Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, d/b/a Trackside Lounge, hold Beverage License No. 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, which was issued for the current year. On or about June 5, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold a controlled substance, namely cocaine, to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the licensed premises known as Trackside Lounge in Dade County, Florida. On or about June 8, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Dodson while he was on the Trackside Lounge premises. On or about June 12, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the premises of Trackside Lounge. The Respondent Henry Stripling did not go onto the Trackside Lounge between the dates of March 10 and June 10, 1983, pursuant to a restraining order issued on March 10, 1983, by the Dade County Circuit Court. This March 10, 1983, court order appointed two receivers to supervise the operation of the business known as Trackside Lounge. Pursuant to this authority the receivers employed Thomas Olhausen to operate and manage the business. Thus, Thomas Olhausen was not subject to the restraining order which barred Henry Stripling from entry onto the Trackside Lounge premises. The Respondent Henry Stripling had no connection with the sale of cocaine by the Respondent Thomas Olhausen to the Beverage Officers on June 5, 8 and 12, 1983. The court order of March 10, 1983, did not attempt to effect a judicial transfer of the beverage license held by the Respondents. The court appointed receivers did not file an application for a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and there is no evidence that the receivers attempted to transfer the beverage license held - by the Respondents pursuant to Section S61.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, or Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Adminstrative Code. The court appointed receivers did not file a certified copy of the order appointing them as receivers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco pursuant to Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by the Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, being number 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Jacobs, Esquire 18204 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Richard F. Hayes, Esquire Suite 20 4601 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: At all times material to the charges, Ronald Wayne Diamond and Susan Joyce Saiia owned and operated a partnership trading as Susan's Las Olas Seafood Market at 1404 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida ("the licensed premises") On the licensed premises, they sold alcoholic beverages under the authority of alcoholic beverage license No. 16-3029, Series 2-APS. On January 17 or 18, 1982,and on January 19, 1982, Broward County Sheriff's Department Detective Fernandez entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and negotiated with Respondent Ronald Diamond for the sale and delivery of cocaine and cannabis. Respondent Susan Saiia was present and aware of these negotiations, although she did not actively participate in them. On one of these occasions, she warned Respondent Diamond to be careful, that she had seen someone in the back alley who looked like he was wearing a recording device. On January 20, 1982, Respondent Diamond was arrested on charges of unlawful trafficking in cocaine and possessing cannabis in violation of Sections 893.135(1)(b) and 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes. He was taken to the licensed premises where a search warrant was executed and two ounces of marijuana were found in an office file cabinet. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) On May 6, 1982, the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, adjudging Respondent Diamond guilty of these felonies, sentenced him to fifteen years in prison and fined him $250,000 for trafficking in cocaine. He was sentenced to an additional five years for the possession of cannabis. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondents' alcoholic beverage license No. 16-3029, Series 2-APS, be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Hoggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maurice Graham, Esquire Suite 2 2161 E. Commercial Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Howard M. Rasmussen 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
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 Petitioner, Moishes Steakhouse & Seafood, Inc., timely submitted an application to record a lien for license number 23-02731 4COP.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 3, 1999, Armar Inc., Arnaldo Bou, individually, and Martha Pinango, individually, as debtors, and the Petitioner, by Eugenio D'Arpino, as president of the company, the secured party, executed a security agreement (chattel mortgage) related to beverage license 23-02731, series 4COP. Such security agreement recognized a priority lien for the Petitioner, Moishes Steakhouse & Seafood, Inc., and included a promissory note executed by the debtors. The promissory note, dated March 3, 1999 (presumably executed on or about that date), provided: THIS NOTE IS NOTE ASSIGNABLE AND NON- ASSUMABLE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE SECURED PARTY. THIS NOTE IS SECURED BY A SECURITY AGREEMENT (CHATTEL MORTGAGE) AND UCC-1 WHICH SHALL CREATE A PRIORITY LIEN (1ST PLACE LIEN) ON STATE OF FLORIDA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE NO: 23- 01686, series 4 COP quota. The security agreement and promissory note were not provided to the Department within 90 days of March 3, 1999. Apparently, the fact that the note and security agreement make reference to different alcoholic beverage license numbers is not an issue. Neither party has raised that issue. The Petitioner forwarded the note and security agreement to the Department for recordation on or about September 21, 1999. At that time the Department received an application to record a lien for license no. 23-02731, series 4COP. On October 11, 1999, the Department sent Petitioner a letter declining the application because it was not made within 90 days after the creation of the lien. The Department requested a newly executed security agreement so that the dates would show the request for recording within 90 days of the application. It is the Department's position that the lien application should have been submitted within 90 days of its creation in order to comply with the mandatory guidelines of the statute. For purposes of this case, the Department argued that the "creation of the lien" was on or about March 3, 1999, or, at the latest, March 15, 1999 (a date noted in the escrow agreement). The Petitioner timely sought an administrative review of the Department's decision. It is the Petitioner's position that the lien did not "break escrow" until August of 1999, and that, as a matter of law, that is the point in time from which the 90 day period should run. From the Petitioner's perspective, the "creation of the lien" as used by the statute dates from when the transaction broke escrow. All parties agree that the statute does not specifically address escrow transactions.
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 approving the Petitioner's application to record a lien on the subject alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 1st day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherrie Barnes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Major Jorge R. Herrera Department of Business and Professional Regulation 8685 Northwest 53rd Terrace Augusta Building, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33166 Louis J. Terminello, Esquire Terminello & Terminello, P. A. 2700 Southwest 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-2728 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent violated the Final Order of Petitioner by failing to pay $1,250 to Petitioner on or before the expiration of 30 days after the entry of the Final Order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to license number 15-02311, Series 4COP SRX. The licensed premises are located at 680 George J. King Boulevard, Port Canaveral, Florida, 32920. On October 2, 2000, Petitioner entered a Final Order that required Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,250 within 30 days of the date of entry of the order. Respondent appealed the Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal. The First District Court of Appeal upheld the Final Order. Respondent failed to pay any portion of the administrative fine.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.29; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500, pursuant to Rule 61A-2.022(8); and permanently revoking alcoholic beverage license number 15- 02311, Series 4COP SRX. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Chad D. Heckman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Raymond J. Cascella Manos Inc., d/b/a Sea Port Restaurant 680 George J. King Boulevard Port Canaveral, Florida 32920 Capt. German Garzon Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room 709 North Tower, Hurston Building Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Café was a restaurant, serving full course meals, and was located at 1599 North State Road 7, Lauderhill, Florida. At all times material hereto, the sole owner of Café was Mary Fernand. On December 18, 2003, Café, through Ms. Fernand, made application for a license from DABT. The type of license applied for was a retail alcoholic beverage license, in particular a special alcoholic beverage license, allowing it to purchase and sell alcoholic beverages. In a section of the application, "SECTION VIII-SPECIAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS," Ms. Fernand was notified, among other things, that the "Special Alcoholic Beverage License" was "issued pursuant to 561.20(2)(b), Florida Statute [sic] or Special Act and as such we acknowledge the following requirements must be met and maintained: ... DERIVE 51 % OF GROSS REVENUE FROM FOOD AND NON- ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. SERVICE OF FULL COURSE MEALS MUST BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE BEING SERVED." As the person completing the application, Ms. Fernand was required to read, initial, and date Section VIII. A temporary special alcoholic license was issued by DABT to Café on December 18, 2003. The application was approved by DABT on December 19, 2003, and, subsequently, a permanent special alcoholic license was issued by DABT. DABT issued Café license number BEV16-17022 4-COP SRX. The license was held through Ms. Fernand. As a result of having been issued such a license by DABT, Café was and is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of DABT. DABT conducts periodic audits of all restaurants holding a special SRX license to make sure that the restaurants are complying with the special license requirements. As part of this audit process, special agents from DABT, among other things, conduct announced visits, as well as undercover visits, at the restaurants and request the licensee to submit all necessary records for the audit. A SRX license holder has a continuing requirement to derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages. DABT places the burden upon the licensee to show compliance with the SRX license requirements. Furthermore, DABT requires the licensee to keep clear, legible records in English and to submit such records if requested by one of its agents. When DABT requests the licensee to produce the records to establish compliance with the SRX license requirements, but the licensee fails to show compliance through the requested records, DABT determines that the licensee was not meeting the requirements to operate with the SRX license. The proof that DABT considers to establish compliance include monthly sales and purchase records of food and non- alcoholic beverages and sales and purchase records of alcoholic beverages, guest checks, z-tapes, monthly income statements (showing separately the food and non-alcoholic beverage sales), and sales of alcoholic beverages. On July 19, 2004, DABT's Special Agent Trenesa Davis visited Café to request Café to produce the records necessary for an audit under the SRX license. She found Café closed and locked. Special Agent Davis obtained Ms. Fernand's telephone number and contacted her that same day. Special Agent Davis informed Ms. Fernand of the records needed for the audit, and Ms. Fernand indicated that she would provide the requested records on July 21, 2004. However, Ms. Fernand failed to provide the requested records on July 21, 2004. The following day, July 22, 2004, Special Agent Davis again contacted Ms. Fernand by telephone. Ms. Fernand indicated that she would provide the requested records on July 23, 2004. But, again, Ms. Fernand failed to provide the requested records. On July 26, 2004, once again, Special Agent Davis contacted Ms. Fernand by telephone regarding the non-production of the requested records. Ms. Fernand indicated that she was ill, and Special Agent Davis informed Ms. Fernand that she could come to where Ms. Fernand was living and issue her an official notice of what DABT needed, with the compliance date. Ms. Fernand agreed, and Special Agent Davis proceeded to where Ms. Fernand was living. On that same day, July 26, 2004, Special Agent Davis issued Ms. Fernand an official notice to produce certain documents. The notice provided, among other things, that Ms. Fernand had "14 days to produce the following records: Separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages & alcoholic beverages, Guest checks, cash register tapes, and any other documentation used to determine your food & beverage sales." Furthermore, the notice warned that "Failure to comply may result in administrative charges being filed against your alcoholic beverage license. *COMPLIANCE DATE AUGUST 13, 2004*." The notice was dated July 26, 2004. Ms. Fernand signed the notice. Ms. Fernand received the notice on July 26, 2004. On August 6, 2004, Special Agent Davis received a package from Café, but did not open it. She immediately took the package to DABT's auditor assigned to conduct Café's audit, Ronald Flores. Special Agent Davis opened the package in the presence of Auditor Flores. Inside the package were the following: (1) 11 receipts, dated between May 6 and June 23, 2004, showing purchases of alcohol from another vendor, BJ's Wholesale Club; (2) three blocks of guest checks: block one--numbered from 512402 to 512450; block two--numbered 100703, 100705, 100707- 100709, 100711, and from 100713 to 100750, with the guest checks from 100713 to 100750 being blank; and block three--numbered from 100592 to 100595 and 100632; and (3) 26 loose kitchen tickets, numbered from 84551 to 84570 and from 84572 to 84577. All of the kitchen tickets failed to reflect a date, the name Café or of any restaurant, and food sales. Further, the guest checks reflected only sales of alcoholic beverages; reflected only dates on those numbered 100708 and 100709 ("05-28-04" and "6/4"); and reflected dates ("4/18/04" through "5/31/04") and the name Café on those numbered 512402-512450, with the dates on three checks not being legible. The package contained no other record of food sales or purchases and no record of purchasing alcoholic beverages from distributors. Furthermore, the package contained no record of monthly schedules showing food and non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverage sales. Based on the records presented by Ms. Fernand, Auditor Flores was unable to perform an audit required by Café's SRX license and unable to make a determination as to whether Café met the 51 percent requirement of its license. On August 8, 2004, Special Agent Davis contacted Ms. Fernand by telephone in the presence of Auditor Flores, with the telephone on speaker-phone. Special Agent Davis inquired as to the whereabouts of Café's food and non-alcoholic beverage records. Ms. Fernand responded that she was not aware that Special Agent Davis wanted the food and non-alcoholic records but that she (Ms. Fernand) would provide them by August 13, 2004, which was the original compliance date of DABT's notice to produce records. However, Special Agent Davis did not receive any records from Ms. Fernand until August 16, 2004, three days beyond the compliance date to produce the records. The package received from Ms. Fernand contained three computer-generated documents for Café: an income statement, representing "6 Months Ended June 30, 2004"; a 2004 balance sheet, as of June 30, 2004 and 2003, and a balance sheet of liabilities and stockholders' equity, as of June 30, 2004 and 2003. Reflected at the bottom of each document was the following: "See Accountants' Compilation Report." The income statement reflected for January 1 through June 30, 2004, among other things, the following: food sales in the amount of $8,417.34 and alcohol sales in the amount of $3,039.66, totaling $11,457.00; gross profit in the amount of $5,942.51; total operating expenses in the amount of $23,901.19; and a net loss of income in the amount of $17,958.68. The income statement did not reflect monthly schedules of sales or any source of documents to verify the figures in the statement of income. No document in the package received on August 16, 2004, reflected its source or its creator, and none were signed. However, at hearing, Ms. Fernand admitted that she had prepared the income statement. Moreover, in the package received on August 16, 2004, no food sales and purchase records and no alcohol sales and purchase records were included. Again, based on the records presented by Ms. Fernand on August 16, 2004, as well as August 6, 2004, Auditor Flores was unable to perform an audit required by Café's SRX license and unable to make a determination as to whether Café met the 51 percent requirement of its license. On August 18, 2004, Auditor Flores forwarded to Special Agent Davis a memorandum advising her, among other things, that the records submitted by Café were incomplete to make a determination as to whether Café complied with the "SRX" requirements, that Café needed to provide the register tapes in order to verify sales, and that Café needed to provide monthly sales schedules with a breakdown of food and alcoholic beverage sales. Further, on August 18, 2004, Special Agent Davis issued a notice to Café that DABT intended to file an administrative complaint against it for failure to maintain records, citing the statutory provision, and SRX violations, citing the statutory provisions. The notice was mailed, certified to Café. Ms. Fernand admits that, between December 2003 and March 2004, Café sold food, as it was a "full restaurant," and alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages; however, no alcoholic beverages were sold in December 2003. Further, she admits that, in December 2003, she had a "get together for a few friends" and a few patrons at Café; and that, in January 2004, a party was held at Café at which alcoholic beverages were sold of which she kept records. Additionally, Ms. Fernand acknowledges that she was aware that she was required to keep records and admits that she kept records of the food sales and alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage sales. Although she obtained the license from DABT for Café in December 2003, Ms. Fernand did not open Café for business until April 17, 2004, as a grand opening. On June 26, 2004, Ms. Fernand lost access to Café as a result of being closed by the City of Fort Lauderdale. Also, in August 2004, she was evicted by the landlord of the building in which Café was located. Subsequently, she paid the landlord the back rent and was allowed to use the building again. She did not re-open Café until around November 20, 2004, even though the City of Fort Lauderdale notified her around September 7, 2004, that Café could be re-opened. Because of the eviction in August 2004, when Special Agent Davis requested the documents, Ms. Fernand had to request the landlord to go into Café and get the documents for her (Ms. Fernand). Ms. Fernand provided to Special Agent Davis the documents given to her by her landlord. Prior to losing access to the building in which Café was located, during the loss of access, and after re-gaining access, a box containing Café's records was located at Café. At no time, when she did not have access, did Ms. Fernand request the landlord to bring the box to her in order to provide food and beverage records to DABT. At no time, after gaining access to the building or prior to hearing, did Ms. Fernand review the records in the box and provide the requested food and beverage records to DABT.
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: Finding that Ran D Vou Café, d/b/a Ran D Vou Café violated Section 561.20(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). Finding that Ran D Vou Café, d/b/a Ran D Vou Café violated Section 561.55(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). Revoking the SRX license of Ran D Vou Café, d/b/a Ran D Vou Café, with prejudice for Ms. Mary Fernand not to obtain another SRX license for a five-year period, but without prejudice for her to apply for and obtain any other license for which she may be otherwise qualified to hold. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 24th day of April, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner previously operated the Casinea Lounge in Waverly, Florida, which he shut down in September, 1980. He plans to reopen this lounge if he can secure the requested beverage license. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of violating a Polk County ordinance on June 6, 1980, regarding an after-hours sale of an alcoholic beverage. There is no other impediment to grant of this application.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 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 8th day of December, 1982.
The Issue This matter arises out of the denial or rejection of a filing by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien against a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. Mr. Charles L. Hoffman, attorney for Liberty Bank of Cantonment, testified on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner offered two exhibits into evidence and both were accepted without objection. The Respondent presented no evidence on its behalf. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Law in support of its legal argument as to why it should be granted a lien against Beverage License No. 27- 426. To the extent that the legal conclusions presented in that memorandum of law and the facts stated are not adopted in this order, they are considered to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the facts or the law.
Findings Of Fact On July 10, 1981, The Rafters, Inc. executed a security agreement in favor of the Liberty Bank of Cantonment. That security agreement is a part of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and included a security interest in State Liquor License No. 27-426 issued in the name of The Rafters, Inc. On July 24, 1981, the necessary U.C.C. documents were filed in order to permit the Liberty Bank of Cantonment to file the proper documents with the Secretary of State. No documents were filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On September 20, 1982, the Petitioner first filed the necessary documentation with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco rejected the filing on the grounds that it was filed beyond the 90-day period provided in Section 561.65(4), Florida Statutes. On October 19, 1982, The Rafters, Inc. filed its answer to an amended complaint in foreclosure which had been filed by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment against the property set forth in the aforementioned security agreement. In its answer, The Rafters, Inc. admitted all allegations of the amended complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order rejecting the application for a lien filed by the Petitioner to perfect a security interest in Beverage License No. 27-426. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of April, 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 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles L. Hoffman, Jr., Esquire Seventh Floor, Seville Tower 226 South Palafox Street Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire William A. Hatch, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Dept. of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Gary Rutledge, Secretary Division of Alcoholic Beverages Dept. of Business Regulation and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits introduced into evidence and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On January 3, 1984, an application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license number 16-262, in the name of I. T. Chips, Inc., to JNJ, Inc., d/b/a Apples, was delivered to the Lauderhill District Office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco by Michael Rapp. The application and personal questionnaire of Michael Rapp, Vice President of JNJ, Inc., revealed that he had been convicted of a felony within the last 15 years. Upon being informed by Sgt. Pat Roberts that the application for transfer would be denied because Rapp's conviction was disqualifying, Rapp withdrew the application. On January 6, 1984, Michael Rapp submitted an amended application for transfer of this same alcoholic beverage license to JNJ, Inc., d/b/a Apples. The amended application listed Janet Swift, a/k/a Janet Swift Rapp, as sole corporate officer and shareholder. An agreement for purchase and sale submitted with the application revealed that JNJ, Inc., was purchasing from MAM Restaurant Corporation all assets located at 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, the address of the licensee, I. T. Chips, Inc., for a total price of $418,600.00. The purchase and sale agreement acknowledged that a down payment in the amount of $18,600.00 had been made by JNJ, Inc., and provided for the remaining debt of $400,000.00 to be paid in monthly installments of $4,800.00 and be secured by a mortgage. The application stated that Frederick Cusolito and Janet Swift would be the sole financial investors in the business and that the corporation's banking business would be conducted at the Bank of Hallandale & Trust Company. Janet Swift swore that the information provided on the application was true. Whatever, Inc., is a corporation with the same business address as JNJ, Inc. Michael Rapp is the President and Secretary of Whatever, Inc. Whatever, Inc., had a bank account at the Bank of Hallandale & Trust Company and Michael Rapp was an authorized signer on the account. During January of 1984, Whatever, Inc., was writing checks to pay some of the operating expenses of the business located at 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard. JNJ, Inc., with an address of 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, had a bank account at Flagship Bank of Miami. The bank records show Janet Swift as president of the corporation and Michael Rapp as Vice President. During December of 1983, the following deposits were made to the JNJ, Inc., account at the Flagship Bank of Miami: $92,500.00 from Martin I. Roth at L & M Consultants, $27,000.00 from David J. S. Gottfried, $39,000.00 from the Hanseatic Development Corporation (described as a "loan"), and $87,000.00 from an unidentified account at the Bank of Ireland in New York. None of the people or entities from whom these deposits were received were listed as financial investors of JNJ, Inc., on the sworn application filed by Janet Swift for the transfer to JNJ, Inc. None of them were listed as financial investors of I. T. Chips, Inc., on the sworn application filed by Janet Swift for change of business name and change of officers of I. T. Chips, Inc. Martin I. Roth, the authorized signer on the bank account of L & M Consultants who actually signed the L & M Consultants checks which were deposited in the JNJ, Inc., account, was convicted of a felony in 1981. On January 19, 1984, JNJ, Inc., borrowed $75,000.00 from Schmidt Industries, Inc., a Missouri corporation. To secure that loan, JNJ, Inc., entered into a Security Agreement (chattel mortgage) pursuant to which JNJ, Inc., pledged liquor license series number 4 COP, permit number 16-262, as security for the repayment of the $75,000.00 loan. Liquor license series number 4 COP, permit number 16-262 is the liquor license issued to I. T. Chips, Inc. 1/ The facts described in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6, above, came to the attention of DABT Investigator Michael D'Ambrosia during the course of his investigation of the January 6, 1984, application to transfer the I. T. Chips, Inc., license to JNJ, Inc. D'Ambrosia met with representatives of JNJ, Inc., discussed with them the information he had acquired during the course of his investigations, and requested that he be provided with certain additional information. Thereafter, District Supervisor Richard Boyd recommended disapproval of the January 6, 1984, application on April 3, 1984. On April 4, 1984, before any final agency action was taken on the application, JNJ, Inc., withdrew the application to transfer the I. T. Chips, Inc., license to JNJ, Inc. On April 4, 1984, Janet Swift signed an application for a change of business name and a change of corporate officers of the licensee corporation, I. Chips, Inc. 2/ This application was filed on April 11, 1984, with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Janet Swift was again listed as sole corporate officer and shareholder. The sworn application filed in April of 1984 contained the following financial information: JNJ, Inc., which held a temporary license, which has since been withdrawn, executed an Agreement for Purchase and Sale with MAM Restaurant Corporation on 12/8/83. JNJ, Inc., the stock of which is owned exclusively by Janet Swift, has abandoned the premises, since Janet Swift has purchased all of the stock in I. T. Chips, Inc., for which she paid no consideration other than assuming the existing debts. I. T. Chips, Inc. has agreed to assume the mortgage referred to in the Agreement for Purchase and Sale; to wit, the initial principal sum of $400,000.00, payable at the rate of $4,800.00 per month, which will be paid from the proceeds of the operation of the business herein. Janet Swift is the sole and exclusive owner of T. Chips, Inc., and no other person, firm or entity has any interest, direct or indirect, in the said business. The application which was signed on April 4, 1984, and filed on April 11, 1984, did not contain any information about the financing of the business other than what is quoted immediately above, and did not list any person as having an interest in the business other than Janet Swift. On April 4, 1984, Janet Swift swore to the truth of the following statement which is printed on the application form: I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury as provided for in Florida Statutes 837.06 and 559.791, that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge, and that no other person, persons, firm or corporation, except as herein indicated, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license or cigarette permit for which these statements are made. On April 4, 1984, Schmidt Industries, Inc., had an interest in the alcoholic beverage license which was the subject of the application signed by Janet Swift, because that same license was pledged as collateral for a $75,000.00 loan, and pursuant to a chattel mortgage, Schmidt Industries, Inc., had a security interest in that license to guarantee the payment of the loan. 3/ On April 4, 1984, JNJ, Inc., was a financial investor in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., received the benefit of the $18,500.00 down payment that JNJ, Inc., made to MAM Restaurant Corporation and I. T. Chips, Inc., received the benefit of the $75,000.00 that JNJ, Inc., borrowed from Schmidt Industries, Inc. On April 4, 1984, the persons and entities described in paragraph 4, above, who wrote checks deposited in the JNJ, Inc., bank account were indirect financial investors in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., was either the successor to or the alter ego of JNJ, Inc. On April 4, 1984, Frederick Consolito was an indirect financial investor in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., was either the successor to or the alter ego of JNJ, Inc. 4/ The foregoing findings of fact incorporate the substance of the vast majority of the findings of fact proposed by the parties. In those few instances where I have made findings contrary to the proposed findings, it is because the persuasive competent substantial evidence was to use contrary of the proposed findings. In those few instances where I have omitted the substance of findings proposed by a party, it is because the proposed finding was irrelevant, immaterial, cumulative, or not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order denying the application for change of business name and change of corporate officers of I. T. Chips, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1985.
