The Issue Whether the Department of Revenue (DOR) should grant Petitioner's request for a refund of the $1,433.40 in sales tax Petitioner paid in connection with his purchase of a mobile home from Dwight Hatfield Manufactured Homes, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: In October 2002, Petitioner purchased a lot in a mobile home park in Davie, Florida (Petitioner's Property). There was a "worn out" mobile home on the property that Petitioner had "demolished and removed." On May 30, 2003, Petitioner entered into a Purchase Agreement with Dwight Hatfield Manufactured Homes, Inc., wherein he agreed to purchase, for $23,890.00, a 2003 Homes of Merit mobile home that was not yet built (Purchased Mobile Home). The Purchase Agreement provided that the Purchased Mobile Home was to be "drop shipped" directly from the manufacturer's facility to Petitioner's Property, where it would be "met by [Petitioner]." The Purchase Agreement further provided, in pertinent part, as follows with respect the passing of title of the Purchased Mobile Home: Title to said equipment shall remain in the Seller until the agreed purchase price therefor is paid in full . . . ; thereupon title to the within described unit passes to the buyer as of the date of . . . full cash payment . . . . Petitioner paid the full purchase price of the Purchased Mobile Home upon execution of the Purchase Agreement, but no sales tax was collected from him at that time. On July 13, 2003, the Purchased Mobile Home was delivered to Petitioner's Property, where it has remained. Thereafter, Larry Douglas, Sr., of Dwight Hatfield Manufactured Homes sent the following letter, dated September 11, 2003, to Petitioner: You have recently purchased a new Homes of Merit manufactured home from Dwight Hatfield Manufactured Homes, Inc. You have not provided us with proof that you are exempt [from] sales tax. Therefore, you owe Dwight Hatfield Manufactured Homes, Inc., the amount of $1,433.40 for the sales tax on your home. Your home will not be registered in your name until the balance is paid in full. On or about September 15, 2003, Petitioner filed with the Broward County Property Appraiser an "application for the issuance an 'RP' License Plate to identify [the Purchased Mobile Home] as real property." In his application, Petitioner represented that the Purchased Mobile Home had been "permanently affixed on January 1 of the current year, [was] now permanently affixed, and it [was his] intention that [it] remain permanently affixed," to Petitioner's Property. At no time prior to the filing of the application had the Purchased Mobile Home been classified as real property. The Broward County Property Appraiser, on September 15, 2003, issued a certificate stating that the Purchased Mobile Home was "included in an assessment for ad valorem taxation of [Petitioner's Property]." On September 18, 2003, Petitioner reluctantly paid the $1,433.40 that Dwight Hatfield Manufactured Homes claimed was due "for the sales tax on [the Purchased Mobile Home]." On September 19, 2003, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles issued a certificate of title for the Purchased Mobile Home in Petitioner's name. In March 2006, Petitioner applied to DOR for a refund of the $1,433.40 he had paid to Dwight Hatfield Manufactured Homes in sales tax for the Purchased Mobile Home. On July 27, 2006, DOR issued its Notice of Decision of Refund Denial.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's refund request. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 3rd day of April, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a mobile home park in Winter Haven, Florida, known as Swiss Village Mobile Home Park, in which lots are leased to mobile home owners on an annual lease. There are 383 lots in this park and this park has held a permit issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services since 1980 (Exhibit 1). Edward G. Ackerman and his wife entered into a lease with Respondent for the use of a mobile home lot for the period January 15, 1981 until December 31, 1981, at a monthly rental of $75.07 (Exhibit 2). That lease provides for year-to-year renewal with rent for future years based on the Cost of Living Index as determined by the U.S. Government at the nearest reporting period to the end of each calendar year (Exhibit 2). A Guaranteed Lifetime Rent Agreement (Exhibit 3) was executed by the lessor concurrently with the lease in Exhibit 2, which guarantees the rental on the lot leased to Ackerman shall not be increased more than the U. S. Cost of Living Index as long as Ackerman resides in a mobile home located on the leased lot. Using the annual change and CPI to recompute Ackerman's monthly rental has resulted in the rent increasing from $75.00 per month in 1981 to $89.50 per month in 1985 (Exhibit 4). Prior to the time of this hearing Ackerman had purchased a condominium to which he had moved and he was no longer a tenant at the Swiss Village Mobile Home Park. All leases negotiated in years subsequent to 1981, have a similar escalation clause in the rent with the additional proviso that the monthly rent would be increased each year a minimum of $5.00 per month, with the maximum increase not exceeding the CPI. Respondent has used the October All Items Consumer Priced Index For All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in determining the annual rent increase since operations commenced. This report is received in November and by promptly advising tenants the amount their rent will change, because of changes in the CPI-U, each. tenant receives approximately 30-days notice prior to the January 1 effective date. If the terms of the lease agreement are literally complied with and the December CPI is used, Respondent would have to calculate the rent due January 1 on the CPI which it receives in January. By the time tenants are notified of the effects of the CPI on their rent for the coming calendar year, they would already have paid an inadequate sum for the January rental, and perhaps for the month of February also, and would be billed for the deficiency. There is an active Home Owners Association at Swiss Village Mobile Home Park. This association has not complained of the failure of Respondent to provide 90 days notice prior to the automatic rent change which comes every January, nor have they requested arbitration. In order to insure tenants receive 90 days notice of the rental change, due to changes in the CPI, Respondent would have to use the July Consumer Price Index, which it receives in August. Had Respondent used the July CPI report and given tenants 90 days notice of the annual rental increases since 1981, these increases would have exceeded the increase computed using the October CPI (Exhibit 6). Exhibit 6 indicates the actual adjustments of rentals since 1981, has been $5.00 per month or the CPI, whichever is less.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order imposing on Respondent, J. Kent Staley, a $1500 fine, payable within six months, and, starting in six months, suspending his license as a real estate broker for up to 10 years or until the fine is paid in full, whichever first occurs. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Holly Sanders is licensed by the Department as a real estate broker, having been issued license number 0324563. In June, 1992, Ms. Sanders and Loren L. and Rose Thompson entered into an agreement whereby Ms. Sanders would have the exclusive right to rent an apartment owned by Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. This apartment, unit A-2012 in Brickell Place Condominium, Phase II, was located across the hall from the apartment in which Mr. and Mrs. Thompson resided. Ms. Sanders visited Mr. and Mrs. Thompson periodically to discuss matters relating to the rental, and she grew very fond of Mrs. Thompson. The tenant leasing apartment A-2012 did not intend to renew the lease when it expired in the summer of 1993. Ms. Sanders offered to purchase the apartment for $125,000, a figure which she based on the value of the property used to calculate the ad valorem tax.1 Ms. Sanders prepared a Contract for Sale and Purchase, dated August 16, 1993, reflecting a contract sales price of $125,000, to be paid in cash at closing. Mrs. Thompson retained Richard Olsen, an attorney, to represent her and her husband in the transaction.2 On August 19, 1993, Ms. Sanders, Mr. Olsen, and Mr. and Mrs. Thompson met in the Thompsons' apartment. At the time, both Mr. and Mrs. Thompson were incapacitated. Mrs. Thompson suffered from multiple sclerosis and was in a wheelchair.3 Mr. Thompson was bedridden; he had suffered a stroke and needed full-time care. Both Mr. and Mrs. Thompson are retired attorneys. At the August 19 meeting, Mr. Olsen examined the contract Ms. Sanders had prepared and went over the terms and conditions with Mr. and Mrs. Thompson,4 including the $125,000 contract price and the fact that it was to be a cash transaction. Neither Mr. Thompson nor Mrs. Thompson indicated any dissatisfaction with the terms of the contract. After Mr. Olsen went over the contract, Mr. and Mrs. Thompson and Ms. Sanders signed either four or five originals in his presence. Ms. Sanders gave one duplicate original executed contract to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson5 and one duplicate original to Mr. Olsen. She kept the remaining duplicate original executed contracts. Ms. Sanders did not make any photocopies of the contract. Ms. Sanders was aware that the condominium association had a right of first refusal on the apartment and that she had to be approved by the association in order to purchase the apartment.6 Ms. Sanders personally delivered an application and one of the duplicate original executed contracts showing a contract price of $125,000 to Consuelo Boet, the administrative assistant in the office of Arnold Rabin, the Brickell Place building manager. Ms. Boet did not examine the documents when they were delivered by Ms. Sanders but put them directly into a file containing other applications pending approval. When all of the required documents for apartment A-2012 had been received, Ms. Boet gave them to Mr. Rabin but, again, did not examine the contract. A Certificate of Approval dated October 18, 1993, indicates that the condominium association approved Ms. Sanders as purchaser of the apartment; the contract sales price was not included in this document. Mr. Olsen visited the Thompsons' apartment several times between the time the contract for sale was executed on August 19 and the time the transaction closed on October 20, 1993. The purpose of these visits was to locate the documents relating to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson's purchase of apartment A-2012 in 1988. They had extensive real estate holdings throughout the world, and Mr. Olsen went through many boxes of files trying to locate the title documents needed for the closing. Ms. Sanders was present during each visit Mr. Olsen made to the Thompsons' apartment prior to the closing. During one visit, Mr. Olsen was present when Ms. Sanders asked Mrs. Thompson if she would be willing to accept a $75,000, one-year mortgage on the property. Mr. Olsen discussed this proposal with Mrs. Thompson and explained to Mrs. Thompson that the mortgage Ms. Sanders was proposing would result in her receiving only $50,000 when the transaction closed and then two payments of $50,000 and $25,000, respectively. Mrs. Thompson told him she would accept the mortgage but did not want Ms. Sanders to pay interest. She refused to change her mind even though Mr. Olsen told her that it would not be in her best interest to take a non-interest-bearing note. Chicago Title Company was the closing agent for the transaction, and the closing took place at their offices on October 20, 1993. Mr. Olsen was present at the closing on behalf of the Thompsons, who were not able to attend. At closing, both Mr. Olsen, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, and Ms. Sanders signed the HUD-1 Settlement Statement, which was computed using a purchase price of $125,000. The cash payable to the Thompsons at closing is shown on the settlement statement as $46,289.48, and the statement reflected a purchase money mortgage for $75,000, as well. Ms. Sanders executed a mortgage and note in the amount of $75,000 dated October 20, 1993. These documents were prepared by Mr. Olsen, and he notarized them on October 20. The terms of the mortgage note called for a payment of $50,000 on April 19, 1994, and a payment of $25,000 on October 19, 1994; the note did not bear interest. Mr. Olsen had one original set of the closing documents bound in a legal-sized folder; the documents included an original signed closing statement, a copy of the deed, and a copy of the mortgage and note. He delivered this folder to Mrs. Thompson and explained the documents, specifically going over the closing statement with her. Mrs. Thompson expressed no dissatisfaction with the transaction or the amount of money she received at closing. Mr. Olsen believes that, during the time he represented her, Mrs. Thompson was fully aware that the contract sales price was $125,000 and that she had taken a mortgage instead of all cash. At some point, the association's Certificate of Approval of Ms. Sanders' purchase and a copy of the HUD-l Settlement Statement were placed in the file maintained by the association for apartment A-2012. Ms. Boet does not recall when the documents came into the office or who provided the copy of the settlement statement. She did not examine the documents at the time she placed them in the association file for apartment A-2012. However, when Mr. Rabin reviewed the file some months after the closing, it contained a copy of an HUD-1 Settlement Statement which had obviously been altered in several places to show a contract sales price of $185,0007 and a copy of a Contract for Purchase and Sale showing a contract price of $185,000.8 The file did not contain a duplicate original executed Contract for Sale and Purchase. The greater weight of the evidence in this case supports Ms. Sanders' contentions that the Contract for Sale and Purchase of apartment A-2012 in the Brickell Place Condominium, executed on August 19, 1993, by Loren L. and Rose Thompson, specified a contract sales price of $125,000, to be paid in cash, and that Mrs. Thompson accepted a one-year note and mortgage on the property in the amount of $75,000 and $50,000 in cash in lieu of $125,000 in cash. Furthermore, the uncontradicted evidence establishes that Ms. Sanders delivered a duplicate original executed contract to Ms. Boet as part of her application to the condominium association for approval of her purchase of the apartment. The uncontradicted evidence also establishes that, some months after the October 20, 1993, closing on the apartment, Mr. Rabin reviewed the association's file and found that it contained a copy of a Contract for Sale and Purchase which specified a contract sales price of $185,000 in cash and an HUD-1 Settlement Statement obviously altered to show a contract sales price of $185,000. There is, however, no compelling evidence establishing when the documents were altered or establishing that Ms. Sanders is the person who made the alterations. Therefore, the Department has failed to carry its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Sanders violated section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, either with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson or to the Brickell Place Condominium Association.9
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Holly Sanders. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1996.
