Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 56-526, Series 2-COP. The licensed premises is known as the "Green Frog" and is located at 1216 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The corporate officers of Respondent are Charles J. Schoener, Marlene D. Schoener, Mitch M. Smith and Charles M. Hall. On September 27, 1983, Investigator Robert Randle of the Gulf Breeze Police Department was approached by two individuals as he exited the licensed premises of the Green Frog and was asked if he wanted to purchase some marijuana. While discussing the marijuana purchase, Randle was approached by the Green Frog doorman who was working on the premises that night. The doorman, known as "Animal," inquired of Randle if he wanted to buy a small quantity of cocaine and displayed a small plastic baggie containing a white substance which he offered to sell for $30. After paying the doorman $30 for the small package represented to be cocaine, Randle submitted the contents for chemical analysis. Subsequent analysis revealed the presence of no controlled substance. On or about February 18, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises of the Green Frog in an undercover capacity. While on the licensed premises, Randle contacted a dancer known as "Angel." Randle asked Angel where he could obtain some narcotics and she directed him to her apartment. Randle went to the apartment but was unable to purchase any drugs. He returned to the Green Frog and told Angel that he had been unsuccessful. She left Randle's presence but later delivered a partial marijuana cigarette to him on the licensed premises. Subsequent analysis of the partial cigarette showed the contents to be cannabis/marijuana. On or about February 28, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. On this date, he made contact with a dancer known as "Sugar" and asked her if he could obtain some marijuana or cocaine. Sugar directed Randle to the dancer Angel's apartment where he was told he could purchase a baggie of marijuana. Upon reaching the apartment Officer Randle informed Angel that Sugar had told him he could buy a bag of marijuana from her. At this time Angel sold a baggie of marijuana to Officer Randle for $25. Subsequent analysis of the baggie's contents revealed that it contained cannabis/marijuana. On or about March 6, 1984, Officer Randle returned to the licensed premises as part of this investigation. Upon entering, Randle engaged the dancer Sugar in conversation and advised her he was looking for narcotics. Shortly thereafter, Sugar told Randle he could purchase one-quarter gram of cocaine for $25. Later, she informed him that she was obtaining the cocaine from another dancer who would only sell half-gram amounts for $50. Randle then gave Sugar $50 and observed Sugar leave his table, speak to an unidentified dancer and return to his table. Sugar then handed Randle a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance. Subsequent analysis of the contents of the bag showed that it contained cocaine. On or about March 17, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises as part of the ongoing investigation. Randle made contact with the dancer "Kelly" and the dancer "Lisa." Randle told Kelly that he had "scored" some good cocaine previously from the dancer Sugar and that he was looking for her. In response to this statement, Kelly informed Randle that she had supplied Sugar with the cocaine and that she could sell him a half-gram of cocaine for $50 that evening. Later, Randle was approached by the dancer Lisa who asked him if he was holding some cocaine. Randle informed her that he was looking for cocaine and asked her if she could sell him some. Lisa also told him that she was waiting for her supplier and that she would sell him a $50 package when the supplier arrived. While waiting for the supplier to arrive on the premises, Randle was again approached by Lisa who gave him the phone number of her supplier and suggested he call the supplier and tell him to come to the licensed premises with the cocaine. Later, a male patron arrived at the premises and was observed talking to Lisa by Randle. Shortly thereafter, both Lisa and Kelly delivered small plastic baggies containing white substances to Randle who was seated at a table. Both deliveries were made inside the lounge in plain view. Subsequent analysis confirmed that both packages contained cocaine. Beginning around late February 1984, Mr. Tim Forehand regularly sold and supplied cocaine on the licensed premises. His sales were generally in one- half gram packages and the dollar amount of such sales on the licensed premises ranged from $200 to $1800 per night. Forehand supplied the cocaine on March 17, 1984, to the dancers Lisa and Kelly who then sold this substance to Officer Randle. Forehand also sold cocaine six or eight times to a corporate officer's son, David Schoener, who worked as a bartender on the licensed premises. On one occasion, Charles Schoener barred Forehand from the licensed premises for dealing drugs. He was, however, allowed back onto the premises within one week, The testimony of Lisa Dixon, Melissa Crawford (a/k/a Sugar) and Tim Forehand indicated that drug use and sales in the licensed premises were open and extensive. Sugar testified that see had used cocaine with Charles Hall, an officer-owner, on the licensed premises. Similarly, Lisa Dixon testified that she was in the presence of Charles Schoener on an occasion when he used cocaine in the licensed premises. In their testimony, Charles Schoener and Charles Hall denied using drugs on the licensed premises. Their testimony and that of a third owner- manager, Mitch Smith, a bartender, Jim Ellis, and a dancer, Evangeline Potts, indicated that drug use and sales were rarely observed and that action was taken to bar customers or warn employees when such incidents occurred. The documentary evidence and testimony of both Petitioner's and Respondent's witnesses established that Respondent had a stated policy against drug use or possession on the premises. Employee rules to this effect had been adopted and posted for over a year and periodic employee meetings were held at which the no drug policy was discussed. However, enforcement was not vigorous as indicated by the fact that Forehand was allowed to return to the Green Frog even though he had earlier been barred for drug activity. Further, Charles Schoener, the corporation president, did not discharge the dancer Kelly, even when he suspected her of illegal drug activity on the licensed premises. Much of the testimony of the witnesses with the exception of Officer Randle and Officer Kiker (who was not directly involved), was self-serving and lacking in credibility. Forehand, Dixon and Crawford have all been arrested and charged with criminal offenses. They were advised that their cooperation in this proceeding could favorably effect their sentences if convicted. Respondent's witnesses are owners and employees of the licensed premises, and thus have a stake in preserving the beverage license. In addition to their denials, the purported use of cocaine by Charles Schoener and Charles Hall on the licensed premises in the presence of their employees is inconsistent with their efforts to prohibit or at least discourage drug use. Further, the testimony of Officer Randle indicates that drug sales and use were not "wide open" as claimed by Petitioner's other witnesses. Randle visited the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on numerous occasions beginning September 27, 1983, but was not able to obtain a delivery of a controlled substance until February 18, 1984.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 90 days, including the emergency suspension now in effect. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1984, 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 17th day of April, 1984.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent violated the Final Order of Petitioner by failing to pay $1,250 to Petitioner on or before the expiration of 30 days after the entry of the Final Order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to license number 15-02311, Series 4COP SRX. The licensed premises are located at 680 George J. King Boulevard, Port Canaveral, Florida, 32920. On October 2, 2000, Petitioner entered a Final Order that required Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,250 within 30 days of the date of entry of the order. Respondent appealed the Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal. The First District Court of Appeal upheld the Final Order. Respondent failed to pay any portion of the administrative fine.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.29; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500, pursuant to Rule 61A-2.022(8); and permanently revoking alcoholic beverage license number 15- 02311, Series 4COP SRX. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Chad D. Heckman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Raymond J. Cascella Manos Inc., d/b/a Sea Port Restaurant 680 George J. King Boulevard Port Canaveral, Florida 32920 Capt. German Garzon Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room 709 North Tower, Hurston Building Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent, Club Manhattan Bar and Grill, LLC, d/b/a Club Manhattan Bar and Grill (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaints dated September 13, 2010, and December 1, 2010, and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. Respondent is licensed under the Florida beverage law by the Department. Respondent holds a 4COP/SRX special restaurant license issued by the Department with Alcoholic Beverage License No. 68-04347. Ms. Stokes is the licensee of record for Respondent. Consequently, Respondent is subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent's series 4COP/SRX is a special restaurant license that permits it to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises. Additionally, the licensee must satisfy seating and record-keeping requirements and must comply with 51 percent of its gross sales being food and non- alcoholic beverages. See § 561.20(2)(a)4., Fla. Stat. Respondent's restaurant is located in Sarasota County, Florida, and, pursuant to the 4COP/SRX license, must have seating and capability to serve 150 customers at any one time. On August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn conducted an inspection of Respondent's business premises. He conducted the inspection based on complaints made to the Department that Respondent was operating as an after-hours bar, rather than a restaurant. At this initial inspection, which occurred at 2:30 p.m. on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn found the restaurant did not have any customers or menus. Further, he noticed that the premises had seating for only 92 people and a large dance floor. Further, he observed that the walls had signs advertising drink specials and late-night parties. Special Agent Flynn met Ms. Stokes, Respondent's manager and holder of the license, and informed her that the beverage license required that Respondent be able to serve 150 customers at one time. Also, Special Agent Flynn requested the required business records concerning the purchase of alcoholic beverage invoices from the distributors for a 60-day proceeding period. Ms. Stokes did not have the requested records on the premises. On August 19, 2010, Special Agent Flynn sent Ms. Stokes a written request, requesting alcoholic purchase invoices for a 60-day period before August 19, 2010. The request allowed Ms. Stokes 14 days to compile the records and to provide the records to the Department. The record here showed by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not produce records for the audit period. On September 8, 2010, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Special Agent Flynn returned to Respondent's premises. Again, he found that Respondent did not have the required seating number and ability to serve 150 customers at one time. Special Agent Flynn offered credible testimony that, during the September 8, 2010, inspection, he found Respondent had only 106 available seats. Further, consistent with his inspection on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed facts showing that Respondent was a late-night bar, as opposed to a restaurant. The evidence showed that on September 8, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed that Respondent did not have any customers, menus, and very little food in its small kitchen. Special Agent Flynn, however, did observe that Respondent continued to have its large dance floor, disc jockey booth, advertised drink specials, and posters advertising late-night parties. Clearly, Respondent was being operated as a bar, rather than a restaurant as required by its license. At the September 8, 2010, inspection, Special Agent Flynn again requested Respondent's business records that he had previously requested for the 60-day time period before August 19, 2010. Ms. Stokes provided a few invoices for purchases of food and non-alcoholic beverages. These invoices were dated after the August 19, 2010, date that Special Agent Flynn had requested and did not cover the requested 60 days prior to the August 19, 2010, request. These records included food and beverage purchases by Respondent from retailers, but did not contain any records concerning the points of sale at the restaurant. Ms. Nadeau, an auditor for the Department, offered credible testimony concerning the Department's request for business records from Respondent for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. On August 27, 2010, Ms. Nadeau set up an audit request for the period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, based on information provided by Special Agent Flynn. The Department provided Ms. Stokes with an audit engagement letter that requested business records. Ms. Nadeau testified that on September 10, 2010, she was contacted by Ms. Stokes. Ms. Stokes informed Ms. Nadeau that Ms. Stokes had become the owner of the restaurant in June 2010 and that she did not have the required records. Ms. Nadeau informed Ms. Stokes to provide all the records requested in the audit engagement letter that Ms. Stokes had and to try to obtain the prior records from the previous managing member of Respondent. On September 22, 2010, Ms. Stokes mailed to the Department records she claimed met the audit period. The records consisted of guest checks for July and August 2010, which only showed food purchases and no alcoholic beverage purchases. Further, Ms. Nadeau found that the records were not reliable, because the records contained numerous personal items not related to the restaurant, such as baby wipes, cotton swabs, and boxer shorts. Consequently, the record clearly and convincingly shows that Respondent failed to provide the required business records for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. Next, based on Respondent's failure to provide any reliable records, the Department was unable to conduct an audit of the business. Records provided by Respondent indicated that the only sales that occurred on the premises were for food. However, the testimony showed that Respondent's business included the sale of alcohol and marketed the sale of alcoholic beverages for late-night parties. Mr. Torres, the senior auditor for the Department, credibly testified that he conducted an independent review of Ms. Nadeau's initial audit findings. Mr. Torres, who has been employed with the Department for 27 years, reviewed the records provided by Respondent. He credibly testified that Respondent's guest checks were very questionable because they showed all food sales, but no alcohol, which was not consistent with Special Agent Flynn's observations. The evidence further showed that Ms. Stokes became the managing member of Respondent in June 2010. Ms. Stokes provided the Department with a change of corporate officers and named herself as registered agent, rather than apply for a new license. This distinction would later become important because, as explained by Ms. Nadeau, in the Department's eyes, there is a continuation of ownership. Under a continuation of ownership, Ms. Stokes was required to have business records for the time period before she became the managing member of Respondent. Ms. Stokes credibly testified that she did not have any records before June 20, 2010; thus, Respondent was unable to provide records for the audit period. Ms. Stokes candidly admitted that her restaurant had been struggling financially, which is why she had worked to catering special events to draw foot traffic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license and finding that Respondent violated: 1. Section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by failing to provide the required service area, seating, and equipment to serve 150 persons full-course meals at tables at one time as required by its license; 2. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, by not providing the requested business records; and 3. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by not providing the requested business records. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find that the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2011.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent failed to maintain separate records of purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141, and if so, what penalty, if any, is appropriate. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect of the date of this Recommended Order).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 69-02639, series 4COP SRX. An SRX license authorizes Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Jon's Bar & Grill, located at 2485 N. Highway 17-92, Lake Monroe, Florida ("the licensed premises"). Persons issued "SRX" licenses must meet certain statutory requirements to ensure that they are operating bona fide restaurants. Among other requirements, Respondent must maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food. Respondent's license application specifically informed Respondent that he must meet the specific requirements of this type of license. On March 17, 1997, Petitioner's Special Agent Richard Hurlburt met with Respondent for the purpose of conducting an SRX inspection to determine Respondent's compliance with SRX license requirements. An SRX inspection includes an audit of the licensee's records to determine the percentage of gross revenue derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Respondent was unable to produce the records he is statutorily required to maintain. Agent Hurlburt issued a notice to produce records relating to the operation of the restaurant. On August 12, 1997, Petitioner issued a notice of administrative complaint against Respondent for failure to maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales for non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20. Respondent has not produced the records he is statutorily required to maintain.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $1,000 civil penalty against Respondent and revoking alcoholic beverage license no. 69-02639, series 4COP SRX, without prejudice to obtain any other type license, but with prejudice to obtain another SRX special license for 5 years from date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon county, Tallahassee, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George Lewis, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon Gustafson, pro se 956 Lake Ashby Road New Smyrna, Florida 32069
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.
Findings Of Fact 10. The Division hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Finding of Fact in foto, as set forth in the Recommended Order.
Conclusions The Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter’Division’), after consideration of the complete record of this case on file with the Division, hereby enters this Final Order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Mary L. Alexander holds beverage license No. 28-0041, Series 2-COP. Under this license she sells beer and wine at Whisper's Cafe, a business which she has owned and operated for approximately two years in Bunnell, Florida. (Testimony of respondent) Respondent employs a cook and a part-time bartender, who also serves as a disc jockey. The cook works primarily in the kitchen. At around 8:30 P.M., the bartender begins operating the juke box and remains in the dance area of the licensed premises, an area separated by a wall from the rest of the premises. Respondent (or a substitute bartender), works primarily in the bar and pool table area, which is located between the dining and dance areas of the premises. (Testimony of respondent) The evidence establishes, without contradiction, that two of respondent's bartenders committed three separate drug violations on the premises during April and May, 1982. Two violations involved bartender Ronney Locke, one involved bartender Fred Austin. I. Two Drug Violations by Bartender Locke On April 30, 1982, Maria Scruggs, a DABT Beverage Officer, entered Whisper's Cafe in an undercover capacity. Approximately twenty customers were on the premises--four or five were standing at the bar. Officer Scruggs ordered a drink at the bar. Several minutes later, Thomas Alexander, respondent's son, approached her and a conversation ensued. She asked him if he had any marijuana she could buy. He replied that he did not, and then referred the question to bartender Ronney Locke. Mr. Locke, offering to check around the bar, approached Clarence Lorick, a customer, who then delivered a small quantity of marijuana to Mr. Alexander for $5.00. Mr. Alexander, seated at the bar, rolled a marijuana (cannabis) cigarette in his lap and gave it to Officer Scruggs, who then left the premises. The cigarette was rolled in an open manner and in plain view of others on the premises. Respondent was not on the premises during this transaction and was unaware of its occurrence. (Testimony of Scruggs, respondent, P-1) On May 7, 1982, Officer Scruggs reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. She began to talk, separately, with respondent and bartender Locke. She asked Mr. Locke if any cocaine or marijuana was available. He replied that he would check with the other customers for a $5.00 bag of marijuana. He approached Ginnie Lee Caskins a customer, Who then approached Officer Scruggs and handed her a manilla envelope containing marijuana (cannabis). Officer Scruggs said nothing and handed her $5.00. This exchange of money and marijuana took place under the bar and out of view of the other customers on the premises. Although respondent was on the premises, she was not close by and did not see the exchange or overhear the conversation. (Testimony of respondent, Scruggs, P-2) II. Drug Violation by Bartender Austin On May 12, 1982, Alphonso Junious, another DABT Beverage Officer, entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He asked bartender Fred Austin, an employee of respondent, if he knew where he could buy some marijuana. Mr. Austin walked to the door and summoned Clarence Lorick, who then entered the premises. After a brief conversation, Mr. Lorick handed a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious, who, in turn, handed him $5.00. This exchange took place in a secretive manner and occurred after respondent had left the premises. She was also unaware of this drug transaction. (Testimony of Junious, respondent, P-3) III. Drug Violation by Respondent DABT also contends that on May 14, 1982, respondent unlawfully aided, counseled, or procured the sale or delivery of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious. Respondent denies it. The evidence, although conflicting, substantiates DABT's contention. On May 14, 1982, Officer Junious reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He purchased a beer from respondent, who was tending bar. While seated at the bar, he overheard respondent tell an unidentified female patron that she (respondent) had been to a musical concert and had to leave to get something to smoke. Officer Junious, construing this to mean marijuana, said to her, "I could use something to smoke too," or words to that effect. Respondent replied, "Boot got some." (Testimony of Junious) Officer Junious knew who "Boot" (Henry Brown) was, having previously purchased marijuana from him in an undercover capacity. Officer Junious then left the premises, found "Boot" outside, and purchased a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) from him for $5.00. (Testimony of Junious) These findings are based on the testimony of Officer Junious. Respondent denies that she said "Boot got some" or that she had any conversation with Officer Junious on May 14, 1982. She also denies that she said she could use something to smoke, and states that she does not smoke either tobacco or marijuana. Taking into account her bias and interest in the outcome of this proceeding, the testimony of Officer Junious is more credible and is accepted as persuasive. IV. Respondent's Supervision of the Premises Respondent, periodically, reminded her employees that no marijuana was allowed on the premises. She took no other action to ensure that drug violations would not occur on the premises. (Testimony of respondent On May 27, 1982, arrest warrants were executed by DABT and the licensed premises was searched. No illicit drugs were found on the premises. (Testimony of Scruggs) There is no evidence that marijuana has ever been smoked in the licensed premises. Neither does the evidence support a finding that respondent knew that marijuana had been, or was being, sold or delivered on the premises. The four separate drug violations committed on the licensed premises, and the manner in which they were committed, however, support a conclusion that these violations of law were fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked by respondent, and they occurred, at least in part, due to respondent's failure to diligently supervise her employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for a period of 90 days. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December,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 10th day of December, 1982.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of its license under the beverage law. Specifically, Respondent purportedly violated the actions set forth in two counts, as follows: Count I--Respondent failed to "provide the required service area, seating and equipment to serve 200 persons full course meals at tables at one time as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes"; and Count II--Respondent failed to "provide at least 4,000 square feet of area dedicated to the operation of the restaurant as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes." Respondent has also raised the issue of whether Petitioner should be estopped from enforcement actions concerning the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, issuing and monitoring licenses to businesses within the state relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR (the "License"). An SR, or Special Restaurant, license is a unique kind of license which was issued by the Division prior to the establishment of quota licenses. Holders of SR licenses are allowed to sell beer, wine and liquor, package sales and sales by the drink on the premises. Quota licenses are issued based on a population ratio, i.e., no more than one license per 7,500 people in a given geographic area may exist. When Respondent obtained its SR license in 1979 (by way of transfer from the original owner of that license), the existing statutes mandated that the License be housed in a building of not less than 4,000 square feet with room in the building to seat at least 200 people at any one time. The statutes also required that food be served at all times the establishment was open. In 1979, when Respondent filed an application seeking to obtain the transfer of the SR license that had been issued in 1957, the application included an Affidavit from Marianne Gunn agreeing to a specific location (2704 Anderson Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida)1 for the business, which was to be known as the Stardust Lounge. The Affidavit affirmed Marianne Gunn's agreement to maintain the premises with the necessary equipment and supplies to seat 200 people at any one time. The Affidavit affirmed that the building housing Stardust Lounge would be at least 4,000 square feet in size. The License was then transferred to Respondent by the Division. Approximately one year after receiving the License and commencing operations, the Stardust Lounge burned down. Some undisclosed portion of the building remained, but no business could be operated on the site. It would have been difficult to rebuild the building under the then-current building codes. Further, the City of Fort Myers expressed its opposition to the existence of an alcoholic beverage establishment at that site. Some time after the fire, Respondent asked the Division to place the License in an inactive status (also known as placing a license in escrow). The request from Respondent asked that the License be placed in escrow for up to eight months. Respondent represented that it was in negotiation with the City of Fort Myers concerning a land swap to settle certain claims Respondent had against the city. Respondent estimated the negotiations would go on for approximately two months. Respondent advised the Division that if negotiations were successful, it would allow the License to be cancelled upon transfer of the premises to the city. If the negotiations were not successful, Respondent estimated it would need at least six months to sell the property at a private sale. It was Respondent's intent that the License be "taken care of" along with the land deal. "That's what that was all about," Fox testified at final hearing. Based upon Respondent's request, the Division apparently placed the License in escrow. There was no documentation presented at final hearing to substantiate this fact. However, the Division sent Respondent a bill each year to renew the License despite there being no physical site for operating a business by the licensee. Respondent dutifully paid the renewal fee each year. Eighteen years after the License was placed in escrow, the State of Florida commenced condemnation proceedings relating to a portion of the premises where the Stardust Lounge had formerly existed.2 During this nearly two-decade hiatus, Respondent continued to renew the License each year upon notice from the Division. Respondent's counsel sent a letter to the Division dated June 27, 2000, which said in pertinent part: We send you this letter at the request of our client, Mrs. Fox. . . . She has a liquor license in escrow with the Department. Due to the condemnation taking, she will not be able to utilize the license at this location and she has agreed that if this license can be moved to another location, it would not be an issue in the condemnation case. The letter did not address the issue of Respondent's prior representation that the License would be cancelled within eight months of its May 21, 1982, letter, some 18 years earlier. The Division responded to Respondent's counsel in a letter dated the very next day which stated in pertinent part: I am responding to the request of you and the licensee wanting to know if the liquor license that is held in the name of Marianne Gunn, DBA Stardust Lounge is movable. In the case of the property being taken by the state, the license may be moved one time and only one time. Providing that we have copies of all paperwork involved with the property condemnation taking. This license is not a moveable license unless in a case like this. The only thing that the licensee needs to understand is that it is changing location only one time. The Division's letter did not mention the escrow status of the License, either. The inartfully worded request and nebulous response added to the confusion concerning the status of the License. There is no evidence indicating whether any information concerning the condemnation was ever provided to the Division. Respondent could not say at final hearing when the condemnation actually occurred, how much land was taken, or how much was paid for the land. The License apparently remained in escrow at that time pending a move to some other location. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that the reason for her negotiations with the City of Fort Myers in 1982 was partly because the city did not want the bar located at the site where it had burned down. She testified that she had received insurance proceeds from the fire and intended to rebuild the lounge, but the city objected. That was the only testimony given as to why the lounge was not rebuilt during the 18 years it remained in escrow. Glen Fox testified that the original site of the Stardust Lounge would not be acceptable for rebuilding the structure after the fire due to certain building code issues. Both Mr. and Mrs. Fox testified that there was insufficient land available to build on site after the property condemnation taking. Fox testified that she owned three lots at the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Cranford Avenue. Those lots were 50-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep (for a presumed total lot size of 150-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep). Fox does not know the size of the lots after the condemnation proceeding. It has long been the policy of the Division, pursuant to its interpretations of the Beverage Law set forth in statute, that SR licenses could not be moved from their original location. In 2005 or 2006, a licensee who was operating a business in American Beach filed a lawsuit against the Division seeking to move his SR license to a different location. As a result of the lawsuit, the Division changed its existing policy to allow for such a change. The new policy was posted on the Division's website for review by SR license holders. There is no evidence that SR license holders were notified about the change in policy by any other means. Respondent does not remember receiving any notice whatsoever regarding the change in policy. Within four to six months, and as a result of further legal research by Division attorneys, the Division once again altered its policy concerning the transfer of SR licenses. The newly-revised policy established the current Division position, i.e., that no SR license could be moved for any reason. Further, the policy states that all licensed premises must be in continuous operation or else the license would be forfeited. Again, the Division posted the new policy on its website and notified all SR license holders by way of letters to their establishments (or, in the case of Respondent, to the last known address). It is unclear from the record whether the letter was ever sent to or received by Respondent, although the Division obviously had Respondent's address because it sent renewal notices there each year. Some time after the change in policy, the Division determined that Respondent's license must be terminated or revoked. At that time, there were no premises associated with the License. The last time the License was in operation was 1979 or 1980, some 28 years prior to the Administrative Action being filed. The official address of the premises on the License during each of the renewal periods since 1980 had been "Escrow." That is, there was no site address associated with the License. There was obviously some address associated with the License, however, since Fox received annual billing statements from the Division. In November 2007, the Division issued an Administrative Action against Respondent concerning the License. The Administrative Action alleged that Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the License, i.e., size of premises and on-going operations. The Division indicated that it would sanction the License, including, but not limited to, revocation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that it is not complying with the requirements for an active license, but maintains that its escrowed license is exempt from those requirements. The License, despite being inactive for 28 years, is still apparently valid at this point in time (based on the Division's acceptance of Respondent's renewal payments each year). The License may have some monetary value, but there was no competent, substantial evidence presented at final hearing as to what the value might actually be. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that she did not know how much the License was worth, only that "nothing is worth as much as it used to be." Fox cannot remember how much she paid for the License when it was transferred to her. She cannot remember how much she asked for the License when she offered it for sale. She cannot remember how much was offered for the License as part of the condemnation sale. Fox does know that she paid an annual fee each year for renewal of the License. She does not know what the fee was each year, but "I paid whatever the state told me was due." (The Division testified that the annual fee was $1,820.00. Presuming 28 years of payments, the total paid to-date would be approximately $50,960.) When suggested to Fox by her counsel that the License was worth $300,000, she agreed with that amount, but could not substantiate why that amount was valid. Fox testified that she would like a "reasonable time" to market the License for sale. She did not express what a reasonable time might be, but has not been able (or willing) to sell the License for over 28 years. Respondent put the License "out for feelers" three or four years ago, but did not include an asking price for the License. About seven months ago, someone told Fox that the License was worth approximately $326,000, but there is no support for that estimate. Patrick Roberts, former law enforcement major with the Division, opined that he would have handled Respondent's case differently had it come across his desk. He opined that the requirement for 4,000 square feet and seating for 200 people should only apply to an existing business, not one in escrow. Roberts agreed that only quota licenses are allowed escrow status by statute. Roberts did not express any opinion as to the requirement that a business be on-going at all times. Roberts agreed that an SR license should not be placed in escrow, but said he'd try to negotiate a settlement, rather than file an Administrative Action. He did concur that an Administrative Action might be necessary if all else failed. Roberts did not opine that an Administrative Action was improper, only that it wasn't his first choice of action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoking Respondent, Fox Marianne Gunn, d/b/a Stardust Lounge's, License No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 11th day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Petitioners are entitled to a transfer of the quota license they attempted to apply for in their initial application. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an alcoholic beverage license for a restaurant based upon their second application. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an alcoholic beverage license based upon their third application in spite of the county's refusal to approve the zoning of the proposed location until a pending declaratory judgment before the circuit court is resolved. Whether the Respondent is estopped to deny any of the applications because of the representations made by a field agent for the agency that to his knowledge, there were no problems at the proposed location.
Findings Of Fact The joint stipulation of facts entered into by the parties on December 21, 1988, are adopted as the findings of fact in this proceeding. A copy of the stipulation is attached and made part of this Recommended Order.
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.
