Findings Of Fact Respondent, Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc., holds alcoholic beverage license number 69-255, Series 12, RT, which licensed premises is located at Seminole Greyhound Park, a greyhound racing facility in Casselberry, Florida. The officers of this corporation who are accused of filing false personal questionnaires with Petitioner are Paul Dervaes, Jack Demetree, William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick. Paul Dervaes and William Demetree also filed a certificate of incumbency and stock ownership which is also alleged to have been false. The principal issue concerns the involvement of John Fountain in the affairs of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. Fountain is a convicted felon who was adjudicated guilty of bookmaking in the Jacksonville Federal District Court in October, 1972. The principal parties to this matter, Paul Dervaes, Jack and William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick knew from the outset that John Fountain was a convicted felon ineligible for licensing in this state under either the pari- mutuel or beverage laws. John Fountain conceived the idea of acquiring Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc., a money-losing harness racing facility, and obtaining necessary legislation to convert the facility to greyhound racing. Fountain first brought this idea to his long-term friends and business associates, Jack and William Demetree, in the mid to late 1970's. Fountain also initiated the involvement of another longtime friend, Paul Dervaes, as President of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. When the enterprise was short of cash in late 1978 and early 1979, Fountain made successive loans of $152,000 and $169,499.82 to the corporation through Paul Dervaes for use in converting and operating Seminole Park. When the necessary legislation was passed to convert to a greyhound facility, John Fountain, for several months, worked long hours without any salary as head of the physical conversion project for the Demetrees. Fountain originated the Super 8 betting feature at Seminole Park, one of the cornerstones of the track's promotion and publicity endeavors. Fountain also, after the conversion was complete and the facility was opened for business, authorized complimentary meals and drinks at the licensed premises at Seminole Park and authorized petty cash disbursements for a wedding present for a newspaper reporter and the distribution of gasoline without charge from Seminole Greyhound Park's fuel tanks. On March 31, 1980, Paul Dervaes, who at the time held 53 percent of the outstanding stock of Seminole Greyhound Park, sent a memo to William Demetree and sought to extricate himself from a managerial position at the track on the basis that the Demetrees appeared not to be satisfied with his managerial abilities. In this memo, Dervaes identified himself as a minority stockholder of the enterprise, despite his then ownership of a majority of 53 percent of the shares of stock. Respondent has sought to explain such incongruity by candidly admitting that Dervaes was fronting for John Fountain as to 43 shares or 43 percent of the stock in Seminole Park. As this time, Ernest Drosdick, who had for years handled all legal affairs for Seminole Park as well as for William Demetree, advised Dervaes and Jack and William Demetree that the loans to Seminole from John Fountain through Paul Dervaes had to be repaid so that the involvement of Fountain could be terminated. Drosdick's advice was predicated on Fountain's felony conviction and he noted that Fountain's continued involvement in such manner would be violative of the pari-mutuel and beverage licensing laws. The corporation thereupon obtained $321,499.82 in early April of 1980, such sum being the total of the principal but not interest due on the $152,000 and $169.499.82 loans made from John Fountain to Seminole Park through Paul Dervaes. Drosdick's advice was not consistently applied, however, with regard to recalling the loans from John Fountain. The $321,499.82 was paid by check to Paul Dervaes on April 1, 1980, which Dervaes deposited in his bank account. William Demetree then asked Dervaes if $160,000 of the funds just paid him could be borrowed back from Fountain despite Drosdick's advice against such loans. The re-loan was agreeable with Fountain and on April 9, 1980, Dervaes wrote a check in the amount of $160,000 back to Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, and on April 21, repaid the remaining $161,499.82 to Fountain. The $160,000 loan was reflected in an April 9, 1980, note signed by William Demetree as Chairman of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. It was also acknowledged by William Demetree that he knew the money was coming from John Fountain. It is this loan, which was repaid as to principal only in November of 1980, that was not reflected on the personal questionnaires of each of the principal parties. At the time the April 9, 1980, $160,000 loan was made by Fountain to Seminole Park through Dervaes, all of the principal parties, Paul Dervaes, Jack and William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick, knew that John Fountain was a convicted felon and knew that his involvement through loans would be impermissible under pari-mutuel and beverage licensing statutes. It was established that the $160,000 loan was not listed on the personal questionnaires filled out in July of 1980, by each of the aforementioned individuals despite the clearly expressed directive of such questionnaire forms, which states: List the total amount and sources of money you personally are investing in the proposed operation. Also, list any persons, corporations, partnerships, banks, and mortgage companies who have or will invest or lend money in the proposed operation. Immediately prior to the applicant's signature line on the personal questionnaire form is the following statement: I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury as provided for in Florida Statute 837.06 that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge, and that no other person, persons, firm or corporation, except as indicated herein, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license for which these statements are made. Immediately under the signature line is a boxed-in passage entitled "WARNING" with the word "warning" capitalized and underlined and the following: Read carefully, this instrument is a sworn document. False answers could result in criminal prosecution, subject to fine and/or imprisonment. The principal parties seek to excuse their failure to include the Fountain loan on their personal questionnaires by claiming that Drosdick, who is now deceased, was unaware of the $160,000 loan, that he filled out the questionnaires for them and that they merely signed them under oath and attested to their veracity without reading them. This testimony is not credible in view of the material, self-serving omission made on these questionnaires. Therefore, Respondent's agents, who are experienced businessmen, must be held responsible for their sworn statements. The principals have also sought to excuse their conduct on the basis that any matters which transpired between John Fountain and Paul Dervaes in connection with the loan were personal matters between Dervaes and Fountain and thus immaterial to the corporation. However, this theory avoids recognizing that personal questionnaires were submitted by four individuals and not by the corporate entity. It was established that each of the four individuals had knowledge of the $160,000 loan in question and thus were required to list such loan on their personal questionnaires. It was Fountain who conceived the idea of conversion, who supplied the capital necessary to effectuate the conversion, who without salary headed the physical conversion of the facility and who after the opening of the track authorized the expenditure of funds and the giving of certain gratuities at the track. Fountain was clearly and intimately involved with the overall success of the track. Indeed, the original loans in the amount of $152,000 and $169,499.82 from Fountain called for the payment of 10 percent interest and the $160,000 loan called for the payment of 15 percent interest, none of which has ever been paid. Such interest, as of September 30, 1982, had accrued in the amount of $15;173. Dervaes acknowledged that such interest was but a "paper transaction" in that the principal parties and Fountain all knew and agreed that Fountain would not be paid until such time as the track paid Dervaes the interest. Consequently, Fountain has held with the full knowledge of all the principal parties, an impermissible pecuniary interest in the licensed facility which continues to the present time. The Certificate of Incumbency and Declaration of Stock Ownership submitted as part of the beverage license application process was likewise incorrect. It reflected Jack and William Demetree as 50 percent each owners of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. when, in fact, the separate corporate entity Seminole Greyhound Park, was the sole stockholder of this corporation. Such document was signed by William Demetree and certified as being true and correct by Paul Dervaes under oath. William Demetree and Paul Dervaes attempt to place the blame on Drosdick for improperly preparing the document. However, they signed this document and cannot avoid responsibility for their sworn statements.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 69-255. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1982, 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 23rd day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven A. Werber, Esquire 2000 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Alice Waldo, holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 45- 00293, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as the SILVER DOLLAR CAFE located in Lake County, Florida. On or about February 4, 1989, an investigator employed by Petitioner entered the licensed premises of Respondent. While in Respondent's facility, the investigator observed several patrons smoking a substance, which by its smell and usage, he believed to be marijuana. The investigator then met with a patron, ordered a small quantity of crack cocaine and handed the patron some money for the forthcoming purchase. The patron then asked Respondent to hold the money while he left the premises to retrieve the controlled substance from his automobile. Shortly thereafter, the patron returned with the cocaine. The investigator showed the substance to Respondent's daughter, who had taken her mother's place at the bar. The purpose of displaying the drug to the proprietor, or the proprietor's daughter in this instance, was to later illustrate that Respondent condoned the use and sale of the drug in connection with her licensed premises. A field test by the investigator and a later laboratory test confirmed the identity of the substance purchased as crack cocaine. Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility on or about February 10, 1989. On this occasion, the investigator purchased a quantity of marijuana from a female patron, then took the substance over to the bar where he proceeded to roll a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Petitioner. At no time did Petitioner inform the investigator that controlled substances were not allowed on the licensed premises. Upon later laboratory analysis, the substance was confirmed to be marijuana. Upon leaving Respondent's facility on February 10, 1989, Petitioner's investigator met an individual within 10 feet of the front door of the premises who sold him a quantity of a substance later determined by laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. On or about February 24, 1989, Petitioner's investigator entered Respondent's facility. On the front porch of Respondent's facility, the investigator purchased a quantity of a substance later determined by the investigator's field test and a subsequent laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. After completing the purchase of the substance, the investigator went inside the facility, placed the material on the counter and recounted to Respondent that it had just been purchased on the front porch. Respondent made no reply to the investigator's announcement and, instead, complied with his request for change for a $20 bill. Upon receipt of the change, the investigator wrapped the crack cocaine in a $1 bill in Respondent's presence. On February 28, 1989, Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility. He approached a black female named "Lilly" and gave her $20 for the purchase of crack cocaine. However, after the lady accepted the $20 and left to retrieve the cocaine, she did not return. The investigator complained to Respondent that "Lilly" had failed to deliver the drug to him. The investigator also told Respondent that the lady could keep the $20 if Respondent would get him some of the drug. At that time, Respondent referred the investigator to a group of three male patrons on the front porch of the facility who appeared to be smoking marijuana. At no time during this incident did Respondent take any steps to prevent the use of any controlled substances on the licensed premises. Subsequently, Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's facility on or about March 4, 1989. He purchased a beer and went outside to the front porch of the facility. He observed a number of furtive transactions where currency was passed between certain individuals. He noticed Respondent go to one of the automobiles in the facility parking lot, get into the automobile, engage in conversation with the occupants and shortly thereafter emerge from the automobile. Respondent went back into the facility. The investigator approached a black male and gave him $20 for some crack cocaine. The black male took the investigator's money, then went directly to the automobile where Respondent had been previously. He returned shortly thereafter to the investigator with two pieces of a substance which later tested positive, via field test and laboratory analysis, as cocaine. During another visit to Respondent's facility on or about March 9, 1989, Petitioner's investigator observed a patron rolling what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes in Respondent's presence. While Respondent took no action to prohibit the use or possession of the apparently controlled substance, she did get her coat and leave shortly after the investigator's arrival. On or about March 11, 1989, Petitioner's investigator reentered Respondent's facility. The investigator purchased a small quantity of crack cocaine from a black male on the front porch of the facility. The investigator then took the controlled substance inside the building and displayed it to Respondent, telling her that he had just obtained the drug on the porch. Respondent asked the investigator if he was going to smoke the drug, and he replied yes. Later, a field test and laboratory analysis confirmed the drug to be cocaine. On or about March 17, 1989, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's facility. This time the investigator purchased a small quantity of a drug on the front porch of the building which, upon subsequent field test and laboratory analysis, was confirmed to be cocaine. After completing the purchase, the investigator took the substance inside and showed it to Respondent. Later in the evening, the investigator engaged Respondent in conversation on the front porch and related to her that he had observed numerous drug transactions taking place in her facility. Respondent smiled in acknowledgment of the investigator's statement and replied that she certainly hoped he was not a policeman. He told her that he was not a policeman. Respondent took no action to prohibit further use or transactions relating to drugs on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's beverage license bearing number 45-00293, Series 2- COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1989 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-10. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: EDWIN R. IVY, ESQUIRE BOX 3223 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 THOMAS A. KLEIN, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 STEPHEN R. MACNAMARA, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 LEONARD IVEY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007
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.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated record described above, I make the following relevant findings of fact: The Petitioner currently holds alcoholic beverage license number 11-74 SRX, series 4-COP. The currently licensed premises include all of the rooms within Petitioner's clubhouse. On or about September 14, 1984, the Petitioner filed an application in which it requested that its licensed premises be extended to include all of the golf course which is adjacent to the clubhouse. The Petitioner's golf course consists of approximately 262 acres. The Petitioner is the owner of and has exclusive possession and control over all of the premises it seeks to have included in its license. The area Petitioner seeks to have included in its license includes other buildings in addition to the clubhouse building. The Petitioner does not hold a golf club license. The Petitioner does not by its application propose to have more than three separate rooms or enclosures in which permanent bars or counters will be located. A licensee is required to designate the licensed premises in a sketch included in or attached to the application for license so that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco can determine the area over which they have regulatory authority. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco has, on some occasions, granted applications for series 4-COP special restaurant licenses which included in the sketch of the licensed premises an uncovered patio area immediately adjacent to the covered portion of the restaurant building, which patio areas were used by the restaurant as an area for service of food and beverages. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages has not presented any reason for denying the Petitioner's application other than the opinion that the existing statutory provisions do not authorize the extension sought by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license was issued pursuant to a special act of the Legislature. Chapter 70-574, Laws of Florida. Following receipt of notice that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco proposed to deny its application, the Petitioner filed a timely request for formal proceedings.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application to extend the area of its licensed premises. DONE and ORDERED this 25 day of June, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 25th day of June, 1985 COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Andrews, Esquire P.O. Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 Howard M. Rasmussen Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked for violating a stipulation stated on the record in a prior license revocation proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2337, Series 2-APS and owns and operates Hammer's Package Store, the licensed premises, at 3231-A West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1981, DABT filed two administrative actions to revoke respondent's alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The charges were, apparently, disputed and a hearing officer requested, since the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Thereafter, on April 18, 1981, Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton, II, conducted a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the charges. At hearing, both parties were represented by counsel: DABT by James N. Watson, Jr., a staff attorney for the Department of Business Regulation; respondent by Ray Russell, whose address was 200 S. E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. At the outset, counsel for both parties advised Hearing Officer Benton that they had reached "an agreement" (P-1, p. 3), thus obviating the need for a hearing on the charges. Counsel then recited, on the record, the terms of their settlement agreement: respondent was given 90-days in which its corporate entity could be sold, with the period beginning to run from March 19, 1981--the next day--and ending on June 16, 1981; when the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period expired, whichever occurred first, respondent was to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation; respondent waived its right to an evidentiary hearing on the charges and to appeal any matters covered by the agreement; and, from the time the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period for sale expired, no corporate officers, directors, or shareholders of respondent would again engage in the alcoholic beverage business, make any application for a beverage license, apply for transfer of a beverage license, or hold an interest in any business involved in the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (DABT Ex. 1, p. 5-8). Without objection from respondent's counsel, DABT's counsel described the consent order (or settlement agreement) as "in the nature of a final administrative action and [respondent] acknowledges that its failure to abide by such would subject him to the provisions of Florida Statutes 120.69 (P-1, p. 6). Although this settlement agreement was effective and began to operate immediately (the 90-day period for sale commenced the next day) DABT's counsel contemplated that a written and signed consent order embracing the terms of the settlement agreement would be subsequently issued. Although such follow-up action was intended, it never occurred. DABT never issued a written order, consent or otherwise, embracing the terms of the settlement agreement. Hearing Officer Benton and, at least one party, thereafter relied on the settlement agreement. The hearing officer closed both Division of Administrative Hearings files, and DABT no longer prosecuted respondent under the pending charges. Since June 16, 1981, the expiration of the 90-day period provided in the agreement, respondent has continued to operate its licensed alcoholic beverage premises, has failed to sell its corporate entity, and has failed to surrender its alcoholic beverage license. Respondent has presented no evidence justifying or excusing its failure to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation on or before June 16, 1981. Neither does it seek to withdraw from or set aside the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1983, 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 26th day of May, 1983.
The Issue Whether "[o]n or about January 16, 2009, Respondent [the holder of an SR license] failed to maintain a restaurant . . . contrary to and in violation of [s]ection 561.20(2), Florida Statutes (1953), within [s]ection 561.20(5), Florida Statutes (2008), within [s]ection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008),"2 as alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all material times, the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-02630, Series 4COP/SR (Subject License), which is a "Special Restaurant" or "SR" license issued by Petitioner. The location of the licensed premises is 17190 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, where Respondent operates Epicure Gourmet Market and Café (Epicure) in a structure having 34,000 square feet of interior space, 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of which is open to the consuming public. The Rascal House, an eating establishment specializing in comfort food, formerly occupied this location. The Rascal House opened in 1954 and was operated under the Subject License from December 30 of that year until March 30, 2008, when it was shuttered. For the final twelve years of its existence, the Rascal House was owned and operated by Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc., Respondent's parent corporation. Respondent acquired the Rascal House property and the Subject License from Jerry's Famous Deli in 2008. After spending $7.5 million on renovations to the property,3 Respondent reopened the venue as Epicure on October 7, 2008, and has done business under that name at the former Rascal House location since. Petitioner approved the transfer of the Subject License to Respondent on October 27, 2008, following an inspection of the premises of Epicure by one of Petitioner's Special Agents, Bradley Frank, who found that all statutory requirements for "SR" licensure were met. In the summer of 2008, prior to the opening of Epicure, Respondent, through its Chief Financial Officer, Christina Sperling, submitted a Request for Initial Inspection and Food Permit Application with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Food Safety (DACS), in which it described Epicure as a "[f]ood market with indoor/outdoor seating area; but not a service restaurant." At the time of the filing of the Food Permit Application, Respondent had no intention of using waiters or waitresses to serve Epicure's patrons, although it did intend for these patrons to be able to purchase food and beverage items for consumption on the premises. Before Epicure opened, Respondent was granted a DACS Annual Food Permit, "Supermarket"-type, for the establishment, a permit it continues to hold today. On February 11, 2009, and again on July 28, 2009, Respondent applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (H&R) for a "public food service establishment"4 license for Epicure. Both applications were denied by H&R because Epicure was licensed (properly so, in the opinion of H&R) by DACS. The DACS permit is not the only license Respondent has for Epicure. It also has a retail license, a food market license, and a restaurant-outside dining license, all issued by the City of Sunny Isles Beach. Respondent has held these City of Sunny Isles Beach-issued licenses since 2008. On January 16, 2009, the date of the violation alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, Epicure had the necessary equipment and supplies (including those in its 4,000 to 5,000 square foot kitchen where food was prepared) to provide, and it did provide, patrons full course meals (including ready to eat appetizer items, ready to eat salad items, ready to eat entree items, ready to eat vegetable items, ready to eat dessert items, ready to eat fruit items, hot and cold beverages (non-alcoholic and alcoholic), and bread) for on- premises consumption at indoor and outdoor tables5 (Eating Tables) having a total seating capacity in excess of 200 and occupying more than 4,000 square feet of space.6 There were no waiters or waitresses, at that time, to take orders from, and to serve food and beverages to, patrons sitting at the Eating Tables.7 The patrons themselves brought to their Eating Tables the food and beverages they consumed there--food and beverages they obtained from manned counters (in the hot food, raw meat/fresh seafood,8 deli, bakery, and bar areas); from the fresh produce area; and from the cases, shelves, and tables where packaged food and drink items were displayed for sale. Epicure employees were stationed in the areas where the Eating Tables were located to assist patrons who wanted tableware, a glass of ice water, a packaged item (such as soup) to be opened or warmed, or their table to be cleaned. Not all of the items sold at Epicure on January 16, 2009, were consumed on the premises. True to its name, Epicure had not only a bona fide "café" operation, it also operated as a "market" where patrons shopped for "gourmet" food and other items for off-premises consumption and use. Among the food and beverage items for sale were raw meat and fresh seafood; dairy products; ready to eat deli meats and cheeses, including those packaged by the manufacturer; packaged grains; packaged stocks, including vegetable, beef, seafood, and chicken stock; condiments, including jams, jellies, and caviar; sauces; spices; eggs; chips, popcorn, and nuts; packaged crackers and cookies; ingredients (other than meat and seafood) for salads, dips, and dressings; cooked and other prepared foods ready to eat; baked bread and other bakery items; candy; fruit and other fresh produce; bottles of wine, liquor, and beer, as well as non- alcoholic beverages, including water; and packaged tea. Among the non-food items for sale were flowers; glassware; candles; napkins, paper and plastic plates and cups, and eating and serving utensils; paper towels; toilet paper; toilet bowel cleaner; wine and liquor opening devices and equipment; publications relating to alcoholic beverage products; cookbooks; and personal care and over-the-counter health care items. Shopping carts were available for patrons to use in the establishment to transport items selected for purchase. These items were paid for at the same cash registers (at the front of the establishment) where food and beverages consumed on the premises were paid for. There was considerable overlap between Epicure's "café" and "market" operations in terms of space used and items sold. Both the "café" and the "market" were fundamental and substantial components of Epicure's business, and they worked together synergistically. The record evidence does not clearly and convincingly reveal that Epicure's "café" operation was merely incidental or subordinate to its "market" operation, or that its "café" was in any way operated as a subterfuge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, issue a final order dismissing the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2011, 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 24th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent, Club Manhattan Bar and Grill, LLC, d/b/a Club Manhattan Bar and Grill (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaints dated September 13, 2010, and December 1, 2010, and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. Respondent is licensed under the Florida beverage law by the Department. Respondent holds a 4COP/SRX special restaurant license issued by the Department with Alcoholic Beverage License No. 68-04347. Ms. Stokes is the licensee of record for Respondent. Consequently, Respondent is subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent's series 4COP/SRX is a special restaurant license that permits it to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises. Additionally, the licensee must satisfy seating and record-keeping requirements and must comply with 51 percent of its gross sales being food and non- alcoholic beverages. See § 561.20(2)(a)4., Fla. Stat. Respondent's restaurant is located in Sarasota County, Florida, and, pursuant to the 4COP/SRX license, must have seating and capability to serve 150 customers at any one time. On August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn conducted an inspection of Respondent's business premises. He conducted the inspection based on complaints made to the Department that Respondent was operating as an after-hours bar, rather than a restaurant. At this initial inspection, which occurred at 2:30 p.m. on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn found the restaurant did not have any customers or menus. Further, he noticed that the premises had seating for only 92 people and a large dance floor. Further, he observed that the walls had signs advertising drink specials and late-night parties. Special Agent Flynn met Ms. Stokes, Respondent's manager and holder of the license, and informed her that the beverage license required that Respondent be able to serve 150 customers at one time. Also, Special Agent Flynn requested the required business records concerning the purchase of alcoholic beverage invoices from the distributors for a 60-day proceeding period. Ms. Stokes did not have the requested records on the premises. On August 19, 2010, Special Agent Flynn sent Ms. Stokes a written request, requesting alcoholic purchase invoices for a 60-day period before August 19, 2010. The request allowed Ms. Stokes 14 days to compile the records and to provide the records to the Department. The record here showed by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not produce records for the audit period. On September 8, 2010, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Special Agent Flynn returned to Respondent's premises. Again, he found that Respondent did not have the required seating number and ability to serve 150 customers at one time. Special Agent Flynn offered credible testimony that, during the September 8, 2010, inspection, he found Respondent had only 106 available seats. Further, consistent with his inspection on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed facts showing that Respondent was a late-night bar, as opposed to a restaurant. The evidence showed that on September 8, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed that Respondent did not have any customers, menus, and very little food in its small kitchen. Special Agent Flynn, however, did observe that Respondent continued to have its large dance floor, disc jockey booth, advertised drink specials, and posters advertising late-night parties. Clearly, Respondent was being operated as a bar, rather than a restaurant as required by its license. At the September 8, 2010, inspection, Special Agent Flynn again requested Respondent's business records that he had previously requested for the 60-day time period before August 19, 2010. Ms. Stokes provided a few invoices for purchases of food and non-alcoholic beverages. These invoices were dated after the August 19, 2010, date that Special Agent Flynn had requested and did not cover the requested 60 days prior to the August 19, 2010, request. These records included food and beverage purchases by Respondent from retailers, but did not contain any records concerning the points of sale at the restaurant. Ms. Nadeau, an auditor for the Department, offered credible testimony concerning the Department's request for business records from Respondent for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. On August 27, 2010, Ms. Nadeau set up an audit request for the period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, based on information provided by Special Agent Flynn. The Department provided Ms. Stokes with an audit engagement letter that requested business records. Ms. Nadeau testified that on September 10, 2010, she was contacted by Ms. Stokes. Ms. Stokes informed Ms. Nadeau that Ms. Stokes had become the owner of the restaurant in June 2010 and that she did not have the required records. Ms. Nadeau informed Ms. Stokes to provide all the records requested in the audit engagement letter that Ms. Stokes had and to try to obtain the prior records from the previous managing member of Respondent. On September 22, 2010, Ms. Stokes mailed to the Department records she claimed met the audit period. The records consisted of guest checks for July and August 2010, which only showed food purchases and no alcoholic beverage purchases. Further, Ms. Nadeau found that the records were not reliable, because the records contained numerous personal items not related to the restaurant, such as baby wipes, cotton swabs, and boxer shorts. Consequently, the record clearly and convincingly shows that Respondent failed to provide the required business records for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. Next, based on Respondent's failure to provide any reliable records, the Department was unable to conduct an audit of the business. Records provided by Respondent indicated that the only sales that occurred on the premises were for food. However, the testimony showed that Respondent's business included the sale of alcohol and marketed the sale of alcoholic beverages for late-night parties. Mr. Torres, the senior auditor for the Department, credibly testified that he conducted an independent review of Ms. Nadeau's initial audit findings. Mr. Torres, who has been employed with the Department for 27 years, reviewed the records provided by Respondent. He credibly testified that Respondent's guest checks were very questionable because they showed all food sales, but no alcohol, which was not consistent with Special Agent Flynn's observations. The evidence further showed that Ms. Stokes became the managing member of Respondent in June 2010. Ms. Stokes provided the Department with a change of corporate officers and named herself as registered agent, rather than apply for a new license. This distinction would later become important because, as explained by Ms. Nadeau, in the Department's eyes, there is a continuation of ownership. Under a continuation of ownership, Ms. Stokes was required to have business records for the time period before she became the managing member of Respondent. Ms. Stokes credibly testified that she did not have any records before June 20, 2010; thus, Respondent was unable to provide records for the audit period. Ms. Stokes candidly admitted that her restaurant had been struggling financially, which is why she had worked to catering special events to draw foot traffic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license and finding that Respondent violated: 1. Section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by failing to provide the required service area, seating, and equipment to serve 150 persons full-course meals at tables at one time as required by its license; 2. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, by not providing the requested business records; and 3. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by not providing the requested business records. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find that the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2011.
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th of March, 1976, Pearlie Mae Smith, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else, to wit: Junior Lee Smith, to have in their possession on the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 5 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to s. 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1976, and up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Pearlie Mae Smith, held license no. 72-65, series 2-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. The licensed premises is located at 1013 West Malloy Avenue, Perry, Florida. On the morning of March 14, 1976, Officer B.C. Maxwell with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage acting on an informant's information, searched the informant to determine if the informant had monies other than the money that the officer had given him or any alcoholic beverages on his person. Once the informant had been searched and it was determined that the informant was carrying with him only the money that the officer had given him to purchase alcoholic beverages, the informant was sent into the subject licensed premises. The informant returned with a half-pint bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold on the licensed premise and indicated that this purchase was made from one Junior Lee Smith. Later in the morning, around 11:30, officers of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage entered the licensed premises and an inspection of those premises revealed a bag containing 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka in the kitchen area of the licensed premises. This bag and contents were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka are alcoholic beverages which are not allowed to be sold under the series 2-COP license on the subject premises. When the officers entered, the same Junior Lee Smith was in the licensed premises and indicated that he was in charge of the licensed premises and had been selling alcoholic beverages for "quite some time" together with his wife, Pearlie Mae Smith, the licensee. The bag he indicated, had been whiskey that had been left over from the night before.
Recommendation It is recommended that based upon the violation as established in the hearing that the licensee, Pearlie Mae Smith, have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 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: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mrs. Pearlie Mae Smith 1013 West Malloy Avenue Perry, Florida
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed December 19, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license number 60-0883 issued to James R. Rogers, trading as Ray's Tavern. As grounds therefor it is alleged that Rogers, in order to secure a license to sell alcoholic beverages, made false written statements to the agents of Respondent in violation of 537.06 and 561.29 F.S. One witness was called by Petitioner and four exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 1977, notice of the hearing scheduled to commence on January 12, 1978 at 1457 N. Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida was served on Respondent by a beverage agent of Petitioner. (Exhibit 1) In answer to question 13 on the application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License, which asked "Has a license covering the place described in this application or any other place in which any of' the above named persons were at the time interested ever been revoked by the Director?" Respondent answered "No". (Exhibit 2). By Order of the Director of the Division of Beverages dated September 30, 1955 (Exhibit 3) the alcoholic beverage license issued to James R. Rogers, Curley's Tavern, aka Ray's Tavern was revoked for maintaining gambling paraphernalia and permitting gambling on the licensed premises.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: On October 24, 1985, Petitioner filed an initial application with Respondent to obtain an alcoholic beverage license. The alcoholic beverage license was to be used in the operation of a small restaurant which Petitioner owned, known as El Conquistador Restaurant, in Homestead, Florida. The Petitioner is the sole owner of El Conquistador Restaurant. The application listed the Respondent, Maria Andarcio as the sole proprietor and only person having a financial interest in the business known as El Conquistador Restaurant. During the processing of the application, Mr. Ross, the investigator assigned to Petitioner's case, noticed that the application appeared to have several discrepancies. In particular, Mr. Ross was concerned because the financial information submitted with the initial application listed Julio Andarcio, Respondent's estranged husband, as the sole depositor of the expense account but he was not listed as having any financial interest in the business. Secondly, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient information regarding her employment history. Lastly, a lease which was part of the initial application, identified a potential undisclosed interest, Jose Osario, as a co- leasee. On November 15, 1985, Mr. Ross, routinely mailed a "14 day letter" to Petitioner requesting additional information. In particular, the "14 day letter" directed the Petitioner to provide additional information within 14 days from the date of receipt of the letter. The additional information requested was as follows: List occupation for the past 5 years on personal questionaire. Julio Andarcio must be fingerprinted and submit personal questionaire." The Petitioner failed to provide the information requested in the 14 day letter. Thereafter, Respondent was unable to fully investigate the license application and denied the Petitioner's license on January 8, 1986. For some reason, the Petitioner did not receive the 14 day letter which Respondent sent by regular mail. Therefore, she did not respond within the requested time period. The Petitioner was born in Cuba and speaks very little English. The language barrier contributed to the apparent discrepancies in Petitioner's initial application. Mr. Ross opined that based on all of the information that he had received up to the time of the hearing, the Petitioner would have been granted a beverage license had she only responded to the "14 day letter."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered allowing the Petitioner 20 days from the date thereof in which to provide Respondent with the information requested in the initial "14 day letter," thereby making her application complete. The Respondent shall thereafter review and process the application in the standard and routine manner. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1176 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner (None Submitted) Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact. Matters not contained therein are rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or argument. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact. Matters no contained therein are rejected as subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Armando Gutierrez, Esquire 2153 Coral Way, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33145 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1077 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Thomas A. Bell, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927
