The Issue This matter arises out of the denial or rejection of a filing by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien against a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. Mr. Charles L. Hoffman, attorney for Liberty Bank of Cantonment, testified on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner offered two exhibits into evidence and both were accepted without objection. The Respondent presented no evidence on its behalf. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Law in support of its legal argument as to why it should be granted a lien against Beverage License No. 27- 426. To the extent that the legal conclusions presented in that memorandum of law and the facts stated are not adopted in this order, they are considered to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the facts or the law.
Findings Of Fact On July 10, 1981, The Rafters, Inc. executed a security agreement in favor of the Liberty Bank of Cantonment. That security agreement is a part of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and included a security interest in State Liquor License No. 27-426 issued in the name of The Rafters, Inc. On July 24, 1981, the necessary U.C.C. documents were filed in order to permit the Liberty Bank of Cantonment to file the proper documents with the Secretary of State. No documents were filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On September 20, 1982, the Petitioner first filed the necessary documentation with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco rejected the filing on the grounds that it was filed beyond the 90-day period provided in Section 561.65(4), Florida Statutes. On October 19, 1982, The Rafters, Inc. filed its answer to an amended complaint in foreclosure which had been filed by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment against the property set forth in the aforementioned security agreement. In its answer, The Rafters, Inc. admitted all allegations of the amended complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order rejecting the application for a lien filed by the Petitioner to perfect a security interest in Beverage License No. 27-426. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles L. Hoffman, Jr., Esquire Seventh Floor, Seville Tower 226 South Palafox Street Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire William A. Hatch, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Dept. of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Gary Rutledge, Secretary Division of Alcoholic Beverages Dept. of Business Regulation and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent violated the Final Order of Petitioner by failing to pay $1,250 to Petitioner on or before the expiration of 30 days after the entry of the Final Order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to license number 15-02311, Series 4COP SRX. The licensed premises are located at 680 George J. King Boulevard, Port Canaveral, Florida, 32920. On October 2, 2000, Petitioner entered a Final Order that required Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,250 within 30 days of the date of entry of the order. Respondent appealed the Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal. The First District Court of Appeal upheld the Final Order. Respondent failed to pay any portion of the administrative fine.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.29; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500, pursuant to Rule 61A-2.022(8); and permanently revoking alcoholic beverage license number 15- 02311, Series 4COP SRX. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Chad D. Heckman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Raymond J. Cascella Manos Inc., d/b/a Sea Port Restaurant 680 George J. King Boulevard Port Canaveral, Florida 32920 Capt. German Garzon Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room 709 North Tower, Hurston Building Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact The Tanga Lounge, operated by Respondent Rodde Inc., is located at 6333 West Columbus Avenue, Tampa, Florida. This facility has been licensed by Petitioner at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent's records show Mr. Joe Redner as the sole stockholder and corporate officer of Rodde, Inc., which is the holder of alcoholic beverage license No. 39-738. Case No. 81-2566 contains three counts of begging or soliciting for alcoholic beverages by employees of Respondent on August 6, 1980. Testimony by former Beverage Officer White established that the solicitations of three drinks by two employees were made as charged in the Notice to Show Cause. White purchased the drinks as requested by these employees, who received a "ticket" for each of the drinks purchased for them by White. Case No. 81-2567 contains 44 counts of begging or soliciting drinks by various employees of Respondent and 44 counts charging that Respondent conspired with these employees for the purpose of soliciting drinks. These charges are primarily based on the investigations of Beverage Officers Gary Hodge and Michael Freese. The period of their investigation was October 17, 1980 through May 15, 1981. Count 52 was based on a solicitation of Detective Phil Mickel of the Tampa Police Department, who was in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on November 6, 1980. At the request of dancer-employee Cathy Andrews, Mickel purchased a "double" for her and observed that she received two tickets from the waitress. 5 Former Tampa Police Department Detective Nick Haynes was in the licensed premises on November 6, 1980, and was approached by the dancer-employee, Cheryl Jonas, who requested that Haynes purchase a drink for her. He did so. This transaction occurred as charged in Count No. 51. Beverage Officer Freese individually and in conjunction with Beverage Officer Hodge, accounted for 38 solicitation charges (Counts 53-57, 59-63, 66, 68-88, and 163-167) . The solicitations charged in Counts 53, 55, 71-80, 83, - 84, 88, 163, 166 and 167 occurred as alleged and involved direct requests for the purchase of drinks ("Will you buy me a drink," or words of similar import) . Freese observed employees receive tickets for these drinks from the bartender or waitress in most instances. The solicitations charged in Counts 54, 56, 57, 59-63,66, 68-70, 81, 82, 164 and 165 were not supported by evidence of direct requests for the beverage purchases by employees of Respondent. At a meeting held about December 17, 1980, Beverage Officers Freese and Hodge were instructed by their supervisor to require that dancers request drinks before ordering. This procedure was adopted to avoid situations where the beverage officer was not asked to buy a drink, but eventually received the bill for the dancer's drink. In implementing the instructions, Freese used these or similar words: "If you want a drink, ask for it.", This statement possibly misled the dancers to believe that Freese was inviting them to order whenever they wanted drinks. The date when Freese first used this statement was not established, but it was subsequent to the mid-December meeting. It was noted that Freese was not solicited during the first two months of the investigation. Therefore, all or substantially all of the solicitation charges involving Freese took Place after he first issued the "invitation." Beverage Officer Hodge individually testified as to solicitation Counts 58, 64, 65 and 67. Counts 58, 65 and 67 did not involve a direct request for beverage purchase. Count 64 occurred as alleged and was based on a direct request for beverage Purchase ("Why don't you buy me one now?"). This request was made during the early morning of January 13, 1981. Although this was after the December meeting which Hodge attended, it was not shown that he made any statement which could have been interpreted as an "invitation" by any employee of Respondent. The fact that customers regularly Purchased drinks for the dancers was well known to the management as evidenced by the tickets issued to employees for drinks purchased in their behalf. These tickets were redeemable by the dancers for one dollar each. Thus, employees were rewarded and implicitly permitted to solicit drinks. Respondent's announced policy was, however, to reprimand or discharge any employee who was caught begging or soliciting drinks. This policy was attested to by bartenders; former employees and dancers. Although it cannot be found that Respondent actively encouraged its employees to solicit drinks, it did encourage socializing with customers to a degree which would elicit offers to purchase drinks for them. Respondent has since discontinued the practice of issuing tickets or other employee incentives to obtain customer purchased drinks. Counts 127 through 161 involve drug charges. Purchases were made by Beverage Officer Freese and Hedge, individually and together. Their testimony and that of Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Lab personnel established that controlled substances were purchased from dancer-employees of Respondent on the licensed premises as charged in Counts 127 through 137, 156 and 158. The transactions which-were established to have been carried out involved cocaine, methaqualone and cannabis deliveries by dancer-employees Margie Wade, Janie Marsie, Lori Basch and Lisa Scibilia on February 21, 24, 27; March 2, 9, 13, 17, 23; May 13, 15, 1981. It should be noted that Counts 136 and 137 actually involved one transaction where Hodge and Freese split the delivery. Count 161 concerned a transaction outside the licensed premises and this count, as well as Count 158, involved an employee of another establishment. Petitioner's Exhibit 43 and the supporting testimony concerned a transaction for which there was no charge. Counts 138 through 151, 154 and 159-161 alleged conspiracies to deliver controlled substances corresponding to other counts which alleged actual deliveries. There was testimony on the involvement of third person (not shown to be associated with the Respondent) only as to Counts 134, 146, and 147, which essentially covered a single transaction. No other evidence of conspiracy was presented. On one occasion, Redner was in the Tanga Lounge and within about 15 feet of the beverage officer and the dancer when the delivery took place. However, there was no evidence that Redner was involved or that he had any knowledge of the transaction. Testimony by a former employee that Redner participated in drug use was lacking in credibility and was not corroborated. Counts 3 through 30 and 33 through 50 are charges of lewd dancing by employees of Respondent on the licensed premises. The charges cover 46 dances on 12 separate dates between October, 1980, and February, 1981, performed by 11 different dancer-employees. The acts complained of in these counts were witnessed and attested to by Beverage Officers Hodge and Freese and Tampa Police Department Detective Mickel. The alleged lewd conduct included exposing of the breasts, vagina and anus by dancers during their on-stage performances. Typically, the dancers received dollar tips which customers placed in their bikini bottoms. Some dancers allowed customers to reach inside the bikinis in order to touch their pubic areas. On several occasions the dancers squatted and picked up the dollar bills with their exposed genital areas. On December 11, dancer Cathy Andrews rubbed her vagina, then rubbed the genital area of Beverage Officer Freese, who was observing the dance. Mr. Redner was present during much of the alleged lewd conduct. Although Redner testified that "flashing" was acceptable, the exposure of sexual organs as attested to was not limited to brief "flashes," but was prolonged. Further, Respondent's contention that dancers receiving tips tried to avoid contact by customers is not credible. Rather, the testimony of the officers established that dancers frequently encouraged customers to place their hands against the dancers pubic areas when offering tips. Respondent's, lounge is advertised as an adult entertainment facility and is generally known to include nude dancing. There was no competent evidence as to community standards for this type of conduct in the Tampa area, nor was there any evidence that these acts shocked or offended anyone present other than the investigating officers. Detective Mickel conceded that about five other bars he has visited offer this type of entertainment. Counts 31 and 32 concern an offer of prostitution by one of the dancer-employees to the beverage officers. Their testimony established that the offer was made as charged. This was, however, a single incident and there was no evidence that such offers were recurring or that Respondent had knowledge of this transaction. Counts 1 and 2 of Case No. 81-2567 allege that Robert Rodriguez holds an undisclosed interest in the licensed premises. Such interest, if any, was not reflected in the license transfer application submitted on April 23, 1976. Rather, Joseph Redner and Joe DeFriese were identified as the sole stockholders with no direct or indirect interest held by any other person. Rodriguez previously owned an interest in Deep South Plantation Foods, Inc., whose alcoholic beverage license was revoked by Petitioner. Redner was at one time employed by Rodriguez as manager of Deep South Petitioner asserts that Rodriguez became ineligible to hold an interest in an alcoholic beverage license as a result of the revocation, pursuant to Section 561.15, Florida Statutes, and that he and Redner therefore concealed Rodriguez's subsequent interest in the Tanga Lounge. Respondent contends that Rodriguez is the manager of the Tanga Lounge, but holds no direct or indirect interest therein. Rodde, Inc., was organized on April 19, 1976, and a $2,000 down payment deposit on the contract for purchase of the Tanga Lounge and liquor license was made on April 20, 1976, pursuant to contract signed by DeFriese and the prior owners on that date. This $2,000 check was issued by Robert Rodriguez against his own account. Petitioner produced this cancelled check (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) and numerous other documents which establish that Rodriguez participated in all aspects of Rodde, Inc., management and financial operations since its inception. Rodriguez has unrestricted authority to withdraw funds from corporate accounts and has signed or cosigned for loans and credit purchases. Rodriguez also utilized a Rodde, Inc., credit card to pay personal expenses on a vacation to Las Vegas in 1979. There was no evidence of reimbursement or other accounting to the corporation for these expenditures. The testimony of the Rodde, Inc., employees did not corroborate Redner's testimony that Rodriguez is manager of the Tanga Lounge. Rather, these employees believed Rodriguez was somehow associated with the business, but regarded Redner as the manager and their only supervisor. Rodriguez issued two checks for $1,408.05 on December 1, 1979, one payable to himself and the other to Redner (Petitioner's Exhibit 32) . These checks each carried the notation "bonus $1500", with a further notation apparently accounting for $91.95 in withholding tax. In view of Rodriguez's duties and functions within the corporation, this "bonus" can only be considered a participation in profits. Redner's credit rating and financial management skills are poor. Therefore, Respondent contends that a manager with strength in these areas was needed to ensure business success. However, Rodriguez's unlimited authority in dealing with corporate funds, the investment or loan of his personal funds, his participation in business profits and the absence of any apparent supervisory duties are inconsistent with the employee theory held out by Respondent.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause in Case No. 81-2566. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts 1, 2, 31, 32, 51, 52, 64, 127-137, 156, and 158 of the Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause in Case No. 81-2567. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License No. 39-738 be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits introduced into evidence and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On January 3, 1984, an application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license number 16-262, in the name of I. T. Chips, Inc., to JNJ, Inc., d/b/a Apples, was delivered to the Lauderhill District Office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco by Michael Rapp. The application and personal questionnaire of Michael Rapp, Vice President of JNJ, Inc., revealed that he had been convicted of a felony within the last 15 years. Upon being informed by Sgt. Pat Roberts that the application for transfer would be denied because Rapp's conviction was disqualifying, Rapp withdrew the application. On January 6, 1984, Michael Rapp submitted an amended application for transfer of this same alcoholic beverage license to JNJ, Inc., d/b/a Apples. The amended application listed Janet Swift, a/k/a Janet Swift Rapp, as sole corporate officer and shareholder. An agreement for purchase and sale submitted with the application revealed that JNJ, Inc., was purchasing from MAM Restaurant Corporation all assets located at 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, the address of the licensee, I. T. Chips, Inc., for a total price of $418,600.00. The purchase and sale agreement acknowledged that a down payment in the amount of $18,600.00 had been made by JNJ, Inc., and provided for the remaining debt of $400,000.00 to be paid in monthly installments of $4,800.00 and be secured by a mortgage. The application stated that Frederick Cusolito and Janet Swift would be the sole financial investors in the business and that the corporation's banking business would be conducted at the Bank of Hallandale & Trust Company. Janet Swift swore that the information provided on the application was true. Whatever, Inc., is a corporation with the same business address as JNJ, Inc. Michael Rapp is the President and Secretary of Whatever, Inc. Whatever, Inc., had a bank account at the Bank of Hallandale & Trust Company and Michael Rapp was an authorized signer on the account. During January of 1984, Whatever, Inc., was writing checks to pay some of the operating expenses of the business located at 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard. JNJ, Inc., with an address of 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, had a bank account at Flagship Bank of Miami. The bank records show Janet Swift as president of the corporation and Michael Rapp as Vice President. During December of 1983, the following deposits were made to the JNJ, Inc., account at the Flagship Bank of Miami: $92,500.00 from Martin I. Roth at L & M Consultants, $27,000.00 from David J. S. Gottfried, $39,000.00 from the Hanseatic Development Corporation (described as a "loan"), and $87,000.00 from an unidentified account at the Bank of Ireland in New York. None of the people or entities from whom these deposits were received were listed as financial investors of JNJ, Inc., on the sworn application filed by Janet Swift for the transfer to JNJ, Inc. None of them were listed as financial investors of I. T. Chips, Inc., on the sworn application filed by Janet Swift for change of business name and change of officers of I. T. Chips, Inc. Martin I. Roth, the authorized signer on the bank account of L & M Consultants who actually signed the L & M Consultants checks which were deposited in the JNJ, Inc., account, was convicted of a felony in 1981. On January 19, 1984, JNJ, Inc., borrowed $75,000.00 from Schmidt Industries, Inc., a Missouri corporation. To secure that loan, JNJ, Inc., entered into a Security Agreement (chattel mortgage) pursuant to which JNJ, Inc., pledged liquor license series number 4 COP, permit number 16-262, as security for the repayment of the $75,000.00 loan. Liquor license series number 4 COP, permit number 16-262 is the liquor license issued to I. T. Chips, Inc. 1/ The facts described in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6, above, came to the attention of DABT Investigator Michael D'Ambrosia during the course of his investigation of the January 6, 1984, application to transfer the I. T. Chips, Inc., license to JNJ, Inc. D'Ambrosia met with representatives of JNJ, Inc., discussed with them the information he had acquired during the course of his investigations, and requested that he be provided with certain additional information. Thereafter, District Supervisor Richard Boyd recommended disapproval of the January 6, 1984, application on April 3, 1984. On April 4, 1984, before any final agency action was taken on the application, JNJ, Inc., withdrew the application to transfer the I. T. Chips, Inc., license to JNJ, Inc. On April 4, 1984, Janet Swift signed an application for a change of business name and a change of corporate officers of the licensee corporation, I. Chips, Inc. 2/ This application was filed on April 11, 1984, with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Janet Swift was again listed as sole corporate officer and shareholder. The sworn application filed in April of 1984 contained the following financial information: JNJ, Inc., which held a temporary license, which has since been withdrawn, executed an Agreement for Purchase and Sale with MAM Restaurant Corporation on 12/8/83. JNJ, Inc., the stock of which is owned exclusively by Janet Swift, has abandoned the premises, since Janet Swift has purchased all of the stock in I. T. Chips, Inc., for which she paid no consideration other than assuming the existing debts. I. T. Chips, Inc. has agreed to assume the mortgage referred to in the Agreement for Purchase and Sale; to wit, the initial principal sum of $400,000.00, payable at the rate of $4,800.00 per month, which will be paid from the proceeds of the operation of the business herein. Janet Swift is the sole and exclusive owner of T. Chips, Inc., and no other person, firm or entity has any interest, direct or indirect, in the said business. The application which was signed on April 4, 1984, and filed on April 11, 1984, did not contain any information about the financing of the business other than what is quoted immediately above, and did not list any person as having an interest in the business other than Janet Swift. On April 4, 1984, Janet Swift swore to the truth of the following statement which is printed on the application form: I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury as provided for in Florida Statutes 837.06 and 559.791, that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge, and that no other person, persons, firm or corporation, except as herein indicated, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license or cigarette permit for which these statements are made. On April 4, 1984, Schmidt Industries, Inc., had an interest in the alcoholic beverage license which was the subject of the application signed by Janet Swift, because that same license was pledged as collateral for a $75,000.00 loan, and pursuant to a chattel mortgage, Schmidt Industries, Inc., had a security interest in that license to guarantee the payment of the loan. 3/ On April 4, 1984, JNJ, Inc., was a financial investor in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., received the benefit of the $18,500.00 down payment that JNJ, Inc., made to MAM Restaurant Corporation and I. T. Chips, Inc., received the benefit of the $75,000.00 that JNJ, Inc., borrowed from Schmidt Industries, Inc. On April 4, 1984, the persons and entities described in paragraph 4, above, who wrote checks deposited in the JNJ, Inc., bank account were indirect financial investors in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., was either the successor to or the alter ego of JNJ, Inc. On April 4, 1984, Frederick Consolito was an indirect financial investor in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., was either the successor to or the alter ego of JNJ, Inc. 4/ The foregoing findings of fact incorporate the substance of the vast majority of the findings of fact proposed by the parties. In those few instances where I have made findings contrary to the proposed findings, it is because the persuasive competent substantial evidence was to use contrary of the proposed findings. In those few instances where I have omitted the substance of findings proposed by a party, it is because the proposed finding was irrelevant, immaterial, cumulative, or not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order denying the application for change of business name and change of corporate officers of I. T. Chips, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner previously operated the Casinea Lounge in Waverly, Florida, which he shut down in September, 1980. He plans to reopen this lounge if he can secure the requested beverage license. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of violating a Polk County ordinance on June 6, 1980, regarding an after-hours sale of an alcoholic beverage. There is no other impediment to grant of this application.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 1982.
The Issue Whether petitioners' application for approval of a change in corporate officers of an existing corporate licensee should be granted, or denied on the ground that a disqualified person--a convicted felon--is interested either directly or indirectly in the business.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 18, 1980, Richard Zabel and Anita Grizaffi ("applicants") negotiated for the purchase and sale of the stock of Cowboy's, Inc., holders of beverage license No. 16-6859 SRX. On that date, Richard Zabel and Anita Grizaffi, his sister, entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of all of the outstanding stock of the corporation called Cowboy's, Inc. The purchase price of said stock was to be $300,000. The closing for the purchase of the stock ownership in Cowboy's, Inc., was scheduled to be held in Fort Lauderdale on or about April 23, 1980. Originally, the applicants intended to purchase the stock by borrowing $300,000 entirely from Bern Builders, Inc. Bern Builders, Inc., is solely owned and operated by Anita Grizaffi and Bernard Grizaffi. Prior to the closing and in anticipation of borrowing the purchase price entirely from Bern Builders, Inc., applicants filed with DABT their Notice of Stock Ownership and Certificate of Incumbency showing that they were the new officers, directors, and stockholders of the licensee corporation. In addition, applicants filed with DABT their personal data questionnaires and disclosed in the appropriate block that they intended to borrow the $300,000 from Bern Builders, Inc. Just prior to the scheduled date of the closing, the sellers informed the purchasers that for reasons totally unrelated to any matters pertinent to this proceeding, they would not close the deal. Applicants and their corporate attorney from Chicago, Irv Ribstein, forced the sale of the stock and the closing took place on April 23, 1950. In order to close the deal and since it was impossible for the applicants to receive the $300,000 from Bern Builders, Inc., as originally hoped, it was necessary for them to generate sufficient funds from other sources to pay the sellers. Those funds were obtained and then repaid in full in the following manner: Anita Grizaffi borrowed $150,000 from the Commercial Bank of Chicago. This $150,000 obligation was paid in full from the proceeds of the ownership interest of Anita Grizaffi in a yacht. The sale of this yacht took place pursuant to a Brokerage Purchase and Sales Agreement made April 14, 1980. Anita Grizaffi borrowed $100,000 from the Chicago bank collateralized by her ownership of Certificates of Deposit. This $100,000 was repaid by Anita Grizaffi. A personal loan from Bern Builders, Inc., was obtained in the amount of $50,000. This loan was repaid by the applicants on July 1, 1981. Subsequent to the closing and the original filing of the Certificate of Incumbency and the personal data questionnaires showing the financial arrangements, DABT notified the applicants that while it was not taking final action at that time, it was DABT's intention to deny the change of corporate officers because it believed that there was a person either directly or indirectly involved in the beverage license who was statutorily disqualified. Prior to DABT sending out its official notification of its denial of the change of corporate officers, the applicants filed with DABT the supplemental financial information described in paragraph 8. It showed how the purchase of the stock actually was consummated. DABT, on August 8, 1980, after receiving this supplemental financial information, sent its final agency action letter denying the applicants' request for a change of corporate officers. The basis for DABT's denial of the application was that it believed that the husband of Anita Grizaffi, Bernard Grizaffi, was a convicted felon and that he was directly or indirectly involved in the beverage license. The parties agree that a loan of $50,000 to the applicants from a corporation which had as one of its officers, directors, and stockholders, a convicted felon, would have given Bernard Grizaffi a direct interest in the beverage license in violation of the applicable provisions of the Beverage Law when that transaction occurred. After the applicants had filed the additional supplemental information and DABT had denied the change of corporate officers, a deposition was taken in Tallahassee of Barry Schoenfeld, the Chief of Licensing for DABT. At said deposition, each source of financial investment utilized by applicants to purchase all of the stock of Cowboy's, Inc., was disclosed and thoroughly considered. Every dollar of the total investment was accounted for and through cancelled checks, every dollar lent to applicants by Bern Builders, Inc., was shown to have been paid back in full solely from' the proceeds of the operation of Cowboy's, Inc., and that no outstanding financial obligation existed to Bern Builders, Inc., or Bernard Grizaffi, individually. At the deposition of Mr. Schoenfeld, affidavits from bankers in Chicago were submitted showing conclusively that a total of $600,000 would have and could have been loaned to Anita Grizaffi, individually, secured and collateralized by her independent financial interests" at any time during the year of 1980. Bernard Grizaffi executed an affidavit stating that it was never his intention to have any interest whatsoever in the beverage license or the stock of Cowboy's, Inc.; that he had not, was not, and would not exercise any dominion and control whatsoever in the operation of Cowboy's, Inc.; that he was not owed any monies whatsoever by Cowboy's, Inc.; and that he would not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever from the operation of Cowboy's, Inc. On May 16, 1980, the sworn statements of four principal managers and employees of Cowboy's, Inc., who were employees prior to, during, and subsequent to the actual closing of the sale and purchase of the stock of Cowboy's, Inc., were taken. Each manager or employee categorically stated that Bernard Grizaffi had no interest whatsoever in Cowboy's, Inc. ; that he had absolutely no power to control Cowboy's, Inc.; that he had never exercised any dominion or control in Cowboy's, Inc.; that they would only take orders from the applicants; and if Bernard Grizaffi ever tried to give them directions or orders, they would first check with applicants prior to doing anything. The only times Bernard Grizaffi had ever been observed in the licensed premises were on obvious social occasions and only on a couple of occasions. On August 22, 1981, the applicants wrote to DABT and indicated that they had and could further demonstrate their financial independence from the otherwise disqualified person. In reply to that letter, DABT clearly demonstrated its policy of permitting changes of corporate officers under like circumstances. Those documents state in applicable part: My client is in a position to show the Division [DABT] that she can and could have, at the time of the actual purchase of the stock occurred finance(d) the entire pur- chase solely from her signature loan. The fact that she chose not to do so at the time of the closing has previously been explained to the Division [DABT] as solely the result of the last minute exigencies necessitated by the sellers at the time of the closing of the deal. My client is prepared to provide to the Division [DABT] affidavits from various bank officers in and around the Chicago area who will attest that each of them would have lent Mrs. Grizaffi, on her signature only, and collateralized by her interest solely, suf- ficient funds to finance the purchase of the stock and the corporation holding the license. At present we possess letters from at least three banks who have indicated that they would have and would today lend to Mrs. Grizaffi in the manner herein contemplated, an amount in excess of $600,000. In addition7 I am prepared to provide to the Division [DABT], an affidavit of the husband that he never intended nor does he have today, nor has he had at any time dur- ing these proceedings, any interest, directly or indirectly, in either the financial acqui- sition of the stock or any right to any financial remuneration from the proceeds of the business. Nor does he have any right nor desire to, nor has he at any time dur- ing these proceedings, run the business. The only connection between himself and the Cowboy's, Inc. is his marital status. (Memorandum from Dennis E. LaRosa, Staff Attorney, to Mary Colson, Assistant Chief of Licensing.) Re: Cowboy's, Inc. In reference to Mr. Curtis's letter to you of August 22, 1980, my opinion is that if Mrs. Grizaffi can demonstrate financial independence of her husband in the manner and method therein described, then the Divi- sion may consider issuing the license. Also, an affidavit from Mr. Grizaffi concerning his interests and intentions would be appro- priate. Please advise if further opinion is required. (From note dated September 2, 1980, from Mary Colson to Barry Schoenfeld, Chief of Licensing.) I agree with Dennis--It would not be the first time we have accepted such documen- tation--your comments, please. Whereupon, applicants, owners of 100 percent of the stock of Cowboy's, Inc., requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the authority of DABT to deny their application for change of corporate officers. Applicants, each individually, meet all of the requirements and qualifications to hold a beverage license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioners' application to change the corporate officers of Cowboy's, Inc., be granted. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles L. Curtis, Esquire 1177 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Boyd Division of Beverage Post Office Box 8276 Lauderhill, Florida 33310 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On April 26, 1982, the Petitioner Dania Bank, filed a request with the Respondent Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to record a lien holder's interest against alcoholic beverage license 16-15 issued to the Respondent Chula, Inc., doing business as Chalet Ole and Chula Liquors. The lien was created on July 3, 1981, and filed with the Secretary of State on August 10, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denying the Petitioner Dania Bank's request to record a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 16-15. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Whitney, Vice President The Dania Bank 255 East Dania Beach Boulevard Dania, Florida 33004 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, J. F. Walthier III and Andrew Erickson, are the holders of a current valid beverage license, No. 46-00210, Series 2-APS, held in the name of Walthier, J. F. III and Ericks. This license is for a premises located at 4721 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Respondents conduct their business at this licensed premises under the name Foam and Fizz. This beverage license series entitled the Respondents to sell a class of alcoholic beverage for consumption off the licensed premises. One of the categories of alcoholic beverages allowed for sale under the terms and conditions of the license is beer. The subject beverage license was issued by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The Petitioner is charged with the licensure and regulation of the several alcoholic beverage license holders within the State of Florida. In pursuit of its function, the Petitioner has brought an Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause against the named Respondents and the terms and conditions of that complaint may be found in the issue statement of this Recommended Order. The facts in this case reveal that between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on January 25, 1980, three young men under the age of eighteen drove to the licensed premises for purposes of purchasing beer. Once the car was parked, Ira J. Frasure and dames Craig McDowell exited the car. On that date, Ira J. Frasure was seventeen years of age and James Craig McDowell was sixteen years of age. They left Frank Edward Gordon in the automobile, where he would remain during the pendency of the other juveniles' activities in the licensed premises. Once in the store, Frasure retrieved a six-pack of Budweizer beer and McDowell picked up several single cans of Budweizer beer. The beer which had been picked up by the juveniles was presented at the checkout counter to Barbara Joyce Walthier, the wife of one of the licensees and an employee in the licensed premises. At that point, Frasure paid Walthier for the beer from money which he had and money which had been given to him by McDowell. The juveniles then left the store. Neither of the juveniles had been asked for any form of identification prior to the sale of the alcoholic beverages, nor had they been asked about their ages, and they did not make any comment concerning their ages. Frasure's date of birth is September 30, 1962, and at the time of the purchase he was approximately six feet one inch tall and had a mustache. Frasure gave testimony in the course of the hearing and appeared to be eighteen years of age or older at that time. Investigative officers who saw Frasure on January 25, 1980, said they felt he appeared to be less than eighteen years of age. McDowell's date of birth is February 9, 1963, and at the time of the hearing he appeared to be less than eighteen years of age, and this comported with the impression of the investigating officers when they saw him on January 25, 1980. At the time Frasure purchased the beer from the clerk, Barbara Joyce Walthier, she was not busy with other customers to the extent that it would hinder her ability to check the appearance of Frasure and McDowell; however, business on the evening in question had been moderate to heavy at times and she does not remember seeing Frasure and McDowell. Barbara Joyce Walthier was working in accordance with a set of instructions from the licensees, in the person of her husband, to the effect that she should always require written identification prior to purchase from those persons who looked like they should be "carded". Moreover, she had been instructed that those persons who have beards are not normally "carded". Other factors to be considered, per instruction she had been given, were to require written identification from those persons who acted suspiciously while in the store, or who parked a great distance away from the store after driving slowly by. In keeping with these instructions, she routinely requires written identification from patrons. Finally, there was a sign in the licensed premises which stated, "Under age don't ask".
Recommendation In view of the fact that this is a single count violation and in view of the physical appearance of Ira J. Frasure at the time of the alcoholic beverage purchase in question, that appearance leading one to believe that he was eighteen years of age or more, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondents be required to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) in lieu of suspension or revocation and it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that if this civil penalty is not paid within thirty (30) days of the rendition of the final order, that the Respondents' beverage license be suspended for a period of fifteen (15) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allan Parvey, Esquire 2201 Main Street Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
Recommendation Based upon Petitioner's failure to appear, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A default be entered against Petitioner and a final order be issued denying Petitioner's application for a beverage license. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Melvin Stewart c/o Mel's Beer & Wine Lounge 301 N.E. 62nd Street Miami, Florida Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s request to renew a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62- 08383 on or about July 8, 2011, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561- 568, Florida Statutes, including recordation of liens against alcoholic beverage licenses and provision of notice to lienholders pursuant to section 561.65. Petitioner is the holder of a recorded lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62-08383, a 4COP spirituous alcoholic beverage license, commonly referred to as a quota license, which was issued pursuant to sections 561.20(1) and 565.02(1)(a)-(f) for use in Pinellas County. Liens and Security Interests in Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Section 561.65 governs mortgages, liens, and security interests against spirituous alcoholic beverage licenses. DABT has a lien section within its Bureau of Licensing that is responsible for the oversight of lien recordings and lien searches. To perfect a lien or security interest in a spirituous alcoholic beverage license that may be enforceable against the license, the entity holding the security interest or lien must record it with DABT within 90 days of the date of creation of the lien or security interest, using forms authorized by DABT. The forms adopted by DABT require the names of the parties and the terms of the obligation being recorded. § 561.65(4), Fla. Stat. Form DBPR ABT-6022, Application for Mortgagee’s Interest in Spirituous Alcoholic Beverage License, is used to record a new lien, a lien assignment or assumption, or a lien renewal or extension. The form is adopted by rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-5.0012. Upon receipt of a request to record a lien or the renewal of an existing lien, DABT will review the provided documentation and, if the documentation is in order on approved forms and accompanied by the security agreement and statutorily- required payment, will record the lien or lien renewal. If there is a deficiency noted during review of the lien documentation submitted, DABT will issue a 14-day deficiency notice to the requesting entity to provide any missing information. If timely corrected, DABT will record the lien or lien renewal. Section 561.65(4) provides that any lien or security interest filed with DABT on or after July 1, 1995, expires five years after recordation by DABT unless renewed by the lienholder within six months prior to its expiration date. Statutory Notice Requirements to Lienholders Recording a lien not only makes it enforceable, but provides assurance to the lienholder that it will receive notice of pending actions by DABT against the license that may compromise the lien’s vitality. Section 561.65 also sets forth requirements for DABT to provide notice to lienholders of both pending actions against encumbered licenses and any suspension or revocation of a license subject to a lien. Specifically, section 561.65(3) provides that “such lienholder shall be notified in writing of the filing of an order to show cause as to why the license should not be suspended or revoked; and also the lienholder shall be furnished a copy of any order of suspension or revocation.” (Emphasis added). In other words, two separate notices are required: one when the agency institutes proceedings against the licensee and a second if the agency action against the licensee results in a suspension or revocation of the license. Respondent does not assert and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that Petitioner had knowledge of or participated in the cause for revocation of the license at issue in this proceeding, or that Petitioner would not otherwise be entitled to notice of the revocation proceeding. The holder of a recorded lien is entitled to notice because the lienholder has the right to enforce the lien against the licensee within 180 days after the entry of any order of revocation or suspension of the license. Section 561.65(3) specifies that “the 180 days within which to file for enforcement of the lien by the lienholder shall commence running from the date of the mailing of the copy of the order of revocation or suspension.” Thus, the 180-day period runs from when notice is sent to the lienholder, not from the entry of the final order of suspension or revocation. Once notice is provided to the lienholder, any enforcement of the lien is through foreclosure proceedings in circuit court. The process for foreclosure proceedings is outlined in section 561.65(5). Most importantly, both section 561.19(2) and section 561.65(1) provide that no revoked quota beverage license encumbered by a lien or security interest perfected in accordance with section 561.65 shall be issued until the 180-day period (from mailing of the suspension or revocation order) has elapsed or until such enforcement proceeding is final. Re-issuance Through Double Random Drawings Quota licenses may become available three ways: 1) when a dry county goes wet (i.e., a county that previously prohibited the sale of alcohol decides to allow it), three initial quota licenses are issued for the county; 2) when there are population increases in a county, an additional quota license is issued for every population increase of 7,500; and 3) when a quota license in a county has been revoked. When any of those instances occur, pursuant to the directive in section 561.19(2), quota licenses are issued through the use of a double random public drawing. While a revoked quota license may be reissued in a double random quota drawing, if a revoked quota license is encumbered by a perfected and recorded lien or security interest, as discussed previously, it may not be reissued until the 180-day period has elapsed or until enforcement/foreclosure proceedings are final. Damon Larry is currently the assistant bureau chief of licensing, and oversees the annual quota drawing. Each year, he runs a report of all revoked quota licenses and, if the revocation is final, determines whether the 180-day period has elapsed. Before a revoked quota license is placed in the double random drawing, there is communication between staff in different sections within the Department to determine if a license is eligible for inclusion in the quota drawing. The communications involve the quota drawing section, the licensing section, the administrative case unit, the Office of the General Counsel, and the lien section. During this process, DABT staff will determine whether there is a lien attached to the license and, if so, whether there was notice to the lienholder, and whether the 180 days has elapsed or foreclosure proceedings no longer remain pending. If all of these conditions have been met, the revoked license is placed in the quota drawing for reissuance under a new license number. The revoked license number is then deleted from the Department’s database. Petitioner’s Lien Against Alcoholic Beverage License No. 62-08383 Turning to the facts of this case, Daniel A. King, as debtor, executed and delivered a Demand Promissory Note in favor of Rebco on or about April 18, 1997, in the principal amount of $61,000, and simultaneously executed a security agreement in favor of Rebco, as the secured party, pledging license number 62-08383 (the License) as collateral for repayment of the sums due and owing under the Promissory Note. Rebco submitted the promissory note and security agreement to DABT for initial recordation as a lien against the License on or about May 1, 1997, within 90 days of the date of the creation of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien against the License effective May 8, 1997. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on May 8, 2002. Rebco submitted a request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about November 7, 2001, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement, and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective November 7, 2001. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on November 7, 2006. Rebco submitted a second request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about July 26, 2006, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective August 1, 2006. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on August 1, 2011. The License Revocation Proceedings On or about November 16, 2006, at a time when the lien was recorded in the records of DABT, DABT filed administrative charges against Daniel J. King, holder of the License, in Case number 2006-049240, alleging that the licensee failed to operate the License in accordance with section 561.29(1)(f). DABT was unable to achieve personal service on Mr. King, so it published notice of the administrative action in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. The published notice did not identify Petitioner, and no evidence was presented to indicate that DABT sent a copy of the notice to Rebco. Rebco clearly had a recorded lien against the License when the disciplinary action was filed against the License. DABT did not notify Petitioner of the pending action. On or about June 22, 2007, after receiving no written defense in the disciplinary proceeding, DABT issued a Final Order revoking the License effective July 31, 2007. The Final Order of Revocation was not served on Rebco, the owner of the security interest in the License. Petitioner had a recorded lien against the License on file with DABT both when proceedings were instituted against the License and on the date of the entry of the Final Order of Revocation. Stephanie Coxwell works in the administrative case unit of DABT and has done so for at least the last 14 years. The administrative case unit is responsible for determining whether an alcoholic beverage license that is pending revocation or suspension is encumbered by a lien and for notifying any lienholder of the revocation or suspension of an encumbered license. DABT’s practice was to mail any lienholder notice of the license suspension or revocation, along with a copy of the final order, soon after entry of the final order. It is this mailing of the notice and final order that commences the 180 days referenced in section 561.65. For at least the last 14 years, DABT has used a form “notice to lienholder” to notify lienholders of the revocation or suspension of an alcoholic beverage license, accompanied by a copy of the final order revoking or suspending the license. The notification form is a public record maintained by DABT. It is this notification, and not the publication of the pending action, that provides notice to the lienholder. Internal correspondence from Ms. Coxwell within the licensure file for the License indicates that in December 2006, she requested a lien search with respect to the License. Ms. Coxwell was advised by return e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the license. On or about March 21, 2007, Ms. Coxwell requested research for any bankruptcy proceedings affecting the License. She was again informed by intra-agency e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the License. Ms. Coxwell replied by e-mail that she was aware that there was a lien, but that they would notify the lienholder of the administrative action “in the usual way.” However, Ms. Coxwell’s March 27 e-mail was sent three months before the final order revoking the license, not simultaneous to the Order. There is no record that notification was sent to Rebco, either at the time of the administrative action, or after issuance of the final order. Beverly Peebles works in Rebco’s corporate office located at 701 Tennessee River Drive, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35661, and has done so since 1990. She is responsible for receiving, retaining, and disbursing any mail received by Rebco. Ms. Peebles testified regarding the process used to copy, scan into the company’s electronic database, and distribute any mail received by Rebco. Rebco did not receive any notice concerning the administrative action or the revocation of the License until Rebco received the letter denying the recordation of its lien renewal against the license in 2011. Rebco’s address was at all times on file with the DABT since the inception of the lien against the license in 1997. It is found that the DABT did not notify Rebco that there was an administrative action filed against the License, and did not notify Rebco of the Final Order of Revocation against the License. The licensure file contains all other expected documents from the first recordation of the lien in 1997 to the present. It does not include a copy of notice to Rebco of either the pending action or the Final Order of revocation. Moreover, both a letter dated August 19, 2011, to counsel for Rebco, as well as an e-mail dated March 21, 2007, from Ms. Coxwell, contain handwritten notes regarding the failure to send proper notification. The notes, which are clearly hearsay, are part of public records maintained in the normal course of business, and corroborate Ms. Peebles’ testimony that no notification was received. They also corroborate evidence of the absence of any record of notification to Rebco in DABT’s records of regularly-conducted activity. The August 19, 2011, letter contains a handwritten note at the top stating, “$61K lien no lien ltr sent,” and the e-mail dated March 21, 2007, referenced in paragraph 32, contains the following note: “are we the only group/people who check for current liens recorded before deleting the license? It was deleted on 5/4/2011. Lien was still recorded at that time.”2/ Respondent has presented no credible evidence to indicate that the notice was somehow sent despite the lack of any documentation to that effect contained in the DABT’s records. While the handwritten notes standing alone do not establish that no notice was sent, they do indicate that a question was raised internally regarding whether adequate notice was provided. Despite the failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the License was placed in the 2010 double random drawing held on March 10, 2011, at a time when a valid lien against the License was duly recorded. Only one license for Pinellas County was included in the drawing for that year, and no licenses for Pinellas County have been issued in a double random quota drawing since then. Shortly after the random drawing, the license number assigned to the License was removed from the Department’s system and a new number assigned to the license issued as a result of the drawing. While there is no direct testimony on the issue, it can be inferred that the purchaser of the new license received the license with no notice that there was any outstanding lien on the right to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages in Pinellas County under the new license. While it is DABT’s practice to delete a revoked license number from its database, no evidence or statutory reference was presented to support the premise that there is a legal impediment to renewing an existing lien for a revoked license when no notice of the revocation was provided. Given the Department’s failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the 180-day period identified in section 560.65 never began to run. On or about July 6, 2011, Rebco timely submitted a third request to DABT to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division, which request was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement. DABT notified Rebco by letter dated July 19, 2011, that it was unable to record the lien renewal because it was not submitted for recordation within 90 days of its creation. The July 19, 2011, notice of denial was issued based upon a review of the lien renewal request submitted to DABT, because the executed ABT6022 lien-recording form submitted with Rebco’s third renewal request mistakenly identified the effective date of the lien renewal as April 18, 1997, the date of the creation of the original lien. On or about July 25, 2011, Rebco submitted an amended form ABT6022 correcting the effective date for renewal of the lien as August 1, 2011. On August 3, 2011, DABT notified Rebco that it was unable to record the renewal of the lien against the License because “the alcoholic beverage license being pledged as collateral was revoked by the Division on July 31, 2007,” following service of a Notice of Action through publication in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. No action taken by Rebco compromised the vitality of its recorded lien against the License. To the contrary, Rebco faithfully adhered to the recording requirements outlined by statute to record and renew its lien. DABT, however, failed to take the action required by section 561.65 to provide notice to Rebco of the pending action and subsequent revocation of the License. As a result, the 180- day period required by section 561.65 did not run before the License was placed in the quota drawing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order approving the renewal of Rebco’s lien in the License at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
