Findings Of Fact For purposes of the Motions to Dismiss filed by Agrico and the Department, the following findings of fact are based upon the pleadings in this case, matters to which the parties have stipulated, and DOAH Case Number 86-3618, as well as final agency action resulting therefrom: On or about August 26, 1986, Petitioners filed with the Department a petition for formal administrative proceeding which challenged the dredge and fill permit that the Department intended to issue to Agrico. The Department transmitted this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing, and it was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer as DOAH Case Number 86- 3618. Petitioners relied upon Sections 120.57(1) and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, to "initiate" DOAH Case Number 86-3618 as is clearly set forth in paragraph 20 of their Petition filed in that case. In their Motion for Fees and Costs at paragraph 3, Petitioners further allege, and thereby concede, that they "initiated the above styled proceeding (DOAH Case Number 86-3618)." A final hearing was scheduled to begin on April 28, 1987 in DOAH Case Number 86-3618. However by letter to the Department dated March 2, 1987, Agrico voluntarily withdrew its application for a dredge and fill permit which was the subject of that case. Thereafter, a telephone conference call was held on March 17, 1987, following which an Order Closing File was filed in DOAH Case Number 86-3618 on that same date, and jurisdiction was relinquished to the Department. The Final Order in Case Number 86-3618 was entered by the Department on May 18, 1987 which states: Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that the withdrawal of permit application number 53-1093999 is GRANTED with prejudice to further Department consideration of the application, but without prejudice to the future submission of another dredge and fill application covering the same tract of land covered by application number 53-1093999. The withdrawal of permit application number 53-1093999 divests the Department of jurisdiction to proceed with consideration of (Booker Creek and Manasota's) petition. Humana of Florida, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 500 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, the above-captioned case (DOAH Case Number 86-3618) is DISMISSED as moot. On July 16, 1987, Petitioners timely filed their Motion for Fees and Costs which was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer and given DOAH Case Number 87-3007F. Petitioners are each incorporated as not-for-profit corporations within the State of Florida, with principal off ices in Florida, and each having less than twenty-five full time employees, as well as a net worth of not more than two million dollars.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker salesman in the State of Florida at all times material hereto having been issued license number 0158288 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On June 10, 1985 a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118 concerning Respondent, which recommended that "a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of two (2) years and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000)." On July 16, 1985 the Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order imposing the penalty against Respondent which had been recommended by the undersigned Hearing Officer in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85-0118. The Final Order provided further that, "This Order shall be effective thirty (30) days from the date of filing, with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation." The Final Order was filed with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation on July 24, 1985. To date, Respondent has not paid the $1,000 fine imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 85- 0118. Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to pay the $1,000 fine within thirty (30) days of entry of the Final Order, referenced above. Rule 21V-10.31, Florida Administrative Code, imposes a thirty-day time limit for the payment of fines imposed by the Florida Real Estate Commission from the date of imposition by order of the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's license-number 0158288. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 24th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0989 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Roy Ahringer 232 Harmony Avenue Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Background Respondents, John F. and Chere Kuller, were minority partners in a limited partnership which developed and constructed a seventeen unit condominium project known as Bahia East Condominium (project).2 Thee precise location of the project was not disclosed, but it is in the Fort Walton Beach area. Respondents, as developers, are subject to the regulatory requirements of petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (Division). The project was completed in 1979, and its declaration was filed on September 28, 1979. Units immediately went on sale. Financing for these units we" arranged with a Pensacola lending institution, and based upon that institution's commitment, contracts for the sale of all seventeen units were executed by prospective buyers. When the institution experienced financial problems and could not honor its commitment, none of the buyers purchased units. Because of this, the first sale did not occur until October 4, 1980. A developer is required to adhere to a number of Division requirements, including the payment of monthly assess meets on developer-owned units, funding a repair reserve, and furnishing annual financial statements to all unit owners. This proceeding stems from a complaint filed by certain unit owners after the developers relinquished control of the project to the homeowners' association on May 11, 1984. Prior to that time, respondents controlled the board of directors of said association, and were responsible for the keeping of its books and records. Count I - Monthly Assessments As a general rule, a developer is not liable for the payment of monthly assessments on all unsold units until the first calendar date of the fourth month following the sale of the first unit. This ninety day grace period is commonly referred to as the election period. However, the developer may be excused from future payments if the developer guarantees to each purchaser that the monthly assessment will not increase, for a certain period of time, and obligates himself during this period of time to pay all common expenses incurred above the amount of assessments received from unit owners. In the case at bar, there was no written or oral guarantee by respondents to freeze the monthly assessments. This was confirmed through testimony of a unit owner, and evidenced by a monthly assessment increase that took effect in March, 1984, or prior to the turnover date. Between October, 1980 and March, 1984, the cost of the monthly assessment varied with the size of the unit, and ranged from $27.50 for the smallest unit, to $55.00 for a two bedroom, one bath unit, to $82.50 for the largest unit. Since no guarantee was made, respondents were obligated to begin paying assessments on their unsold units in February, 1981. However, they failed to do so. Instead, they calculated their other expenses in maintaining the project, and credited the amount of monthly assessments owed against these other expenses. Since other expenses always exceeded the amount of assessments owed, no funds were ever specifically earmarked into the monthly assessment account. Had such assessments been paid from February, 1981 through May 11, 1984, which is the turnover date, respondents' obligation would have been $15,948.64. This amount was derived from records given by respondents to the association at turnover and was not credibly contradicted. Count II - Reserves The complaint charges that respondents "failed to submit reserves annually nor fund reserves as required." According to Division requirements, a developer is required to establish and fund a reserve to cover future repairs from the date of declaration until the end of the election period. These funds are then turned over to the association. Beginning after the election period, a developer is required to establish and fund a reserve account in an amount prescribed by the project's declaration. In this case, the project's recorded declaration provided that the reserve had to equal 10% of the total annual monthly assessments paid by unit owners. Therefore, respondents were required to establish a reserve no later than February, 1981, and to fund it by setting aside 10% of the total monthly assessments. Such an account was timely established by respon- dents at a Pensacola bank in January, 1981 in the amount of $480. This amount was spent within three or four months on repairs to an air-conditioner generator and the purchase of reserved parking signs. No additional funds were placed in the reserve account after January, 1981. Each year a projected annual budget was prepared by the developers which included an amount for the reserve, but no funds were ever actually set aside for that purpose. Although this requirement can be waived by vote of the association, respondents conceded that the funding requirement was never waived. Respondents justified their course of action on the theory the association account into which the assessments were placed was running a deficit, and the developers had already guaranteed to cover all expenses. However, this procedure is not sanctioned by statute or rule. According to uncontradicted testimony, had appropriate reserves been funded as required, respondents would have funded $4,770.56 from February, 1981 until the turnover. Count III - Annual Financial Statements The final count involves an allegation that respondents "failed to furnish unit owners with an annual financial statement for the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983." According to Division requirements, all non-developer unit owners must be furnished a copy of the project's "annual financial statement" each year. This document must be prepared and distributed by mail or personal delivery. Respondents claimed that this was done. However, petitioner presented the testimony of two unit owners for the purpose of showing that such statements were not distributed as required. One unit owner, William C. Naftel, received the 1982 statement, but could not recall one way or the other whether he received statements in the years 1981, 1983 and 1984. A second unit owner, Max C. Bolton, Jr., testified he "may have" received such a statement in 1982, but did not receive one for the years 1980, 1981 and 1983. Mitigation This project was respondents' first and only development venture in Florida. Respondents' lack of compliance with Division requirements did not appear to the undersigned to be intentional. Rather, it stemmed from a combination of poor outside advice and a failure on their part to make diligent inquiry as to what precise obligations the statutes and Division rules imposed upon them from an accounting and legal standpoint. At hearing, respondents claimed they have lost a considerable amount of money on the project, which amount far outweighs any claims advanced by the agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty of violating Subsections 718.115(2), 718.112(2)(k); and 718.111(13), Florida Statutes (1985), and that a $2,500 civil penalty be imposed; to be paid within thirty days from date of final order. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1986.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent condominium association properly assessed unit owners for common expenses based on their respective proportionate shares of such expenses as set forth in the declaration of condominium.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Eden Isles Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association") is the entity responsible for operating the common elements of the Eden Isles Condominium ("Condominium"). As such, the Association is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes ("Division"). The Condominium was created——and continues to be governed by——a Declaration of Condominium ("Declaration"), which has been amended at least once during the Condominium's existence. The Condominium comprises seven identical buildings. Each four-story building contains 52 units. Each unit is laid out according to one of three different floor plans. The Declaration prescribes each unit's proportionate share (expressed as a percentage, e.g. 2.16%, 2.08%, 1.64%, etc.) of the common expenses. These percentages are used to calculate the amounts assessed against each respective unit to collect the funds needed to pay common expenses. For reasons not revealed at hearing, the Declaration——at least in its original form——established a separate and unique schedule of percentages for each building in the Condominium, with the result that similarly situated owners (i.e. those whose units had the same floor plan and comparable locations) did not necessarily pay the same proportionate share of the common expenses. Not surprisingly, owners who were compelled to contribute more toward the common expenses than their similarly situated neighbors were wont to complain about the seeming unfairness of this. Some time in 2004 the Association's governing Board of Directors ("Board") was made aware of an amendment to the Declaration, which, among other things, had revised the appendix that specified each unit's proportionate share of the common expenses. Due to an absence of evidence, the undersigned cannot determine when this amendment took effect, yet neither its existence (a copy is in evidence) nor its authenticity is in doubt. There is, further, no evidence explaining why the Board had not previously been familiar with the amendment, but——for whatever reason(s)——it was not. After deliberating over the meaning and import of the amendment, the Board voted, during an open meeting, to construe the amendment as providing for the assessment of common expenses against all units in the Condominium according to the percentages assigned to the units located in "Building G," which was the last of the buildings in the Condominium to be completed. In other words, the Board interpreted the amendment as requiring that all similarly situated unit owners be assessed the same amount for common expenses, using only the most recent proportionate shares. Consequently, starting in 2005, the Association assessed unit owners for common expenses pursuant to the Board's interpretation of the amendment. While this course of action evidently pleased most residents, someone complained to the Division about the change. The Division investigated. Based on its own understanding of the amendment, which differs from the Board's, the Division determined that the Association was not properly assessing the unit owners; accordingly, it demanded that the Association remedy the situation. Under pressure from the Division, which was threatening to impose penalties against the Association for noncompliance with the Division's directives, and for some other reasons not relevant here, the Board eventually decided to "revert back" to the original proportionate shares, beginning in 2006. The Board continues to believe, however, that its interpretation of the amendment (as requiring similarly situated owners to be assessed at the same percentage) is correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order rescinding the Notice to Show Cause and exonerating the Association of the charge of failing to assess for common expenses in the appropriate percentages as set forth in the Declaration, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 11th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issue to be resolved concerns whether the Petitioner was the victim of a discriminatory housing practice, by allegedly being denied the opportunity to rent an apartment from the Respondents, and by being falsely informed of its non- availability, based upon her race.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an African-American female. In early January 2007, she learned of an apartment for rent, owned or managed by the Respondents. She called to inquire about the apartment and was told by the Respondent, Ms. Lindsay, that the rent would be $625.00 per month, with a one-month rent amount and security deposit due in advance. She was told that the Lessee of a neighboring apartment, Clint Cook, would have a key and would show her the apartment. She went to view the apartment, and decided that she wished to rent it. She then telephoned Ms. Lindsay, and Ms. Lindsey faxed an application to her to complete. In the conversation, she told Ms. Lindsay she would not have the required deposit money until Friday. This was on a Monday or Tuesday. Ms. Lindsay then told her securing the apartment was on a “first come-first-served” basis. The Petitioner never completed the application and never tendered the security deposit. Shortly after that telephone conversation, Ms. Lindsay was contacted by Stacey Edwards, while the apartment was still available for rent, concerning rental. Ms. Edwards, on behalf of herself and her boyfriend/husband, submitted an application to rent the apartment, together with the appropriate required deposit and rental amount on January 15, 2007. Ms. Lindsay leased the apartment to the couple. They had a planned move-in date of February 1, 2007. They are a mixed-race couple, and Ms. Lindsay was aware of that fact when renting to them. Sometime after January 15, 2007, the Petitioner called Ms. Lindsay a second time, and was told that the apartment had been rented (to the Edwards couple) and was no longer available. Testimony to this effect is corroborated by the Edwards rental application and deposit receipt, which are in evidence. The Edwards rental was documented on January 15, 2007. Later that month, the Petitioner noticed the “for rent" sign displayed, or displayed again, and she and/or her witness, Lynn Kliesch, called about the apartment’s availability. Ms. Lindsay again stated that it was rented. Indeed, it was, to the Edwards. The rental sign had been left up because the Edwards couple were not scheduled to move in until February 1, 2007. This communication between the parties occurred before Ms. Edwards informed Ms. Lindsay that they would not be moving in. Shortly before February 1,2007. Ms Edwards and her husband/boyfriend learned that his employment had ended (or he was transferred to another job location). They therefore informed Ms. Lindsay that they had to re-locate to South Florida and could not take the apartment. She charged them for the two weeks of rental, and refunded their deposit. She then placed the apartment back on the rental market. On January 31, 2007, Ms. Mari Ferguson inquired of Ms. Lindsay about the apartment’s availability. This was after Ms. Edwards had informed Ms. Lindsay that she would not be renting the apartment. Ms. Lindsay told Ms. Ferguson that the property was available and she rented it to Ms. Ferguson that same day. Ms. Ferguson and her boyfriend, who occupied the apartment with her, were also a mixed-race couple, with children. In fact, the boyfriend is the nephew of the Petitioner herein. Ms. Ferguson and family moved into the apartment. Some months later a hostile situation arose between the Respondents and Ms. Ferguson. Ms. Lindsay apparently received reports that “drug dealing” was occurring in the apartment. Ms. Ferguson and/or the other occupants were responsible for some damage, and Ms. Ferguson became several months behind on rental payments. The Respondents therefore, through legal process, had her evicted. The Respondent, Ms. Lindsay, through her firm, Elite Properties of Northwest Florida, Inc., manages some 37 rental properties in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. She is the president and broker for the firm and has no employees or agents. Among the rental property owners she and her firm represent is her Co-Respondent, Michael Houser. Both Ms. Lindsay and Elite Properties, as well as Mr. Houser, have a significant number of minority tenants, both Hispanic and African-American. A substantial number of those, both historically, and at the time of the hearing are single, African-American females, as heads of households. There is no evidence, aside from the Petitioner’s unsubstantiated opinion, that either the Respondent has ever refused to rent to the Petitioner or anyone else, based upon race, nor that they have falsely denied availability of a dwelling for rent or sale for that reason. There is no evidence that they have refused or attempted to avoid holding out a property for rent or sale for reasons based on racial animus.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, determining that the Respondents did not commit a discriminatory housing practice based upon the Petitioner's race and that the Petition be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 16th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Sylvia Mims 3382 Greenbriar Circle, Apt. B Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Beverly Lindsay 5252 Springdale Drive Milton, Florida 32570 Michael Houser 3533 Edinburgh Drive Pace, Florida 32571 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In November and December, 1974 John T. Halkowich was a registered real estate salesman with the brokerage office of Ayers F. Egan. Exhibit 2, Return Receipt for Registered Mail, was admitted into evidence to show that Halkowich acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Hearing. When Halkowich applied for registration as a real estate salesman, Egan was one of his sponsors. Upon his successful completion of the requirements for registration Egan agreed to hold Halkowich's license for him in Egan's office, but because business was slow he could not allow Halkowich any floor days. He agreed to allow him to sit on houses that neither Egan nor Egan's associate wanted to hold open. During the period of 1974, when little real estate was selling on the Florida Keys, the housing development project owned by Vogler and Snowman was running on hard tines and the developers were anxious to "get out from under" the property. John Vogler, Jr., the father of the Vogler partner in the project, went to Egan to seek help with the sales. Since Egan had no work for Halkowich he suggested that perhaps the developers could make a deal with Halkowich. The developers needed someone on the property at all times to act as watchman, show prospective buyers around, keep the grass trimmed, and supervise the completion of the project. Halkowich was provided an apartent on the site to live in, complete with utilities, in consideration for performing those services. For each unit of the project that was sold the developers agreed to pay Halkowich $2,000. One of the purchasers who appeared at the hearing had stopped by the development, was shown around by Halkowich, and thereafter made an offer directly to the developers to purchase a unit. A contract was subsequently executed between the developers and the buyer and referred to the developers' attorney who performed the closing. After the closing Halkowich was paid $2,000. When Egan learned that sales had been made and that Halkowich had received compensation from the developers he demanded his commission from Halkowich. When the latter advised Egan he couldn't pay him Egan told him he was in violation of the real estate license law and that he, Egan, would report him to the Florida Real Estate Commission if he didn't pay. Thereafter Egan piously reported Halkowich's transgressions to the Commission and this Administrative Complaint ultimately followed.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' rental property was licensed under Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners, Robert Meller, Jr., and Kristine M. Meller, were owners of a rental property (a house located at 4516 Bowan Bayou) in Sanibel, Florida. In addition, they owned a condominium in the same area. Respondent Cross held a valid real estate license at all times material to matters at issue. Respondent Cross had a business relationship with Petitioners, which antedated the purchase of the Bowen Bayou house as a result of being the leasing agent for a condominium association with which Petitioners were associated. Respondent DBPR is the State of Florida agency which represents the FREC in matters such as this matter. In January 2000, Petitioners purchased the house in Sanibel located at 4516 Bowan Bayou. On or about January 20, 2000, Respondent Cross mailed a Rental Property Management Agreement to Petitioners for the property located at 4516 Bowan Bayou, Sanibel, Florida. The parties to this contract were Petitioners and Properties in Paradise, Inc. Petitioner, Robert Meller, Jr., signed the contract and returned the contract to Respondent Cross. Petitioners maintain that the Rental Property Management Agreement was not signed by Petitioner, Robert Meller, Jr., and that his name is forged. He maintains that he entered into an oral agreement with Respondent Cross, individually, to manage the property. From the purchase of the house in January 2000 through April 2001, Petitioners received correspondence, including a monthly "owner statement" reflecting short-term rental income, commissions, and debits for maintenance, from Properties in Paradise, Inc., regarding all aspects of the business relationship contemplated by the Rental Property Management Agreement. By letter dated January 20, 2000, Petitioner, Robert Meller, Jr., authorized "Revonda Cross of Properties in Paradise as my agent in establishing telephone and electrical service and so forth for my property on Sanibel Island at 4516 Bowen's [sic] Bayou Road." Thereafter, Petitioners received correspondence from Respondent Cross relative to the subject property wherein she is identified as "Operations Manager, Properties in Paradise, Inc." During the relevant time period, Petitioners' property was rented at least 22 times; once for 17 days, four times for 14 days, once for nine days, thirteen times for seven days, and once for five days. The frequency and term of these rentals qualify for the statutory definition of a "resort dwelling" and transient rental dwelling. Properties in Paradise, Inc., listed the property located at 4516 Bowan Bayou in the list of properties it provided the Division of Hotels and Restaurants as licensed in accordance with Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2005). In April 2001, Properties in Paradise, Inc., through an attorney, notified clients that it had effectively ceased doing business. At that time, Petitioners were owed $11,588.06, which went unpaid. Petitioners made a claim in July 2001, against Respondent Cross to recover their loss from the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund. In October 2003, Petitioners' claim was denied by the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order denying Petitioners' claim for recovery from the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 21st day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Solla, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Robert L. Meller, Jr., Esquire Best & Flanagan, LLP 225 South 6th Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4690 Revonda Stewart Cross 1102 South East 39th Terrace, No. 104 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Nancy B. Hogan, Chairman Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observations of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its one-count Administrative Complaint filed herein on April 3, 1980, the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, alleged that the Respondent, William O'Brien, violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), due to his failure to deliver a security deposit to a property owner and that Respondent thereafter tendered a protion of the deposit in the form of a check which, when presented for payment, was not honored due to insufficient funds. During times material, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner and is the holder of Florida Real Estate License No. 168869. Gary ;Heide is the owner of the duplex apartment situated at 2407 Northeast 33rd avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The pertinent facts surrounding the allegations herein are, for the most part, simple and undisputed. The subject premises had been leased by owner Heide to Maurice L. LaReau. LaReau had leased the premises for approximately eleven (11) months when he found a residence that he intended to purchase and was therefore desirous of subletting the subject property with the owner's permission in an acceptable manner such that he would not incur any losses due to his vacating the premises prior to the expiration of the lease term. He, therefore, approached owner Heide and advised him of his intentions. According to LaReau, Heide gave him "carte blanche" authority to find a tenant to sublease the apartment but that he would appreciate it if he would "screen" the sub-lessee. Heide suggested that LaReau place an ad in the newspaper to secure a tenant and he also made known to LaReau his overall objective of not sustaining any loss of rents due to a vacancy in the apartment. During that conversation Heide also advised LaReau that he would be leaving for a vacation in Germany shortly. When LaReau leased the subject premises from Heide he entered a twelve (12) month lease and paid a $900.00 fee which included the first and last month's rent plus a security deposit. During times material, Respondent was the registered corporate broker for Exclusively Rentals and Management Company (Exclusively). Through the efforts of Respondent and Exclusively, Gregory A. Costa, III, was secured as a tenant to sublet the subject property from Maurice LaReau on or about October 8, 1977. Respondent had been approached by owner Heide to manage the subject property while Respondent was visiting an apartment complex adjacent to the Heide property on which Exclusively had the managing contract. According to the agreed terms for the subletting of the Heide property from LaReau to Costa, Costa agreed upon an occupancy date of October 15, 1977, for a total rental of $150.00 plus payment for the twelfth month rent for a fee of $300.00; a security deposit of $300.00 and a $150.00 commission to Exclusively for a total of $900.00. This amount was paid to tenant Maurice LaRaeau. Exclusively retained the agreed upon commission which represented on- half the monthly rental, or a fee of $150.00 See Respondent's Exhibit 1. Additionally, Messer. LaReau signed an agreement representing that the subletting was done with owner Heide's knowledge and was in accordance with his instructions. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Upon returning from Germany, owner Heide became upset that LaReau had sublet the premises to Costa and contended that the subletting was only to have been done through the aid and assistance of another rental management firm know as Home Finders Real Estate Brokers. Heide contended that Audrey Lester was the only agent connected with that firm who had the authority to accept tenants or sub-lessees in his absence. Heide, therefore, contended that he was entitled to recoup from Respondent, through its corporate entity, Exclusively Rentals and Management Company, the entire $900.00 in addition to a continued retention of the $900.00 deposit which had been paid by the tenant, LaReau. Although Heide contended that he never used Exclusively to rent or otherwise secure tenants for any of his apartments, he acknowledged that he signed a new lease and accepted Costa as a tenant for the subject property. Heide's other complaint with Respondent is that a check dated November 10, 1977, in the amount of $150.00 and signed by Michael J. Cochran was not honored when presented for payment due to insufficient funds. An examination of that check does not reveal that it was returned by the bank upon which it was drawn or that it was even presented for payment as testified to by Messer. Heide (see Petitioner's Exhibit D). Respondent was approached by owner Heide to act as an agent to secure tenants for his property as vacancies occurred while Respondent was visiting an adjoining rental property through which Respondent's agency represented, the Ocean Gardens Apartment building. Heide also visited Respondent's office building prior to the subject incident (TR. 37 of the June 3, 1981, hearing). Respondent did not sustain any loss of rents due to the subletting of the subject property from LaReau to Costa through the efforts of Respondent and/or Exclusively Rentals and Management. Respondent credibly testified that there were ample monies in the account of Exclusively to pay the $150.00 check drawn by that firm to owner Heide in November of 1977, had it, in fact, been presented for payment. Respondent severed his relations with Exclusively and advised all of the associates of that severance during December of 1977. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: 1. That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of July, 1981. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1981.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Royal Arms Villas Condominium, Inc., discriminated against Petitioners, Eric and Nora Gross, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are a married couple, living in a rental home at 209 Yorkshire Court, Naples, Florida (rental unit). Petitioners have two children and two grandchildren; however, none of these relatives live in Petitioners’ rental unit. Mr. Gross was diagnosed with stage four hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2002. Mr. Gross has been in remission since 2003. Mr. Gross was declared disabled by the Social Security Administration in 2003. Petitioners have lived in this rental unit since August 2006. A Florida residential lease agreement with the property owners, Joan and Charles Forton, was entered on August 8, 2006.3/ This lease was for a 12-month period, from September 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007. At the end of this period, the lease became a month-to-month lease and continued for years without anyone commenting on it. In 2012, Respondent inquired about a dog that was seen with Petitioners. After providing supporting documentation to Respondent, Petitioners were allowed to keep Mr. Gross’ service dog, Evie. Respondent is a Florida not-for-profit corporation. There are 62 units, and the owner of each unit owns a 1/62 individual share in the common elements. Since its inception, Respondent has, through its members (property owners), approved its articles of incorporation, bylaws, and related condominium powers, and amended its declaration of condominium in accordance with Florida law. Ms. Orrino is currently vice-president of Respondent’s Board of Directors (Board). Ms. Orrino has been on the Board since 2009 and has served in every executive position, including Board president. Ms. Orrino owns two condominiums within Respondent’s domain, but does not reside in either. In 2012 or 2013, Respondent experienced a severe financial crisis, and a new property management company was engaged. This company brought to the attention of Respondent’s Board that it had not been approving leases as required by its Declaration of Condominium.4/ As a result of this information, the Board became more pro-active in its responsibilities, and required all renters to submit a lease each year for the Board’s approval. Petitioners felt they were being singled out by Respondent to provide a new lease. The timing of Respondent’s request made it appear as if Respondent was unhappy about Petitioners keeping Evie. Petitioners then filed a grievance with HUD.5/ HUD enlisted the Commission to handle the grievance, and Mr. Burkes served as the Commission’s facilitator between Petitioners and Respondent. On October 24, 2013, Petitioners executed a Conciliation Agreement (Agreement) with Respondent and the Commission. The terms of the Agreement include: NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed between the parties as follows: Respondent agrees: To grant Complainants’ request for a reasonable accommodation to keep Eric Gross’s emotional support/service dog (known as “Evie”) in the condominium unit even though it exceeds the height and weight limits for dogs in the community. That their sole remedy for Complainants’ breach of the provisions contained in subparagraphs (a) through (g) below, in addition to the attorney’s fees and costs provision of paragraph 10 of this Agreement, shall be the removal of the Complainants’ dog. Complainants agree: That they will not permit the dog to be on common areas of the association property, except to transport the dog into or out of Complainants’ vehicle, to and from Complainants’ unit, and to take the dog through the backyard of the unit to walk it across the street off association property. That if the dog is outside of the condominium unit, they will at all times keep the dog on a leash and will at all times maintain control of the dog. That if their dog accidentally defecates on association property, they will immediately collect and dispose of the waste. That they are personally responsible and liable for any accidents or damages/injuries done by the dog and that they will indemnify and hold the Respondent harmless and defend Respondent for such claims that may or may not arise against Respondent. That they will not allow the dog to be a nuisance in the community or disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of other residents. A nuisance will specifically include, but is not limited to, loud barking and any show of aggressive behavior, including, but not limited to, aggressive barking, growling or showing of teeth regardless of whether the dog is inside or outside of the unit. That they will abide by all community rules and regulations of Respondent with which all residents are required to comply, including but not limited to submitting to the required pre-lease/lease renewal interview, and completing a lease renewal application and providing his updated information to Respondents and submitting to Respondent a newly executed lease compliant with Florida law and the Declaration of Condominium. The pre-lease/lease renewal interview will be conducted at Complainants’ unit at a time and date agreeable to the parties but not to exceed 30 days from the date of this agreement. If Complainants’ current dog “Evie” should die or otherwise cease to reside in the unit, Complainants agree to replace the dog, if at all, with a dog that is in full compliance with the association’s Declaration of Condominium or Rules and regulations in force at that time and will allow the dog to be inspected by Respondent for approval. Respondent agrees to ensure, to the best of their abilities, that their policies, performance and conduct shall continue to demonstrate a firm commitment to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Sections 760.20-37, Florida Statutes, (2012), and the Civil Rights Act of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982 and 3601 et.seq). [sic] Respondent agrees that it, its Board members, employees, agents and representatives shall continue to comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by The Fair Housing Act, which provides that Respondents shall not make, print or publish any notice, statement of advertisement with respect to the rental or sale of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or familial status. Respondent also agrees to continue to comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by The Fair Housing Act, which prohibits Respondents from maintaining, implementing and effectuating, directly or indirectly, any policy or practice, which causes any discrimination or restriction on the bases of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or familial status. Respondents also agree to continue to comply with Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. It is understood that this Agreement does not constitute a judgment on the part of the Commission that Respondents did nor did not violate the Fair Housing Act of 1983, as amended, Section 760.20-37, Florida Statutes (2011). The Commission does not waive its rights to process any additional complaints against the Respondent, including a complaint filed by a member of the Commission. It is understood that this Agreement does not constitute an admission on the part of the Respondent that they violated the Fair Housing Act of 1983, as amended, or Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Complainants agree to waive and release and do hereby waive and release Respondent from any and all claims, including claims for court costs and attorney fees, against Respondent, with respect to any matters which were or might have been alleged in the complaint filed with the Commission or with the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and agree not to institute a lawsuit based on the issues alleged in this complaint under any applicable ordinance or statute in any court of appropriate jurisdiction as of the date of this Agreement. Said waiver and release are subject to Respondent’s performance of the premises and representations contained herein. The Commission agrees that it will cease processing the above-mentioned Complaint filed by Complainants and shall dismiss with prejudice said complaint based upon the terms of this Agreement. Respondent agrees to waive and release any and all claims, including claims for court costs and attorney fees, against Complainants with respect to any matters which were or might have been alleged in the complaint filed with the Commission or with the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and agree not to institute a lawsuit based on the issues alleged in these complaints under any applicable ordinance or statute in any court of appropriate jurisdiction as of the date of this Agreement. Said waiver and release are subject to Complainants’ performance of the premises and representations contained herein. The parties agree in any action to interpret or enforce this agreement the prevailing party is entitled to the recovery from the non-prevailing party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including attorney’s fees and costs of any appeal. FURTHER, the Parties hereby agree that: This Agreement may be used as evidence in any judicial, administrative or other forum in which any of the parties allege a breach of this Agreement. Execution of this Agreement may be via facsimile, scanned copy (emailed), or copies reproduced and shall be treated as an original. This Conciliation Agreement may be executed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Conciliation Agreement to be duly executed on the last applicable date, the term of the agreement being from the last applicable date below for so long as any of the rights or obligations described here in continue to exist. Eric Gross and Nora Gross signed the Agreement on October 24, 2013. Ms. Orrino, as President of Respondent, signed the Agreement on September 9. The Commission’s facilitator, Mr. Burkes, signed the Agreement on October 24. The Commission’s housing manager, Regina Owens, signed the Agreement on October 30, and its executive director, Michelle Wilson, signed the Agreement on November 4. The effective date of the Agreement is November 4, the last day it was signed by a party, and the clock started running for compliance. Petitioners failed to abide by the Agreement in the following ways: Petitioners failed to submit an updated lease agreement that conformed to Respondent’s rules and regulations. Petitioners failed to submit to the required pre- lease/lease renewal interview within 30 days of signing the Agreement. Petitioners failed to complete a lease renewal application. Petitioners failed to provide updated information to Respondent. It is abundantly clear that Eric Gross and Ms. Orrino do not get along. However, that personal interaction does not excuse non-compliance with an Agreement that the parties voluntarily entered. Each party to the Agreement had obligations to perform. Respondent attempted to assist Petitioners with their compliance by extending the time in which to comply, and at one point, waving the interview requirement. Petitioners simply failed to comply with the Agreement. Petitioners failed to present any credible evidence that other residents in the community were treated differently. Mr. Gross insisted that the Agreement had sections that Petitioners did not agree to. Mr. Burkes was unable to shed any light on the Agreement or the alleged improprieties that Mr. Gross so adamantly insisted were present.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioners in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 March, 2015.
