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 By notice to show cause, petitioner charged that respondent, individually or through the acts of its agent/employee, violated the provisions of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by selling an alcoholic beverage on its licensed premises to a person under the age of 21. Respondent requested a formal hearing on the charges, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the hearing, petitioner called three witnesses and offered three exhibits which were admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf and offered no exhibits. A transcript of the hearing was not ordered, and the parties were granted leave until August 21, 1989 to file proposed findings of fact. Petitioner timely filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. A ruling on each of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been made and is reflected in the Appendix to this recommended order. On August 24, 1989, respondent filed a letter which is here deemed to be his proposed findings of fact; however, his filing was untimely.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Coast Line Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Toms Texaco, held an alcoholic beverage license number 60-04813, series 2- APS for the premises known as Toms Texaco in Lantana, Florida at 401 N. Dixie Highway. Mr. Thomas Przybylski is the President of respondent and appeared on behalf of the licensee. On or around April 4, 1989, petitioner's investigator conducted an investigation of respondent's licensed premises to determine if respondent was selling alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. The investigation was prompted by complaints received by petitioner from the Lantana Police Department. Petitioner's practice in making such investigations was to employ an underaged person and send the underaged person onto the licensed premises to purchase an alcoholic beverage. The underaged person was instructed not to carry any form of identification and to respond truthfully if asked his age or for identification. Julio A. More was employed by petitioner as an Investigative Aide. On April 4, 1989, following petitioner's instructions, Mr. More, who was eighteen at the time and appeared to be no older than his age, entered the licensed premises at issue. It was a busy afternoon at Toms Texaco. Mr. More picked a beer out of the inventory and attempted to purchase it from Mr. Przybylski, who was working that afternoon. Mr. Przybylski asked Mr. More if he had any identification to which Mr. More replied that he had none. Mr. Przybylski then sold Mr. More the beer. Petitioner's investigator witnessed the sale and confiscated the tendered beer. Mr. Przybylski as an employee and officer of respondent sold an alcoholic beverage to an individual who was eighteen at the time of the sale. Accordingly, respondent is guilty of selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age. The proof demonstrated that petitioner has promulgated disciplinary guidelines for offenses similar to the one at issue; and that the appropriate penalty in this case would be the imposition of a fine of $1,000 and twenty-day suspension of the license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing on respondent an administrative fine of $1,000 and suspending respondent's license for a period of twenty days. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of September 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO.89-3006 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraphs 3 and 4. Addressed in paragraph 4. Irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Thomas John Przybylski, Jr. Coast Line Petroleum, Inc. 10670 Cypress Bend Drive Boca Raton, Florida 33498 Lt. Debbie Pfitzenmaier Elisha Newton Dimick Building 111 Georgia Avenue, Room 207 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey Director The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: At all times material to the charges, Ronald Wayne Diamond and Susan Joyce Saiia owned and operated a partnership trading as Susan's Las Olas Seafood Market at 1404 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida ("the licensed premises") On the licensed premises, they sold alcoholic beverages under the authority of alcoholic beverage license No. 16-3029, Series 2-APS. On January 17 or 18, 1982,and on January 19, 1982, Broward County Sheriff's Department Detective Fernandez entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and negotiated with Respondent Ronald Diamond for the sale and delivery of cocaine and cannabis. Respondent Susan Saiia was present and aware of these negotiations, although she did not actively participate in them. On one of these occasions, she warned Respondent Diamond to be careful, that she had seen someone in the back alley who looked like he was wearing a recording device. On January 20, 1982, Respondent Diamond was arrested on charges of unlawful trafficking in cocaine and possessing cannabis in violation of Sections 893.135(1)(b) and 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes. He was taken to the licensed premises where a search warrant was executed and two ounces of marijuana were found in an office file cabinet. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) On May 6, 1982, the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, adjudging Respondent Diamond guilty of these felonies, sentenced him to fifteen years in prison and fined him $250,000 for trafficking in cocaine. He was sentenced to an additional five years for the possession of cannabis. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondents' alcoholic beverage license No. 16-3029, Series 2-APS, be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of July, 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 12th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Hoggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maurice Graham, Esquire Suite 2 2161 E. Commercial Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Howard M. Rasmussen 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
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent failed to maintain separate records of purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141, and if so, what penalty, if any, is appropriate. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect of the date of this Recommended Order).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 69-02639, series 4COP SRX. An SRX license authorizes Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Jon's Bar & Grill, located at 2485 N. Highway 17-92, Lake Monroe, Florida ("the licensed premises"). Persons issued "SRX" licenses must meet certain statutory requirements to ensure that they are operating bona fide restaurants. Among other requirements, Respondent must maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food. Respondent's license application specifically informed Respondent that he must meet the specific requirements of this type of license. On March 17, 1997, Petitioner's Special Agent Richard Hurlburt met with Respondent for the purpose of conducting an SRX inspection to determine Respondent's compliance with SRX license requirements. An SRX inspection includes an audit of the licensee's records to determine the percentage of gross revenue derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Respondent was unable to produce the records he is statutorily required to maintain. Agent Hurlburt issued a notice to produce records relating to the operation of the restaurant. On August 12, 1997, Petitioner issued a notice of administrative complaint against Respondent for failure to maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales for non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20. Respondent has not produced the records he is statutorily required to maintain.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $1,000 civil penalty against Respondent and revoking alcoholic beverage license no. 69-02639, series 4COP SRX, without prejudice to obtain any other type license, but with prejudice to obtain another SRX special license for 5 years from date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon county, Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George Lewis, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon Gustafson, pro se 956 Lake Ashby Road New Smyrna, Florida 32069
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 56-526, Series 2-COP. The licensed premises is known as the "Green Frog" and is located at 1216 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The corporate officers of Respondent are Charles J. Schoener, Marlene D. Schoener, Mitch M. Smith and Charles M. Hall. On September 27, 1983, Investigator Robert Randle of the Gulf Breeze Police Department was approached by two individuals as he exited the licensed premises of the Green Frog and was asked if he wanted to purchase some marijuana. While discussing the marijuana purchase, Randle was approached by the Green Frog doorman who was working on the premises that night. The doorman, known as "Animal," inquired of Randle if he wanted to buy a small quantity of cocaine and displayed a small plastic baggie containing a white substance which he offered to sell for $30. After paying the doorman $30 for the small package represented to be cocaine, Randle submitted the contents for chemical analysis. Subsequent analysis revealed the presence of no controlled substance. On or about February 18, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises of the Green Frog in an undercover capacity. While on the licensed premises, Randle contacted a dancer known as "Angel." Randle asked Angel where he could obtain some narcotics and she directed him to her apartment. Randle went to the apartment but was unable to purchase any drugs. He returned to the Green Frog and told Angel that he had been unsuccessful. She left Randle's presence but later delivered a partial marijuana cigarette to him on the licensed premises. Subsequent analysis of the partial cigarette showed the contents to be cannabis/marijuana. On or about February 28, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. On this date, he made contact with a dancer known as "Sugar" and asked her if he could obtain some marijuana or cocaine. Sugar directed Randle to the dancer Angel's apartment where he was told he could purchase a baggie of marijuana. Upon reaching the apartment Officer Randle informed Angel that Sugar had told him he could buy a bag of marijuana from her. At this time Angel sold a baggie of marijuana to Officer Randle for $25. Subsequent analysis of the baggie's contents revealed that it contained cannabis/marijuana. On or about March 6, 1984, Officer Randle returned to the licensed premises as part of this investigation. Upon entering, Randle engaged the dancer Sugar in conversation and advised her he was looking for narcotics. Shortly thereafter, Sugar told Randle he could purchase one-quarter gram of cocaine for $25. Later, she informed him that she was obtaining the cocaine from another dancer who would only sell half-gram amounts for $50. Randle then gave Sugar $50 and observed Sugar leave his table, speak to an unidentified dancer and return to his table. Sugar then handed Randle a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance. Subsequent analysis of the contents of the bag showed that it contained cocaine. On or about March 17, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises as part of the ongoing investigation. Randle made contact with the dancer "Kelly" and the dancer "Lisa." Randle told Kelly that he had "scored" some good cocaine previously from the dancer Sugar and that he was looking for her. In response to this statement, Kelly informed Randle that she had supplied Sugar with the cocaine and that she could sell him a half-gram of cocaine for $50 that evening. Later, Randle was approached by the dancer Lisa who asked him if he was holding some cocaine. Randle informed her that he was looking for cocaine and asked her if she could sell him some. Lisa also told him that she was waiting for her supplier and that she would sell him a $50 package when the supplier arrived. While waiting for the supplier to arrive on the premises, Randle was again approached by Lisa who gave him the phone number of her supplier and suggested he call the supplier and tell him to come to the licensed premises with the cocaine. Later, a male patron arrived at the premises and was observed talking to Lisa by Randle. Shortly thereafter, both Lisa and Kelly delivered small plastic baggies containing white substances to Randle who was seated at a table. Both deliveries were made inside the lounge in plain view. Subsequent analysis confirmed that both packages contained cocaine. Beginning around late February 1984, Mr. Tim Forehand regularly sold and supplied cocaine on the licensed premises. His sales were generally in one- half gram packages and the dollar amount of such sales on the licensed premises ranged from $200 to $1800 per night. Forehand supplied the cocaine on March 17, 1984, to the dancers Lisa and Kelly who then sold this substance to Officer Randle. Forehand also sold cocaine six or eight times to a corporate officer's son, David Schoener, who worked as a bartender on the licensed premises. On one occasion, Charles Schoener barred Forehand from the licensed premises for dealing drugs. He was, however, allowed back onto the premises within one week, The testimony of Lisa Dixon, Melissa Crawford (a/k/a Sugar) and Tim Forehand indicated that drug use and sales in the licensed premises were open and extensive. Sugar testified that see had used cocaine with Charles Hall, an officer-owner, on the licensed premises. Similarly, Lisa Dixon testified that she was in the presence of Charles Schoener on an occasion when he used cocaine in the licensed premises. In their testimony, Charles Schoener and Charles Hall denied using drugs on the licensed premises. Their testimony and that of a third owner- manager, Mitch Smith, a bartender, Jim Ellis, and a dancer, Evangeline Potts, indicated that drug use and sales were rarely observed and that action was taken to bar customers or warn employees when such incidents occurred. The documentary evidence and testimony of both Petitioner's and Respondent's witnesses established that Respondent had a stated policy against drug use or possession on the premises. Employee rules to this effect had been adopted and posted for over a year and periodic employee meetings were held at which the no drug policy was discussed. However, enforcement was not vigorous as indicated by the fact that Forehand was allowed to return to the Green Frog even though he had earlier been barred for drug activity. Further, Charles Schoener, the corporation president, did not discharge the dancer Kelly, even when he suspected her of illegal drug activity on the licensed premises. Much of the testimony of the witnesses with the exception of Officer Randle and Officer Kiker (who was not directly involved), was self-serving and lacking in credibility. Forehand, Dixon and Crawford have all been arrested and charged with criminal offenses. They were advised that their cooperation in this proceeding could favorably effect their sentences if convicted. Respondent's witnesses are owners and employees of the licensed premises, and thus have a stake in preserving the beverage license. In addition to their denials, the purported use of cocaine by Charles Schoener and Charles Hall on the licensed premises in the presence of their employees is inconsistent with their efforts to prohibit or at least discourage drug use. Further, the testimony of Officer Randle indicates that drug sales and use were not "wide open" as claimed by Petitioner's other witnesses. Randle visited the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on numerous occasions beginning September 27, 1983, but was not able to obtain a delivery of a controlled substance until February 18, 1984.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 90 days, including the emergency suspension now in effect. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1984, 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 17th day of April, 1984.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the notice to show cause and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Cesar J. Reyes, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-05034, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Busy Cafeteria Bar (the "premises"), located at 4601 West Flagler Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. In November 1993, Special Agent Joe Lopez of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, together with the assistance of a confidential informant (CI), began an undercover investigation of the premises. Such investigation was predicated on information Special Agent Lopez had received from federal authorities which indicated that narcotics were being sold upon the premises. On December 1, 1993, Special Agent Lopez and the CI entered the licensed premises. While inside the premises, the CI met with respondent and purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. On the same occasion, Special Agent Lopez met with respondent, and he also purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. 1/ On December 2, 1993, Special Agent Lopez and the CI returned to the licensed premises. While inside the licensed premises, they again met with respondent and purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. On December 7, 1993, Special Agent Brian Weiner of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco served respondent with an emergency order suspending his alcoholic beverage license, and placed respondent under arrest for the sale of cocaine. Incident to such arrest, Special Agent Weiner searched respondent's person and discovered six small plastic packages, each containing 1/2 gram of cocaine, in a small box tucked under respondent's waist band.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing Counts 1 and 2 of the notice to show cause, finding respondent guilty of Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the notice to show cause, and revoking respondent's alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of December 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December 1993.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, alcoholic beverage license No. 26-01841, Series No. 2-APS, was issued to Respondents, Frank D. and Estella S. Ryers, for their establishment known as the Big B Restaurant, located at 5570 Avenue B, Jacksonville, Florida. A 2-APS license permits the package sale only of beer and wine. It does not permit the consumption on the premises of beer, wine, or liquor. On March 27, 1983, Investigator Wendell M. Reeves conducted an undercover operation directed against the Big B Restaurant predicated upon reports received by Petitioner that Respondents were conducting sales of alcoholic beverages not permitted by the license at the licensed premises. In furtherance of that operation, Reeves utilized another beverage agent, Van Young, in an undercover capacity to make a controlled buy of an improperly sold substance from the licensees. Prior to sending Young into the licensed premises, Reeves searched Young to ensure that he, Young, had no alcoholic beverage or money in his possession. Satisfying himself that that was the case, he gave Young $15 in U.S. currency and sent him into the licensed premises to make the buy. Young entered the Big B Restaurant at 1:00 p.m. and came out 17 minutes later. When he came out of the licensed premises, Young came over to where Reeves was waiting and turned over to him a sealed 200 ml bottle of Fleishman's Gin. Young told Reeves that he had purchased the gin in the licensed premises from a black male whose description matched that of Respondent Frank D. Byers which is contained on Respondent's application for license. Respondent Frank Byers denies making the sale. On balance, however, there is little doubt it was Respondent who made the sale, especially in light of the fact that this same licensee was issued a letter of warning by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in October 1981 for possession on the premises of an alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold under the license. Young also stated that he purchased a second bottle which he consumed on the premises with another black male. However, this evidence was in the form of Reeves' report of what was told him by Young. As such, it is clearly hearsay and can be used only to corroborate or explain other admissible evidence. Therefore, as to the allegation regarding the consumption of the gin on the premises, since it is the only evidence of that offense, it cannot be used to support a finding of fact on that allegation. It may, however, be used to explain how Young got the bottle with which he was seen by Reeves to come out of the licensed premises. Several days later, on March 30, 1983, Reeves again entered the licensed premises, where he told Respondent Estella Byers he was there to inspect the site. She opened the cooler for him and he inspected the beer inside and the cigarettes. While he was doing that, however, he noticed her take a cloth towel and drape it over something behind the bar. He went over to it, removed the towel, and found that it covered a bottle of Schenley's gin. Mrs. Byers immediately said she thought it was her husband's, Respondent Frank Byers, but another individual present at the time, Sharon Thomas, said she had taken it from her brother, who was drunk, and had put it there. Again, as to Ms. Thomas' comments, they, too, are hearsay and can only serve here to explain or corroborate other admissible evidence. In any case, after Ms. Thomas made her comment, she was immediately contradicted by Respondent Estella Byers, who again indicated she thought the bottle was her husband's. In any case, at the hearing, Respondent Estella Byers contended she did not know it was there. On balance, Mr. Reeves' testimony that she covered it with a towel while he was inspecting and the evidence of the prior warning for an identical offense tend to indicate she did know it was there and that it was unlawful for it to be there. There is, however, no evidence to establish sufficiently the reason for its being there.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of its license under the beverage law. Specifically, Respondent purportedly violated the actions set forth in two counts, as follows: Count I--Respondent failed to "provide the required service area, seating and equipment to serve 200 persons full course meals at tables at one time as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes"; and Count II--Respondent failed to "provide at least 4,000 square feet of area dedicated to the operation of the restaurant as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes." Respondent has also raised the issue of whether Petitioner should be estopped from enforcement actions concerning the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, issuing and monitoring licenses to businesses within the state relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR (the "License"). An SR, or Special Restaurant, license is a unique kind of license which was issued by the Division prior to the establishment of quota licenses. Holders of SR licenses are allowed to sell beer, wine and liquor, package sales and sales by the drink on the premises. Quota licenses are issued based on a population ratio, i.e., no more than one license per 7,500 people in a given geographic area may exist. When Respondent obtained its SR license in 1979 (by way of transfer from the original owner of that license), the existing statutes mandated that the License be housed in a building of not less than 4,000 square feet with room in the building to seat at least 200 people at any one time. The statutes also required that food be served at all times the establishment was open. In 1979, when Respondent filed an application seeking to obtain the transfer of the SR license that had been issued in 1957, the application included an Affidavit from Marianne Gunn agreeing to a specific location (2704 Anderson Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida)1 for the business, which was to be known as the Stardust Lounge. The Affidavit affirmed Marianne Gunn's agreement to maintain the premises with the necessary equipment and supplies to seat 200 people at any one time. The Affidavit affirmed that the building housing Stardust Lounge would be at least 4,000 square feet in size. The License was then transferred to Respondent by the Division. Approximately one year after receiving the License and commencing operations, the Stardust Lounge burned down. Some undisclosed portion of the building remained, but no business could be operated on the site. It would have been difficult to rebuild the building under the then-current building codes. Further, the City of Fort Myers expressed its opposition to the existence of an alcoholic beverage establishment at that site. Some time after the fire, Respondent asked the Division to place the License in an inactive status (also known as placing a license in escrow). The request from Respondent asked that the License be placed in escrow for up to eight months. Respondent represented that it was in negotiation with the City of Fort Myers concerning a land swap to settle certain claims Respondent had against the city. Respondent estimated the negotiations would go on for approximately two months. Respondent advised the Division that if negotiations were successful, it would allow the License to be cancelled upon transfer of the premises to the city. If the negotiations were not successful, Respondent estimated it would need at least six months to sell the property at a private sale. It was Respondent's intent that the License be "taken care of" along with the land deal. "That's what that was all about," Fox testified at final hearing. Based upon Respondent's request, the Division apparently placed the License in escrow. There was no documentation presented at final hearing to substantiate this fact. However, the Division sent Respondent a bill each year to renew the License despite there being no physical site for operating a business by the licensee. Respondent dutifully paid the renewal fee each year. Eighteen years after the License was placed in escrow, the State of Florida commenced condemnation proceedings relating to a portion of the premises where the Stardust Lounge had formerly existed.2 During this nearly two-decade hiatus, Respondent continued to renew the License each year upon notice from the Division. Respondent's counsel sent a letter to the Division dated June 27, 2000, which said in pertinent part: We send you this letter at the request of our client, Mrs. Fox. . . . She has a liquor license in escrow with the Department. Due to the condemnation taking, she will not be able to utilize the license at this location and she has agreed that if this license can be moved to another location, it would not be an issue in the condemnation case. The letter did not address the issue of Respondent's prior representation that the License would be cancelled within eight months of its May 21, 1982, letter, some 18 years earlier. The Division responded to Respondent's counsel in a letter dated the very next day which stated in pertinent part: I am responding to the request of you and the licensee wanting to know if the liquor license that is held in the name of Marianne Gunn, DBA Stardust Lounge is movable. In the case of the property being taken by the state, the license may be moved one time and only one time. Providing that we have copies of all paperwork involved with the property condemnation taking. This license is not a moveable license unless in a case like this. The only thing that the licensee needs to understand is that it is changing location only one time. The Division's letter did not mention the escrow status of the License, either. The inartfully worded request and nebulous response added to the confusion concerning the status of the License. There is no evidence indicating whether any information concerning the condemnation was ever provided to the Division. Respondent could not say at final hearing when the condemnation actually occurred, how much land was taken, or how much was paid for the land. The License apparently remained in escrow at that time pending a move to some other location. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that the reason for her negotiations with the City of Fort Myers in 1982 was partly because the city did not want the bar located at the site where it had burned down. She testified that she had received insurance proceeds from the fire and intended to rebuild the lounge, but the city objected. That was the only testimony given as to why the lounge was not rebuilt during the 18 years it remained in escrow. Glen Fox testified that the original site of the Stardust Lounge would not be acceptable for rebuilding the structure after the fire due to certain building code issues. Both Mr. and Mrs. Fox testified that there was insufficient land available to build on site after the property condemnation taking. Fox testified that she owned three lots at the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Cranford Avenue. Those lots were 50-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep (for a presumed total lot size of 150-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep). Fox does not know the size of the lots after the condemnation proceeding. It has long been the policy of the Division, pursuant to its interpretations of the Beverage Law set forth in statute, that SR licenses could not be moved from their original location. In 2005 or 2006, a licensee who was operating a business in American Beach filed a lawsuit against the Division seeking to move his SR license to a different location. As a result of the lawsuit, the Division changed its existing policy to allow for such a change. The new policy was posted on the Division's website for review by SR license holders. There is no evidence that SR license holders were notified about the change in policy by any other means. Respondent does not remember receiving any notice whatsoever regarding the change in policy. Within four to six months, and as a result of further legal research by Division attorneys, the Division once again altered its policy concerning the transfer of SR licenses. The newly-revised policy established the current Division position, i.e., that no SR license could be moved for any reason. Further, the policy states that all licensed premises must be in continuous operation or else the license would be forfeited. Again, the Division posted the new policy on its website and notified all SR license holders by way of letters to their establishments (or, in the case of Respondent, to the last known address). It is unclear from the record whether the letter was ever sent to or received by Respondent, although the Division obviously had Respondent's address because it sent renewal notices there each year. Some time after the change in policy, the Division determined that Respondent's license must be terminated or revoked. At that time, there were no premises associated with the License. The last time the License was in operation was 1979 or 1980, some 28 years prior to the Administrative Action being filed. The official address of the premises on the License during each of the renewal periods since 1980 had been "Escrow." That is, there was no site address associated with the License. There was obviously some address associated with the License, however, since Fox received annual billing statements from the Division. In November 2007, the Division issued an Administrative Action against Respondent concerning the License. The Administrative Action alleged that Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the License, i.e., size of premises and on-going operations. The Division indicated that it would sanction the License, including, but not limited to, revocation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that it is not complying with the requirements for an active license, but maintains that its escrowed license is exempt from those requirements. The License, despite being inactive for 28 years, is still apparently valid at this point in time (based on the Division's acceptance of Respondent's renewal payments each year). The License may have some monetary value, but there was no competent, substantial evidence presented at final hearing as to what the value might actually be. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that she did not know how much the License was worth, only that "nothing is worth as much as it used to be." Fox cannot remember how much she paid for the License when it was transferred to her. She cannot remember how much she asked for the License when she offered it for sale. She cannot remember how much was offered for the License as part of the condemnation sale. Fox does know that she paid an annual fee each year for renewal of the License. She does not know what the fee was each year, but "I paid whatever the state told me was due." (The Division testified that the annual fee was $1,820.00. Presuming 28 years of payments, the total paid to-date would be approximately $50,960.) When suggested to Fox by her counsel that the License was worth $300,000, she agreed with that amount, but could not substantiate why that amount was valid. Fox testified that she would like a "reasonable time" to market the License for sale. She did not express what a reasonable time might be, but has not been able (or willing) to sell the License for over 28 years. Respondent put the License "out for feelers" three or four years ago, but did not include an asking price for the License. About seven months ago, someone told Fox that the License was worth approximately $326,000, but there is no support for that estimate. Patrick Roberts, former law enforcement major with the Division, opined that he would have handled Respondent's case differently had it come across his desk. He opined that the requirement for 4,000 square feet and seating for 200 people should only apply to an existing business, not one in escrow. Roberts agreed that only quota licenses are allowed escrow status by statute. Roberts did not express any opinion as to the requirement that a business be on-going at all times. Roberts agreed that an SR license should not be placed in escrow, but said he'd try to negotiate a settlement, rather than file an Administrative Action. He did concur that an Administrative Action might be necessary if all else failed. Roberts did not opine that an Administrative Action was improper, only that it wasn't his first choice of action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoking Respondent, Fox Marianne Gunn, d/b/a Stardust Lounge's, License No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 11th day of June, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Cornelia T Brown, doing business as the Oasis Restaurant Bar and Lounge, is the holder of beverage license No. 45-356, Series 2-COP. This license allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, located on Douglas Road, Groveland, Florida. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is an agency of the State of Florida which has its responsibility the licensure and regulation of beverage license holders in the State of Florida. On June 12, 1980, pursuant to a search warrant, Lake County Sheriff and Groveland Police officials accompanied by Petitioner's Beverage Officer, conducted a search of the licensed premises. Respondent was present throughout the investigation. Among the items seized as suspected controlled substances were seven plastic baggies and eight small manila envelopes containing a total of 52.1 grams of cannabis. Currency in the amount of $2,273,67 was also seized. The cannabis and currency were contained in a purse belonging to Respondent. The purse was discovered in the kitchen of the licensed premises, an area not open to bar/restaurant patrons or other members of the public.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violations as alleged in Counts 1, 2 and 4. It is further RECOMMENDED that County 3, which duplicates County 2, and Count 5, be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's License No. 45-356 be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Cornelia T. Brown Route 1, Box 350-7 Groveland, Florida 32736 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for transfer of an alcoholic beverage license should be granted, or denied on the ground that the license has been revoked.
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 1977, Armando Calo, through counsel, filed a Notice of Lien with DABT stating that he was a bona fide mortgagee on an alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, lic. no. 23-1901) held by the Intimo Lounge, Inc., 1601 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. Citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, he enclosed a copy of his chattel mortgage and a check payable to DABT in the amount of $5.00. (P-1) By return letter dated February 4, 1977, C. L. Ivey, Jr., DABT's Licensing Supervisor, acknowledged receipt of Mr. Calo's Notice of Lien and stated that it would be made part of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license file. At that time, administrative license revocation proceedings were pending against Intimo Lounge, Inc. So Mr. Ivey sent a copy of his February 4, 1977 acknowledgment letter to DABT's Miami Office, and included this notation: P.S. John: You need to immediately notify Attorney Solomon's [Calo's attorney's] office if and when an order to revoke is issued. He will then go to court to seek a judicial transfer. (P-2) On March 22, 1977, Charles A. Nuzum, DABT's Director, executed an order revoking Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license. (R-1) Eight days later, on March 30, 1977, Armando Calo sued Intimo Lounge, Inc., seeking to foreclose his chattel mortgage on its alcoholic beverage license. By letter of the same date, counsel for Mr. Calo, citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, notified DABT of the filing of the foreclosure action; he also asserted that Mr. Calo had no knowledge of or participation in the causes for which the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license was revoked. Copies of subsequent pleadings filed in the action were sent to DABT's legal department. DABT thus knew the suit was filed and was aware of its continued progress. (Testimony of Barone; P-3, P-4, P-11) The Circuit Court of Dade County ultimately entered a final judgment of foreclosure in Mr. Calo's favor. On August 17, 1979, pursuant to such judgment, the Clerk of the Court sold the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license, at public sale, to intervenor Rene Valdes, 1710 N.W. 7th Street, Suite 7201, Miami, Florida for $25,000. Notice of the sale was published in the Miami Review, a newspaper circulated in Dade County. On August 28, 1979, the Clerk issued a Certificate of Title pursuant to Chapter 45, Florida Statutes. This Certificate certified that Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, license no. 23-1901) had been sold to Rene Valdes on August 17, 1979, and that "no objections to the sale have been filed within the time allowed for filing objections." (Testimony of Valdes; P-5, P-6) Although DABT was aware of the protracted mortgage foreclosure litigation involving the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license --which it had earlier revoked -- it never protested or sought to block the foreclosure action. It was not a party to the action; neither did it attempt to become one. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) In September, 1979, a month after the judicial foreclosure sale, Nathaniel Barone, counsel for Intimo Lounge, Inc., wrote R. B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Business Regulation, asking what steps were necessary to keep the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license viable. An internal memorandum suggests that DABT was, at first, unprepared to answer that question and preferred, instead, to delay answering until an application for the license was filed. But, on October 4, 1979, Harold F. X. Purnell, the Department's General Counsel replied on behalf of Secretary Burroughs: It is the Division's position that the . . . license has been and presently is revoked pursuant to the actions pre- viously taken by [DABT]. Further, that in the absence of an order of appropriate jurisdiction entered in a proceeding to which the Division is a party we are powerless to transfer such license. (Testimony of Barone; P-7, P-10) Meanwhile, Rene Valdes, notified DABT of his purchase of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license and asked that it be held in escrow while he found a suitable purchaser and location. When DABT refused, Mr. Valdes petitioned the court, which had rendered the foreclosure judgment, to require DABT to process and transfer the license. The court denied his petition, at least in part, because DABT was not a party to the proceeding. After the court hearing, Mr. Valdes, together with his attorney, Charles Kelly, and DABT's counsel, Mr. Purnell, met outside the chambers and discussed their next step. Mr. Kelly discussed seeking a mandamus ordering DABT to issue the license. Mr. Purnell suggested, instead, that Mr. Valdes find a location and purchaser for the license, then submit an application to DABT -- something which Mr. Valdes had not yet done. Although Mr. Purnell did not assure them that the application would be approved, both Mr. Valdes and Mr. Barone gained an impression that it would be. 2/ Mr. Valdes, following Mr. Purnell's suggestion, found a location and buyer, then applied for a transfer of the license. DABT's denial resulted in this proceeding. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) Under Section 561.65(1), Florida Statutes (1977), a lender licensed by the state holding a lien on an alcoholic beverage license had the right to enforcement of his lien against the license within 12 days after any order of revocation, provided it was revoked for causes which the lienholder had no knowledge and did not participate. If the lienholder purchased the license at foreclosure sale, he could operate under it or transfer it to a qualified person. Until August 17, 1980, it was DABT's long-standing practice and policy to make no distinction between licensed and unlicensed lenders (lien-holders). It allowed both licensed and unlicensed lienholders to file notice of liens against beverage licenses and honored the subsequent transfer of the license if the lien was enforced within 12 days of revocation. This practice was abruptly changed on the basis of an agency legal opinion. On August 17, 1980, one month before Gui-Dom filed its application, DABT's General Counsel rendered a legal opinion limiting Section 561.65 relief to lenders licensed by the state. After that date, until 1981, when the legislature removed the "licensed lender" language of Section 561.65, DABT applied Section 561.65 literally and only accepted liens filed by licensed lenders. (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13) But in October, 1980, DABT did not deny Gui-Dom's application for transfer of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license because Armando Calo, the lienholder, lacked a lender's license. Instead, the application was denied because the license had been earlier revoked. As later explained by Barry Schoenfeld, DABT's Chief of Licensing: 2 [DABT] felt at the time that . . . there really was no license, that the license had already been revoked, and that there was no license for the court to sell [to Valdes]. (P-13, p. 25). But Section 561.65 specifically permits liens, under specified conditions, to survive license revocation. When asked to explain DABT's position in light of Section 561.65, Mr. Schoenfeld replied, "I don't know that I can explain it." (P-13, p. 16) Neither could Mr. Schoenfeld adequately explain why, in cases similar to this, DABT has approved license transfers while, here, they have not. (P-13, p. 23) It was not until after the denial of Gui-Dom's application that DABT contended that Section 561.65, Florida Statutes (1977), provides no relief because Armando Calo was not a licensed lender. (P- 9, P-13). Rene Valdes, a beverage license broker, operates a business known as "Beverage License, Inc." He specializes in obtaining and transferring alcoholic beverage licenses for clients and has a working knowledge of the Beverage Law, including DABT rules and practice. When he purchased the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license at the judicial sale, he did not know that it had been revoked by DABT. He did, however, know that there was license revocation litigation between Intimo Lounge, Inc. and DABT. He also knew that DABT had issued an emergency order suspending Intimo Lounge, Inc.'s license; and he knew that there were circuit court foreclosure proceedings involving the license. Yet he failed to ascertain the status of the license -- either by checking the files of DABT or the circuit court. But even if he had discovered that the license had been revoked, under DABT's long-standing practice and interpretation of Section 561.65, it would have made no difference. The license would have "survived" revocation because Armando Calo had timely enforced his lien. And it could have been sold at a judicial sale and transferred to a new qualified purchaser. (Testimony of Valdes, Harris; P-13) DABT has provided no record foundation for its abrupt discontinuance of prior agency practice and policy in August, 1980, a policy which allowed both licensed and unlicensed lien holders to file and timely enforce liens against beverage licenses. This policy enabled a lien to survive license revocation; and the license, which had been revoked earlier could then be transferred by judicial sale. The only explanation given for the change in policy, a change which DABT now relies on as cause for denying Gui-Dom's application, is that the agency changed its legal interpretation of Section 561.65 (1977). (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Gui-Dom's application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 23-1901, series 4-COP, be granted. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 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 3rd day of February, 1983.
