Findings Of Fact Millard Futch is presently the district supervisor for District 4, Division of Beverage and formerly district supervisor for District 6, Division of Beverage, at the time the Petitioner made application for an increase in the series of his beverage license. Mr. Futch indicated the reason that the request for increase in series was disapproved, was because that a series 4-COP license is a quota license and that at present all quota licenses in Pinellas County, Florida are held by other license holders, either as active licenses or licenses under administrative restraint. Therefore, as of the date of the hearing and the date of the request for increase in series, a quota license in Pinellas County was not available. The witness further testified that the 2-COP license being held by the Petitioner enables the Petitioner to sell beer and wine on the premises in package and to sell spiritous liquor for consumption off the premises. The principal difference, according to the witness between 2-COP license and the increase series 4-COP license was that 4-COP license would allow the consumption of spiritous liquors on the premises. The witness indicated that the only available methods for the Petitioner to receive a 4-COP license was for other quota licenses to be authorized at the time of the completion of the 1980 federal census. It was stated that upon the completion of that census the Petitioner together with other applicants could apply for such additional quota licenses as would be authorized by the increase in population in Pinellas County, Florida. It was also indicated that the possibility would be available for the Petitioner to purchase an existing quota license in Pinellas County, Florida, if the Petitioner was otherwise qualified under the guidelines of the Division of Beverage. Finally the witness, Mr. Futch, did not indicate any further reason for the disapproval of the increase in series as applied for by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, after hearing the testimony offered by Mr. Futch in explanation of the Respondent's position, declined to make any presentation in his own behalf.
Recommendation Based upon the facts as presented in the course of the hearing, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Walter Booze, t/a HobNob Tavern be denied his request for an increase in series of his beverage license from one of 2-COP to 4-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Walter Booze 318 North Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33515 William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the entitlement of Wiley Ulee Pridgen to transfer the beverage license which be owned to the entity, Adult World, Inc., a corporation.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to an agreement entered into between the parties in the person of their counsel, made on September 8, 1980, the date for hearing in this cause, and in view of the written Stipulation which consummated the purposes of that agreement, the following facts are found: Wiley U. Pridgen was served with official notice that charges would be filed against him on December 10, 1979. On December 21, 1979, Wiley U. Pridgen filed an application with Respondent's Orlando District Office for transfer of ownership of his beverage license to Adult World, Inc., a corporation. On March 6, 1980, Wiley U. Pridgen was notified by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco that his application for transfer of ownership had been disapproved for the reason that administrative action is pending and undetermined against the subject licensee pursuant to Florida Statute 561.32. On March 17, 1980, a copy of the formal administrative charges were served on Wiley U. Pridgen. On August 8, 1980, Charles C. Adams, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, entered an order dismissing the instant Notice to Show Cause with leave to refile. On August 25, 1980, formal charges were served upon Petitioner in the form of a Notice to Show Cause after affording a hearing to Wiley U. Pridgen under Florida Statute 120.60(6).
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Adult World, Inc., d/b/a Strip World Topless Entertainment, be denied its request to have the ownership of License No. 58-1278, Series 2-COP, transferred from Wiley U. Pridgen to Adult World, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined on charges that it operated its restaurant in violation of beverage rules.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent conducted business as Oscar's Restaurant and Lounge (the "licensed premises" or "premises") at 901 Southwest Eighth Street, Miami, Florida, under a special restaurant alcoholic beverage license, No. 23-2059-SRX (Series 4-COP-SRX), issued prior to April 18, 1972. I. At 2:30 p.m. on November 8, 1979, when beverage officer Louis J. Terminello inspected the licensed premises, the kitchen area was not in use. The kitchen lights were off, no kitchen employees were present, and no food was being prepared. Although alcoholic beverages were being served to approximately three patrons in the bar section of the premises, no food had been served. (Testimony of Terminello.) Officer Terminello then asked Oscar Sarmiento, the on-site representative of respondent, to produce business records reflecting the purchases and sales of alcoholic beverages, food, and nonalcoholic beverages. Mr. Sarmiento replied that the requested records were not on the premises, that they were at the office of respondent's accountant, Mark Thaw. (Testimony of Terminello.) Respondent contends, without corroboration, that DABT, through Officer Terminello, had given oral permission to keep these business records off premises, at its accountant's office. Officer Terminello denied having given such permission. Taking into account the interest and bias of the witnesses, Officer Terminello's denial is accepted as the more credible and is persuasive. The fact that, before or during the time in question, DABT agents inspected respondent's records at its accountant's office does not, by itself, establish that respondent had permission from DABT to keep business records offsite. (Testimony of Terminello, Sarmiento.) Before leaving the premises that day, Officer Terminello explained to Mr. Sarmiento the requirements of special restaurant alcoholic beverage licenses and provided a written notice of deficiencies. (Testimony of Terminello.) At 2:30 PM. on December 5, 1979, Officer Terminello returned to the licensed premises to conduct a follow up inspection. The kitchen area was, again, not in use. A small amount of food was found in the refrigerator. The stove was cold. No food was being prepared or served. Silverware was insufficient to accommodate 200 customers. Several patrons in the bar area were being served alcoholic beverages by Guano Salas, the employee in charge of the premises. (Testimony of Terminello.) At 2:00 P.M.. on the next day, December 6, 1979, Officer Terminello returned to the premises and found a similar situation: the kitchen was not in use, no food was being prepared or served, and patrons were being served alcoholic beverages in the bar area. He then arranged to have another beverage officer, Leonard Del Monte, attempt to purchase an alcoholic beverage and a meal. At 3:00 P.M.., Officer Del Monte entered, ordered an alcoholic beverage, and asked for "something to eat." Juana Salas, the employee in charge, told him that he could go "down the street," that there were plenty of restaurants in the area. He asked for a menu but was net given one. Although there were patrons drinking in the bar area, none were eating or being served meals. (Testimony of Terminello, Del Monte.) At 5:30 P.M.. on December 7, 1979, Officers Terminello and Del Monte returned to the premises. Officer Del Monte, in an undercover capacity, ordered and was served an alcoholic beverage. He requested a menu but Ms. Salas told him that no food was being served. Other Patrons were being served drinks but none were consuming meals. (Testimony of Terminello, Del Monte.) At 4:40 P.M.. on December 11, 1979, Officers Terminello and Del Monte again entered the premises. Patrons were at the bar drinking but no food was being prepared or served. When Officer Del Monte ordered a meal, he was told that food was not being served because the kitchen was being disinfected. He ordered and was served an alcoholic beverage. (Testimony of Terminello, Del Monte.) During each of the foregoing inspections of the licensed premises, Officers Terminello and Del Monte remained on the premises for approximately 20- 30 minutes. (Testimony of Del Monte, Terminello.) Oscar Sarmiento, former owner of the licensed premises, testified that, to his knowledge (although he was not always on the premises) meals could almost always be purchased on the premises, that lunch could normally be purchased in the early and mid-afternoons. (Testimony of Sarmiento.) II. Prior to February 28, 1979, Oscar Sarmiento was the owner and president of respondent. On February 28, 1979, Elma Sarmiento, his wife, became sole owner and was elected president, treasurer, and secretary of respondent corporation. (Testimony of Sarmiento; R-3, R-4.) On February 28, 1979, Rene Valdes, a beverage license broker acting on behalf of respondent, filed with DABT forms indicating that Elma Sarmiento owned all stock of the respondent corporation and that she was elected president, treasurer, and secretary at the corporate director's meeting held on February 28, 1979. 3/ (In anticipation of the change in ownership, Mrs. Sarmiento had been fingerprinted by DABT on November 13, 1978.)(Testimony of Valdes; R-2, R-3, R-4.) III. By final order dated December 12, 1979, that portion of Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code, which requires special restaurant licensees to "discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages whenever the service of full course meals is discontinued" was declared an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by a Division of Administrative Hearings hearing officer. Gainesville Golf and Country Club, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation, DOAH Case No. 79-1851R, affirmed, 402 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). DABT concedes that this portion of Rule 7A-3.15 is ineffective 4/ and any evidence concerning violation of it "cannot be used as an indication that the licensee was operating in a manner not consistent with its alcoholic beverage license." (Challenge to the validity of Rule 7A-3.15 filed by DABT on April 27, 1982.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DABT impose a civil penalty of $1,000 against respondent for the rule and statutory violations as described above. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the holder of Beverage License No. 26-751 permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages from her store at 1155 Jessie Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This business is a convenience store known as Agel Grocery. Respondent's husband has been co-owner of this business since the outset, and participates in its operation and management. When the Morenes applied for an alcoholic beverage license in June, 1980, they believed Frank Morene was ineligible and intentionally omitted his name from the application.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is That Respondent be found guilty of filing an incorrect application in violation of Subsection 561.17(1), Florida Statutes (1979). It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License No. 26-751 be suspended until Respondent files and secures approval of a correct application or demonstrates that any direct or indirect interest of Frank Morene in the licensed business has been removed. DONE and ENTERED this 7th of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mrs. Saundra Morene c/o Agel Grocery 1155 Jessie Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206
Findings Of Fact Victor Ingargiola is the sole shareholder, director and officer of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East (Petitioner), a Florida corporation. The State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the Respondent. Both Mr. Victor Ingargiola and his wife, Mrs. Barbara Ingargiola, entered the Division's double random selection drawing for eligibility to apply for a new quota alcoholic beverage license. Mr. Ingargiola was selected in the drawing, and Mrs. Ingargiola was not. After receiving notice of his selection in the drawing, Mr. Ingargiola formed the Petitioner and applied for licensure on or about November 1, 1984. In his application, Mr. Ingargiola did not identify his wife as a person having an interest in Petitioner or its business, either directly or indirectly. The application also represented that Petitioner had a right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed at 4513 Causeway Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's application carries with it an application fee of $6,750. Mr. Ingargiola obtained a portion of the funds necessary to pay the application fee from funds held jointly by him and his wife and by loans to him and his wife secured by property jointly held by him and his wife. Virtually all money and property of the Ingargiolas is held in their joint names. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ingargiola conferred with the Division's Investigator Miller concerning the application. Miller initially requested that Mrs. Ingargiola be finger printed as a person having an interest in the license to be issued. Mrs. Ingargiola understood that she was not permitted to have an interest since she herself had entered the double random selection drawing. She therefore declined to be fingerprinted or to be made to appear on the application as a party having an interest in the license to be issued. Investigator Miller also discussed with the Ingargiolas the question of Mrs. Ingargiola's involvement and the financing of Petitioner. Investigator Miller led the Ingargiolas to believe that the only possible legal financing arrangement would be for Mrs. Ingargiola to give the funds to her husband outright. He led them to believe that this could be done by affidavit, and Mrs. Ingargiola signed and filed an affidavit which Investigator Miller approved as to form. The affidavit listed the financing in question and stated: "I swear that the following funds obtained are to be used by Victor A. Ingargiola and I will have no interest or control over these funds." Barbara Ingargiola also testified at final hearing that she claims no interest whatsoever in Petitioner, any license to be issued to it, or the funds she gave outright to her husband to finance Petitioner. Essentially, Mrs. Ingargiola gave her half of the joint funds and proceeds of joint loans used by Victor Ingargiola to finance Petitioner's application fee. If necessary, she was prepared to do the same with the proceeds from the sale of joint real property or loans secured by the Ingargiolas' joint real property. However, no mention was made or consideration given to Mrs. Ingargiola's liability for her husband's share of the joint borrowing in addition to hers. Mrs. Ingargiola did have an interest in the successful operation of Petitioner so as to enable her husband to pay at least half, if not all, of the joint borrowing used in part to finance Petitioner. On or about October 12, 1984, Mr. Ingargiola obtained a written lease to the premises to be licensed. However, the lease does not contain a commencement date. At the time the application was filed, the premises were occupied by another tenant, and, as of December 20, 1984, this tenant had a legal right to occupy the premises and had not been notified of the pending liquor license application or the lease. In addition, the purported lease contains a provision requiring Petitioner to secure its duties and obligations under the lease by depositing with the landlord the sum of $60,000 in cash or irrevocable letter of credit. There was no evidence that Petitioner had complied with or could comply with this requirement of the lease. Although Mr. Ingargiola testified to his understanding of his right to occupancy of the premises under the lease upon granting of Petitioner's application and issuance of the license, there was no testimony from the landlord on the ambiguities surrounding the lease and the rights of the tenant in possession. As a result, the evidence as a whole was insufficient to prove Petitioner's right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, deny the application of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East, for a quota alcoholic beverage license RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Diaz, Esquire 2522 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for the delinquent renewal of their special restaurant licenses pursuant to Section 561.27(2), Florida Statutes, should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notices of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: There are various types of DABT-issued licenses authorizing the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Among them are quota licenses, SRX licenses, and SR licenses. All three of these licenses allow the licensee to sell liquor, as well as beer and wine. Quota licenses, as their name suggests, are limited in number. The number of quota licenses available in each county is based upon that county's population. SRX and SR licenses are "special" licenses authorizing the retail sale of beer, wine, and liquor by restaurants. There are no restrictions on the number of these "special" licenses that may be in effect (countywide or statewide) at any one time. SRX licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued in or after 1958.3 SR licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued prior to 1958. For restaurants originally licensed after April 18, 1972, at least 51 percent of the licensed restaurant's total gross revenues must be from the retail sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages.4 Restaurants for which an SR license has been obtained, on the other hand, do not have to derive any set percentage or amount of their total gross revenues from the retail sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. DABT-issued alcoholic beverage licenses are subject to annual renewal.5 License holders who have not timely renewed their licenses, but wish to remain licensed, may file an Application for Delinquent Renewal (on DABT Form 6015). Until recently, it was DABT's longstanding policy and practice to routinely grant applications for the delinquent renewal of SR and other alcoholic beverage licenses, regardless of the reason for the delinquency. DABT still routinely grants applications to delinquently renew alcoholic beverage licenses other than SR licenses, but it now has a "new policy" in place with respect to applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses. The "new policy" is to deny all such applications based upon these SR licenses' not having been in "continuous operation," action that, according to DABT, is dictated by operation of Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, a statutory provision DABT now claims it had previously misinterpreted when it was routinely granting these applications. Relying on Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, to blanketly deny all applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses was the idea of Eileen Klinger, the head of DABT's Bureau of Licensing. She directed her licensing staff to implement the "new policy" after being told by agency attorneys that this "was the appropriate thing [from a legal perspective] to do." Abkey and Amy Cat have SR licenses that were originally issued in 1956 "per general law and not pursuant to any special or local act." Maneros has an SR license that was originally issued in 1952 "per general law and not pursuant to any special or local act." As applicants applying to delinquently renew their SR licenses, Petitioners are substantially affected by DABT's "new policy" that SR licenses cannot be delinquently renewed because they have not been in "continuous operation," as that term is used in Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes. Their applications for the delinquent renewal of their licenses would have been approved had the status quo been maintained and this "new policy" not been implemented. Abkey filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on February 21, 2007. On the application form, Abkey gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was sold. Lost our lease." On April 2, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Abkey's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. Maneros filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on June 4, 2007. On the application form, Maneros gave no "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period"; however, the application was accompanied by a letter from a Maneros representative, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: I am today submitting a delinquent renewal application for the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. The building has been demolished, and there is a vacant lot at the site at this time. Redevelopment is scheduled for this area, and I expect new construction to begin shortly. The license was first issued to this location 55 years ago. I have inquired with the City of Hallandale Beach, Florida, and there remains a question as to whether zoning approval for this type of alcoholic beverage license would be permitted under current uses once reconstruction is complete. The licensee of record wishes to reinstate and possibly use or transfer the license. . . . On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Maneros' application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued. Amy Cat filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 1999) on December 6, 2006. On the application form, Amy Cat gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was closed." On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Amy Cat's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 1999, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting Petitioners' applications for the delinquent renewal of their SR licenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 30th day of April, 2008.
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 Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance; cocaine, and whether said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 in U.S. currency, and whether said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage license premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine contrary to Section 893.13, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $2,200, U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. A count seven was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. A count eight was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. Whether or not on or about November 20, 1976, a bottle of non-tax paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered on the licensed premises, and whether or not said bottle bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid, contrary to Section 562.16, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 1, 1976, and continuing until on or about November 24, 1976, the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did maintain a public nuisance, to wit; maintain a place where controlled substances were illegally sold, kept or used, contrary to Section 823.10, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not investigation revealed that on or about November 20, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, did remove, deposit, or conceal a beverage, to wit, one (1) 2,000 cc bottle of Ron Medeliin Rum, with the intent to defraud the state of tax, contrary to Section 562.32, F.S. and Section 562.30, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this complaint the Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, was the holder of a license no. 23-1901, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, and that license was for the premises located at 1601 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida. The management of the licensed premises makes arrangements to hire entertainment in the form of musicians. This arrangement is made through agreement with the band leader. One of these agreements was made with a band leader who had as his band member Leouigildo Hernandez. On September 28, 1976, Officer E. Santiago, of the Miami Beach, Florida, Police Department entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises entered into discussion with Hernandez. Hernandez left the bar proper and came back with an amount of a substance known as cocaine. Santiago paid Hernandez $100 for the quantity of cocaine and the sale was consummated in the licensed premises. On October 30, 1976, Officer Santiago returned to the licensed premises. Santiago had been in the licensed premises many times prior to that occasion. Among the persons he had seen in the bar was Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales. Morales was the girlfriend of Anthony Bilbao, one of the principals in the ownership of the licensed premises. Morales had also served Santiago drinks in the bar on more than 50 occasions. On the evening in question, October 30, 1976, discussion was entered into between Santiago and Morales about the purchase of a substance known as cocaine. Morales produced a quantity of the cocaine and reached across the bar that she was standing behind and handed the quantity of the substance cocaine to Santiago, who was in the area where customers were served at the bar. Santiago paid her $100 for the cocaine. In the late hours of November 4 and early hours of November 5, 1976, Santiago again entered the licensed premises, his purpose for going to the licensed premises was to purchase a large quantity of cocaine from Morales. This arrangement had been entered into based upon the sample of cocaine that had been provided him on October 30, 1976. Morales left the licensed premises and returned 3 to 5 minutes later with a quantity of cocaine, for which Santiago paid her $2,200. On one of the above occasions of a purchase of cocaine from Morales, while in the licensed premises, Morales had conferred with Anthony Bilbao. In the course of that conference, Bilbao told Morales to be careful to whom she sold because "you don't know him", meaning Santiago. In the course of an investigation in the license premises on November 28, 1976, a bottle of non-tax-paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered in the licensed premises, which bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid. The size of the bottle was 2,000 cc.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in the hearing on the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the license no. 23-1901 held by Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee ,Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Michael B. Solomon, Esquire Division of Beverage Theodore M. Trushin, Law Office The Johns Building 420 Lincoln Road, Number 600 725 Bronough Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Nathaniel Barone, Esquire 777 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
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 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.
