process was likewise incorrect. It reflected Jack and William Demetree as 50 percent each owners of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. when, in fact, the separate corporate entity Seminole Greyhound Park, was the sole stockholder of this corporation. Such document was signed by William Demetree and certified as being true and correct by Paul Dervaes under oath. William Demetree and Paul Dervaes attempt to place the blame on Drosdick for improperly preparing the document. However, they signed this document and cannot avoid responsibility for their sworn statements.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 69-255. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven A. Werber, Esquire 2000 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoke alcoholic beverage license number 23-1341, Series 2-COP, held by Maritza Garcia, d/b/a Maritza's Pub. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings 1550 Hearings J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of May, 1985.
