Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Sweet's Lounge, Inc., held alcoholic beverage license number 16-350, Series 2-COP, for the location of Sweet's Lounge, 706-710 Northwest First Street, Dania, Florida, at all times relevant to the charges in this case. On April 24, 1985, Beverage Investigator Frank Oliva drove his automobile to the front of the premises of Sweet's Lounge. He was approached by a male who asked what he wanted, and Oliva responded that he wanted "Boy," a street name for heroin. The male answered that he did not have any. Another male approached Oliva, who again indicated that he wanted some "Boy". Oliva observed the male enter the premises of Sweet's Lounge. Beverage Investigator Alphonso Junious was inside the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge and observed the entire transaction with Oliva. He observed the male enter the premises of Sweet's Lounge and approach a female patron known as Ramona, who handed the male a tinfoil package. The male returned to Investigator Oliva and exchanged the tinfoil package for $20.00. The male then reentered Sweet's Lounge and gave the $20.00 to Ramona. The substance alleged to be heroin was laboratory analyzed to contain no controlled substances. On April 25, 1985, Beverage Investigator Frank Oliva returned to the front of the premises of Sweet's Lounge. He discussed the purchase of some "Boy" from an individual named William Rainey. Rainey went inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge and returned with a tinfoil package which he delivered to Oliva in exchange for $20.00. The substance alleged to be heroin was laboratory analyzed to contain no controlled substances. On April 25, 1985, Investigator Junious returned to the premises of Sweet's Lounge. The on-duty barmaid, Beatrice, left the premises for a short time and asked a female, later identified as the barmaid Linda, who was sitting at the end of the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette, to watch the bar until Beatrice returned. Beatrice said nothing to Linda about the marijuana cigarette. Linda walked behind the bar and continued smoking the marijuana cigarette while performing bartending duties. When Beatrice re-entered the premises, Ramona was standing in the doorway handing a tinfoil package to a male in the view of Beatrice. Junious entered into conversation with Ramona and, during the conversation, Ramona delivered a small tinfoil package to an unknown male patron. Investigator Reylius Thompson was also inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge on April 25, 1985. He observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes, which he was able to identify through their appearance, smell, and the manner of smoking. On May 1, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. They observed the bartender Beatrice seated at the bar counter with two male patrons who were smoking a marijuana cigarette. After the bartender Linda came on duty, the officers observed her remove a marijuana cigarette from her purse and begin to smoke it behind the bar counter. Junious asked Linda for change for a $20.00 bill so he could buy cocaine. Linda asked what Junious wanted, and he told her a $10.00 piece of cocaine. Linda removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse behind the counter and sold the cocaine to Junious for $10.00. While Investigator Thompson was seated at the bar on May 1, 1985, he also asked Linda for some cocaine. Linda again removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse and delivered it to Thompson in exchange for $10.00. On May 3, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. While Beatrice was bartender, Junious observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes. After Linda came on duty, Junious asked to purchase $10.00 piece of cocaine from her. Linda requested Beatrice to hand her her purse, from which she removed a tinfoil package of cocaine. Junious observed a plastic bag containing numerous tinfoil packages inside of Linda's purse. Linda sold the package of cocaine to Junious for $10.00 While Investigator Thompson was sitting at the bar on May 3, 1985, he asked Linda for some cocaine. Linda asked Beatrice to pass her purse to her from behind the bar. Beatrice handed the purse to Linda and Linda took out a tinfoil package of cocaine which she sold to Thompson for $10.00 On May 8, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. While the investigators were seated at the bar counter, they observed three male patrons also seated at the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Beatrice, the bartender. After Linda came on duty, Junious asked her for a $10.00 piece of cocaine. Linda removed her purse from behind the bar, removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse, and sold the cocaine to Junious for $10.00. Later that evening, Thompson asked bartender Linda for a $10.00 piece of cocaine. She again removed a tinfoil packet containing cocaine from her purse and sold the cocaine to Thompson. ll. On May 10, 1985, Investigators Junious, Thompson and McKeithen went to Sweet's Lounge. Junious asked the bartender Linda for $10.00 worth of cocaine, and she replied that she only had rocks. Junious agreed to purchase the rocks and received a tinfoil package of cocaine from Linda, which she had removed from her purse behind the bar. Later that same evening, Investigator Thompson also asked Linda for $10.00 worth of cocaine. She removed from her purse a tinfoil package containing cocaine which she sold to Thompson for $10.00. That same evening Investigator Thompson observed a male disc jockey smoking marijuana in the presence of patrons and passing the marijuana cigarette to some of the patrons. On May 14, 1985, Investigators Thompson and McKeithen returned to Sweet's Lounge. Thompson observed four patrons seated at a table cutting a white powder and snorting it from the top of the table. He also observed Ramona and a male patron, while seated at the bar, snort a white powder through an empty cigarette paper tube in view of the bartender Beatrice. On May 15, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. Junious asked the bartender Linda if she had any cocaine, and she responded that she did but Junious would have to wait until she served a customer. After serving a customer, Linda sold Junious a small tinfoil package containing cocaine for 510.00. Junious also observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes, sniffing white powder, and removing tobacco from regular cigarettes, inserting white powder into the cigarettes, and smoking same. On that same date, Investigator Thompson also asked Linda for cocaine. She replied that she had rock or powder cocaine and Thompson ordered rock. Linda walked into the package store portion of the lounge and returned shortly to Thompson, handing him a tinfoil package containing a small rock of cocaine in exchange for $10.00. On that same date Thompson observed Ramona using an empty cigarette paper tube to snort a white powder. On May 22, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson entered the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. The officers observed patrons seated at the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette in the presence of bartender Beatrice. The officers also observed Ramona seated at a table with several male patrons, all of whom were snorting a white powder from the table top and smoking a white powder in cigarettes. On May 29, 1985, Investigator Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. He observed Linda smoking a marijuana cigarette behind the bar counter and observed Ramona sitting on the west side of the premises with a quantity of white powder on the table. Thompson approached Ramona, sat down next to her, and began to talk to her about cocaine. While Thompson was seated with Ramona another female patron smoked a marijuana cigarette. Later that same evening, Thompson asked bartender Linda for cocaine and she responded that she had rock or powder. He ordered powder and Linda removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse, which she sold to Thompson for $10.00. On the majority of the occasions described above when the investigators were inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge, there was a pervasive odor of marijuana smoke throughout the entire premises. The white powder which was being sniffed by patrons on the licensed premises at the various times described above was cocaine. In brief summary, the following relevant events took place at the licensed premises during the period of the investigation: 4/24/85: A patron participated in sale of a counterfeit controlled substance. 4/25/85: A patron participated in sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, an employee smoked a marijuana cigarette while on duty, and a patron delivered two small tinfoil packages to other patrons, and several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes. 5/01/85: Two patrons smoked a marijuana cigarette, an employee smoked a marijuana cigarette while on duty, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/03/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/08/85: Three patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes in immediate presence of an employee, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/10/85: A disc jockey smoked marijuana and shared it with patrons, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/14/85: Six patrons sniffed cocaine; two did so in immediate presence of an employee. 5/15/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana and sniffed cocaine, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/22/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes in the immediate presence of an employee and several patrons sniffed cocaine. 5/24/85: A patron had cocaine in open view on a table, a patron smoked a marijuana cigarette, an employee on duty smoked a marijuana cigarette, and an employee made one sale of cocaine. Mr. Ebbie Sweet was never on the licensed premises on any of the occasions described above when the investigators were on the licensed premises. At all times material to this case, Mr. Andrew Johnson has been the manager of Sweet's Lounge. The owner, Mr. Ebbie Sweet, has given the manager various instructions about the operation of the premises. The instructions include: (a) keep the premises clean, (b) keep drugs out of the premises, (c) tell all employees to do the same, (d) put up signs about what can and cannot be done on the premises [including a sign reading "No Drugs Allowed"], (e) post the DABT flyer, and (f) put a "no loitering" sign outside the premises. The "no loitering" sign has not worked very well. When Mr. Andrew Johnson is on the premises he spends most of his time in the package store portion of the premises and very little of his time in the bar portion. On one occasion prior to the events described above, the Dania Police Department told Mr. Andrew Johnson there was a drug problem in Sweet's Lounge. He told them to come in anytime they wanted to and to arrest anyone they wanted to. Mr. Johnson did not change any procedures at Sweet's Lounge after the Dania Police Department told him about drug problems. Mr. Andrew Johnson knows Ramona. He has never seen her buy or use drugs, but he has heard that she is suspected of being a drug user. Ramona was a frequent visitor at Sweet's Lounge. Mr. Ebbie Sweet is the president of and the principal functionary of Sweet's Lounge, Inc. A sister and a nephew of Mr. Sweet also have some nominal connection to the corporation, but neither of them is active in running the licensed business. Mr. Ebbie Sweet enjoys an excellent reputation in his community. He is active in community affairs and has engaged in various charitable activities for the betterment of his community. It has always been his desire to run a reputable business and if he had known what was going on inside the lounge he would have fired those involved and would have closed the place up himself. In sum: Mr. Ebbie Sweet appears to be a good citizen who was trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, for both him and the community, he wasn't trying quite hard enough. Some time ago Mr. Ebbie Sweet's wife passed away. As a result of that misfortune Mr. Sweet slowed down a lot and became less active in many things, including the amount of time and energy he devoted to the licensed business. He had at one time visited the licensed premises on a regular basis, but during the past ten months he only made a couple of trips a month to the licensed premises, and those were primarily to check on the inventory. During the past ten months he has hardly ever visited the licensed premises after dark. Mr. Sweet was relying on Mr. Andrew Johnson to manage things for him at the licensed premises even though he knew that Mr. Johnson was not the most reliable of managers. As Mr. Sweet put it, Mr. Johnson "has a few faults." Some years ago Mr. Sweet had an alcoholic beverage quota license which permitted him to sell all types of alcoholic beverages at Sweet's Lounge. When he had that license he had written instructions for his employees, he had doormen, and he had security guards. Since he sold the quota license and obtained his present license (which is limited to beer and wine sales), he has not had written instructions for his employees, he has not had doormen, and he has not had security guards. Mr. Sweet does not perform polygraph examinations or background checks on his employees. He has thought about hiring undercover people to patrol the premises, but has never done anything about it. The area of town in which Sweet's Lounge is located is one in which controlled substances are readily obtainable. Sweet's Lounge has had a recurring problem with undesirable people loitering in front of the lounge, people Mr. Sweet described as "hoodlums." All of the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises knew that marijuana and cocaine were being used by patrons inside the licensed premises on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. None of the employees took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the use of controlled substances by patrons. The foregoing findings of fact include the majority of the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner. They do not, however, include any proposed findings based solely on the testimony of Investigator McKeithen. Some of the proposed findings based on McKeithen's testimony are irrelevant to the disposition of this case. Other proposed findings based solely on McKeithen's testimony are rejected because much of her testimony was neither persuasive nor convincing. While I have no doubts at all about her candor, honesty, or integrity, I have certain doubts about her attention to detail and her ability to recall and describe with accuracy events that took place in her presence. In making the finding that the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises were aware of the extensive use of drugs by patrons, I have not overlooked the testimony of the employees denying such knowledge. I find the denials to be unworthy of belief in light of all the other evidence in the record.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 16-350, series 2-COP issued to Sweet's Lounge, Inc., for the premises located at 706-710 Northwest First Street, Dania, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 16th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa Hargrett, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chesley V. Morton, Esquire 604 Southeast Sixth Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr. Secretary The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 19th day of August, 1975, the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, his agent, servant or employee, one Robert Henry Williams did unlawfully sell an alcoholic beverage, to wit: one 16 ounce can of Budweiser beer, in a manner not permitted by the Respondent's beverage license, to wit: while the license was suspended, contrary to Section 562.12, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 19, 1975, the beverage license which the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage was on active suspension. The notice of suspension had been served on Leartis Frazier at Frazier's Grocery, 2273 Commonwealth Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. Furthermore, a sign had been posted at that address which indicated that the license of Leartis Frazier t/a Frazier's Grocery was suspended. On August 19, 1975, while the license was under suspension an officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office observed one David Brooks enter Frazier's Grocery, without any objects in his hands. This observation occurred after the officer had encountered Brooks moments before in the conduct of an investigation and Brooks had not been carrying any objects in his hands at that moment either. Several minutes after entering the Frazier's, the same David Brooks exited Frazier's Grocery with a paper bag in his hands which contained one 16 ounce can of Budweiser beer. The Officer then entered the licensed premises and went to the beer counter and opened it up and discovered one can of beer missing from a six-pack container of Budweiser beer. At the time the officer made this investigation the sign which had been placed in the window of Frazier's Grocery to indicate the license suspension was being displayed. A Mr. Williams was sitting behind the counter inside the licensed premises as an employee, agent or servant of the Respondent at the time the officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office discovered the missing can of beer. Mr. Brooks, when questioned about where he had bought the can of beer, after discussion, indicated that he had bought it at Frazier's Grocery. By Mr. Brooks' statement and the officer's observation, it is established that Mr. Williams sold the Budweiser beer to Brooks. The Mr. Williams was identified in the hearing, as being Robert Henry Williams.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, be suspended for a period of one year for the violation as established in the hearing on this Notice to Show Cause. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Leartis Frazier 2273 Commonwealth Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an alcoholic beverage license.
Findings Of Fact John Harry Michaels filed a preliminary application to participate in the state lottery for a new quota license on January 16, 1984. The application form completed by Mr. Michaels in this stage of the application process contained instructions to the applicant that it was the first part of a two-part application. The instructions also informed Mr. Michaels that a right of occupancy is required, and should accompany the second part of the application if his name is drawn in the lottery for new quota licenses. Mr. Michaels, as part of his voluntary enlistment, was on military duty in the Armed Forces outside of the state on May 16, 1984. On September 18, 1984, Mr. Michaels was notified by Respondent that he had been selected in the drawing held on September 12, 1984, for an available liquor license in Martin County. This selection of Mr. Michaels' name granted him the opportunity to continue the application process for the state quota liquor license in Martin County. The letter notifying Mr. Michaels of his eligibility also informed him that the second part of the application must be completed within forty-five days from the date the letter was issued. This second part of the application required proof of a right to occupancy of a specified location and verification of the financial investment made by the applicant. On November 2, 1984, the forty-fifth day, Mr. Michaels, acting through his wholly owned corporation, filed the document entitled "Application for Alcoholic Beverage License." When the application was submitted to the Respondent, it did not contain: a business location, zoning approval, a right of occupancy, a sketch of the premises, and documentation to support the stockholder's financial investment. Attached to the document was a letter from the attorney who represented the corporation. The letter requested an additional forty-five day extension of time to properly complete the application. The letter explained that Mr. Michaels was on military duty outside of Florida and had been unable to make arrangements to comply with the original time period. On February 5, 1985, the Respondent was granted the requested extension with an expiration date of March 22, 1985. On the final day of the extension, the Petitioner's attorney requested a second extension. The letter stated that Mr. Michaels was unable to leave his post to return to Florida to obtain a properly zoned location. The letter did not address any new matters, nor did it explain why the forty-five days previously requested was insufficient. This request was denied on April 3, 1985, because there was no showing made that the Petitioner had made a good faith attempt to comply with the first extension. In the Respondent's denial letter, the Petitioner was informed that a letter of denial for the application was forthcoming. On April 23, 1985, the Petitioner filed amendments to its application with the Respondent. The amended application was reviewed in the district office. The investigator sent the amended application to the central office in Tallahassee and recommended disapproval of this application for a number of reasons: There were no financial verification, no lease, and no right of occupancy included with the amended application. A lease, Joint Exhibit 12, was submitted to the district office on April 26, 1985, and was forwarded to Tallahassee the same day. On May 31, 1985, the application was denied because it was incomplete due to the Petitioner's failure to timely file the following items within the granted extension period: 1) a right of occupancy; for a specific location; 2) complete verification of the financial investment. The written denial of the Petitioner's application by the Respondent took place after the 180 day time period for granting a beverage license issued by lottery had expired.
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.
Findings Of Fact From 1972 until 1982, Bay Street, Inc., a Florida corporation, held a COP-type quota liquor license for the operation of a bar known as Howard's G- String at 102 East Bay Street in Jacksonville, Florida. Arthur Eisen and Bobby Joe McClain were owners of the stock in Bay Street, Inc., and Howard's G-String was operated by McClain as manager. After Bay Street's liquor license was revoked in October 1982, for reasons not pertinent here, a beer and wine license was issued to Lloyd Barrow, McClain's father-in-law, for an operation at the same East Bay Street location. The owner of the building at 102 East Bay Street is Arthur Eisen. Lloyd Barrow pays Eisen $1,000 per week for rental of the premises. On June 14, 1983, pursuant to foreclosure, the liquor license held by Jax's Bar, Inc., doing business as Terminal Bar (the license at issue here), was sold for $28,500 on the Duval County Courthouse steps. Purchaser of the license was Karen Alford. The money used to make this purchase was a loan from Arthur Eisen. This loan was repaid by Karen Alford by means of an undated check numbered 4-0486533 drawn on the Hollywood Federal Savings and Loan Association in the amount of $28,500 payable to the order of Harry Katz Escrow Account. Mr. Katz, in turn, transferred the sum of $28,500 by his escrow account check numbered 4125 to the said Arthur Eisen on November 3, 1983. Ms. Alford purchased the Hollywood Federal check with money drawn from two other accounts at the Hollywood Federal Savings and Loan Association. One portion, totalling $19,528, came from account number 341343 in the name of Karen Alford as trustee for Rosemond Eisen. The additional amount of $9,761 was drawn from account number 387056. This latter account was a joint account in the names of Karen Alford and Rosemond Eisen. The $789 difference between the $29,289 (the total of the two components) and the $28,500 repayment check was deposited into a third account in the name of Karen Alford, account number 141730. Petitioner introduced a copy of certificate of deposit number 8590 dated June 8, 1978, in the name of Karen J. Alford in the amount of $55,761 which, on January 9, 1979, was redeposited into account number 341356, which reflected that Karen J. Alford was trustee for Rosemond Eisen as beneficiary. Accompanying that certificate and deposit card is a notarized statement dated February 27, 1984, from Alicia Dyce, assistant manager/assistant secretary of the Hollywood Federal Savings and Loan Association, which indicates that Karen J. Alford was the sole owner of certificate account number 341375. The statement further indicates that when an account reads "in trust for" (ITF) it is to designate a beneficiary in the case of the death of the owner of the account. The statement further says that if the account had been owned by both parties the account would have stated the two names connected by the word "and" and not "ITF." Ms. Alford contends that the $55,761 utilized to purchase the initial certificate of deposit from which the subsequent $28,500 payment was made came from a divorce settlement received from her estranged and former husband and not from Arthur Eisen. Respondent was unable to present any evidence to contradict this contention by Petitioner. There is, however, other evidence dealing with the business relationship between Ms. Alford, as president of the Petitioner corporation, and Bobby McClain and Arthur Eisen, as manager and landlord respectively, which causes some question to arise as to the true relationship between the parties. Ms. Alford contends that as a result of the business arrangement she was to receive a draw of $500 per week from the operation plus a return on the investment of $750 per month. On a four-week month, this would amount to a return of approximately $2,750. In addition, out of the operation Ms. Alford was to make weekly rental payments of $1,000 to Arthur Eisen and, at Eisen's suggestion, was to pay Bobby Joe McClain a salary of $500 per week and an automobile expense of $50 per week. McClain was to make daily bank deposits from the business proceeds and was to send Ms. Alford weekly computer printouts reflecting the income and expenses for the period. Only one of these computer printouts was introduced. Covering the period from January 30, 1984, through February 4, 1984, the printout showed a gross profit before expenses of $2,868.03 and expenses of $2,923.44, with a net loss of $55.41. However, using the figures contained on the printout and computing profit on the basis of gross sales less cost of goods sold reflects a gross profit of $2,722.43 which, when thereafter subtracting the weekly expenses of $2,923.44, reflects a net loss of $201.01. It should be noted that the weekly expenses include such items as rent of $1,000, payroll of $1,235.30, utilities of $243.08, sales tax of $195.06, and a miscellaneous payment of $250. If this printout is a representation of the continuing success of the business, it is obvious that Ms. Alford will never see her stated profit, much less a return of her investment, while Arthur Eisen is drawing $1,000 per week ($4,000 per month) in rent receipts and his former associate, McClain, is receiving a handsome income from the business as well. Taken together, these figures tend to raise an inference that not only Eisen, but McClain as well, has an interest in the business, which is supported by the evidence that it was Eisen who suggested the investment to Ms. Alford in the first place, made the investment for her using his own funds, and insisted that he not be repaid until the redemption time had expired on the license foreclosure. It is also noteworthy that Eisen was the individual who suggested to Ms. Alford that she hire Bobby Joe McClain to manage the bar; and, notwithstanding Ms. Alford's contention that she had known McClain for close to 20 years, the fact also remains that McClain was a former associate and co-owner of another bar with Arthur Eisen. There are other inconsistencies in Ms. Alford's testimony and in the Petitioner's case which give rise to a suspicion that Ms. Alford is not in fact the true "owner" of the business but that the entire transaction is a screen to hide the interest by Arthur Eisen who, because of his prior license revocation location, would be ineligible to hold this license. Ms. Alford indicated that she put the money in question in trust for her sister so that, if anything would happen to her, the sister, Miss Rosemond Eisen, would be able to retrieve the money and, at her discretion, distribute it to Ms. Alford's children. Ms. Alford contends that her children are not equipped to handle money of this magnitude, yet she relates that one is an investment counselor and stock broker and another son is a geophysicist. Another inconsistency is that Ms. Alford contends she has invested as much as $35,000 in this business; yet she does not know how many people were hired by McClain, she does not know on what account checks were written, the checking accounts involved were in McClain's name and not hers, and she does not even recall the name on the checks she received. She contends that while it was in operation the bar grossed between $4,000 and $4,200 a week; yet, as was shown previously, the one income statement introduced by Petitioner reflected a gross income of substantially less than that and a net loss. Ms. Alford further contends that she does not know from a review of the weekly computer printouts what the liquor expense was. Her reason for this was that her son, who she claims is incapable of handling inherited funds, would review all the submissions made by McClain. She further contends that she has visited the bar three or four times since it has been in operation but cannot recall when these visits were. She did not see the business before she invested her money in it but relied solely on the advice given her by her former brother-in-law, Arthur Eisen. By her own admission, it was Eisen who did all the preliminary work relative to buying the license and setting up the business without her, and she had no participation save for the investment of money until she came up to apply for the licenses, at which time she met and worked with Mr. Katz. Eisen contends he asked Ms. Alford to invest in this business because he knew she had the money and knew she would be receptive to it. He called her by telephone and told her he had a business proposition for her, and, when she indicated some interest, he went to Miami to see her and tell her about it. He told her how much it would cost and what she should earn if she made the investment and operated it properly. He told her that McClain would manage it for her and that he did not want to do it himself because of his extended interests in the Houston area, on which he wanted to concentrate. Eisen states he felt safe in representing McClain because they had worked together for 18 years previously and that his only participation in this business owned by Ms. Alford is the lease which brings him $1,000.00 per week. This was, he claims the primary motivation for the deal. Eisen contends no participation in the business, either operational or financial. Notwithstanding this denial, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence indicating otherwise prevails.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be granted or denied on the grounds stated in Respondent's letter of denial dated November 18, 1982.
Findings Of Fact During September, 1979, Del Percio was asked by an acquaintance of his in Orlando, Florida, Kenneth McCall, to assist in the running of a lounge which McCall owned there called "The Foxy Lady." Del Percio agreed to do this, and a written agreement was signed by the parties whereby Del Percio bought into a newly formed corporation, Success and Prosperity, Inc., with both Del Percio and McCall to each receive 50 percent of the corporate stock and with Del Percio to be president and McCall, vice president. Leonard P. Del Percio was a 50 percent owner of Success and Prosperity, Inc., and had the right and duty to manage the business operated by it called "The Shingle Shack." McCall was to have no management responsibilities. The Shingle Shack was the new name of the lounge owned previous to September, 1979, by Kenneth McCall known as "The Foxy Lady," which operated under license numbered 58-1076, at 3135 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida. Notwithstanding Del Percio's allegation that his 50 percent ownership of the corporate stock was for his protection in managing the business, the stockholders' agreement signed on August 13, 1979, by both McCall and Petitioner reflects that Del Percio loaned McCall a certain amount of money and McCall sold Del Percio one-half of all the shares of the corporation for an amount equal to the loan. On September 13, 1979, Del Percio, as corporate president, filled out and signed various papers requesting that 2-COP license numbered 58-1076, issued in the name of Kenneth McCall, be transferred to Success and Prosperity, Inc., for a lounge called "The Shingle Shack" doing business at the same location as its predecessor business, The Foxy Lady, which was utilizing the license at that time. These application forms were never submitted to the appropriate authorities for transfer, and the license was never issued in Del Percio's name or the name of Success and Prosperity, Inc., although the business was formed and the lounge name was changed from The Foxy Lady to The Shingle Shack. Del Percio became actively engaged in management of the business during September, 1979. The license was to be the only asset of any major value to the corporation, but it never became an asset of the corporation. On April 20, 1980, Kenneth McCall signed a stipulation calling for the revocation of license numbered 58-1076 because of repeated violations of Florida Statutes taking place at the lounge in question during the month of November, 1979, and because of the failure to file the application for the transfer of the license after a bona fide sale of the business in whose name the license was issued.
Recommendation On the basis of the facts and conclusions above, it is RECOMMENDED: That Leonard P. Del Percio, doing business as the Yum Yum Tree, be issued a license as applied for. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Leonard P. Del Percio Post Office Box 6202, Station A Daytona Beach, Florida 32022 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Executive Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to apply for a new quota liquor license in Hillsborough County. This requires a determination of whether Petitioner waived his right to apply for the license when he failed to do so within forty-five (45) days of a notice sent by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, but returned undelivered.
Findings Of Fact On July 5, 1988, John Wilson Brown (Brown) filed a preliminary application for a new quota liquor license in Hillsborough County, Florida. This application entitled him to be considered in a double random selection public drawing held by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) for the purpose of awarding licenses which have become available through population growth in a county permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages. On the application form, Brown gave his "correct mailing address" as 3327 Holly Hock Court, Orlando, Florida 32812. This is his residence, and is the only address supplied on the form. The drawing was held for Hillsborough County applicants on October 28, 1988. The Division advertises the drawings in the Florida Administrative Weekly and gives notice to the news media to run stories. Brown received a priority number in the October 28, 1988 drawing which entitled him to be one of the initial applicants for award of a liquor license. "Winners" of the drawing, like Brown, must apply for the license. Those applications are reviewed and an investigation is conducted to determine whether they qualify under the beverage law. If not, the next applicant in line is considered. In a letter dated November 8, 1988, sent certified mail, to Brown's Holly Hock Court address, DABT attempted to notify Brown that he was one of the preliminary applicants selected in the Hillsborough County drawing. The letter cited the applicable statute and rule and stated that a full and complete application must be filed within forty-five (45) days of the date on the letter, in this case, December 23, 1988. The letter further provided that failure to file within the deadline would be deemed a waiver of the right to file for the new quota license. Brown never received that letter. During the period, July 1988 through January 1989, he was working twelve to fourteen hours a day, seven days a week at two restaurant-lounges he owns in the Orange County area. He did not review his mail for weeks at a time and relied on his live-in girlfriend to pick it up. He looked at the mail at the end of the month in order to pay the bills. The postal-service attempted to deliver the certified letter on November 10, 1988, November 16, 1988 and November 23, 1988. Brown never picked up the letter from the post office and it was returned unclaimed to the DABT, on or about November 28, 1988. Brown vaguely remembers seeing the certified letter slip from the post office, but did not attempt to pick up the letter until late November or early December. By then, the letter had been returned. Brown had no idea at that time who had attempted to send him a certified letter. No further contact was attempted by the DABT until January 23, 1989, when Brown was sent, by regular mail, a notice that the Division intended to deny his entitlement to apply for the license because he failed to apply within the prescribed time period. Brown received this notice and immediately sent a response, dated January 27, 1989, that he had not been aware of the certified mail and requesting reconsideration. Brown also spoke by telephone with Barry Schoenfeld, Chief of Licensing for the Division. Brown explained that he had been extraordinarily busy and had not attempted to pick up the certified letter until it was too late. On February 10, 1989, DABT sent, by certified mail, the notice of disapproval which gave rise to this proceeding. Brown received that notice, sent also to his Holly Hock Court residence. The value of a new quota liquor license varies from county to county. In Hillsborough County it is worth $50,000.00 to $75,000.00, or more. The agency utilizes certified mail for its notice of drawing results to help assure that the applicant actually gets the notice. Only one application extension has been granted in the seven years since the drawing procedure was initiated. That case involved an individual who was in the military and presented a hardship based on that service. The individual was given an additional forty-five (45) days to apply.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue its final order finding that Petitioner has waived his entitlement to file for a new quota liquor license. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 6th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: HAROLD F. X. PURNELL, ESQUIRE OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. 2700 BLAIR STONE ROAD POST OFFICE BOX 6507 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32314-6507 JOHN B. FRETWELL, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION THE JOHNS BUILDING 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1000 LEONARD IVEY, DIRECTOR DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION THE JOHNS BUILDING 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1000 JOSEPH A. SOLE, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION THE JOHNS BUILDING 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1000 STEPHEN R. MACNAMARA, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION THE JOHNS BUILDING 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1000
The Issue This case concerns the entitlement of the Petitioners to be granted a Series 2-COP beverage license from the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Emilio and Wilma Beth Toro t/a The Place In Between, are currently the holders of a Series 1-COP beverage license issued by the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. That series of license allots the Petitioners to vend beer for consumption on the premises which is located in the incorporated city of Fernandina Beach, Florida. On April 25, 1979, the Petitioners applied to the Respondent for an increase in series of license from a Series 1-COP to a Series 2-COP. A Series 2-COP license allows for the sale of beer and wine and for the consumption of those beverages on the licensed premises. On May 22, 1979, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denied the application for an increase in series. The sole ground given for such denial is that the issuance of such a license would be contrary to Chapter 57-1601, Laws of Florida (1957), in that the provision of law prohibits the issuance of such a license. This subject law limits the number of licenses that may be issued by the Respondent in the incorporated areas of Nassau County, Florida, to the extent that only one license, of any kind or nature, shall be issued for each 4,000 persons within any incorporated city or town lying in the said county where beverages containing alcohol of core than 14 percent by weight are being sold. The population measurement is based on the last preceding Federal Census. Within Nassau County, Florida, the Federal Census indicates that the following incorporated cities or towns are recognized in 1970. Those communities are: Boulogne City, Callahan Town, Hilliard Town, and Fernandina Beach City. Of those incorporated communities, only Fernandina Beach City exceeded the 4,000-person threshold. Fernandina Beach City had a population of 6,955 persons as reflected in the 1970 Federal Census. (See page 7 of the Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, "1970 Census of Population" for the State of Florida.) An affidavit submitted by the Respondent shows that on May 7, 1979, the records of the Respondent indicated the existence of four quota liquor licenses (Series 8-COP) and twenty-one wine licenses (Series 2-APS and Series 2-COP) within the limits of the incorporated areas of Nassau County, Florida.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco deny the Petitioners' request for a Series 2-COP beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Emilio & Wilma Beth Toro 2019 Atlantic Avenue Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Victor Ingargiola is the sole shareholder, director and officer of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East (Petitioner), a Florida corporation. The State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the Respondent. Both Mr. Victor Ingargiola and his wife, Mrs. Barbara Ingargiola, entered the Division's double random selection drawing for eligibility to apply for a new quota alcoholic beverage license. Mr. Ingargiola was selected in the drawing, and Mrs. Ingargiola was not. After receiving notice of his selection in the drawing, Mr. Ingargiola formed the Petitioner and applied for licensure on or about November 1, 1984. In his application, Mr. Ingargiola did not identify his wife as a person having an interest in Petitioner or its business, either directly or indirectly. The application also represented that Petitioner had a right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed at 4513 Causeway Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's application carries with it an application fee of $6,750. Mr. Ingargiola obtained a portion of the funds necessary to pay the application fee from funds held jointly by him and his wife and by loans to him and his wife secured by property jointly held by him and his wife. Virtually all money and property of the Ingargiolas is held in their joint names. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ingargiola conferred with the Division's Investigator Miller concerning the application. Miller initially requested that Mrs. Ingargiola be finger printed as a person having an interest in the license to be issued. Mrs. Ingargiola understood that she was not permitted to have an interest since she herself had entered the double random selection drawing. She therefore declined to be fingerprinted or to be made to appear on the application as a party having an interest in the license to be issued. Investigator Miller also discussed with the Ingargiolas the question of Mrs. Ingargiola's involvement and the financing of Petitioner. Investigator Miller led the Ingargiolas to believe that the only possible legal financing arrangement would be for Mrs. Ingargiola to give the funds to her husband outright. He led them to believe that this could be done by affidavit, and Mrs. Ingargiola signed and filed an affidavit which Investigator Miller approved as to form. The affidavit listed the financing in question and stated: "I swear that the following funds obtained are to be used by Victor A. Ingargiola and I will have no interest or control over these funds." Barbara Ingargiola also testified at final hearing that she claims no interest whatsoever in Petitioner, any license to be issued to it, or the funds she gave outright to her husband to finance Petitioner. Essentially, Mrs. Ingargiola gave her half of the joint funds and proceeds of joint loans used by Victor Ingargiola to finance Petitioner's application fee. If necessary, she was prepared to do the same with the proceeds from the sale of joint real property or loans secured by the Ingargiolas' joint real property. However, no mention was made or consideration given to Mrs. Ingargiola's liability for her husband's share of the joint borrowing in addition to hers. Mrs. Ingargiola did have an interest in the successful operation of Petitioner so as to enable her husband to pay at least half, if not all, of the joint borrowing used in part to finance Petitioner. On or about October 12, 1984, Mr. Ingargiola obtained a written lease to the premises to be licensed. However, the lease does not contain a commencement date. At the time the application was filed, the premises were occupied by another tenant, and, as of December 20, 1984, this tenant had a legal right to occupy the premises and had not been notified of the pending liquor license application or the lease. In addition, the purported lease contains a provision requiring Petitioner to secure its duties and obligations under the lease by depositing with the landlord the sum of $60,000 in cash or irrevocable letter of credit. There was no evidence that Petitioner had complied with or could comply with this requirement of the lease. Although Mr. Ingargiola testified to his understanding of his right to occupancy of the premises under the lease upon granting of Petitioner's application and issuance of the license, there was no testimony from the landlord on the ambiguities surrounding the lease and the rights of the tenant in possession. As a result, the evidence as a whole was insufficient to prove Petitioner's right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, deny the application of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East, for a quota alcoholic beverage license RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Diaz, Esquire 2522 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: Petitioner, Gainesville Golf and Country Club, Inc., is a nonprofit Florida corporation which owns, operates and manages a golf course and country club in Alachua County, Florida. Petitioner is presently licensed under Section 565.02(4), Florida Statutes, to serve alcoholic beverages to its members and nonresident guests only. The petitioner's clubhouse contains 6,000 square feet of service area which is equipped to serve 400 persons full course meals at one time. It presently serves full course meals regularly between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday, and 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Brunch is served from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Sunday and petitioner is closed on Monday. The service of meals is discontinued at 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and at 10:00 p.m. on weekends because there is no demand for such services after these hours. During the past twelve months, petitioner has derived in excess of 51 percent of its gross income from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. As noted above the petitioner presently holds a club license and serves alcoholic beverages to its members and nonresident guests. Pursuant to an Alachua County ordinance, petitioner serves alcoholic beverages from 11:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. the following day Tuesday through Saturday, and from 11:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Sunday. It continues the service of alcoholic beverages after the hours of meal service because there is a demand for such service, and substantial revenues are generated from the sale of alcoholic beverages during these hours. If petitioner were required to keep its kitchen open for the service of full course meals during the same hours it serves alcoholic beverages, the additional labor costs would amount to approximately $360.00 per week, or approximately $18,000.00 per year. Petitioner presently desires to obtain a special restaurant license (SRX) so that it may sell alcoholic beverages to nonmembers and thereby increase its gross revenues. If petitioner obtains an SRX license, it would be subject to the provisions of Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code, which requires such a licensee to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when it discontinues the service of full course meals. The cost of an SRX license is $1,700.00 per year, as opposed to $400.00 per year for a club license. Because of the economic loss it would suffer if it were required to comply with Rule 7A- 3.15 regarding the hours of sale of alcoholic beverages under an SRX license, petitioner has not yet applied for such a license. It determined, instead, to challenge the validity of Rule 7A-3.15 prior to making application for an SRX license.
