The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed December 19, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license number 60-0883 issued to James R. Rogers, trading as Ray's Tavern. As grounds therefor it is alleged that Rogers, in order to secure a license to sell alcoholic beverages, made false written statements to the agents of Respondent in violation of 537.06 and 561.29 F.S. One witness was called by Petitioner and four exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 1977, notice of the hearing scheduled to commence on January 12, 1978 at 1457 N. Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida was served on Respondent by a beverage agent of Petitioner. (Exhibit 1) In answer to question 13 on the application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License, which asked "Has a license covering the place described in this application or any other place in which any of' the above named persons were at the time interested ever been revoked by the Director?" Respondent answered "No". (Exhibit 2). By Order of the Director of the Division of Beverages dated September 30, 1955 (Exhibit 3) the alcoholic beverage license issued to James R. Rogers, Curley's Tavern, aka Ray's Tavern was revoked for maintaining gambling paraphernalia and permitting gambling on the licensed premises.
The Issue Whether petitioner's suspension of respondents' license should be terminated or extended, or whether other disciplinary action should be taken against the license for the reasons alleged in the notice to show cause?
Findings Of Fact Respondents Raymond and Gwendolyn House hold alcoholic beverage license No. 27-00177, Series 4-COP, for Ray's Lounge & Package at 501 East Baars Street in a crime-ridden section of Pensacola, Florida. Until petitioner closed them down on October 27, 1991, as far as respondents and their managers knew, the licensed premises stood, in recent times, like an island in a veritable sea of open illegality. Mrs. House stationed security guards in front of the lounge, and assigned them the duty of keeping undesirables out. Young people ignore "no loitering" signs in the area and congregate on street corners, spilling into the street, blocking traffic and keeping "older folks" from passing. In the neighborhood outside respondents' establishment, drug sales take place in plain view of passersby. Although the authorities have closed the lounge, these problems persist. Except on Saturdays and Sundays when her husband opened the bar, Mrs. House arrived at ten in the morning and stayed until seven or eight at night, when she turned things over to the assistant manager, Ernestine Dunklin, or to her son Michael. Sometimes she came back after supper. The parents of six grown children, one of whom was allegedly prosecuted for selling heroin in the lounge in July of 1982, Mr. and Mrs. House have owned Ray's Lounge & Package for 18 years. Mr. House, who has worked at the Naval Air Station for two decades, leaves most of the management to his wife. Maggie Baldwin, who had worked at Ray's Package & Lounge for the last 15 years, arrived at seven and stayed until closing. She usually sat just inside the entrance, where she checked younger patrons' IDs. Neither Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Dunklin nor Ms. House has ever seen drugs used or distributed inside the lounge, or anybody appearing to use or sell drugs there. In the last few months, young women named Brenda and Senora worked at the lounge. Mario, another of the Houses' four sons and a full-time "installer" for Cox Cable, filled in for Ernestine Dunklin on August 24, 1991, when she was away at a cousin's wedding, but he has not worked at the lounge since. Like his brothers Raymond Jr., and Herman, he sometimes patronized the bar. On the night of September 1, 1991, however, Mario House was at home. John Anderson "Bud" McCants, who looked to be in his fifties, spent a lot of time at the lounge, where he was permitted to "bus" tables for tips. Although never on respondents' payroll, he also acted as a waiter, bringing drinks to patrons' tables and taking their money to a barmaid who (unlike him) was authorized to operate a cash register. He ran errands for Ms. House and often drove her home from the lounge. For these services, she paid him in cash. Many people who frequented Ray's Lounge & Package, in some cases three or four times weekly, among whom are Barbara Livingston, Helen Gaines, Randy Jean Peeples Broughton, and professional people including a doctor, an engineer, and Elmer Jenkins, a retired college professor who serves on the Escambia County School Board, have never seen or smelled drugs being used or sold there. Willie James Crenshaw, who lives four or five houses from Ray's Package & Lounge, was a regular customer Sunday nights. At least then, the crowd was mostly 50-ish and older, the proprietors' generation. But young "jits" also patronized the lounge, and respondents felt constrained to take steps to keep the premises "clean." A metal sign on the front door reads: ANYONE CAUGHT FIGHTING OR USING ANY ILLEGAL DRUGS ON THESE PREMISES WILL BE BARRED FROM THIS CLUB FOR LIFE AND SUBJECT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW THANK YOU THE MANAGEMENT Respondents' Exhibit No. 1. Inside, signs were posted "from one end to the other," including in the bathrooms, advising patrons that monitors were on the look out for illegal activities. Friends, a grandson and employees did help monitor, including occasionally checking both bathrooms. When Ms. House thought she saw drugs being sold outside, she called the Escambia County Sheriff's Department, sometimes as often as five or six times a night. Between October 26, 1990, and October 31, 1991, sheriff's deputies made 289 trips to Ray's Package & Lounge. Perhaps partly because of her calls, law enforcement officials decided to "target" Ray's Lounge & Package. Undercover Agents Dispatched Casey Roberts, a "professional contract operator" whose primary occupation since 1972 has been as a confidential informant for law enforcement, found himself idle after some 60 domestic and an additional, approximately 60 international exploits. When he asked a friend at a federal agency for work, his friend put him in touch with Ray Reed, a special assistant to Escambia County's Sheriff, Charlie W. Johnson. The Escambia County Sheriff's Department also asked to "borrow" an undercover operative from Orange County. Orange County Deputy Sheriff Julia A. Chatman arrived in Pensacola in time to accompany Mr. Roberts to Ray's Package & Lounge on August 24, 1991. Both wore "wires," microphones and transmitters that Mr. Reed and Escambia County Deputy Sheriff Roosevelt Walker, Jr. (on every occasion but two) monitored from a vehicle nearby. As it happened, August 24, 1991, was Mrs. House's 63rd birthday. Entering the bar, the agents found what Mr. Roberts described as a "happy type of environment." After a half-hour visit to the bar between four and six o'clock that afternoon, the undercover agents returned around supper time and stayed an hour and a half. The birthday celebrants had shrimp for dinner. About ten o'clock that night, undercover agents Roberts and Chatman returned a third time and purchased a small plastic bag of cocaine from Bud McCants for $40 or $50. An occasional user of marijuana and cocaine, Mr. McCants, a "known liar and cheat," also has a problem with alcohol. (But somebody else had put the Crown Royal he was accused of stealing in his jacket pocket, he testified.) The uncontroverted testimony was that Mrs. House did not know that he "did drugs." After the purchase, the undercover agents left the bar and gave the cocaine to their handlers, then returned a fourth time and bought two more plastic bags of cocaine from "Bud" McCants for $40 each. Although she was on the premises the whole time, Mrs. House was unaware of either transaction. Both occurred while the bar was crowded. Each packet was on the order of an inch square, contained approximately one gram and could be carried unobtrusively in the palm of the hand. The next day Ms. Chatman and Mr. Roberts returned for an hour or two, and found only seven or eight other customers. Mrs. House was not at the bar then. (Her husband was not on the premises on any of the occasions on which the undercover agents visited.) Casey Roberts bought two pills containing hydromorphone hydrochloride or "Dilaudid" from Raymond House, Jr. First Roberts gave Raymond $100. A little while later Raymond left the premises. As he returned, Roberts met him at the door and received the pills in a "hand exchange." On August 30, 1991, agent Roberts paid Mr. McCants $40 for cocaine, only 25 or 30 feet from where Mrs. House, unaware of the transaction, was cleaning collard greens. On September 1, 1991, Roberts bought cocaine from McCants for $50 on two separate occasions. On September 4, 1991, Roberts again bought cocaine from McCants for $50, and also bought a single pill of hydromorphone hydrochloride (delivered in a folded napkin) for $60 from Raymond House, Jr. On September 7, 1991, the undercover agents returned to Ray's Lounge & Package Store. Ms. Chatman asked Senora where she could get some "blow," by which she meant cocaine (although Senora originally understood her inquiry to relate to marijuana.) Senora spoke to Michael Collins who approached Ms. Chatman. Eventually a third person, Dave, gave her cocaine in exchange for $50. Altogether the undercover agents went inside Ray's Lounge & Package on eight separate days, as many as four times on a single day. On ten to fifteen of these trips, they failed to obtain drugs. Ms. Chatman testified that the first time she offered Raymond House, Jr. drugs, he said "No, I don't deal with that," and returned money she had thrust on him. Now facing criminal charges, he did not testify himself. Licensees Not Shown To Be Culpable Ms. House testified convincingly that she did not know anything about any of the drug transactions proven at hearing, and that she was shocked and angry when she learned of them (on or after October 27, 1991.) The other evidence is completely consistent with her testimony in this regard. Nothing in the evidence suggested that Raymond House, Sr. had any knowledge of the transactions. The respondents knew that their son, Raymond House, Jr., was accused of agreeing to sell a packet of heroin over the telephone while working in the lounge in 1982. In fact, they removed the telephone on that account. Events in 1982 resulted in administrative proceedings against their license. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Petitioner also proved that, in a case of mistaken identity, Bud McCants was arrested in 1986 on the licensed premises; and that, as it turned out, he had a single marijuana cigarette on his person at that time. But the evidence did not show that respondents knew about the marijuana (which had not occasioned the arrest.) Except for reports months and years earlier of drug use or dealing by patrons, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show that respondents had reason to know (before October 27, 1991) of any illegal activity on the licensed premises since 1982, much less than they condoned, encouraged or fostered it. Mrs. House responded diligently and appropriately to any report of illegal activity that reached her, as far as the credible evidence showed.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended that petitioner terminate the suspension of respondents' license forthwith, and dismiss the notice to show cause filed against the license. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-6985 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 14 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 6, 11, 13, 17, and footnote 2, the evidence did not clearly establish that Raymond House, Jr. worked as a manager of the lounge or that respondents employed him in any other capacity. Credible testimony put him behind the bar helping himself to drinks, but Ms. Dunklin, who was responsible for work assignments, testified that he was not an employee, and was not ever scheduled to work; and her testimony has been credited. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3 and footnote No. 1, the evidence showed that the Houses and Mr. McCants had known each other since 1968 or 1969, but not that he had worked for them continuously since then. At all pertinent times, however, the evidence did establish that he was a de facto employee of the licensees, even though not on the payroll. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 7 and footnotes Nos. 3, 4 and 5, Casey Roberts' testimony was wholly unreliable (and came to a sudden halt when he was asked to testify without referring to the administrative complaint.) His descriptions of accused sellers and others, which he rattled off with seemingly great assurance, bore no resemblance to reality. But for Ms. Chatman's testimony and that of the law enforcement officers who monitored conversations electronically, none of the transactions with Roberts would have been established. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 15 and 18, there was no evidence of drug use or drug dealing that was not carefully hidden from respondents and their managers. Bud McCants did not testify otherwise, (even though Bud McCants was brought to the hearing from jail where he is awaiting trial on charges of selling cocaine, giving him a strong incentive to cooperate with the authorities.) The fact that patrons discarded a marijuana cigarette, "suspected cocaine," and pills when the raid occurred on October 27, 1991, does not mean these items were visible beforehand, or intended for use or sale on the premises. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16, the only evidence of conviction was hearsay. Respondents' proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 5, respondents did not produce all the regular customers. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 7, the monitoring officers received uninterrupted transmissions from the undercover agents' microphones, and could hear (usually loud) music as they entered the lounge, even if they did not have visual contact then. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 10, although petitioner proved drug transactions occurred, petitioner did not prove that respondents knew this or were in any way responsible for it. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Leo A. Thomas, Esquire Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas Mayer & Mitchell P.O. Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32501 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
The Issue Whether the Respondents, ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY, d/b/a SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER, should have their alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY hold Beverage License No. 36-00019, Series No. 2-APS for the premises known as SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER located at 635 and 637 Alabama Avenue, Clewiston, Florida. On July 14, 1987, the Respondent ORLANDO MULKEY was adjudicated guilty of the offense "Sale of a Controlled Substance, Cocaine" in Circuit Court Case No. 87-59 in Hendry County, Florida. Although the specific statute number was not set forth in the judgment and sentence as suggested in the uniform judgment and sentence found in Rule 3.986, Rules of Criminal Procedure, it appears that ORLANDO MULKEY was found guilty of a felony under Section 893.13(1)(a) and Section 893.03(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes. This finding is based upon the length of the probation term (5 years) and the written description of the offense in the judgment. The judgment and sentence were a result of a criminal offense which took place on November 13, 1986. During the hearing, after receiving instruction from the Hearing Officer concerning his Constitutional right against self-incrimination, which he appeared to understand, ORLANDO MULKEY admitted to possessing crack cocaine on the premises of SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER on November 13, 1986, during his management shift. ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY conducted business in SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER on different shifts. LORETTA MULKEY was not aware that ORLANDO MULKEY, her co-licensee, was using crack cocaine. She was not aware that he had crack cocaine in his possession on the licensed premises during his shift. As the managerial and supervisory responsibilities were divided between the co- licensees on the basis of their respective shifts, LORETTA MULKEY, had no connection with any drug related activities. On June 18, 1987, ORLANDO MULKEY quitclaimed his interest in the real property where SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER is located to LORETTA MULKEY. Although ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY are co- licensees, there is no evidence in the record to establish that a legal entity relationship exists between the MULKEYS in the conduct of business as SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER.
Findings Of Fact 1718, Inc. held alcoholic beverage license number 58- 1581, Series 2-Cop; for the premises of the Fox Hunter, 1718 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida, at all times relevant to these proceedings. The license was issued on June 18, 1981. Although the testimony of Captain Jack B. Wallace that John and Fay Knight (Knights) were the owners of the real property located at 1718 South Orange, Orlando, Florida, went unrebutted, the record does not reveal the date when John and Fay Knight became the owners of the real property located at 1718 South Orange Street, Orlando, Florida. The Knights were absentee landlords and leased the premises to 1718, Inc. d/b/a/ Fox Hunter (Fox Hunter) through a real estate agency in Orlando, Florida. On June 3, 1985 Petitioners mailed a letter to the Knights informing them that the alcoholic beverage license of Fox Hunter had been suspended on an emergency basis due to 13 alleged sales of narcotics on the premises by employees of Fox Hunter; that Respondent had requested a hearing on the charges; that Petitioner would seek license revocation with prejudice as provided in Section 561.58, Florida Statutes (1983); that the Petitioner would present evidence at the hearing in support of license revocation with prejudice; and that the Knights would be advised of the date, time and location of the hearing at a later date. The record does not reveal that Petitioner ever advised the Knights as to the date, time and location of the hearing, however, counsel for Respondent announced at the time of the hearing that he would be representing the Knights. Additionally, the record does not reveal that a copy of the original or Amended Notice To Show Cause was ever furnished to the Knights. Nor does the record reveal that the Knights had any knowledge of any previous violations at the premises. On April 29, 1985, Orlando Police Officer Kerry Farney (Farney) went to the premises of Fox Hunter and spoke to dancer Joyce Travis concerning the purchase of cocaine. Joyce agreed to sell Farney a half gram for $50.00. Farney gave Joyce $55.00, including $5.00 for a dance which she performed, and Joyce returned to Farney a dollar bill wrapped around two- plastic packages of cocaine. Officer Farney returned to the Fox Hunter on April 30, 1985, and spoke with dancer Lisa Nolen a/k/a Dusty concerning the purchase of a quarter gram of cocaine. Dusty agreed to sell the cocaine and obtained $25.00 from Farney. She later returned to Farney and handed him a plastic package containing cocaine. Officer Farney again returned to the Fox Hunter on May 2, 1985 and was later met there on this same day by Investigator Rodney Russ (Russ). The Officers arranged to purchase cocaine from the dancer Dusty. Farney gave Dusty $30.00, $5.00 for a dance and $25.00 for a quarter gram of cocaine. Russ gave Dusty $50.00 for one half gram of cocaine. After going into the dancers' locker room, Dusty returned to the officers and handed to Farney a dollar bill wrapped around two plastic packages of cocaine and asked Farney to pass it to Russ. Farney passed the cocaine wrapped in the money to Russ which Russ opened and inspected the two plastic-packages of cocaine contained therein. Later that same night Dusty delivered the cocaine to Farney which he had paid for earlier. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter on May 3, 1985 and entered into conversation with dancer Laura, who asked if he was looking for a quarter gram of cocaine. Russ stated that he wanted a half gram and Laura responded that she would see what she could do. After speaking with an unknown male patron, Laura returned to Russ and stated that all he had left was three- tenths of a gram for $30.00. Russ stated that he would take the three tenths of a gram and gave Laura $30.00. Laura again approached the unknown patron and then returned to Russ after being assured by Russ that he was not a cop or with law enforcement, placed a bill in his pocket. Russ removed and opened the bill and inspected the plastic package of cocaine. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter on May 7, 1985 and entered into conversation with the dancer Joyce concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. Joyce stated that she would be able to get it later. Joyce subsequently asked Russ how much he wanted to buy and Russ responded that he wanted a half gram. Russ gave Joyce a $100.00 bill and she went into the women's dressing room. Joyce later returned to Russ and gave him $25.00 change wrapped around two clear plastic packages of cocaine. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter on May 8, 1985, and was solicited by dancer Joyce for the purchase of two beers. Russ returned to the premises of the Fox Hunter on May 9, 1985, and entered into conversation with the dancer Joyce concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. Joyce left Russ to talk to an unidentified black male and returned to inform Russ that she could get the half gram of cocaine from the black male after he split it up and that Russ would have delivery soon. The male went into the restroom and when he emerged from the restroom, Joyce approached him and then went into the women's restroom. After exiting the restroom, Joyce performed a dance for Russ, during which she told him to take a dollar bill out of her garter. Russ took the dollar bill and opened it up to inspect two tinfoil packages of cocaine. Russ returned to the licensed premises on May 10, 1985, and again entered into conversation with the dancer Joyce concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. When Joyce agreed, Russ handed her $75.00. Joyce subsequently returned to Russ and handed him a plastic package of cocaine which Russ placed into the cellophane wrapper of his cigarette pack. Joyce stated that the person from whom she had obtained the cocaine only had a quarter gram but would be getting a delivery soon, at which time Joyce would give Russ his other quarter gram. Russ did not obtain the additional quarter gram prior to leaving the premises on this occasion. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter later the night of May 10, 1985 and spoke with Joyce about obtaining his remaining quarter gram of cocaine and she advised him that delivery had not been made. Russ then talked with dancer Laura about obtaining some cocaine. Laura first said that it would be after 2:00 a.m. when the bar closed but when Russ told her he could not wait that long she obtained a short quarter gram from an unidentified white male. Laura then left to go into the women's restroom. When she returned to Russ, Laura placed a plastic package of cocaine in his pocket stating that she had tried the substance and it was good. Russ removed the package from his pocket and inspected it. As Russ was leaving, Joyce approached him near the entrance and handed him a plastic package containing his remaining quarter gram of cocaine. Russ returned to the premises of the Fox Hunter on May 15, 1985, and was solicited by the dancer Dusty to purchase her a bottle of champagne for $5.75, which he did. Russ again went to the Fox Hunter on May 16, 1985 and entered into conversation with the dancer Laura concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. Laura stated that she would be able to get him some. Laura approached and spoke to an unknown patron and the dancer Michelle, after which she went into the women's dressing room. She shortly returned to Russ and placed two plastic packages of cocaine into his pocket. On May 17, 1985, the Respondent served an Emergency Order of Suspension and Search Warrant on the Fox Hunter. Located during the search was a dollar bill wrapped around a package of cocaine, a plastic package of cocaine, a package of marijuana and several marijuana cigarettes. The sale or delivery of the cocaine on April 29, 30, 1985 and May 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 16, 1985 to investigator Farney and Russ took place in and around the dance area of the premises. On April 20, 1982 the Respondent served a letter of warning to Fox Hunter alleging that on August 4, 1981, an employee had solicited the sale of an alcoholic beverage in violation of Section 562.131, Florida Statutes and further alleging that on October 30, 1981, an employee had delivered a controlled substance to a police officer on the premises. No proof was offered as to the disposition of those matters, or indeed, whether the incidents ever actually took place. In July, 1984, the manager of Fox Hunter --Lawrence Siegel -- apprehended one of its employees and a patron engaged in a drug transaction: he detained them and called the Orlando Police Department, and the two were taken into custody. The Petitioner's response to this action was to issue a citation against the Fox Hunter for the alleged sale, even though it was Lawrence Siegel who uncovered the transaction and apprehended the perpetrators. Mr. Siegel contacted Lt. Farmer of the Orlando Police Department and requested assistance in placing an undercover officer in the lounge as an employee. Mr. Siegel wanted to interdict narcotics and assist in the apprehension of the persons who might be dealing with them. However, the request was turned down because, as Lt. Farmer explained, the police department did not have the necessary resources to assist in this manner. The record is not clear as to the period of time Lawrence Siegel maintained contact with the police, but he did contact them about the problem, identifying suspected dealers and providing names and descriptions of vehicles. However, Jason Robaudo replaced Lawrence Siegel as night manager during this period of time. James Robaudo was present in the licensed premises during most of, if not all of, the time during which the unlawful activities accursed. Although the record is not entirely clear on the details, there were other alcoholic beverage establishments in the same general area that had been charged with the sale of controlled substances on the premises where a heavy fine plus a short license suspension had been imposed rather than a license revocation or a license revocation with prejudice.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 58-1581, Series 2-COP, issued to 1718, Inc., d/b/a Fox Hunter. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 3rd day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esq. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Richard L. Wilson, Esq. 1212 East Ridgewood Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr. Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street 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.
The Issue Should Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License Number 63-04089 be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: DABT is the division within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Beverage Law of the State of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, operated as a sole proprietorship known as Fort Meade Restaurant and Lounge, located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida. Respondent held a series SRX4COP Alcoholic Beverage License Number 63-04089, issued by DABT, which authorized Respondent to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises in connection with the restaurant operation of Fort Meade Restaurant and Lounge. Respondent's beverage license did not authorize Respondent to sell any form of alcoholic beverage for consumption off of the licensed premises. By letter dated February 10, 1997, the Fort Meade Police Department requested investigative assistance from DABT concerning an allegation that controlled substances were being sold at Respondent's licensed premises as well as another location unrelated to Respondent. As a result of the request for assistance from the Fort Meade Police Department, DABT instituted an investigation concerning the complaint. In addition to assigning the complaint to a Special Agent, Cleveland McKenzie, DABT requested assistance from the Polk County Sheriff's Department. At approximately 9:45 p.m. on April 18, 1997, Agent McKenzie, accompanied by Detective Bobby Neil, Polk County Sheriff's Office, entered Respondent's licensed premises, located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida, in an undercover capacity. While in Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, Agent McKenzie asked the person tending bar (bartender) for "a beer for the road." In response to Agent McKenzie's request, the bartender placed an unopened 12-ounce bottle of Budweiser beer in a paper bag and handed the bag, with the beer inside, to McKenzie who then paid for the beer and left the licensed premises without attempting to conceal the beer on his person and without being stopped by any person providing services on the licensed premises. Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil left the licensed premises at approximately 11:00 p.m. Both Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil described the bartender as a stout, light-skinned, black male approximately 20 to 25 years of age. Neither Larry Fisher, manager of the licensed premises, nor Reginald Johnson, Respondent's adult son, fit this description. The person tending bar at the licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, was neither Larry Fisher nor Reginald Johnson, notwithstanding the testimony of Larry Fisher or Reginald Johnson to the contrary which I find lacks credibility. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil entered Respondent's licensed premises located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida, in an undercover capacity Before leaving the licensed premises on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie asked the bartender (the same individual tending bar while Agent McKenzie was in the licensed premises on April 18, 1997) for "a beer to go." The bartender placed an unopened 12-ounce bottle of Budweiser beer in a paper bag and handed the bag to Agent McKenzie. The bartender refused the offer of payment for the beer from Agent McKenzie's indicating that the beer was "on him." Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil left the licensed premises at approximately 11:55 p.m. on April 26, 1997. Upon leaving the licensed premises, Agent McKenzie carried the unopened bottle of beer in the paper bag without any attempt to conceal the beer on his person. Likewise, upon leaving the licensed premises, Detective Neil carried a half-full opened bottle of beer which he had purchased earlier from the bartender without any attempt to conceal the bottle on his person. In order to leave the licensed premises on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil had to go pass two individuals who were providing services to Respondent's licensed premises. Neither of these individual, nor any other person providing services to Respondent's licensed premises on April 26, 1997, prevented Agent McKenzie or Detective Neil from leaving the licensed premises with the beer. There was no evidence presented By DABT to show that while Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil were in Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, that the bartender sold or gave any other customer an alcoholic beverage packaged to go or that any other customer left the licensed premises with an alcoholic beverage. Respondent was not present in his licensed premises during the time that Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil were there on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997. There is insufficient evidence to show that the bartender's action on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, was the result of Respondent's negligence, intentional wrongdoing, lack of diligence, lack of training for the employees, or lack of notice to customers that any alcoholic beverage purchased had to be consumed on the licensed premises. After the visits to the licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie concluded that there was no basis to the alleged complaint that controlled substances were being sold on the licensed premises. The designation "SRX" identifies a beverage license issued to business which is to be operated as restaurant. As a result of its investigation of Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, DABT, as is its normal practice, examined the Respondent's licensed premises for continuing requirements applicable to special licenses such as a "SRX" license. Respondent is an experienced business person with 15 years experience in operating licensee premises. Respondent knew at the time of obtaining the license at issue in May 1995 that he had an obligation to maintain records sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent met the 51 percent requirement in each bi-monthly period. Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement for the months of January 1997, February 1997, March 1997, and April 1997, listed the total amount of revenue derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages. However, this figure for alcoholic beverages was not supported by any daily records of sales. Respondent maintained no records as to the daily sales of alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. Although Respondent presented guest checks for the daily sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages, the total of these checks for each month in question did not support the Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement for each corresponding month. Based on the Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement and other records furnished by Respondent for the months of January, February, March, and April 1997, the percentage of total gross revenue (sales of food, non-alcoholic beverages, and alcoholic beverages) derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages for the months of January 1997, February 1997, March 1997, and April 1997 was approximately 45 percent, 46 percent, 46 percent, and 44 percent, respectively.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a review of the penalty guidelines in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order revoking Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License, Number SRX4COP 63-04089 DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32299-0792 Madeline McGuckin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Kenneth Glover, Esquire 505 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33802
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 The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a Florida business man who operated initially a business called the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, located at 1342 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, and subsequently a business called Tony Cafeteria, located at 340 1/2 Northwest 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida. Petitioner was the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-8402, Series 1 APS, for the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market on Miami Beach. Respondent, on May 3, 1988, served on Petitioner an emergency order of suspension of license number 23-8402, series 1 APS, "in order to protect the public safety and welfare from immediate and continuing danger of drug trafficking and illegal delivery of controlled substances in and about the licensed premises." Concurrently with the emergency order of suspension, Respondent served a notice to show cause on Petitioner alleging eight counts of narcotics transactions on the licensed premises and one count of maintaining a nuisance of the licensed premises. Petitioner did not request a hearing on the charges that resulted in the emergency order of suspension and the notice to show cause. On June 27, 1988, Respondent published its Final Order revoking Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license number 23-8402, Series 1 APS. The Final Order was served on Petitioner on July 5, 1988. That Final Order included the following conclusion: The facts set forth hereinabove demonstrate that the licensee has fostered, condoned, and/or negligently overlooked trafficking in and use of illegal narcotics and controlled substances on or about the licensed premises and has failed to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees and managing its licensed premises so as to prevent the illegal trafficking and use of narcotics on the licensed premises. In addition to the narcotics violations described in the notice to show cause regarding the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, alcoholic beverages were being sold for consumption on Petitioner's licensed premises, and patrons on the licensed premises were gambling on pool games. The International Coffee Shop and Minit Market was located near a large elementary school. The cocaine transactions negotiated and consummated on the licensed premises during April 1988 were open and in plain view. No effort was made to conceal these activities. Children were frequently on the licensed premises during April 1988 when cocaine transactions were being openly negotiated and consummated. The first cocaine transaction at the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market during Officer Santana's undercover investigation was between Officer Santana and a patron named Clara Rodriguez. The transaction took place just inside the entrance of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, lighting conditions were good, and no effort was made to conceal the transaction. Petitioner was standing immediately next to Officer Santana when the cocaine transaction took place. Petitioner made no effort to stop the transaction, or to summon law enforcement, or to evict Ms. Rodriguez or Officer Santana. Petitioner commented, in Spanish, that "if you're not going to eat or drink anything, you're going to have to leave," or words to that effect. During the 13 days following the cocaine transaction described immediately above, seven additional cocaine transactions were openly conducted on the premises of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market:. Four of these transactions were permitted by Petitioner's employee Estella; three were permitted by Petitioner's employee Angel. Five patrons, Nuri, Pipo, Maria, Clara, and Betty, were involved in these cocaine transactions. Petitioner attributes the activity on his licensed premises that resulted in the license revocation to the undesirable neighborhood of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market and the undesirable persons who frequented the International Coffee Shop. The neighborhood of Tony Cafeteria is no better than the International Coffee Shop neighborhood. In response to a complaint, Sergeant Herrera and other members of the Miami office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to Tony Cafeteria on December 2, 1989. Petitioner's employee, Ms. Baez, sold a beer to an undercover Law Enforcement Investigator on the premises of Tony Cafeteria. Ms. Baez was cited for selling an alcoholic beverage without a license. Twenty cans and bottles of beer were seized on the premises by the officers. Petitioner works full time, 40 hours a week, at the Fountainbleau Hilton and is considered by the Head Houseman to be "a fine, dedicated worker." Three friends of Petitioner opined that Petitioner is a trustworthy, moral person. The Petitioner has never been arrested or convicted of any criminal offense. The Petitioner did not have actual knowledge of the narcotics transactions that resulted in the revocation of the alcoholic beverage license at the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, nor was he aware that any gambling was taking place on the pool tables. In January 1990, Petitioner was issued a temporary beverage license for Tony Cafeteria, with which he operated until his license application was disapproved by Respondent. During the three-month period he operated with the temporary license he was not cited for violation of the beverage law.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a final order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a alcoholic beverage license. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 27th day of July 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Vidal Marino Velis, Esquire 2100 Coral Way, Suite #300 Miami, Florida 33145 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Respondent, C.S.G., Inc., d/b/a The Arena, holds alcoholic beverage license no. 62-427, Series 4-COP. The licensed premises is located at 4469 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. During the period relevant to this proceeding, Sam I. Ferrara, Jr. was the sole officer and stockholder of C.S.G, Inc. On November 19, 1980, prior to Ferrara's purchase of the C.S.G., Inc., Eugene O'Steen submitted a license application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 62-427, from Edward Mickler, Jr. to C.S.G., Inc., showing O'Steen as the sole corporate officer and stockholder of C.S.G., Inc., and Ferrara as the manager. O'Steen's license application was not accepted as the application end accompanying documentation were incomplete. The initial application included a lease for the licensed premises signed by O'Steen over the whited-out signature of Sam I. Ferrara, Jr., dated October 9, 1980. O'Steen had negotiated the purchase of beverage license no. 62-427 from Edward Mickler, Jr., for $78,500. O'Steen intended to fund the purchase with a $2,000 down payment from personal assets and a $76,500 loan from the Central Bank of Tampa. However, O'Steen voluntarily withdrew his application on November 26, 1980, due to the possible filing of criminal charges which could have resulted in denial of the application. On the same day that O'Steen withdrew his application, Ferrara initiated a new application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 62- 427. Ferrara's application was also in the name of C.S.G., Inc. showing Ferrara as the sole corporate officer and stockholder of this corporation. On December 2, 1980, Ferrara advised Petitioner's Beverage Officer Maggio that he, Ferrara, had negotiated the same contract to purchase beverage license no. 62-427, as had O'Steen. Said beverage license was to he purchased by Ferrara (C.S.G., Inc.) for a total of $78,500. A deposit of $2,000 had been made and a balance of $76,500 was due at closing on purchase of this license. Ferrara further advised that he (C.S.G., Inc.) was obtaining an $80,000 loan from the Central Dank of Tampa to finance the purchase of the beverage license and that he (C.S.G., Inc.) was obtaining a $20,000 loan from Attorney Matthews to reimburse O'Steen for remodeling expenses incurred on the licensed premises. On December 3, 1980, Ferrara submitted a personal questionnaire (PX-10) listing finances concerning the license application as follows: Central Bank of Tampa $80,000 Eugene O'Steen - [Crossed through] $20,000 John Matthews - $20,000 On December 3, 1980, Ferrara provided Beverage Officer Maggie with a completed license application (PX-9) together with a letter of commitment for a loan to C.S.G., Inc. in the amount of $80,000 signed by Orlando Garcia, President of the Central Bank of Tampa. This letter was dated December 3, 1980 (PX-1) On December 3, 1980, Ferrara was questioned by Beverage Officer Maggie as to the completeness and accuracy of his license application (PX-9) and his personal questionnaire (PX-10) Ferrara advised Maggie on that date that both referenced documents were complete and accurate. Additionally, on the same date, Maggie reviewed with Ferrara his answers to all questions and both of the referenced documents. Ferrara's answers contained in the referenced documents were sworn and made under oath. Section 7 of Ferrara's license application (PX-9) reads: List below the names of all those connected, directly or indirectly, in the business for which the license is sought: (This includes partner(s), spouse, director(s), stockholder(s), chief executive, limited and general partner(s), corporation(s), or any form of entity which is connected with the business. Name office (if corporation) or other title if any. Nature of interest including stock percentage. In response to this question, on his license application (PX-9), Ferrara identified himself as President, Secretary, Treasurer and 100 percent stockholder. No other person or entity was listed as interested directly or indirectly. Subsequent to December 3, 1980, Beverage Officer Maggio transmitted Ferrara's license application (Px-9) and related documentation to Petitioner's Tallahassee office with a recommendation that the application be approved. Thereafter, on December 5, 1980, C.S.G., Inc. was issued a temporary beverage license. The permanent beverage license, number 62-427, Series 4-COP, was issued on January 7, 1981. On December 1, 1980, prior to the letter of commitment from the Central Bank of Tampa (PX-1), and Ferrara's submission of his license application (PX-9) and personal questionnaire (PX-10), and also prior to Ferrara's oral statements to Beverage Officer Maggio, the Central Bank of Tampa issued a loan closing statement (PX-8) concerning C.S.G., Inc.'s (Ferrara) $80,000 loan. This loan closing statement (PX-8) reflected an $80,000 loan to C.S.G., Inc. and P & O, Inc. jointly, not solely to C.S.G., Inc. as indicated in the loan commitment letter (PX-1), Ferrara's oral statement, and Ferrara's license application (PX-9). Said loan closing statement reflected collateral for this loan which included beverage license no. 62-427, Series 4-COP (C.S.G., Inc. license) and an alcoholic beverage license held by P & O, Inc. On December 5, 1980, a bank note, number 55-25549 (PX-6) was executed in the amount of $80,000 with C.S.G., Inc. and P & O, Inc. as co-makers. This note was signed by Ferrara on behalf of C.S.G., Inc., and by Charles and Olga Pitisci on behalf of P & O, Inc. Said note (PX-6) corresponds to the loan closing statement dated December 1,1980 (PX-8). Pursuant and subsequent to the execution of the bank note discussed above (PX-6), a cashier's check, number 312768 (Px-3), was drawn on the Central Bank of Tampa and issued December 5, 1980 to C.S.G., Inc. and P & O, Inc. jointly, in the amount of $70,278.25. This cashier's check represented the proceeds from the loan generated on bank note 55-25549 (PX-6). These proceeds were deposited in the Central Bank of Tampa to the account of C.S.G., Inc. On December 5, 1980, a separate cashier's check (PX-2) number 312502 was issued by the Central Bank of Tampa payable to Edward Mickler, Jr in the amount of 576,500. Funds for this check came from C.S.G., Inc.'s account. The purpose of this check (PX-2) was to pay the balance of the purchase price due on beverage license no. 62-427. On December 5, 1980, another cashier's check (PX-4) number 312503 was issued by the Central Bank of Tampa in the amount of 52,775.25, to C.S.G., Inc. This check represented the balance of the loan proceeds from the Central Bank to P & O, Inc. and C.S.G., Inc. jointly (See PX-2 and PX-6). Collateral pledged as security for said loan (PX-6) includes real property of P & O, Inc., a beverage license of P & O, Inc., the beverage license of C.S.G, Inc., together with certain equipment of C.S.G., Inc. P & O, Inc. and C.S.G., Inc. executed a mortgage to the Central Bank of Tampa to secure said lean (PX-6) and the Central Bank of Tampa, effective December 5, 1980, insured said lean in the amount of 575,000 as evidenced by a fund mortgage form (Px-5) Neither C.S.G., Inc., the Central Bank of Tampa nor Ferrara in his oral statements to Petitioner's representative, disclosed the fact that P & O, Inc. was a co-maker of the $50,000 loan (PX-6) from the Central Bank of Tampa, or that P & O, Inc. had pledged real property and a beverage license as collateral for said loan. At all times pertinent to this procedure, P & O, Inc. was owned by Charles Pitisci, Olga Pitisci and Carlten O'Steen. At all times pertinent Charles Pitisci, Olga Pitisci and Eugene O'Steen were corporate officers of P & O, Inc. The testimony of Ferrara and Eugene O'Steen established that a close personal relationship existed between Ferrara and the owners of P & O, Inc. Ferrara's testimony established that the Central Hank of Tampa demanded additional security, and that P & O, Inc. principals cosigned the note as a personal favor to Ferrara and not to obtain an interest in the licensed business. This evidence was not rebutted by Petitioner. Ferrara did not believe he was under any duty to disclose the role of the Pitiscis and P & O, Inc. with respect to the Central Bank of Tampa loan since he did not believe they had acquired any direct or indirect interest in C.S.G., Inc. or beverage license no. 62-427.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 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 28th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Beggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Antineri, Jr., Esquire 601 E. Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Moishes Steakhouse & Seafood, Inc., timely submitted an application to record a lien for license number 23-02731 4COP.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 3, 1999, Armar Inc., Arnaldo Bou, individually, and Martha Pinango, individually, as debtors, and the Petitioner, by Eugenio D'Arpino, as president of the company, the secured party, executed a security agreement (chattel mortgage) related to beverage license 23-02731, series 4COP. Such security agreement recognized a priority lien for the Petitioner, Moishes Steakhouse & Seafood, Inc., and included a promissory note executed by the debtors. The promissory note, dated March 3, 1999 (presumably executed on or about that date), provided: THIS NOTE IS NOTE ASSIGNABLE AND NON- ASSUMABLE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE SECURED PARTY. THIS NOTE IS SECURED BY A SECURITY AGREEMENT (CHATTEL MORTGAGE) AND UCC-1 WHICH SHALL CREATE A PRIORITY LIEN (1ST PLACE LIEN) ON STATE OF FLORIDA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE NO: 23- 01686, series 4 COP quota. The security agreement and promissory note were not provided to the Department within 90 days of March 3, 1999. Apparently, the fact that the note and security agreement make reference to different alcoholic beverage license numbers is not an issue. Neither party has raised that issue. The Petitioner forwarded the note and security agreement to the Department for recordation on or about September 21, 1999. At that time the Department received an application to record a lien for license no. 23-02731, series 4COP. On October 11, 1999, the Department sent Petitioner a letter declining the application because it was not made within 90 days after the creation of the lien. The Department requested a newly executed security agreement so that the dates would show the request for recording within 90 days of the application. It is the Department's position that the lien application should have been submitted within 90 days of its creation in order to comply with the mandatory guidelines of the statute. For purposes of this case, the Department argued that the "creation of the lien" was on or about March 3, 1999, or, at the latest, March 15, 1999 (a date noted in the escrow agreement). The Petitioner timely sought an administrative review of the Department's decision. It is the Petitioner's position that the lien did not "break escrow" until August of 1999, and that, as a matter of law, that is the point in time from which the 90 day period should run. From the Petitioner's perspective, the "creation of the lien" as used by the statute dates from when the transaction broke escrow. All parties agree that the statute does not specifically address escrow transactions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order approving the Petitioner's application to record a lien on the subject alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherrie Barnes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Major Jorge R. Herrera Department of Business and Professional Regulation 8685 Northwest 53rd Terrace Augusta Building, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33166 Louis J. Terminello, Esquire Terminello & Terminello, P. A. 2700 Southwest 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-2728 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
