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
The Issue The issues for disposition are whether Respondent sold alcoholic beverages to an underage person in violation of section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Petitioner’s Administrative Action dated February 20, 1996, and if so, what penalty or discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the holder of alcoholic beverage license no. 69-01472, Series 2APS, for a licensed premises doing business as Superette #3, located at 199 North Country Club Road, Lake Mary, Seminole County, Florida. On February 8, 1996 and at all relevant times, Salim Dhanani was the sole corporate officer and sole shareholder of Superette #3, Inc., the holder of the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. The “City/County Investigative Bureau” (CCIB) is a task force of officers from the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department and surrounding cities assigned to investigate crimes relating to drugs, alcohol and vice, including the sale of alcohol to minors. CCIB acts on complaints and works with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT). Darrell Brewer, born March 18, 1976, was a police explorer who was asked to help the CCIB investigate sales of alcohol to underage persons. On February 8, 1996, he was 19 years old and was working with Officers Johnson and Hartner. On February 8, 1996, in the evening around 8:00 p.m., Brewer and a CCIB agent entered the licensed premises, Superette #3. Brewer wore jeans and a tee-shirt and carried cash and a valid ID, which he was instructed to present if requested. Brewer picked out a 6-pack of Miller Genuine Draft beer and took it to the counter, where he purchased it without being asked for identification or any question regarding his age. Brewer turned over the beer to Officer Johnson, who returned to the store and arrested the clerk who had made the sale, Salim Dhanani. In May 1996, Dhanani went to court and pled no contest to the criminal charge of sale of alcohol to an underage person. He paid a fine. In his eleven years in the United States, this is the only violation by Dhanani. He worked in several places before taking over Superette #3 in November 1993, and he never had problems with DABT. After the Brewer incident, Dhanani hired a private consultant to train his wife and him and their one employee. They learned to “ID” everyone, including regular customers; they posted signs and notices informing customers of their “responsible vendor policy” and their intent to prosecute minors attempting to purchase alcohol. Dhanani admits that he sold beer to Brewer without asking for identification and without questioning his age. Brewer is a large, mature youth who, at the time of hearing, looked to be in his mid-20’s. To Dhanani, at the time of sale, Brewer appeared to be “28 or so”. Under the responsible vendor program any customer who appears to be under the age of 30 must be required to present proper identification. Through Capt. Ewing, DABT presented unrebutted evidence that the premises in Lake Mary has been vacated by the licensee, Superette #3, Inc., and a new license was issued to the landlord of the premises. Cancellation of the Superette #3 license is in abeyance pending this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcohol Beverages and Tobacco enter its final order finding that Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Action, assessing a fine of $1000.00, and suspending the license for 7 days, or until Respondent has found an approved new location. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April 1997 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Winokur, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Steven G. Horneffer, Esquire Suite 109 101 Sunnytown Road Casselberry, Florida 32707 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 Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 Whether or not on or about October 31, 1978, the Respondent, Cesar Augustus Rodriguez, a licensed vendor or distributor, or his authorized agent, did sell alcoholic beverages with an improper license, to-wit: Selling under authority of a license when the license fee required for renewal had not been properly paid, contrary to Section 562.12, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On September 30, 1978, the Respondent, Cesar Augustus Rodriguez, issued or caused to be issued a check in the amount of $1,750.00 made in behalf of the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The purpose of this check was to pay for the annual renewal of Respondent's beverage license, Number 39-994, 4-COP, under which the Respondent was trading as Tom's Place. The requirement for payment of the renewal of the license is established by Section 561.27, Florida Statutes. The check for payment was drawn on the Barnett Bank of Tampa. When presented by the Petitioner for payment, the check was returned on the basis that there were insufficient funds for the check to be honored. The check number in question was check No. 407, drawn on account No. 01704386. (The facts as stated above were arrived at pursuant to a stipulation entered into by the parties and placed on the record during the process of a formal hearing conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.) Representatives of the Petitioner tried on a number of occasions to get the Respondent to pay the required license fee by an instrument that was negotiable. Those representatives were unsuccessful in their attempts, and on October 30, 1978, Captain R. Caplano, District VI Supervisor, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco dispatched officers to retrieve the aforementioned beverage license from the premises known as Tom's Place. The license was brought back to the District headquarters. Around 4:55 p.m. on October 30, 1978, the Respondent came to the District office of the Petitioner with the intention of redeeming the license to Tom's Place and two other licensed premises owned and operated by him, namely, Port Tampa Bar and Rene's Lounge. Rodriguez offered to pay the licensing fee in cash; however, there was insufficient cash to pay the entire fee required and the necessary penalty established under Section 561.27, Florida Statutes. Moreover, the language of of Rule 7A-2.15, Florida Administrative Code, establishes that the Petitioner shall accept only a cashier's check, money order or certified check in payment for the license fee once an insufficient funds check has been tendered for that payment initially. During the course of the meeting between the Respondent and Captain Caplano on the afternoon of October 30, 1978, held in the District office, Mr. Rodriguez indicated his concern that he not be able to operate during the interim period necessary to obtain the proper form of payment for the license fee and penalty. After that discussion, the license to Tom's Place and the other licenses discussed were returned to the Respondent with the understanding that the Respondent was to bring in the proper license fees and penalty payments on the following morning, October 31, 1978; immediately after the banking institutions had opened, to allow the Respondent to obtain the necessary cashier's checks. The Respondent was under the impression that between the hours that his licenses had been returned to him and the time on the morning of October 31, 1978, to make the proper payment, he was at liberty to operate the licensed premises to the extent of selling alcoholic beverages. Captain Caplano, through his testimony in the course of the hearing, established that the act of returning the license on the evening of October 30, 1978, was tantamount to allowing the Respondent to operate, conditioned upon the immediate payment of the license fees on the following morning of October 31, 1978. The licensed premises, Tom's Place, was opened the next morning at 7:05 a.m. It opened after the license had been seized on the prior afternoon of October 30, 1978, at 4:31 p.m. and after advising the employee on duty for the Respondent that no more alcoholic beverages could be sold following the seizure. This arrangement was superseded by the arrangement between the Respondent and Captain Caplano, which was made in the late afternoon of October 30, 1978. Turning back to a consideration of the situation on October 31, 1978, at the time Tom's Place was opened, a different employee was on duty than that person who was there on the afternoon of October 30, 1978. This new employee was one Corine Lewis. At about the time the premises opened, she called the stepson of the Respondent to ascertain whether or not alcoholic beverages could be sold. The response of the stepson, who was acting under the authority of the Respondent, was to the effect that the "boss" was on the way with the license, creating the belief in the mind of Ms. Lewis that she could sell alcoholic beverages. At around 8:30 a.m., the same Ms. Lewis called the Petitioner's office and spoke to Beverage Officer John Allen, the same officer who had removed the license from the premises on the afternoon of October 30, 1978. Officer Allen instructed Ms. Lewis not to sell any alcoholic beverages without the license being available. Following the conversation between Ms. Lewis and Officer Allen, the Respondent came to the District headquarters around 10:00 a.m. on October 31, 1978, with the necessary funds to pay for the renewal of the licenses pertaining to Port Tampa Bar and Rene's Lounge. He did not have the necessary funds to pay for the renewal of the license for Tom's Place. He indicated to officials at the District office of the Petitioner, that it would be necessary for him to obtain a cashier's check from a separate bank for the payment of the license for Tom's Place, meaning by that a separate bank than the one from which the cashier's checks were issued for the purpose of paying the licenses for Port Tampa Bar and Rene's Lounge. Rodriguez indicated that he would leave the license for Tom's Place until he could obtain the money for the license fee. He did in fact leave that license with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and the fee was paid sometime in the early afternoon of October 31, 1978. At around the time the conversation was occurring between the Respondent and Captain Caplano, the representative of the Petitioner, Officer Allen had returned to Tom's Place. When he entered the licensed premises, he discovered a number of patrons in the premises and opened beer bottles in evidence. Officer Allen inquired of Ms. Lewis about the license and Ms. Lewis informed him that she did not have the license. Officer Allen then left the licensed premises and called Captain Caplano to ascertain the whereabouts of the license. He also advised Captain Caplano that alcoholic beverages had been sold in the licensed premises on the morning of October 31, 1978. Captain Caplano indicated that he had the license and that the license fee had not been paid and that Officer Allen should write a citation for selling alcohol without a license if in fact that had occurred at a time when the premises was not operating under an authorized beverage license. Officer Allen followed those instructions, and cited the licensee for a violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes, which pertains to selling alcoholic beverages with an improper license. While Officer Allen was still at the licensed premises the morning of October 31, 1978, the stepson of the Respondent arrived at that location to close the bar, and did close it. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was of the persuasion that he could operate the bar until such time as the license fee had been properly paid after the bank had been opened on the morning of October 31, 1978. He did not feel that he had the opportunity to visit two banks to get the necessary cashier's checks, prior to reporting to the District office of the Petitioner to pay the license fees and penalties. Captain Caplano was of the belief that the licensee could operate on the evening of October 30, 1978, but did not envision the right of the licensee to operate on the morning of October 31, 1978, if the licensee did not immediately tender payment for the license fees on the morning of October 31, 1978. In the mind of Captain Caplano, the idea of selling any form of alcoholic beverages on the morning of October 31, 1978, without first paying the license fee for Tom's Place constituted the sale of alcoholic beverages under an improper license. It is unclear exactly when the alcoholic beverage was sold on the morning of October 31, 1978, in Tom's Place. Ms. Lewis' testimony is to the effect that one beer was sold sometime between 7:05 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., with 8:30 a.m. being the time at which Officer Allen advised Ms. Lewis that no alcoholic beverages should be sold on that morning without the license being on the premises and this testimony is unrefuted by the Petitioner. In view of the totality of the facts, it has not been demonstrated by the Petitioner that the Respondent was acting in derivation of the inherent authority to sell alcoholic beverages extended to him when the licenses were returned to him on the afternoon of October 30, 1978, through the person of Captain Caplano. Therefore, there has been no showing of a violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that the case before the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Number 33276- A, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Cesar Augustus Rodriguez t/a Tom's Place 2605 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609
The Issue This matter arises out of the denial or rejection of a filing by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien against a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. Mr. Charles L. Hoffman, attorney for Liberty Bank of Cantonment, testified on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner offered two exhibits into evidence and both were accepted without objection. The Respondent presented no evidence on its behalf. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Law in support of its legal argument as to why it should be granted a lien against Beverage License No. 27- 426. To the extent that the legal conclusions presented in that memorandum of law and the facts stated are not adopted in this order, they are considered to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the facts or the law.
Findings Of Fact On July 10, 1981, The Rafters, Inc. executed a security agreement in favor of the Liberty Bank of Cantonment. That security agreement is a part of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and included a security interest in State Liquor License No. 27-426 issued in the name of The Rafters, Inc. On July 24, 1981, the necessary U.C.C. documents were filed in order to permit the Liberty Bank of Cantonment to file the proper documents with the Secretary of State. No documents were filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On September 20, 1982, the Petitioner first filed the necessary documentation with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco rejected the filing on the grounds that it was filed beyond the 90-day period provided in Section 561.65(4), Florida Statutes. On October 19, 1982, The Rafters, Inc. filed its answer to an amended complaint in foreclosure which had been filed by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment against the property set forth in the aforementioned security agreement. In its answer, The Rafters, Inc. admitted all allegations of the amended complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order rejecting the application for a lien filed by the Petitioner to perfect a security interest in Beverage License No. 27-426. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles L. Hoffman, Jr., Esquire Seventh Floor, Seville Tower 226 South Palafox Street Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire William A. Hatch, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Dept. of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Gary Rutledge, Secretary Division of Alcoholic Beverages Dept. of Business Regulation and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue 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 This case concerns the application of William E. Morey, who does business as Morey's Restaurant, to acquire a new series 2-COP beverage license from the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, in which the Respondent has denied the license application on the grounds that the granting of such a license would be contrary to provisions of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, and Rule 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code. These provisions of the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code deal with the prohibition of a financial interest directly or indirectly between distributors of alcoholic beverages and vendors of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Willian E. Morey, applied to the State of Florida, Departent of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, for the issuance of series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license. By letter dated, January 23, 1979, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denied the application based upon the belief that such issuance wood violate the provisions of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, and Rule 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code. The pertinent provision of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, states: 561.42 Tied house evil; financial aid and assistance to vendor by manufacturer or distributor prohibited; procedure for en- forcement; exception.-- (1) No licensed manufacturer or distributor of any of the beverages herein referred to shall have any financial interest, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or business of any vendor licensed under the Beverage Law, nor shall such licensed manu- facturer or distributor assist any vendor by any gifts or loans of money or property of any description or by the giving of rebates of any kind whatsoever. * * * In keeping with the general principle announced in Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has enacted Rule 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code, which states: 7A-4.18 Rental between vendor and distri- butor prohibited. It shall be considered a violation of Section 561.42, Florida Sta- tutes, for any distributor to rent any property to a licensed vendor or from a licensed vendor if said property is used, in whole or part as part of the licensed premises of said vendor or if said property is used in any manner in connection with said vendor's place of business. The facts in this case reveal that William E. Morey leases the premises, for which he has applied for a license, from Anthony Distributors, Inc., of 1710 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Anthony Distributors, Inc., is the holder of a J-DBW license to distribute alcoholic beverages in the State of Florida. This license is held with the permission of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Consequently, the issuance of a series 2-COP license to William E. Morey at a time when he is leasing the licensed premises from a distributor of alcoholic beverages, namely, Anthony Distributors, Inc., would be in violation of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, and Role 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, William E. Morey's application for a series 2-COP beverage license be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Willian E. Morey d/b/a Morey's Restaurant 4101 North 66th Street St. Petersburg, Florida 33709 Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based upon Petitioner's failure to appear, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A default be entered against Petitioner and a final order be issued denying Petitioner's application for a beverage license. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Melvin Stewart c/o Mel's Beer & Wine Lounge 301 N.E. 62nd Street Miami, Florida Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue 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 the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated March 9, 1988, filed by Ocie C. Allen, Jr., should be approved by the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Ocie C. Allen, Jr., d/b/a OCA, filed an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated March 9, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Division. In the Application, Mr. Allen indicated under "Type of Application" that the Application type was "Other - ownership change because of contract and change of location." Mr. Allen listed himself as the "Applicant" and signed the Application as the "Applicant." The "Current License Number" listed in the Application to be transferred to Mr. Allen is 62-03498, current series 4 COP. The holder of this license was Terri Howell. At the end of the Application there is an "Affidavit of Seller(s)" to be executed by the licensee from whom the license is to be transferred. This affidavit has not been completed in the Application. The purchase price for the business was listed as $86,250.00. By letter dated March 16, 1988, the Division returned the Application to Mr. Allen and informed him that it was being returned for the following reasons: (1.) Need copy of loan in the amount of $86,250.00. (2.) If there are other agreements concerning this change, we will need copies. (Closing Statements) (3.) Need Affidavit of Seller signed by Ms. Howell making sure signature has been notarized on both applications. (4.) If no business name, please use applicants [sic] name also in that blank. Mr. Allen returned the Application to the Division with a letter dated March 21, 1988, and indicated, in part, the following: The Loan of $86,250.00 is 75% of the appraised value for which a 4 COP license was sold in Pinellas County prior to Ms. Howell winning the drawing. This amount is reduced by the amounts she has received from the operation of Spanky's. Thereby the actual amount owed by me to Ms. Howell is $86,250.00 LESS the amount she has received during the operation of Spanky's, approximately, $60,000.00. The Application was not modified by Mr. Allen. In a letter dated March 24, 1988, the Director of the Division requested the following additional information from Mr. Allen: (1.) Need Affidavit of Seller signed by Ms. Howell making sure signature has been notarized on both applications. (2.) Complete (No.5) Type of License Desired: (Series ). By letter dated March 28, 1988, Mr. Allen responded as follows to the Division's request for information: Enclosed is the application for transfer. Ms. Howell signature [sic] on the Independent [sic] Contractor Agreement is the only signature of hers that will be furnished to you. By letter dated April 4, 1988, the Division informed Mr. Allen that Terri Howell, the licensee, needed to sign the Affidavit of Seller. The Division notified Mr. Allen that it intended to deny the Application in a letter dated May 31, 1988. Mr. Allen was provided a Notice of Disapproval of the Application in a letter dated June 29, 1988. The following reasons were given for denial of the Application: Application to transfer the license does not bear the signature of the current licensee and, therefore does not evidence a bonafide [sic] sale of the business pursuant to [Section] 561.32, Florida Statutes. Application incomplete as applicant has failed to provide complete verification of his financial investment. Also, applicant has failed to provide records establishing the annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three years immediately preceding the date of the request for transfer. The Division is, therefore, unable to fully investigate the application pursuant to Florida law. By letter dated July 19, 1988, Mr. Allen requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the Division's denial of the Application. Mr. Allen sent a letter to the Division dated October 27, 1988, with an Affidavit requesting permission to pay a transfer fee of $5,000.00 "in lieu of the 4-mill assessment."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing the case with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Ocie C. Allen, Jr. Post Office Box 10616 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lt. B. A. Watts, Supervisor Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 345 S. Magnolia Drive, Suite C-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry Hooper Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927
