The Issue Whether Respondent acted as a real estate agent without being licensed in violation of section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the administrative hearing, the following findings of facts are made: COMPLAINT This complaint was instituted when Mr. Manning became aware of a $250.00 payment to a Keller Williams real estate agent (KW agent). Upon inquiring, Mr. Manning was told the fee was to pay the KW agent for securing the third tenant of his rental property located at 12522 Belcroft Drive, Riverview, Florida (property). Mr. Manning was not informed that this process would be engaged, and he was caught off guard when the payment came to light. Mr. Manning was also concerned that he was not receiving consistent payments for the rental of his property. PARTIES Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the real estate industry pursuant to chapters 455 and 475. Petitioner is authorized to prosecute cases against persons who operate as real estate agents or sales associates without a real estate license. At all times material, Respondent was not a licensed real estate broker, sales associate or agent. Respondent is a co-owner of J & D Associates, a property management company that he owns with his wife, Ms. Woltmann. Additionally, J & D Associates was not licensed as a real estate broker, sales associate or agent. PARTICULARS In 2012, Mr. Manning was serving in the U.S. Air Force, and was stationed in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. At some point, Mr. Manning received military orders to report to Texas for additional cross-training. Mr. Manning wanted to sell his property, and he was referred to Ms. Woltmann, a Florida licensed real estate agent. Mr. Manning and Ms. Woltmann met and discussed the possibility of selling Mr. Manning’s property. Ms. Woltmann performed a market analysis and determined that Mr. Manning would have to “bring money” to a closing in order to sell his property. Mr. Manning made the decision that he would rent his property. Thereafter, Ms. Woltmann introduced Mr. Manning to Respondent. Mr. Manning assumed that Respondent was a licensed real estate agent. If he had known that Respondent was not a licensed real estate agent, Mr. Manning would not have hired Respondent. On or about April 26, 2012, Respondent executed a “Management Agreement”5/ (Agreement) with Mr. Manning, regarding his property. The Agreement provided in pertinent part the following: EMPLOYMENT & AUTHORITY OF AGENT The OWNER [Mr. Manning] hereby appoints J & D Associates as its sole and exclusive AGENT to rent, manage and operate the PREMISES [12522 Belcroft Drive, Riverview, Florida]. The AGENT is empowered to institute legal action or other proceedings on the OWNER’S behalf to collect the rents and other sums due, and to dispossess tenants and other persons from the PREMISES for cause. * * * RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AGENT: In addition to the forgoing authorizations, the AGENT will perform the following functions on the OWNER’S behalf. Collect all rents due form [sic] the tenants. Deduct from said rent all funds needed for proper disbursements of expenses against the PROPERTY and payable by the OWNER, including the AGENT’S compensation. Collect a security deposit received from a tenant of the PROPERTY and place it into an escrow account as required by the laws of the State of Florida. COMPENSATION OF THE AGENT: In consideration of the services rendered by the AGENT, the OWNER agrees to pay the AGENT a fee equal to FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE FIRST MONTH’S RENT AND ten percent (10%) per month of the monthly rent thereafter during the term of the tenancy as management fees for the PROPERTY. In the case of holding over the lease beyond the terms of the lease by the same tenant, the Fifty (50%) up front [sic] fee shall also be waived and only the TEN PERCENT (10%) per month fee shall apply. The Fifty (50%) fee shall apply to new tenants only. In the case of a tenant moving out within the first three months of the tenancy, then the fee for obtaining a new tenant and new lease shall be only FIFTEEN PERCENT (15%) of the first month’s rent from the new tenant and TEN PERCENT (10%) of the monthly rent thereafter. (Emphasis added via underline.) At various times, Respondent provided Mr. Manning a list of eligible tenants. Also, Respondent would provide his opinion as to who would be the best candidate to rent the property. Mr. Manning would, “nine times out of ten,” go with Respondent’s recommendation for the rental tenant. In June 2012, “Richard L. Sovich J & D Associates, Agent For Elijah Manning,” executed a “Residential Lease for Single Family Home and Duplex” with a tenant. On the signatory page, the following printed form language is found on the upper half of the page: This Lease has been executed by the parties on the date indicated below: Respondent’s signature is over the “Landlord’s Signature line, “As” “Agent.” On the lower half of the signatory page, the following printed form language is found; the handwritten information is found in italics: This form was completed with the assistance of Name Richard Sovich Address 1925 Inverness Greens Drive Sun City Center, Fl 33573-7219 Telephone No. 813/784-8159 Ms. Woltmann testified that she had a listing agreement for each time she listed Mr. Manning’s property for rent. With each listing agreement, Ms. Woltmann was able to list the property in the multiple-listing system (MLS)6/ while she was associated with the Century 21, Shaw Realty Group. The three listings, as found in Respondent’s composite Exhibit E, included (along with other information) the list date, a picture of the property taken by Ms. Woltmann, and the dates the property would be available: May 5, 2012, for the rental beginning on June 1, 2012, at $1,550.00 per month; November 1, 2012, for the rental beginning on December 1, 2012, at $1,550.00 per month; and March 14, 2014, for rental beginning on May 1, 2014, at $1,600.00 per month. Each time the property was rented, Ms. Woltmann changed the MLS listing to reflect the actual lease dates: June 16, 2012; December 13, 2012; and May 19, 2014, and each was rented at the monthly rental price listed. Ms. Woltmann claimed that the rental price had to be lowered for the second rental. However, the documentation that she confirmed she inputted into the MLS at the time the property was rented, reflects the rental price was not lowered during the second rental period.7/ The rental price was actually raised for the third rental period. Ms. Woltmann also claimed she procured the first two tenants for Mr. Manning’s property and waived (with the consent of her broker agent) her lease fee each time. Three years ago (2014) during the Manning lease periods, Ms. Woltmann “left abruptly” the real estate company she was working for and that company “is now closed.” Yet, she testified that those listing agreements “should be there” if she went back to her broker and asked for them. Based on inconsistencies in her testimony, Ms. Woltmann’s testimony is not credible. Mr. Manning received payments from Respondent for approximately three years totaling “about $45,000.” Mr. Manning paid Respondent “maybe four or five thousand dollars. Maybe a little bit less” for his service. Respondent admitted he received compensation from the rental of Mr. Manning’s property for approximately three years, but denied that he procured any tenants for the property. It is determined that the testimony of Respondent and his wife Ms. Woltmann, is not credible and persuasive. Neither can be considered “disinterested.” The testimony of Mr. Manning is more credible. As the investigator supervisor, Mr. McAvoy is knowledgeable about the purpose of conducting unlicensed activity investigations. Its purpose is “to investigate matters surrounding unlicensed activity within the real estate profession . . . so to protect the public from possible harm surrounding those transactions.” Each investigator is required to record the amount of time spent in an investigation. An investigation was undertaken regarding Mr. Manning’s complaint. Petitioner incurred $49.50 in investigative costs during this case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding Richard Sovich in violation of section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and imposing an administrative fine of $500, and $49.50 as reasonable costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2017.
The Issue The issues in dispute in this matter are as follow: Was the Respondent, Wit Zajack, responsible for the acts of the Respondent, Home Hunters II, Inc., and its employees prior to July 7, 1981, when Zajack's registration as the corporate broker's active firm member became effective? Was Zajack relieved of responsibility for the acts of the corporate broker by appointing a manager and delegating duties to the manager? Did the Respondents use an advance fee rental contract containing information as required by Rule 21V-10.30, Florida Administrative Code? Was the language used in said contract by the Respondents contrary to the intent of Rule 21V-10.30, Florida Administrative Code, and in violation of Section 475.453, Florida Statutes? Did the Respondents fail to refund advance fees upon demand in violation of Sections 475.25(1)(e) and 475.453(1), Florida Statutes? The proposed findings as submitted in this matter by the parties have been considered by the Hearing Officer. To the extent they have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Wit Zajack, is a licensed real estate broker holding License #0219881. The Respondent, Home Hunters II, Inc., was a corporate real estate broker holding License #0218141. At the time of the accounts described in the Administrative Complaint, Home Hunters was operating as a corporate real estate broker. Home Hunters was engaged in a rental service business and advertised rental property information or lists, collecting an advance fee from prospective lessees. Zajack was aware that Home Hunters was engaged in the advance fee rental business from the beginning of his association with the firm. Zajack applied for registration as the active firm member for Home Hunters on March 5, 1981. His application contained various discrepancies and was returned for correction on May 8, 1981. The application was corrected and returned after 20 days 1/ to the Board of Real Estate, whereupon Zajack was registered as the active firm member effective July 6, 1981. On or before May 6, 1981, Zajack was held out to the public as being affiliated with Home Hunters by a sign at Home Hunters' offices on Colonial Drive in Orlando, Florida. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Zajack was an officer of Home Hunters. Home Hunters used the contract form exemplified in Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 11 from the start of its business activities until March of 1982. This form does not contain the language required by Rule 21V-10.30, Florida Administrative Code. At least as early as October of 1981, Zajack was aware of the fact that Home Hunters' contract did not meet the requirements of Rule 21V-10.30, Florida Administrative Code. He directed Tom O'Toole, the manager of Home Hunters, to correct the forms around the first part of 1982, but the forms were not corrected. Zajack referred all calls and letters of complaint which he received regarding the failure of Home Hunters to make refunds to O'Toole. O'Toole was given the responsibility to deal with all disputes for Zajack. Zajack did not follow up on the complaints. During this time, Zajack resided in Fort Myers, Florida. O'Toole and Zajack's business partner, Ralph Snyder, Jr., organized and ran Home Hunters. Melissa Diehl entered into an advance fee rental contract with Home Hunters on July 1, 1981, paying Home Hunters $50 for this service Diehl did not receive information on apartments which was consistent with the specifications she had given Home Hunters, or which were available for rental. She called Home Hunters about apartments she saw listed in its advertisements in the newspaper and was advised they had been rented. Diehl located a rental on her own and requested a refund from Home Hunters. She made several demands for a refund but never received a refund. She specifically asked to speak with Zajack but was told he was not available. On June 16, 1981, Brenda Mosely entered into an advance fee rental contract with Home Hunters, paying Home Hunters $50 for its services. Mosely called Home Hunters as required by the contract but did not receive listing information which was consistent with the specifications she had stated in her contract. Mosely orally requested a refund of her money after the 21-day period. She was advised to put her request in writing, which she did. She was denied a refund by Home Hunters on the basis that she had not called for 21 days, because she had not called on weekends when Home Hunters was closed. Ralph Tropf contracted with Home Hunters on March 26, 1981, for rental information, paying a $50 fee to Home Hunters in advance for its services. None of the information he received was consistent with the specifications he had given to Home Hunters. Tropf called for the 21-day period required in the contract and found a rental on his own. On April 16, 1981, Tropf made a written request for a refund. He never received a reply from Home Hunters. Tropf reported the matter to the Better Business Bureau, which forwarded to him the reply of O'Toole which stated Tropf had not complied with the terms of the contract to call for 21 days. On April 27, 1981, O'Toole advised Tropf that Zajack was the person to whom Tropf should detail his complaints. In March of 1981, Mrs. Gwenda Eva Roe had a similar experience to those described above in attempting to obtain a refund of money paid by her minor daughter to Home Hunters for rental information services.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondents, Wit Zajack and Home Hunters II, Inc., are in violation of Rule 21V-10.30, Florida Administrative Code, and Sections 475.453 and 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the license of Wit Zajack be suspended for one year. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 22nd day of July, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Royal Arms Villas Condominium, Inc., discriminated against Petitioners, Eric and Nora Gross, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are a married couple, living in a rental home at 209 Yorkshire Court, Naples, Florida (rental unit). Petitioners have two children and two grandchildren; however, none of these relatives live in Petitioners’ rental unit. Mr. Gross was diagnosed with stage four hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2002. Mr. Gross has been in remission since 2003. Mr. Gross was declared disabled by the Social Security Administration in 2003. Petitioners have lived in this rental unit since August 2006. A Florida residential lease agreement with the property owners, Joan and Charles Forton, was entered on August 8, 2006.3/ This lease was for a 12-month period, from September 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007. At the end of this period, the lease became a month-to-month lease and continued for years without anyone commenting on it. In 2012, Respondent inquired about a dog that was seen with Petitioners. After providing supporting documentation to Respondent, Petitioners were allowed to keep Mr. Gross’ service dog, Evie. Respondent is a Florida not-for-profit corporation. There are 62 units, and the owner of each unit owns a 1/62 individual share in the common elements. Since its inception, Respondent has, through its members (property owners), approved its articles of incorporation, bylaws, and related condominium powers, and amended its declaration of condominium in accordance with Florida law. Ms. Orrino is currently vice-president of Respondent’s Board of Directors (Board). Ms. Orrino has been on the Board since 2009 and has served in every executive position, including Board president. Ms. Orrino owns two condominiums within Respondent’s domain, but does not reside in either. In 2012 or 2013, Respondent experienced a severe financial crisis, and a new property management company was engaged. This company brought to the attention of Respondent’s Board that it had not been approving leases as required by its Declaration of Condominium.4/ As a result of this information, the Board became more pro-active in its responsibilities, and required all renters to submit a lease each year for the Board’s approval. Petitioners felt they were being singled out by Respondent to provide a new lease. The timing of Respondent’s request made it appear as if Respondent was unhappy about Petitioners keeping Evie. Petitioners then filed a grievance with HUD.5/ HUD enlisted the Commission to handle the grievance, and Mr. Burkes served as the Commission’s facilitator between Petitioners and Respondent. On October 24, 2013, Petitioners executed a Conciliation Agreement (Agreement) with Respondent and the Commission. The terms of the Agreement include: NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed between the parties as follows: Respondent agrees: To grant Complainants’ request for a reasonable accommodation to keep Eric Gross’s emotional support/service dog (known as “Evie”) in the condominium unit even though it exceeds the height and weight limits for dogs in the community. That their sole remedy for Complainants’ breach of the provisions contained in subparagraphs (a) through (g) below, in addition to the attorney’s fees and costs provision of paragraph 10 of this Agreement, shall be the removal of the Complainants’ dog. Complainants agree: That they will not permit the dog to be on common areas of the association property, except to transport the dog into or out of Complainants’ vehicle, to and from Complainants’ unit, and to take the dog through the backyard of the unit to walk it across the street off association property. That if the dog is outside of the condominium unit, they will at all times keep the dog on a leash and will at all times maintain control of the dog. That if their dog accidentally defecates on association property, they will immediately collect and dispose of the waste. That they are personally responsible and liable for any accidents or damages/injuries done by the dog and that they will indemnify and hold the Respondent harmless and defend Respondent for such claims that may or may not arise against Respondent. That they will not allow the dog to be a nuisance in the community or disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of other residents. A nuisance will specifically include, but is not limited to, loud barking and any show of aggressive behavior, including, but not limited to, aggressive barking, growling or showing of teeth regardless of whether the dog is inside or outside of the unit. That they will abide by all community rules and regulations of Respondent with which all residents are required to comply, including but not limited to submitting to the required pre-lease/lease renewal interview, and completing a lease renewal application and providing his updated information to Respondents and submitting to Respondent a newly executed lease compliant with Florida law and the Declaration of Condominium. The pre-lease/lease renewal interview will be conducted at Complainants’ unit at a time and date agreeable to the parties but not to exceed 30 days from the date of this agreement. If Complainants’ current dog “Evie” should die or otherwise cease to reside in the unit, Complainants agree to replace the dog, if at all, with a dog that is in full compliance with the association’s Declaration of Condominium or Rules and regulations in force at that time and will allow the dog to be inspected by Respondent for approval. Respondent agrees to ensure, to the best of their abilities, that their policies, performance and conduct shall continue to demonstrate a firm commitment to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Sections 760.20-37, Florida Statutes, (2012), and the Civil Rights Act of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982 and 3601 et.seq). [sic] Respondent agrees that it, its Board members, employees, agents and representatives shall continue to comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by The Fair Housing Act, which provides that Respondents shall not make, print or publish any notice, statement of advertisement with respect to the rental or sale of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or familial status. Respondent also agrees to continue to comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by The Fair Housing Act, which prohibits Respondents from maintaining, implementing and effectuating, directly or indirectly, any policy or practice, which causes any discrimination or restriction on the bases of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or familial status. Respondents also agree to continue to comply with Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. It is understood that this Agreement does not constitute a judgment on the part of the Commission that Respondents did nor did not violate the Fair Housing Act of 1983, as amended, Section 760.20-37, Florida Statutes (2011). The Commission does not waive its rights to process any additional complaints against the Respondent, including a complaint filed by a member of the Commission. It is understood that this Agreement does not constitute an admission on the part of the Respondent that they violated the Fair Housing Act of 1983, as amended, or Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Complainants agree to waive and release and do hereby waive and release Respondent from any and all claims, including claims for court costs and attorney fees, against Respondent, with respect to any matters which were or might have been alleged in the complaint filed with the Commission or with the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and agree not to institute a lawsuit based on the issues alleged in this complaint under any applicable ordinance or statute in any court of appropriate jurisdiction as of the date of this Agreement. Said waiver and release are subject to Respondent’s performance of the premises and representations contained herein. The Commission agrees that it will cease processing the above-mentioned Complaint filed by Complainants and shall dismiss with prejudice said complaint based upon the terms of this Agreement. Respondent agrees to waive and release any and all claims, including claims for court costs and attorney fees, against Complainants with respect to any matters which were or might have been alleged in the complaint filed with the Commission or with the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and agree not to institute a lawsuit based on the issues alleged in these complaints under any applicable ordinance or statute in any court of appropriate jurisdiction as of the date of this Agreement. Said waiver and release are subject to Complainants’ performance of the premises and representations contained herein. The parties agree in any action to interpret or enforce this agreement the prevailing party is entitled to the recovery from the non-prevailing party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including attorney’s fees and costs of any appeal. FURTHER, the Parties hereby agree that: This Agreement may be used as evidence in any judicial, administrative or other forum in which any of the parties allege a breach of this Agreement. Execution of this Agreement may be via facsimile, scanned copy (emailed), or copies reproduced and shall be treated as an original. This Conciliation Agreement may be executed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Conciliation Agreement to be duly executed on the last applicable date, the term of the agreement being from the last applicable date below for so long as any of the rights or obligations described here in continue to exist. Eric Gross and Nora Gross signed the Agreement on October 24, 2013. Ms. Orrino, as President of Respondent, signed the Agreement on September 9. The Commission’s facilitator, Mr. Burkes, signed the Agreement on October 24. The Commission’s housing manager, Regina Owens, signed the Agreement on October 30, and its executive director, Michelle Wilson, signed the Agreement on November 4. The effective date of the Agreement is November 4, the last day it was signed by a party, and the clock started running for compliance. Petitioners failed to abide by the Agreement in the following ways: Petitioners failed to submit an updated lease agreement that conformed to Respondent’s rules and regulations. Petitioners failed to submit to the required pre- lease/lease renewal interview within 30 days of signing the Agreement. Petitioners failed to complete a lease renewal application. Petitioners failed to provide updated information to Respondent. It is abundantly clear that Eric Gross and Ms. Orrino do not get along. However, that personal interaction does not excuse non-compliance with an Agreement that the parties voluntarily entered. Each party to the Agreement had obligations to perform. Respondent attempted to assist Petitioners with their compliance by extending the time in which to comply, and at one point, waving the interview requirement. Petitioners simply failed to comply with the Agreement. Petitioners failed to present any credible evidence that other residents in the community were treated differently. Mr. Gross insisted that the Agreement had sections that Petitioners did not agree to. Mr. Burkes was unable to shed any light on the Agreement or the alleged improprieties that Mr. Gross so adamantly insisted were present.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioners in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 March, 2015.
The Issue The issue for disposition in this case is whether Respondent has implemented an agency statement that meets the definition of a rule, but which has not been adopted pursuant to section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) is charged with the management of state lands, including sovereign submerged lands. § 253.03(1), Fla. Stat. The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is charged with the duty to “perform all staff duties and functions related to the acquisition, administration, and disposition of state lands, title to which is or will be vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.” § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The City of Titusville operates a municipal marina, which includes a 205-slip docking facility for mooring of commercial and recreational vessels (Marina), on sovereignty submerged lands leased from the Board. Petitioner owns a Florida-registered vessel which he keeps at the Marina pursuant to an annual mooring/dockage agreement. On June 9, 2009, the City of Titusville and the Board entered into a “fee waived” lease renewal and modification for a parcel of sovereignty submerged land in the Indian River (Lease). The Lease allows the Marina to operate “with liveaboards as defined in paragraph 26, as shown and conditioned in Attachment A, and the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 05-287409-001, dated December 31, 2008, incorporated herein and made a part of this lease by reference.” Paragraph 26 of the Lease provides that: 26. LIVEABOARDS: The term “liveaboard” is defined as a vessel docked at the facility and inhabited by a person or persons for any five (5) consecutive days or a total of ten (10) days within a thirty (30) day period. If liveaboards are authorized by paragraph one (1) of this lease, in no event shall such “liveaboard” status exceed six (6) months within any twelve (12) month period, nor shall any such vessel constitute a legal or primary residence. On or about July 31, 2015, Petitioner and the City of Titusville entered into the annual contractual mooring/dockage agreement, paragraph 4 of which provides that: 4. LIVEABOARDS: For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “liveaboard” is defined herein as a vessel docked at the facility and inhabited by a person or persons for any five (5) consecutive days or a total of ten (10) days within a thirty (30) day period. Pursuant to requirements of the City’s Submerged Land Lease with the State of Florida, no vessel shall occupy the Marina in this “1iveaboard” status for more than six (6) months within any twelve (l2) month period, nor shall the Marina Facility constitute a legal or primary residence of the OWNER. Petitioner asserts that the alleged agency statement regarding “liveaboard” vessels “unreasonably and arbitrarily denies me the unrestricted right to stay on my vessel by limiting the number of consecutive days during which I may occupy the vessel,” and that “[t]he Board’s non-rule policy denies me the unrestricted freedom to enjoy my vessel as a second home.”
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent, Gary Dean Upton, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0090905. Respondent was the broker for the other Respondent herein, Dean Upton Realty, Inc., which has its offices situated at 7045 W. Broward Blvd., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. At times material herein, Respondent, Dean Upton Realty, Inc., was a corporation licensed as a real estate broker having been issued license number 0213092. On March 11, 1983, a hearing was held before an arbitration panel of the Ft. Lauderdale Area Board of Realtors in response to a complaint filed by Respondent herein, Upton, claiming a commission from another realtor based upon an exclusive rental agreement for property owned by Rex and Martha Anderson. (Tr pages 23, 28) Subsequently, the Ft. Lauderdale Area Board of Realtors filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation alleging possible perjury in connection with Upton's testimony at the hearing or forgery in connection with the exclusive listing agreement with the Andersons. Unrefuted testimony shows that during a meeting at Anderson's home in October, 1982, Rex Anderson initialed a listing brochure for the Anderson property. (Tr page 111-112; Respondents' Exhibit 3; Anderson deposition at page 9; referring to the March 22, 1983 letter at Petitioner's Exhibit 3, page 60, paragraph 3) Anderson claimed he did not intend to give Upton an exclusive listing. However, because of the strain he was under at the time the agreement was purportly executed, he could not swear that he did not initial the document. Anderson's testimony about being under a "severe strain" and unable to remember what occurred in connection with the exclusive listing agreement is not inconsistent with that of the only other eye witness who has testified regarding the transaction, Kevin Scott, a former associate of Upton who is presently involved in hotel management at the Royal Orleans Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Tr page 108) The day Upton visited the Anderson residence to obtain the listing, Rex Anderson, who had been laid off from his job as an airline pilot, appeared "very upset," and appeared to be drinking. (Tr page 110) Thereafter, Upton and Scott left the Anderson residence for a brief period. When they returned, Anderson was a "very flustered, very nervous and an agitated individual." (Tr page 114) The credible testimony of persons familiar with Upton's reputation for honesty in the community evidenced that he was not reputed to be a person who would forge someone's name on a listing agreement. (Testimony of Clemente, Apuna and Marion Upton at Tr pages 126, 143 and 145, respectively) Based on Respondent's testimony that Anderson initialed the exclusive listing agreement, Kevin Scott's testimony which was corroborative of Respondent Upton's testimony and Anderson's inability to state, without evasiveness, what occurred in connection with the exclusive listing agreement respecting the subject property, there is no competent and substantial evidence herein to establish that Respondent Upton either forged Rex Anderson's initials to the exclusive listing agreement or that he gave perjured testimony before the Fort Lauderdale Area Board of Realtors. On October 17, 1984, Respondent Upton pleaded nolo contendere to the felony offense of possession of an unlawfully issued driver's license. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) The plea resulted in a withheld adjudication and a sentence of 18 months probation plus the payment of fines and court costs. In making the nolo contendere plea, Respondent Upton considered that such was in his best-interests; however, he felt that he was not guilty and has been a model probationer since October, 1984. (Testimony of Susan Jean Davis, Respondent Upton's correctional officer) Respondent has completed a 30-day residential treatment program for alcoholism at the Beachcomber in Delray Beach, Florida. Since that time, he has also participated successfully in the Broward County Commission of Alcoholism, Inc. DWI program. (Respondents' Exhibits 4, 5 and 8) Those persons who have had the opportunity to observe Respondent since his bout with alcoholism consider him a reformed alcoholic. (Testimony of former judge, Lawrence C. Roberts; Marion Upton and former Broward sheriff and judge, George Brescher) Kendall D. DeVeaux, Broward County's chief evaluator for the substance abuse program had the opportunity to evaluate and supervise Respondent Upton since his DWI and drug abuse offenses. DeVeaux's testimony corroborates that of Roberts and Marion Upton respecting Upton's reformation. Based on the foregoing factual findings and conclusions, and the mitigating factors introduced herein, I hereby make the following:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent Gary Dean Upton's real estate broker's license number 0090905 be suspended for a period of six (6) months. In all other respects, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaints in Case Numbers 84-0138 be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1985.
The Issue In relation to DOAH Case No. 05-0515, does the case involve the sale of securities as described in Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (2002), that would confer jurisdiction upon OFR to proceed to a hearing on the merits of the Administrative Complaint that forms the basis for DOAH Case No. 05-0515, and to what extent, if any, the named Respondents have been involved with the sale of securities sufficient to declare jurisdiction over their activities? Preliminary to that determination is the related issue concerning the possible pre-emption of OFR's regulatory authority by virtue of the regulatory action previously taken by the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (DBPR) under authority set forth in Chapter 721, Florida Statutes (2002)? Argument has also been set forth concerning the significance of court cases as they might influence OFR's ability to declare their regulatory authority in this instance.
Findings Of Fact * * * 2. RESPONDENT is the 'creating developer' of the Universal Luxury Lease Plan, a personal property 'timeshare plan' as those terms are defined in sections 721.05(9)(a) and 721.05(37), Florida Statutes, located in the city of Sanford, Florida. * * * On or about July 10, 2003, DIVISION was made aware of a newspaper advertisement for Universal Luxury Lease Plan. This advertisement, promoted the purchase of a timeshare interest in the Universal Luxury Lease Plan as an investment that offered purchasers a 10 percent per year return on their investment. On July 25, 2003, DIVISION'S investigators were given an application package containing the Universal Luxury Lease Plan Enrollment Forms, CD-ROM, Public Offering Statement, Contracts and Motor Coach Brochures. The application package stated that it was advertising material being used for the purposes of soliciting timeshare interests. It described a component of the timeshare plan called the 'Affinity Rental Program' and stated that the program will typically produce a monthly income of 10 percent of the lease-hold ownership interest.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That an order be entered by OFR finding jurisdiction to proceed with the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 05- 0515 on its merits. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 6th day of January, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT) should charge Respondent with lease payments and fine him for unauthorized use of sovereignty submerged lands under the Halifax River in Daytona Beach.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns residential property on the Halifax River in Daytona Beach. In 2004, he entered into a Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease with BOT to allow him to construct a single-family dock structure into the Halifax River from his property. In 2007, he entered into a Modification to Increase Square Footage (Modified Lease). The Modified Lease covered 2,714 square feet, required an annual lease fee of $423.89, and expired on November 16, 2008. The Modified Lease provided for a late charge equal to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the due date until paid on any lease fees not paid within 30 days from their due dates. There was no evidence that any lease fee under the Modified Lease was not paid or paid late. In August 2008, BOT attempted to have Respondent enter into a Lease Renewal. He did not renew his lease, and the Modified Lease expired on November 16, 2008. Respondent paid no lease fees for 2008/2009. In September 2009, BOT again attempted to have Respondent enter into an updated Lease Renewal at an annual lease fee of $436.78 and pay current and past due lease fees. BOT placed Respondent on notice that his failure to do so could be considered a willful violation of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, which could subject Respondent to administrative fines of up to $10,000 a day. Respondent did not renew his lease or pay any lease fees. Instead, he complained (as he claims to have since 2005) that a stormwater outfall structure installed by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1998 approximately 100 feet to the north (upriver) of his dock structure, at the end of Ora Street, was not functioning properly and was allowing silt to enter the river, shoaling the water in the area of Respondent’s dock structure (and elsewhere in the vicinity) and eventually making it impossible for Respondent to moor his boat at his dock structure and navigate to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). The DOT outfall structure at Ora Street has been in existence since the 1950’s. In 1998, DOT added a silt box, which is not functioning properly and is allowing silt to enter the river. The evidence is not clear whether silt from the DOT outfall structure was entering the river before 1998. In 2010, BOT informed Respondent by certified mail that it had contacted the DOT at Respondent’s request and determined that DOT was planning to clean and monitor the outfall structure after August 2010 but had no plans to dredge sediment from the river. BOT also placed Respondent on notice that he was in violation for not renewing his lease and paying all current and past due fees, and that he would be fined and required to remove his dock structure if he did not come into compliance. This certified letter was designated an NOV. The evidence was not clear when the letter was sent to Respondent, but it is clear that Respondent has continued to refuse to renew the lease, or pay any fees, and has not removed his dock structure. BOT takes the position in this case that Respondent must pay: the Lease Renewal annual lease fee of $436.78 for 2008/2009, plus the Lease Renewal late charge equal to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from November 30, 2010; and an annual lease fee of $448.49 for 2009/2010, plus a late charge equal to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the $448.49 from November 29, 2009. The evidence did not explain how the annual lease fees for the years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 were determined. (But see Florida Administrative Code Rule2 18- 21.011(1)(b)10.b., set out in Conclusion of Law 24, which may explain how the annual lease fees were determined.) Invoices in evidence charge Respondent a total of $1,283.22 through July 30, 2010: $436.78, plus tax, for a total of $465.17 for the year 2008/2009; $448.49, plus tax for a total of $477.64 for the year 2009/2010; and $36.18 of interest on the $448.49. BOT also takes the position that Respondent must either: enter into a lease for the year 2010/2011 and beyond; remove part of his dock structure so that he will preempt only 1,150 square feet of sovereignty submerged land (so as not to require a lease, but only a cost-free consent of use); or remove the entire dock structure. BOT also seeks the imposition of an administrative fine under Rules 18-14.002 and 18-14.005(5). In its First Amended NOV, BOT sought a fine in the amount of $2,500; in its PRO, BOT seeks a fine in the amount of $2,500 for the first offense and $10,000 per day from the issuance of the NOV for repeat offenses. Respondent believes he should not be required to pay any lease fees or fines because of his inability to use his dock structure due to the shoaling of the river caused by the malfunctioning DOT outfall structure. Respondent believes it is DEP’s responsibility to require DOT to remove the silt from the river and make the outfall structure work properly. He believes this is required by the state and federal constitutions, statutes, and rules, and by an unspecified “federal bond issue” or “federal bond agency.” DEP takes the position that the silting from the outfall structure and its adverse impact on Respondent’s ability to use his dock structure is irrelevant because the requirement of a lease is based on preemption of sovereignty submerged land, not on the lessee’s use of the land. DEP also believes that, under an operating agreement among governmental agencies, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), not DEP, is the agency responsible for enforcing the applicable environmental laws and permit conditions against DOT. DOT has indicated to the parties that it is in the process of modifying the outfall structure so that it functions properly but that it does not have the money to remove silt from the river. DEP personnel visited the site at approximately 11:00 a.m. on July 16, 2010, and measured the water in the vicinity of the terminal platform and slips of Respondent’s dock structure to be approximately 36 inches deep, which is deep enough for navigation. DEP did not take measurements in the slips of the dock structure, between the terminal platform and Respondent’s property, or between the vicinity of the terminal platform and the ICW. The evidence was not clear what the tide stage was at the Respondent’s dock structure when DEP measured the water depth. DEP called the tide stage low, or near low, based in part on tidal charts for Ormond Beach and the Halifax River indicating that the tide was low at 11:21 a.m. and high at 4:10 p.m. on July 16, 2010. However, the persuasive evidence was that the tidal chart applied to locations at the beach, and there is a difference in the tides at Respondent’s dock structure and at the beach. It does not appear that the tide was dead low or near dead low at Respondent’s dock structure at 11:00 a.m. on July 16, 2010; it probably was between low and slack, possibly a half foot higher than dead low. Regardless of the measurements taken by DEP on July 16, 2010, Respondent testified that he is not able to operate his boat from his dock structure consistently due to shoaling from the silt. He testified that, as a result, he kept his boat at a marina for a year at a cost of $7,000 but cannot afford to continue to do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that BOT enter a final order: (1) that, within 10 days, Respondent sign the appropriate lease renewal and send it, along with $1,283.22 in past due lease fees and interest owed BOT, plus the lease payment for 2010/2011, by cashier’s check or money order made payable to the “Internal Improvement Trust Fund,” with a notation of OGC Case No. 10-1948, sent to 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232, Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program; or (2) that, within 20 days, Respondent remove his dock structure or at least enough of it to preempt no more than 1,150 square feet of sovereignty submerged; and (3) that, within 30 days, Respondent pay BOT a fine in the amount of $2,000, by cashier’s check or money order made payable to the “Internal Improvement Trust Fund,” with a notation of OGC Case No. 10-1948, sent to 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232, Attention David Herbster, Program Administrator, Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of November, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Brian H. Morgenstern, holds and at all times material hereto held, Florida Real Estate Salesman's License No. 0320190. From February 4, 1983 to December 2, 1983, Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of E & I Realty, Inc. Mr. Ira Messinger was the qualifying broker for E & I Realty, Inc. On July 12, 1983, Respondent, purporting to act on behalf of E & I Realty, Inc., solicited and obtained a two-year lease agreement between Craig Brass, lessor, and James Joss, lessee, for condominium unit No. 705, Towers of Oceanview, 400 Leslie Drive, Hallandale, Florida. Pursuant to the express terms of the lease agreement, the lessee agreed to pay a monthly rental of $450.00 for the first year, and a monthly rental of $475.00 for the second year. In consideration for securing the lease agreement, Dr. Brass agreed to pay a broker's fee of $925.00, representing one month's rent for the first and second year of the term. Respondent delivered an E & I Realty receipt to Dr. Brass evidencing the receipt of the first month's rent, the last month's rent, and a security deposit, for a total sum of $1,375.00. From this $1,375.00 the receipt evidenced a deduction of $925.00 as a broker's fee, and delivery of the balance of $450.00 to Dr. Brass. There is disagreement between the parties whether the Respondent actually received $1,375.00 from Mr. Joss. Respondent insists that Mr. Joss, an acquaintance, could only raise $450.00 so be and Mr. Messinger "agreed" to forego receipt of the broker's fee of $925.00 and, in effect, loan such sum to Mr. Joss. There is, however, no promissory note or other memoranda to commemorate such an agreement. Mr. Messinger insists that his office made no such agreement, that he had no knowledge of the transaction, and that no monies were ever received by his office. Dr. Brass testified to a conversation on a speaker phone between Mr. Joss and the Respondent wherein the Respondent admitted receiving the funds. Further, Kenneth Rehm, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, personally interviewed Respondent and the Respondent admitted he had collected the full $1,375.00 and that be had retained $925.00 as a broker's fee. Respondent further insists that his version of the incident is given credence by the commission structure he had with Mr. Messinger. Under their agreement, Respondent was to receive 90 percent of any commission earned on business he produced. Therefore, Respondent argues, it would be "foolish" for him to risk his license for $92.50 (10 percent of the $925.00 commission). While Respondent's argument appears at first blush to have merit, the value of money is relative. On February 23, 1984, Respondent entered into a written agreement with Dr. Brass to pay him $350.00 within 17 days in consideration of which Dr. Brass would not file any complaints with anyone, including the Department of Professional Regulation. Respondent did not have the funds necessary to pay Dr. Brass, and in point of fact has never paid Dr. Brass. If Respondent did not have $350.00 to circumvent these proceedings, then $92.00 may well have been of import to him. The clear and consistent testimony of Dr. Brass, Ira Messinger, and Kenneth Rehm, Respondent's conflicting statements and testimony together with his demeanor, render Respondent's testimony inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer finds that the Respondent did in fact receive $1,375.00 from Mr. Joss, that he delivered $450.00 to Dr. Brass, and retained $925.00 for his own use and benefit without the knowledge or consent of his registered broker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Respondents be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondents promptly return the rental agreement fee to Narendra Patel in accordance with their agreement on the record in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of October, 1981.
The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether Petitioners were the victims of a discriminatory housing practice, by allegedly being denied the opportunity to renew the lease of an apartment from Respondents, based upon their race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Vernon and Glenda Shaw are husband and wife. They and their children are African-Americans. Respondent EPI Townsend, LLC owns an apartment community located in Gainesville, Florida, known as Uptown Village. Respondent Epoch Management, Inc. (Epoch) manages Uptown Village on behalf of EPI Townsend, LLC. On June 25, 2010, Ms. Shaw submitted an application to lease an apartment at Uptown Village. She listed herself, her husband, and her two children as the proposed occupants. Ms. Shaw noted the family had a dog. She provided her email address on the application, as requested. At the time of application, prospective tenants of Uptown Village are given a document entitled ?Epoch Management, Inc. Rental Application Approval Criteria.? It contains an ?Equal Housing Opportunity? statement and displays the ?Equal Housing? logo approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (?HUD?). When she submitted her application, Ms. Shaw acknowledged receipt of the Rental Application Approval Criteria form. The Shaws’ application was approved, and Ms. Shaw subsequently signed a one-year lease (?the Lease?) agreement on June 26, 2010. Soon thereafter Ms. Shaw moved into Apartment 2- 201 of Uptown Village with her children and their dog. Mr. Shaw was living in Alabama at the time and planned on moving to Gainesville at a later date to join his family.1/ At the time the Shaws began their tenancy at Uptown Village, Rhonda Hayden served as the property manager and Stacy Brown as the assistant property manager for Epoch. Both were experienced property managers and both had received Fair Housing training. Ms. Hayden and Ms. Brown testified that Epoch tries to create a sense of community among its tenants. Its efforts include hosting monthly breakfasts and other events for tenants. Information about upcoming community events is sent to all tenants with email addresses on file via Constant Contact, an on-line social and business networking platform. The email address provided on Ms. Shaw's rental application was entered into Epoch’s Constant Contact list. The Uptown Village Lease The Lease contained several provisions intended to ensure a safe and peaceful living environment for tenants. For example, paragraph 4 of the Lease provided that a resident shall ?. . . not permit any disturbance, noises or annoyance whatsoever detrimental to the comfort and peace of any of the inhabitants of the community or its Landlord.? Similarly, paragraph 30(G) provided that the ?Resident shall ensure that the pet(s) does not, at any time, disturb any other Resident of the apartment community.? The Lease reserved to Epoch the right to determine, in its sole discretion, whether a pet was disturbing residents. The Lease also incorporated a code of community rules (?the Rules?) for Uptown Village, which provided in pertinent part, ?all garbage, refuse and other types of waste shall be placed in garbage receptacles? and that ?loud and boisterous noise or any other objectionable behavior by any Resident or guests is not permitted.? The Rules also noted that the "quiet time" hours of the complex were from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Paragraph 12 of the Lease provided that a tenant must give 60 days’ advance notice of his or her intent not to renew the Lease. If notice was not given, then the Lease would renew on a month-to-month basis at the then current market rate, plus $50.00. The Shaws' Neighbors The Alcubilla family, who are Hispanic, lived across from Petitioners’ apartment, in Apartment 2-202. The Alcubilla family included a husband and wife, as well as the wife’s mother (Mrs. Alcubilla), who spoke little English. A Caucasian graduate student, Amanda Watson, lived on the third floor of the building directly above the Shaws in Apartment 3-201. A Hispanic tenant, Angelo Caruso, lived with his girlfriend on the same floor as Ms. Watson. In October 2010, four months after the Shaws became residents, the Kohl family moved into Apartment 2-101, the first floor apartment directly beneath the Shaws’ apartment. Trouble in Paradise The Shaws' first rent check, dated July 9, 2010, was returned for insufficient funds. This was a Lease violation. On July 14, 2010, Epoch issued a reminder to Ms. Shaw advising her that a neighbor had complained about her dog barking all hours of the day. This was a violation of the Lease and the Community Rules. Mr. Shaw joined his family at Uptown Village on or about August 8, 2010. On the day he moved in, Epoch leasing agent Breanne Parks was conducting a survey of the community grounds and noticed empty boxes outside the Shaws’ apartment on the walkway, as well as trash outside another tenant’s apartment. She issued a warning notice to the Shaws and the other tenant in the building. Leaving trash outside of an apartment is a violation of the Lease and Community Rules. On August 20, 2010, the Shaws’ rent check was returned for insufficient funds. This was a Lease Violation. On October 8, 2010, the Shaws were notified by Epoch that they were being assessed a late fee for failure to pay their rent on time. One week later, on October 15, 2010, Epoch sent the Shaws notification about an outstanding balance on their account. The notices concerned Lease violations. On October 21, 2010, Ms. Watson complained to the office about loud arguments and sounds emanating from the Shaws’ apartment the night before. One of the noises sounded like someone or something had been thrown against a wall. Though she feared that someone was being physically abused due to the intensity of the impact, she decided not call the police. In response to Ms. Watson's complaint, Epoch posted a notice on the Shaws’ door for a second time warning them about noise and asking them to be considerate of their neighbors. The noise violation was considered a violation of the Lease and Community Rules. The same day Epoch posted the noise violation notice on the Shaws' door, Ms. Shaw called the management office and lodged a retaliatory noise complaint against Ms. Watson. As a consequence of this complaint, a warning notice was sent by Epoch to Ms. Watson. The noise violation was considered a violation of the Lease and Community Rules. On November 4, 2010, the Shaws’ rent check was returned for insufficient funds. This was a Lease violation. Epoch allows sworn officers from the Gainesville Police Department to reside on the premises in exchange for services to the community as a Courtesy Officer. At some point during the Shaws' tenancy, Courtesy Officer Farah Lormil, an African-American female police detective, noticed a car belonging to the Shaws parked in an area that was not a designated parking space. This was a violation of Community Rules. Detective Lormil testified that she left a note on the car asking the owner to move the vehicle because "your car doesn't belong here." Detective Lormil also included her name and badge number on the note. At hearing, Ms. Shaw testified that the note read "you don't belong here." Inasmuch as Petitioners did not offer the note in evidence, and given the context in which the note was written (a parking violation), the testimony of Detective Lormil as to the actual wording of the note is the more credible. On December 27, 2010, leasing agent Erin Napolitano wrote a memo to Ms. Parks reporting that Mrs. Alcubilla’s daughter, Mater Alcubilla, had come to the management office the prior weekend to complain about an incident involving Ms. Shaw. Consistent with her memo, Ms. Napolitano testified that Mater Alcubilla had told her that Ms. Shaw had screamed at her family, followed them up and down the stairs to their apartment, and loudly knocked on their door. Mater Alcubilla also accused Ms. Shaw of stating that she knew what type of vehicles the Alcubillas drove and dared them to call the police. The memo recorded Ms. Alcubilla’s daughter as stating the police were called but when they arrived at Building 2, Ms. Shaw already was gone and therefore, no enforcement action was taken. Ms. Napolitano ended her memo to Ms. Parks with a personal observation: ?I just don’t know what to do about all of this but it certainly seems to be escalating.? Whatever the source of the friction between the two families, Ms. Napolitano testified that she had no reason to believe there was any racial animus on the part of the Alcubillas. On December 30, 2010, Ms. Hayden invited Mater Alcubilla to the office to discuss the incident with Ms. Shaw. Following their meeting, Ms. Hayden notated the date of the meeting and substance of their discussion in the Alcubilla’s resident conversation log. Ms. Hayden recorded in her own handwriting: ?Resident very frightened, Resident plans on moving at the end of her lease-Resident claimed Ms. Shaw yelled at her and threatened her and told her she needed to return to her country.? Ms. Hayden considered this to be an interpersonal dispute between the Alcubillas and Ms. Shaw. Also on December 30, 2010, Ms. Hayden and Ms. Parks invited Ms. Shaw to the management office to discuss the Alcubillas’ complaints. Ms. Hayden recorded in the Alcubilla’s resident log that Ms. Shaw denied the Alcubillas’ accusations, became upset and told Ms. Hayden and Ms. Parks that her neighbors needed to mind their own business. Ms. Hayden also noted that the meeting ended when Ms. Shaw got up, stated, ?you wait? and left the office. Based on what she perceived as a threat by Ms. Shaw of continuing trouble with the Alcubillas, Ms. Hayden recorded her intent to notify a Courtesy Officer of the situation. On February 15, 2011, the Shaws received a three-day notice from Epoch for failure to pay rent, and a notice of an outstanding balance due. This was a Lease violation. Three weeks later, on March 4, 2011, the Shaws were issued another three-day notice for failure to pay rent. This concerned a Lease violation. Ms. Watson continued to hear the Shaws' dog barking and loud voices and other noises, included stomping and footsteps, emanating from the Shaws' apartment. On one occasion, the Shaws left Gainesville for the weekend and placed their dog out on the balcony because it barked continuously. The noise and barking interfered with Ms. Watson’s ability to study and to enjoy her residence. On March 5, 2011, Epoch posted a letter on the Shaws' door regarding complaints received from the Shaws' neighbors about the dog barking for hours at a time, often late at night and in particular on March 3, 2011. This concerned a Lease violation. The loud barking, stomping, and talking within the Shaws' apartment did not abate, and on March 9, 2011, Epoch sent the Shaws a "Seven Day Notice to Cure Lease Violation" which cited their violation of Lease Provision 30 and Community Rule Y. On March 17, 2011, Epoch send the Shaws an ?Urgent Outstanding Balance Due? notice regarding their outstanding unpaid utility bill. This concerned a Lease violation. Also on March 17, 2011, an email was generated by Epoch’s answering service which reported that Tara Kohl of Apt. 2-101 had called. The generated message stated Ms. Kohl’s complaint as, ?Apt. Above Very Noisy/Heavy Walking Again.? On March 19, 2011, Ms. Napolitano printed off the email note and called Ms. Kohl to get more information about the complaint. Ms. Napolitano recorded hand-written notes about the conversation on a printed copy of the email which read: ?Last couple nights—beating down on floor–jumping/walking. 3-4 am can hear them all the time.? The email with Ms. Napitano’s hand- written notes was placed in the Kohl’s tenant file. Immediately following Ms. Kohl’s complaint, Ms. Shaw wrote the following note and faxed it to the management office: To Uptown Village On Saturday night, March 19, 2011, I noted a very loud bumping noise coming from my floor. I was home alone and very afraid. I even feared calling the office or security in fear of retaliation. From past experiences when I have voiced a complaint, I receive notes on my door alleging that my dog was barking, that I had trash beside my door, we were stomping, we were too loud and have even found handwritten notes on my car. My family and I can no longer live in such turmoil. Please accept this letter as a formal complaint regarding harassment. If these occurrences continue, I will have no other choice than to contact HUD. Thank you in advance for your help. Glenda Shaw Prior to the date of the faxed letter neither Petitioner had ever complained about discrimination of any kind to anyone at Epoch. Ms. Hayden and Ms. Brown discussed the content of Ms. Shaw's fax and how to handle its allegations. They viewed Ms. Shaw’s complaint against the Kohls as retaliation against the Kohls for making a complaint about noise from the Shaws’ apartment the day before, and therefore a personal dispute. They also considered whether to respond to Ms. Shaw’s allegation of harassment by Epoch, and decided that any response would just be viewed by Ms. Shaw as evidence of further harassment. They decided to place the faxed letter in the Shaw’s tenant file and take no other action. It was a normal business practice of Epoch to generate a list of tenants whose leases were due to expire within the following 90 days. The list was used to create flyers reminding those tenants to contact the management office regarding renewal. Flyers were sent to each tenant on the list regardless of whether the tenant was in default of the lease or potentially a candidate for non-renewal. A renewal flyer was placed on the Shaws’ door in late March and a second renewal flyer was posted on the Shaws' door the following month. Neither renewal notice elicited a response from the Shaws. On March 25, 2011, Epoch sent the Shaws an ?Urgent Outstanding Balance Due Notice? regarding their overdue utility bill. This concerned a Lease violation. Just prior to Easter, 2011, an Uptown Village tenant asked the management office for permission to hold a private Easter egg hunt for their friends on the community’s volleyball court. Epoch approved the request. Uptown Village residents were not notified of the event through Constant Contact because the Easter egg hunt was not an Epoch-sponsored event. The individual who organized the event made the decision whom to invite. On May 10, 2011, Ms. Shaw came to the management office and was assisted by Ms. Brown. Ms. Shaw accused Brian Kohl of confronting her daughter and calling her ?two-faced.? Ms. Shaw demanded that Epoch take action against Mr. Kohl and stated that if Epoch would not do anything about the situation, she was going to call the police or the Florida Department of Children and Families. Before Ms. Shaw left, Ms. Brown asked about the Shaws' intentions to remain residents upon the expiration of their Lease. Ms. Shaw did not give a definitive answer. Ms. Brown then told Ms. Shaw that if the Shaws decided not to renew, Epoch would not hold them to the 60-day advance notice required by the Lease. Three days after this meeting, Ms. Brown notified Ms. Shaw that Epoch could not send a notice of violation to Mr. Kohl because the accusations against him were not Lease violations. However, Ms. Brown offered to discuss the allegations with Mr. Kohl, a truck-driver who was often on the road. On May 18, 2011, Ms. Brown met with Brian Kohl to discuss Ms. Shaw’s complaint. Mr. Kohl gave his side of the story. After he left, Ms. Brown entered the following note in the Kohl’s resident conversation log: Brian came in wanting to break lease b/c [because] daughter is being harassed by girls in 2-111 and 2-1012/ so badly that she won’t go outside. Told him that one 2-111 should be finish soon (they are on NTV [Notice to Vacate] and the other may too, (2-101) lease expires 6/25. Otherwise would do what I can and to give us the opportunity to help before he moves. Ms. Brown also made an entry in the Shaws' resident conversation log regarding Mr. Kohl’s allegation that the Shaws' daughter was bullying the Kohl’s daughter. The following day, May 19, 2011, Ms. Watson came to the management office and gave notice that she was moving out of Uptown Village when her lease expired in August 2011. She was asked to complete a form entitled ?Notice to Vacate from Resident.? In her own handwriting, she wrote the reason for vacating as ?loud tenants.? The Notice to Vacate from Resident was placed in Ms. Watson’s tenant file as part of Epoch’s regular business practices. At hearing, Ms. Watson testified that she and her fiancé had considered living in her apartment after they married and decided they could not live there due to the continued noise and disturbances emanating from the apartment below. With Ms. Watson’s notice to vacate, Ms. Hayden and Ms. Brown came to the realization that three tenants in Building 2 had levied complaints against the Shaws and two had made decisions to move out in whole or in part due to the Shaws’ conduct. Ms. Hayden and Ms. Brown then conducted a more thorough review of the Shaws’ tenant history, and discussed whether the Shaws should continue to reside at Uptown Village. They called Epoch’s attorneys to get legal advice and left a message. On May 29, 2011, Epoch received a handwritten letter from Tara Kohl making numerous complaints against the Shaws, including loud noises late at night, and the Shaws parking one of their cars in a handicapped parking space. On June 8, 2011, the management office received a hand-written letter from Brian Kohl giving notice of his family’s intent to break their lease and move out. The reasons given all centered on the noise being generated in the Shaws' apartment, and alleged threats that had been made by Ms. Shaw against Ms. Kohl. On June 17, 2011, Ms. Shaw called the management office and spoke with Ms. Brown. Ms. Shaw asked for a copy of her lease, inquired about the shortest lease term possible, and the amount of any rent increase. Ms. Brown did not commit that the Shaws' lease would be renewed nor did she quote a renewal rate. Ms. Shaw continued to press the issue and Ms. Brown finally stated that a normal rent increase on renewal was $100 a month. On June 20, 2011, Ms. Hayden and Ms. Brown spoke to Epoch’s attorneys regarding options for ending the Shaws' tenancy. A decision was made to non-renew their lease as that would cause the least disruption to the Shaws. Ms. Hayden prepared a non-renewal letter, and it was posted on the Shaws' door the same day. Later that afternoon, Mr. and Ms. Shaw came to the management office, met with Ms. Brown, and demanded to know the reason why their Lease would not be renewed. Ms. Shaw insisted that Ms. Brown had told her their Lease would be renewed at a rate of $937.00. Ms. Brown denied she made this statement. Ms. Brown asked Ms. Hayden to intervene in the dispute. Ms. Hayden explained that Epoch had a right to issue a non-renewal notice and that the decision was based on the numerous complaints received about the Shaws. Ms. Shaw insisted that if there were grounds to terminate the Lease for cause, Epoch should issue them a seven-day notice to vacate. Ms. Hayden explained that they had decided to issue a non- renewal notice rather than a notice to vacate to allow the Shaws more time to make arrangements and to foster an amicable parting. Epoch has sent non-African-American, White and Hispanic tenants notices of violation regarding excessive noise and non-payment of rent and fees, and also has terminated leases (through eviction) on these bases. There is no competent substantial evidence in this record to even suggest that the decision to non-renew the Shaws' lease was in any way related to their status as African-Americans. On June 23, 2011, Mr. Caruso’s girlfriend was walking their dog outside Building 2 off leash (in violation of the Rules) when it began to chase the Shaws' son. The dog nipped at their son’s leg but did not draw blood or break his skin. When Mr. Caruso learned of the incident, he came to the Shaws' apartment to apologize. He later returned and asked to take a photo of their son’s leg because he feared Ms. Shaw might bring legal action against him, given her hostility after he had offered her a bag to clean up her dog’s waste on a previous occasion. Ms. Shaw refused to allow Mr. Caruso to photograph her son’s leg. Instead, she told him if he did not leave she would call the police, and if his dog ever attacked again she would report him and have the dog put to sleep. On June 27, 2011, a second non-renewal letter was posted on the Shaws' door to ensure that Petitioner’s understood their lease would not be renewed. The following day the Shaws returned to the management office and insisted that at the end of the June 20th meeting, they had been told their lease would be renewed. Ms. Hayden denied this and reiterated that their lease was being non-renewed based on complaints from neighbors. As the meeting continued, Ms. Shaw became increasingly agitated; she turned to Ms. Brown and asked if Ms. Brown found her to be confrontational. Ms. Brown responded that she thought Ms. Shaw had a ?strong personality.? To that, Ms. Shaw replied, ?It’s my culture.? As the meeting continued, Ms. Shaw began to inject the issue of race into the conversation. For example, in response to Ms. Hayden’s remark that the decision to non-renew was not personal, since she would not even recognize Ms. Shaw if she saw her at a mall, Ms. Shaw stated that ?white people think we all look alike.? As the conversation was taking an uncomfortable turn, Ms. Hayden ended the meeting and referred the Shaws to Epoch’s attorneys if they had any further questions or concerns. In early July 2011, Mr. Caruso was returning to Building 2 after walking his dog on leash and encountered Mr. Shaw. Mr. Shaw told Mr. Caruso to keep his dog away or he would kick it. On July 11, 2011, Ms. Shaw complained to the management office about Mr. Caruso’s dog charging at her while it was on a leash. She noted this was the second incident involving the dog. Ms. Brown told Ms. Shaw she would look into the matter, since this would be considered a violation of the Lease and Community Rules. On July 12, 2011, Ms. Brown spoke with Mr. Caruso’s girlfriend and cautioned her to keep the dog under control. Ms. Brown noted their conversation in both the Shaws’ and Mr. Caruso's resident conversation log. On August 4, 2011, Ms. Watson completed a "Move Out Survey" and in response to a question about what could have been done by management to encourage her to stay, wrote in her own hand-writing: ?Dealt with loud neighbors more consistently and effectively . . .? She added that her reason for leaving was ?loud, inconsiderate tenants.? The Shaws refused to move out by the date given in their non-renewal notice and stopped paying rent. On August 3, 2011, the Shaws dual-filed a charge of housing discrimination (race and color) with the Commission and the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. The charge alleged that Epoch had refused to rent to them, made discriminatory statements, and had offered them less favorable terms, conditions, privileges, services or facilities than other non-African-American tenants. The facts supporting their charge were that they were not invited to the Easter egg hunt; that they had been told their lease would be renewed yet it was not; and that Ms. Hayden had made racist statements. The Shaws did not pay rent for July 2011,3/ and on August 4, 2011, were sent a "Notice to Pay Rent" by Epoch. The Commission investigated the Shaws' charge of housing discrimination and issued a determination on August 31, 2011, finding there was no probable cause to support the claims. On September 29, 2011, the Shaws filed a Petition for Relief from an alleged discriminatory housing practice, giving rise to the instant proceeding. During the pendency of this matter, the Shaws were evicted from Uptown Village for non- payment of rent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, determining that Respondents did not commit a discriminatory housing practice based upon Petitioners’ race and that the Petition be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 3rd day of October, 2012.
