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 December, 1976, Respondent Murray was registered with Petitioner as a real estate broker and Respondent Doyle was registered as a real estate salesman associated with Murray. Negotiations conducted between Murray, Doyle and representatives of Cameron-Brown led to the execution of an Exclusive Right of Sales Agreement, dated December 1, 1976 (Exhibit 1). This agreement was negotiated between the parties with the final draft prepared by Cameron-Brown legal staff and approved by R.E. Murray and Associated (REMA) by Murray and Cameron-Brown Company by a vice-president. The contract covered condominiums that had been foreclosed on by Cameron-Brown and which they were anxious to sell. In addition to providing commissions to be paid on sales, how down payments were to be handled, how the agreement could be terminated, reports to be submitted, defining responsibility for employees, and establishing the closing agent for Seller, the agreement, and Addendum A, provided that Doyle was to have sole control of managing and marketing the project. This latter provision was interpreted by the principal drafters of the agreement to indicate that Cameron-Brown was interested in having Doyle as sales manager of the project but in all respects working under Murray as broker. Little discretion was left to the agent in executing contracts which were provided by the Seller, handling of the escrow deposits or in preparing closing statements, as the manner of carrying out these duties was established by the agreement which also provided that all deposits were to be placed in escrow with the title company designated as closing agent for the Seller. During the period the condominium units were being sold this was the major, if not sole, real estate function performed by REMA. The agreement was carried out to the satisfaction of Cameron-Brown with all units sold quicker than had been expected. From the summer of 1976 through the selling of the condominiums, Respondent Murray, who is also a licensed broker in Minnesota, was engaged in a real estate development project in Minnesota and spent the major part of his time in Minnesota. Murray was in communication with his Clearwater office by telephone and discussed all aspects of the agreement with Doyle doing the negotiations. After the agreement was executed by Murray, he was also available by telephone and was contacted by Doyle and others in the office when they deemed it necessary. Murray signed all listing agreements and approved all salesmen employed. One sales person, Mrs. McGhan, was interviewed by a REMA salesperson and Doyle and her employment was approved by Murray. Because her registration was close to expiration when she was hired, Murray authorized Doyle to sign his, Murray's name to her application to be forwarded to FREC. No effort to emulate Murray's signature was made by Doyle in signing Murray's name on the McGhan application. During the period involving the sales of these condominiums Murray received weekly reports on the progress of the sales and was in frequent contact with the office. Procedures to be followed in the REMA office had been established by Murray orally and in written memoranda and were, after the charges herein involved were brought, published in a Procedures Manual, a copy of which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 7. Respondent Doyle at all times here involved was employed by REMA as a salesman. Doyle holds an inactive real estate broker's license in California and has been a licensed Florida real estate salesman since March 1976. He passed the C.P.A. exam in California in 1970 and also holds a Florida Mortgage Broker's license. He has a Master's degree from UCLA in Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, and is a certified teacher at St. Petersburg Junior College, teaching Real Estate Finance since 1977. During the negotiations leading up to the Exclusive Right of Sale Agreement with Cameron-Brown, Doyle did most of the negotiations for REMA and John Sullivan, an employee of Cameron-Brown, did the negotiations for Cameron- Brown. In conducting these negotiations, Doyle was in frequent communication with Murray and Murray was the final approving authority for REMA. Doyle was authorized to sign checks drawn on the REMA escrow account, but no evidence was presented that he ever signed checks on this escrow account or that it would have been wrong had he done so. During the period Murray was spending most of his time in Minnesota, the principal efforts of REMA were involved in the condominium project and none of the earnest money deposits there received were placed in REMA escrow account.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Grove Isle, Ltd. is the developer of a 510 unit three-tower condominium project on an island now known as Grove Isle in Biscayne Bay. As part of the project Grove Isle plans to construct a ninety slip pleasure boat marina on the west side of the island. Since its inception, the project has been in litigation between the parties to this Proceeding. See Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc., et al v. DER, DOAH Case No. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354; State ex rel. Gardner v. Sailboat Key, Inc., 295 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1974); Doheny vs. Sailboat Key, Inc., 306 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1974); Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Ferre, Case No. 80-101-AP (Circuit Court, Appellate Division, Dade County, September 16, 1980). Petitioners Doheny and Filer have their residences near the site of the proposed marina. In the past they have used the waters in and around this site for fishing, boating and swimming. If the marina is constructed their use of the waters in the immediate area of the marina could be limited somewhat. While Petitioner Jaffer does not live in the immediate area of the marina, he also uses the waters of Biscayne Bay around Grove Isle for recreation. The project could have some minimal impact on his use of those waters. The protesting organizations: Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc., Coconut Grove Civil Club, Tigertail Association, and the Tropical Audubon Society, Inc. all have members who use the waters of Biscayne Bay in the area of the project for nature study or recreation. The use of these waters by their members could be diminished in some degree if the marina is constructed. That portion of Grove Isle from which the marina will project is owned by Grove Isle Club, Inc., an entity created to operate the recreational facilities appurtenant to the Grove Isle Condominium. The Club is an integral part of the Grove Isle condominium project. Membership in the Club is mandatory for unit owners. It is the plan of Grove Isle, Ltd. that after the marina is constructed the individual wet-slips will be sold to only condominium owners. Grove Isle, Ltd. expects to realize a onetime profit from the sale of each slip. The slips would therefore not produce a periodic or reoccurring income to the developer. In the recent past, DNR has interpreted its rules relating to submerged land leases not to require a lease for the construction of a marina over submerged state lands if the marina will not generate a regular income. Evidence of this practice dates back to June 8, 1978. On March 29, 1979, Grove Isle applied to DNR for a state lease of the submerged lands over which the proposed marina would be constructed. By a letter of April 4, 1979, from Daniel S. Meisen, Administrator, Operations Section, Bureau of State Lands, the Department informed Grove Isle that a lease would not be required. The full text of the letter follows: April 4, 1979 Ms. Pat Bourguin Post, Buckley, Schub and Jernigan, Inc. 7500 Northwest 52nd Street Miami, Florida 33166 Dear Ms. Bourguin: Martin Margulies A review of the above referenced application has aided us in determining that a lease will not be required although the submerged bottom lands are state-owned. Submerged land leases are not re- quired for private docks or non-income producing facilities. Your $150.00 refund is being processed and will be forwarded to you within the next two months. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact Laura Lewallen of this office. Sincerely, Daniel S. Meisen Administrator Operations Section Bureau of State Lands DSM/11m cc: DER West Palm Beach Health Department The State of Florida owns the submerged lands to the west of Grove Isle over which the marina would be constructed. Beginning in the fall of 1979 and continuing through the spring of 1980, there was a string of correspondence between DNR, Mr. Doheny and Grove Isle. This was its basic pattern. Mr. Doheny would write to DNR with some information indicating in his opinion that the proposed marina would not be private in nature, that is, persons other than condominium owners might be able to use the wet-slips. In response to Mr. Doheny's letter DNR would then query Grove Isle requesting assurances that the marina would be private. At least three of these inquiries, April 26, 1979; October 26, 1979; and February 12, 1980, appear in the record. Grove Isle then responded with letters indicating in various ways that the marina would not be income producing. It is apparent from some of the correspondence that there were also oral communications among the parties. The contents of these communications do not appear in the record. Finally on March 13, 1980, Mr. Doheny wrote to DNR on behalf of the Homeowner Petitioners to express his disagreement with the Department's position previously expressed in correspondence dating back to April 4, 1979, that if the proposed marina is limited to only condominium owners and does not produce direct income then it does not require a lease. Mr. Dean on behalf of Dr. Gissendaner replied to Mr. Doheny on March 24, 1980, by reiterating the Department's consistent position on this project. The text of the letter fellow's: March 24, 1980 David A. Doheny, Esquire 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Re: Grove Isle Marina Dear David: Dr. Gissendanner asked that I respond to your letter dated March 13, 1980 regarding Grove Isle Marina. Attached his a copy of the affidavit executed by Grove Isle, Ltd. and the subsequent letter to Grove Isle, Ltd. from the Department of Natural Resources. It is the position of the Department of Natural Resources that where a condominium marina will derive no income from the rental or lease of boat slips and furthermore, where all slips will be used exclusively by the condominium unit purchasers that the marina is not a commercial/industrial docking facility requiring a lease from the Trustees pursuant to Rule 16C-12.14, F.A.C. and Chapter 253.03, F.S. (1979). This position is based on the proposition that riparian rights attached to a single condominium unit purchaser as do riparian rights for a single family lot owner who likewise is exempt from a submerged land lease. Sincerely, Henry Dean Assistant Department Attorney Division of State Lands HD/le Enclosures cc: Elton J. Gissendanner Richard P. Ludington On May 3, 1979, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund passed a resolution which states in pertinent part that: Where the Trustees have title, by either deed of conveyance or sovereignty pursuant to 1 and/or 2 above, and where any person has requested an environmental or other permit and where the Trustees neither by statute nor rule must give permission for the use involved in the permit, the Execu- tive Director is authorized to indicate, by letter or otherwise, said circumstances and that no action by the Trustees is necessary for the said use; . . . Subsequently Mr. Jaffer, the Homeowners and Mr. Filer filed their petitions for administrative hearings on April 2, 1980, 4/ April 9, 1980, and April 21, 1980, respectively. DNR's position concerning a lease requirement was well known to all of the Petitioners by at least January 2 and 3, 1980, the date of the final hearing on the related DER cases for the instant project. 5/
Recommendation For the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Natural Resources issue a final order dismissing the petitions in Case Nos. 80-670, 80-768, and 80-815. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1980.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has been subjected to an unlawful housing practice by Respondent, as alleged in the Housing Discrimination Complaint filed by Petitioner on April 9, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ruby Jewell Perl, moved into Grand Oaks Villas in October 1999. She signed a lease for a two-bedroom apartment. After moving into the apartment, she made application for and received public assistance in renting the apartment in April 2000. Grand Oaks Villas is an apartment complex located in Pensacola, Florida. Many of the residents are retired. The lease between Petitioner and Grand Oaks Villas, signed in April 2000, reflected that a portion of the rent would be paid by the Public Housing Assistance Program. The lease, which was for Apartment 13A, requires a 30-day written notice for termination of the lease after the initial year of the lease. The lease reflects that Petitioner paid a security deposit of $200 in April 2000. Respondent, Jabari Abdulsamad, took ownership of Grand Oak Villas in June 2001. He became the owner/manager of the apartment complex. At some point in early April 2002, Petitioner began discussions with Mr. Abdulsamad regarding the amount of rent she was paying for the two-bedroom apartment and the possibility of moving to a one-bedroom apartment. Petitioner was exploring these options because the amount of rent for the two-bedroom apartment was more than she could afford. Initially, Mr. Abdulsamad showed a one-bedroom apartment to Petitioner. There is conflicting evidence as to whether he actually made an offer to Petitioner to move into a one-bedroom apartment for $485 per month. There is no disagreement, however, that Mr. Abdulsamad insisted that Petitioner put her request to transfer to a one-bedroom apartment in writing. There is no evidence that Petitioner put such a request in writing. In late April 2002, Petitioner and Respondents entered into an amendment to the lease in which Petitioner’s portion of the rent for her two-bedroom apartment was to be $326 per month, and the remaining rent of $249 per month was to be paid by the Public Housing Assistance Program, effective May 1, 2002. In late October 2002, Petitioner gave Mr. Abdulsamad two written notices of intent to vacate the apartment in 30 days. One notice was handwritten; one notice was on a form. On November 5, 2002, Mr. Abdulsamad wrote to Petitioner demanding payment of her portion of the rent for November. The letter stated that the housing authority paid their part, in full, but that she owed the balance of $153.26. The letter notified Petitioner that he would file eviction papers the following day if the rent was not paid in full. An eviction action was filed resulting in court costs of $104.87. Petitioner paid the outstanding rent into the court registry and vacated the property. Mr. Abdulsamad deducted the court costs out of the $200 security deposit and refunded the difference of $95.13 to Petitioner. Despite the eviction and legal matters surrounding the eviction, Petitioner’s main complaint regarding her charge of discrimination apparently stems from her desire to move from a two-bedroom apartment to a one-bedroom apartment. She was very upset about Mr. Abdulsamad’s insistent requests that she put her requests in writing and felt she was not treated fairly. Additionally, there were disputes regarding pet deposits and the ownership of the washer and dryer in her apartment. However, these and many other matters raised in the hearing concerned business issues, rather than discrimination issues, and are outside the scope of this proceeding.2/ Miriam Lewis also resided at Grand Oaks Villas. When she initially moved into Grand Oaks Villas, she was shown a one- bedroom apartment and wished to move into it. She was told it was already rented to a tenant receiving public housing assistance. Consequently, she moved into a two-bedroom apartment. She eventually transferred into a one-bedroom apartment. She described Mr. Abdulsamad as very cooperative regarding her transfer from a two-bedroom to a one-bedroom apartment. From the weight of the testimony, it is apparent that there is a great deal of friction among residents of Grand Oaks Villas. However, the testimony in the record, while establishing that there are a number of disgruntled tenants at Grand Oaks Villas, did not establish that Mr. Abdulsamad discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her gender. There is insufficient evidence in the record that a male was offered a one-bedroom apartment at the time Petitioner desired to rent one or that a male was offered more favorable rent or other conditions of tenancy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 20th day of August, 2004.
The Issue Petitioner seeks attorney's fees and costs as a prevailing small business party pursuant to Section 57.111, F.S. Appropriate stipulations have eliminated all but this central issue: whether the underlying enforcement proceeding had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time that it was initiated or whether special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust.
Findings Of Fact Nicholas A. Musashe is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida and was the respondent in the case, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Real Estate v. Nicholas Musashe, case no. 91-4463. During the relevant period, Musashe owned a business, Apartment Locator Specialists, with a principal office in Orlando, Florida. As stipulated by the parties, Nicholas A. Musashe is a "small business party", as provided in Section 57.111(3)(d), F.S. The underlying agency proceeding was based on a document sent to the Governor's office and forwarded to the Department of Professional Regulation on October 29, 1990. The document is a one-page copy of a newsletter from Apartment Locator Specialists. Portions of the newsletter are underlined, and at the bottom there is this handwritten notation: "Why are these people allowed to go on month after month breaking real estate laws? Are they brokers or not? This is a formal complaint! [signature illegible] 'Republican'." (p. 10, Investigative Report) The newsletter includes this text: To keep you posted on our lucky drawings -- Robin DeMorse at Summer Place Apartments posted a whopping $100 and Pam Hyde at Monterey Crossings once again received a check for $50 in asking those clients they were unable to help to call us at Apartment Locator Specialists. Remember these numbers -- 657-8282, 345-1000 and in Kissimmee 846-8808. These numbers could mean cash to you next month. Apartment Locator's helper of the month is Melodi Hanson of the Villas. Her name was drawn for always calling us to let our consultants know when a client rented or stopped by. A $50 gift certificate at the Florida Mall was her choice for that extra shopping spree. Thanks for being so considerate, Melodi. (page 10, investigation file) According to the Investigative Report, interviews were conducted between January 28 and February 5, 1991, and included Nicholas Musashe and the women mentioned in the newsletter. Musashe denied compensating unlicensed individuals for making referrals, but said that the drawings were "thank you rewards" for calling his office. Melodi Hanson, Pam Hyde and Robin DeMorse are each unlicensed employees of their respective apartment complexes. They confirmed that their names were drawn at random and that each time they called Apartment Locator Specialists their names were entered for the drawing. Apartment Locator Specialists had contracts with the respective apartment complexes and received a commission when their referrals rented an apartment. The apartment complex employees were encouraged to call Apartment Locator Specialists to report on the outcome of the referral. Each of the three women signed an affidavit stating she was not operating as a licensee as defined in Chapter 475, F.S., and would not so operate in the future without complying with the requirements of law. The investigative report form lists these alleged violations: "475.25(1)(e) Violation of a rule; Rule 21V-10.019 lotteries". There are two uniform complaint forms in the investigative file. One lists the same violations as on the investigative report form; the other lists, "475.42(1)(a) - unlicensed activity". An administrative complaint was drafted and was presented to the Florida Real Estate Commission Probable Cause Panel on February 19, 1991. The panel found cause and voted to proceed with administrative action in accordance with the proposed administrative complaint. The administrative complaint, dated February 20, 1991, makes factual allegations based on the investigation described above. Two counts of violations are alleged: COUNT I Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. COUNT II Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent is guilty of having employed persons as a salesman [sic] who were not the holders of a valid and current license as a salesman in violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(c), Florida Statutes and therefore in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and was set for hearing. It was later continued and was placed in abeyance while the parties presented a stipulation to FREC. By this time Musashe had informed the agency attorney that he had sold his business and was pursuing other business interests. FREC rejected the stipulation on December 3, 1991, after Respondent Musashe made substantial changes in the standard stipulation text. Shortly thereafter, Musashe retained William M. Furlow, Esquire, and the case was again set for hearing by DOAH. On July 7, 1992, Musashe, through counsel, filed his motion to dismiss the administrative complaint. The motion to dismiss argued the agency's burden of proving the charges by clear and convincing evidence. It argued that Count I was unsupported by any allegations in the complaint or by any actual facts. The motion also argued that Count II was not supported by the allegations; that winning a drawing did not establish an employment relationship; that the women who were employed by the apartment complexes were exempt from Chapter 475, F.S., pursuant to Section 475.011(4), F.S.; and that a FREC legal advisor had issued an opinion that the type of referral business conducted by Apartment Locator Specialists did not require licensure. The motion also pointed out that although Section 475.25(1)(h), F.S., prohibits paying a fee to a nonlicensed person for referral of business, the administrative complaint did not include that charge. Moreover, since the apartment complex employees were exempt from Chapter 475, it would not have been a violation to give them a fee. And finally, they were not given a fee, but rather a chance to win a prize, not for referrals, but for mere informational telephone calls. The administrative complaint recites facts which are substantially consistent with the facts outlined in the motion to dismiss. For example, paragraph 8 of the complaint states: 8. The Respondent admitted that each time an employee of a contracted leasing office calls his office, that individual's name is put into a fish bowl, from which the drawing is held. The Respondent stated that the name is entered whether or not the client rents the apartment. The parties agreed to further abeyance of the proceeding before DOAH and to presentation of the motion to dismiss directly to the FREC. On August 18, 1992, FREC granted Respondent's motion and the administrative complaint was dismissed. The Final Order was entered on September 2, 1992. As stipulated by the parties, Nicholas A. Musashe incurred reasonable and necessary legal fees in the amount of $6,756.25, and costs in the amount of $858.62, for a total of $7,614.87.
Findings Of Fact Barkwood Square Condominium was developed by Mr. John Nell (Respondent). The declaration of condominium was filed on May 23, 1980, and transfer of control from Respondent to the condominium association took place at a meeting held on June 30, 1981. At the time of turnover, Bieder Management Company was Respondent's agent for the operation, maintenance and management of Barkwood Square. Bieder was accepted as the association's agent at turnover and continued in this capacity until February, 1982. No documents were produced at the transfer meeting, and all records and accounts then in existence remained in the hands of Bieder. In February, 1982, the condominium association became dissatisfied with Bieder and replaced it with Hotz Management Company. The records turned over to Hotz by Bieder at that time were incomplete, and the association then sought the assistance of Petitioner to obtain complete records and a financial accounting. Through its investigation in 1982, Petitioner and the condominium association obtained all records available. The testimony of Petitioner's investigator and two of the unit owners (who are also condominium association directors) established that no review of the financial records of the association had ever been conducted by an independent certified public accountant (CPA). The testimony of the unit owners-directors established that Respondent had not delivered any of the following items to the association within 60 days of turnover: Original or certified copy of the declaration of condominium. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation of the association. A copy of the bylaws. Minutes of association meetings. Resignation of officers and directors resulting from change of control. The investigation revealed that Respondent owes $4,138.32 in contributions to the condominium association. Respondent concedes that he owes this amount, which is based on common expenses incurred in excess of assessments to unit owners between July and October, 1980. Respondent paid certain association expenses with personal funds and was later reimbursed. Respondent concedes this procedure was not in keeping with good accounting practices. Respondent also failed to keep or turn over to the association the financial records pertaining to the period when he did not employ a management agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order directing Respondent to take the corrective action discussed herein as authorized by Subsection 718.501(1)(d)(2), F.S., and assessing a civil fine in the amount of $1,500 as authorized by Subsection 718.501(1)(d)4, F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of July, 1983, 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 27th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Helen C. Ellis, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 N. Staten Bitting, Jr., Esquire 3835 Central Avenue Post Office Box 15339 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondents be found guilty of violating Subsection 718.301(4)(c) , Florida Statutes, and that a $500 civil penalty be imposed; the remaining charge should be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 12th day of January, 1983.
