Findings Of Fact After a realtor told Robert Edward Poland that the Flagship Bank was foreclosing on Villa Rosa Mobile Home Park in Jacksonville Beach, Mr. Poland and his wife offered to purchase the property. The incompetency of the owner, Mrs. Ritchie, then in her eighties, together with ensuing legal proceedings, complicated negotiations. But on August 21, 1986, Robert Edward Poland and Jacqueline Poland became joint owners of Villa Rosa Mobile Home Park. A portion of the park they acquired in fee simple, but another portion (now known as Beach Boulevard Trailer Park) they acquired only as a life estate pur autre vie. On the death of Mrs. Ritchie in mid-October 1987, the life estate was extinguished, and that portion has become the property of Mrs. Ritchie's daughter, Elizabeth Drey, and possibly the daughter's husband, Richard Drey. Only beginning with rent for February of 1989, however, have the Dreys begun receiving income from the trailer park. Rent Raised On August 21, 1986, the day they acquired ownership, the Polands gave tenants written notice of their intention "to adjust rent effective December 1, 1986" to $130 a month for a single mobile home lot and to $155 monthly for a double wide mobile home on a single lot. This proposed rental increase did not pertain to lots 3, 6, 13, 15, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, or 007, which were rented only to over-nighters. Perhaps misunderstanding the notice, Tom Williams on Lot C began paying a higher amount on October 1, 1986, before the increase took effect. The following month, Debra Black Wood, J. E. Turner and James Mahoney also paid the increased rent prematurely. In their cases, and in the case of Mr. Williams, the Polands accepted the money but credited the surplus to the tenant. Not counting the lot which the boundary between the Drey property and the Polands' property divides, Mr. and Mrs. Poland offered for rent or lease 26 or more mobile home lots as residences, both before and after Mrs. Ritchie's death. The following tenants' monthly rent increased by the amounts indicated on December 1, 1986: Name of Tenant Lot No. Amount of Increase Ila Story 1 $30.00 Rosa Robinson 2 30.00 Rick Tahey 4/5 55.00 Virginia Dawson 7 5.00 Isabe Sutcliffe 8 30.00 Deborah Blackwood 9 5.00 B. E. Turner 12 30.00 Ingrid C. Fegan 14 30.00 Helen Marin 17 40.00 Alden Waterman 18 30.00 Ethel Dunsmoor 19 30.00 Martina O'Hare 20 30.00 Zora Hyde 21 30.00 William Vollkmer 22 30.00 Richard Rasmussen 23 5.00 Marjorie Barnes 24 30.00 James Mahoney 26 30.00 Roger Zucco 27 5.00 George Bunting 29 55.00 Robert Grabel 30 55.00 David Escopie 31 30.00 Catherine Stevens 32 30.00 Richard Law 33 30.00 Maxwell Page 35 30.00 Helen Hines 36 5.00 Norman Peterson 37 5.00 Hernandez/Johns 38/39 25.00 Lester Rogers 40 30.00 Rita Boyer 41 30.00 Thelma Thornton 42 30.00 Maxwell Page 43 30.00 Kenneth Driscoll 44 55.00 Edna Praine 45 55.00 Cassus Powell 100 30.00 David Koehler 101 5.00 Jerry Welker 102 62.50 John Embleton 103 5.00 Corrine Beach 104 55.00 Clyde Wiley 105 30.00 Candie Blasman 106 30.00 Harry Wilson 107 30.00 Stanley Dolka A 30.00 Goffery Riser D 5.00 William Page E 30.00 Pat Pattillo F 40.00 Roy Pike G 30.00 Frieda Suomella H 5.00 Charlotte Reid I 30.00 Bernard Hakes J 30.00 Herbert Davis K 30.00 Lee Haley L 30.00 Heide Alexander M 30.00 Joseph Moore N 5.00 Mary Lo Wampler O 40.00 Ernest Grizzard P 30.00 Bertha Martin Q 40.00 Cathy Lumbar R 65.00 Ruth Pooley S 5.00 Norma Baker U 5.00 H. W. DeMoss V 30.00 Arthur Pitman W 40.00 Jesse Wagnor X 5.00 James Hicks Y 5.00 Robert Wilder 00 20.00 At hearing, Mr. Poland testified to a total of 85 lots of which "seventy-three are singlewide [including some devoted to overnighters], and the balance would be overnighters or doublewides." T.88. According to DBR records, respondents reported 87 lots when applying for approval for their prospectus. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, pp. 000017, 000021. Past Practice Historically, the park had been run on the basis of oral agreements, creating month-to-month tenancies. Such records as existed when the Polands acquired ownership of the mobile home park reflected 13 different amounts charged different tenants for equivalent mobile home lots. Apparently Mrs. Ritchie had played favorites. A longtime resident testified that the rental rate structure was "kind of on the buddy/buddy system." T. 68. From time to time, and on no more than a month's notice, Mrs. Ritchie had raised rents. Robert L. Davis, who moved to the trailer park in October of 1976, originally paid $50.00 a month. On September 1, 1983, monthly rent increased from $50.00 to $75.00; and on December 1, 1983, from $75.00 to $100.00. One longtime resident, Katherine Stevens, "imagined" (T.127) that Mrs. Ritchie had asked for rent increases to defray utility rate hikes, but written notices of increases offered no explanation. T.48-49. Like Mr. Davis and Ms. Stevens, Robert Wilder, who seeks no money in this proceeding (T.75), was a tenant at the mobile home park before June 4, 1984. Until May of 1986, nobody ever received a prospectus. On June 10, 1983, however, rules and regulations were drawn up which provided in paragraph 20: Management specifically reserves the right to increase rental rates, fees, charges or assessments imposed on resident either by amendment or by addition to these rules, provided thirty (30) day written notice is given. Rosa Ritchie herself gave Ms. Stevens and other tenants a copy of the rules and regulations which first set out in writing her practice of giving thirty days' notice before raising rents. Regulatory Approval Only after the Polands had acquired the property, and announced their intention to raise rents, did Mr. Poland learn of the requirement that a prospectus be furnished tenants. On September 9, 1986, he wrote Mr. John D. Floyd of DBR as follows: With regards to the prospectus of Villa Rosa, please find enclosed a copy of the Rules and Regulations which are provided each tenant prior to renewing or extending `an existing rental agreement and prior to entering into a new rental agreement. This document was previously submitted to your Division and I assume that it remains acceptable. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. In response, Senior Clerk Pamela T. Parker of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, wrote Mr. Poland on September 19, 1986, listing various "deficiencies for form." With regard to the prospectus, she wrote, among other things: The prospectus fee was not in accordance with Section 723.011(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Please submit a check for the appropriate amount. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Having received this reply, Mr. Poland wrote Ms. Parker on September 25, 1986, as follows: Enclosed please find the Mobile Home Prospectus, Filing Statement and Filing Fee. Currently, there are no rental agreements in writing for the mobile home park. All agreements are oral, to the best of my knowledge. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p. 000018. Petitioner received Mr. Poland's letter of September 25, 1986, the following day. The letter is marked "RECEIVED FISCAL SEP 26 1986." DBR's Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes did not "process" the $150 check which accompanied the letter, until October 15, 1986, however, when somebody marked the letter "RECEIVED FISCAL OCT 15 1986" and crossed through the earlier received stamp. Another eight days passed before a form letter from the Division went out to Mr. Poland advising him of the Division's intention to examine the contents of his filing, to ensure its adequacy, and promising him he would "be notified as to the results of this examination within" forty five days of October 15, 1986. On November 20, 1986, more than 45 days after the prospectus had been received, the Division sent another letter to Mr. Poland, signed by Bridget St. Clair, apprising Mr. Poland of a number of deficiencies in the prospectus. On December 2, 1986, Mr. Poland made a second submission. In a cover letter addressed to Ms. St. Clair, he wrote: During our recent telephone conversation, you indicated that a prospectus is not necessary unless a rate increase Is anticipated. Since I have no intention of raising rates for the next year, I do question why this prospectus is necessary. Your thoughts on this point would be greatly appreciated. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p. 000013. In May of 1987, after several further emendations, Mr. Poland was told over the telephone that the prospectus submitted in December passed muster, as revised. Having received oral approval, he asked an employee, Jack N. Justice, to deliver prospectuses. Mr. Justice delivered by hand to every resident who was home a copy of the prospectus and, whenever somebody was not at home, put a copy in the mail box. (Before these deliveries, the planned increase in rent had taken effect, as of December 1 of the previous year.) Petitioner gave written notice of approving the prospectus by letter dated May 27, 1987. The approved prospectus apprised tenants of the landlord's intention to pass on "ad valorem property taxes or utilities charges ... during the term of the lot rental agreement ... [p]rorated equally among all lots," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 46, and warned tenants that an increase in water, sewer or garbage collection charges or property taxes "may result in an increase in the home owner's lot rental amount." Id. Rent Raised Again On June 25, 1987, Mr. Poland sent out a second notice proposing another increase of rent, to take effect on October 1, 1987, "due to the increase in real estate taxes and for capital improvements, including the water pressure problems complained of." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. The increase amounted to $15.00 per month for each single mobile home on a single lot, and to $20.00 for double wide mobile homes (or other mobile homes on double lots.) Id. On April 7, 1987, the City of Jacksonville Beach increased water and sewer rates. Mr. Poland's claim that the increase resulted in an average additional charge of approximately $14.12 per month per lot went unrebutted. A garbage collection container had to be added at $100 ($1.15 per lot) a month; $330 was expended to install a new water meter. Ad valorem taxes increased between 1985 and 1986, but were not shown to have risen at any time after December 1, 1986. The following tenants paid increased rent in the following monthly increments, effective October 1, 1987: Name of Tenant Lot No. Amount of Increase *Ila Story 1 $15.00 Mark Robson 2 15.00 *Rick Tahey 4/5 25.00 Seahorn/Gulledge 7 15.00 *Isabe Sutcliffe 8 15.00 William R. Hernandez 9 15.00 Bertie Willis 10/11 25.00 *B. E. Turner 12 15.00 *Ingrid C. Fegan 14 15.00 Ray Brozoski 16 5.00 *Helen Marin 17 15.00 *Alden Waterman 18 15.00 *Ethel Dunsmoor 19 15.00 *Martina O'Hare 20 15.00 *Zora Hyde 21 15.00 *William Vollkmer 22 15.00 William E. Wolfe 23 15.00 H. D. Seahorn 25 15.00 *James Mahoney 26 15.00 *Roger Zucco 27 15.00 Roland Page 28 15.00 *George Bunting 29 15.00 *Robert Grabel 30 15.00 Joseph Mickey 31 5.00 *Catherine Stevens 32 15.00 *Richard Law 33 15.00 Edna Barrett 34 15.00 *Maxwell Page 35 15.00 *Helen Hines 36 15.00 Christ. Hooley 37 15.00 *Hernandez/Johns 38/39 20.00 Arminta Rogers 40 15.00 *Rita Boyer 41 15.00 *Thelma Thornton 42 15.00 *Maxwell Page 43 15.00 *Kenneth Driscoll 44 15.00 *Edna Praine 45 15.00 James Wilson 46 15.00 Nancy C. Lane 100 15.00 *David Koehler 101 15.00 *Jerry Welker 102 15.00 *John Embleton 103 15.00 *Corrine Beach 104 20.00 *Clyde Wiley 105 15.00 *Candie Blasman 106 15.00 *Harry Wilson 107 20.00 *Stanley Dolka A 15.00 Tom Williams C 15.00 *Goffery Riser D 15.00 *William Page E 15.00 *Pat Pattillo F 15.00 *Roy Pike G 15.00 *Frieda Suomella H 15.00 *Charlotte Reid I 15.00 Michelle Holt J 15.00 *Herbert Davis K 15.00 *Lee Haley L 15.00 *Heide Alexander M 15.00 Joseph Morris N 15.00 *Mary Lo Wampler O 15.00 *Ernest Grizzard P 15.00 Juanita Holliman Q 15.00 *Kathalee Lombar R 15.00 *Ruth Pooley S 15.00 *Norma Baker U 15.00 *H. W. DeMoss V 15.00 *Arthur Pitman W 15.00 *Jesse Wagnor X 15.00 *James Hicks Y 15.00 W. Crowe Z 15.00 *Robert Wilder 00 20.00 Asterisks indicate those who were tenants on December 1, 1986. No lot rental agreements were in writing.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner reprimand respondents for raising rents before distributing prospectuses to their tenants. That petitioner require respondents to return the amounts by which rents collected for December of 1986 and January, February, March and April of 1987 exceeded rents charged the same tenants for November of 1986. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 1st day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5983 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 4 recite procedural matters only. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 5 through 11, 13, 15 through 19, and 21 through 25 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as immaterial. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 12, ad valorem taxes may also have contributed to the 1986 increase. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 14 is rejected. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 20, Mrs. Ritchie distributed something she called rules and regulations. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 26, the charges themselves were included but not increases. Respondents' proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 10 through 12, 14 through 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26 have been estopped, in substance insofar as material. Respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 5 in immaterial. With respect to respondents' proposed findings of fact Nos. 8 and 9, the change in garbage collection charges, except for addition of a dumpster, occurred before respondents acquired the property; and the tax increase was $5,000.00 not $10,000.00. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 13, respondents' selective (DBR advised them not to raise rents before distributing prospectuses) reliance on DBR for legal advice, whenever it may have ended, does not give rise to an estoppel. With respect to respondents' proposed findings of fact Nos. 18 and 19, utility rate charges are only one variable; usage was not proven. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 20, Leroy Kierstaedt and Haze Studivant were apparently overnighters. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 24, Ms. Stevens said she "imagined" this was so. Respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 27 was not established by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Reynold Meyer Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1070 Jeffrey C. Regan, Esquire 1300 Gulf Life Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in prohibited discriminatory conduct against Petitioners, Irene Cassermere (Ms. Cassermere) and Milagross Diaz (Ms. Diaz), within the terms and conditions, privileges, or provisions of services or facilities in the sale or rental of real property in violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Ms. Diaz is a female of Hispanic ethnicity with a physical disability that limits one or more of her major life activities. At all times material, she lived in the State of New York. Ms. Diaz was in Florida during the month of February 2002. On February 20, 2002, she completed an application for lot rental in the Sherwood Forrest Mobile Home Park (Sherwood Forest) with the intent to purchase a mobile home located on a rental lot at 216 London Drive, Kissimmee, Florida, owned by Beth Koze (Ms. Koze), who did not testify. Respondent informed Ms. Diaz that her credit check would be completed within a couple of days to ascertain her income and credit history. It was her understanding that Respondent had no interest in the potential purchase transaction between her and Ms. Koze. However, Respondent explained to Ms. Diaz, that ownership of a mobile home at the time of application was not required in order to be approved. According to Ms. Diaz, Respondent eventually informed her that due to insufficient income shown on her application she had been disapproved for lot rental. Ms. Diaz testified that Respondent informed her that she needed approximately twice the amount of her reported monthly income to qualify for lot rental approval. Thereafter, Ms. Diaz submitted a second lot rental application to Respondent. On the second application, Ms. Diaz included a co-applicant, Ms. Cassermere, who intended to relocate to Florida with her when the mobile home purchase and the lot rental application were completed. No monthly income for Ms. Cassermere was included on the lot rental application. On the second lot rental application, Ms. Diaz testified that she listed her "Occupation of Applicant" as "disabled." In the column regarding "income," she included her income and listed a Mr. LaRosa as a source of monthly income of $400.00, the amount she claimed Respondent previously informed her she needed to qualify for lot rental. According to Ms. Diaz, Respondent received her second lot rental application and called her to discuss the matter. During the conversation Respondent asked "[W]hat she was doing for Mr. LaRosa that he would put out $400.00 on her behalf." Ms. Diaz testified that she was offended by the tone of Respondent's voice and the implications that she believed prompted the question. She believed the question to have been irrelevant and did not answer. Ms. Diaz testified that in the "Assets and Income" column of her second lot rental application, she listed the amount of $10,000. When asked by Respondent the source of the $10,000, which apparently was not initially included on her first lot rental application, she explained to Respondent she intended to make a cash purchase of the mobile home from Ms. Koze for $10,000. When asked by Respondent the source of such a large sum, when her monthly income was insufficient to qualify for lot rental, she explained that she was to receive a lump sum, five years' retroactive social security benefit payment. Ms. Diaz testified that approximately one month after submitting her second rental lot application to Respondent and having received no response, she called Ms. Koze to ascertain the status of the mobile home sale. Ms. Diaz also testified that Ms. Koze advised her to call Respondent to find out what was holding up her second lot rental application. Believing the lot rental approval was a condition precedent to the mobile home sale, Ms. Diaz testified that at no time during her conversation with Ms. Koze did Ms. Koze advise her that she intended to take the mobile home off the market. Ms. Diaz then called Respondent and spoke with Andy Windfelder (Mr. Windfelder) about the rental lot application status. Mr. Windfelder told her to call Ms. Koze. Ms. Diaz's recollection of the telephone conversation between her and Ms. Koze follows: [A]t this point it's just too much trouble, that at this point she was going to keep the house. . . for a family member--So I told her at this point, she's been patient and she's been holding up with me for that whole time that we were waiting on this credit report, which is four weeks, that I'm not going to put her on the spot of going against them and tell me what transpired in that conversation for them to convince her not to sell to me. I told her that at that point I have no alternative but to tell her that I was going to go file a housing complaint, and I'm sorry that I would have to involve her, but that we had a contract and I gave her a deposit. So at that point she took my name and address and she mailed me my deposit back on a check, and at that point, I didn't contact Sherwood--I contacted Sherwood Forest only to tell them right after that that I filed this housing complaint, that I was going to file this housing complaint . . . As stated, Ms. Diaz filed her discrimination complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and no longer communicated directly with Respondent regarding the matter. The core of Ms. Diaz's complaint is Respondent's failure, or refusal, to contact her by mail or by telephone about the result of her second lot rental application. Further, Ms. Diaz opined that Respondent pressured Ms. Koze not to sell her mobile home to her, which caused Ms. Koze to return Ms. Diaz's purchase contract deposit money. Ms. Diaz argued that Respondent's conduct, unreasonable delay in acting upon her lot rental application and pressure on Ms. Koze not to sell, had two direct effects: (1) she lost the opportunity to purchase the mobile home located on the rental lot at 216 London Drive, Kissimmee, Florida, and (2) she was denied the right to reside in Respondent's facility because she was a dark, disabled, Hispanic female. At all times material, Jeff Leeds (Mr. Leeds) was general manager of Sherwood Forest in Kissimmee, Florida. In that position, Mr. Leeds supervised a staff of 28 persons, of whom many were Hispanic. The park consisted of approximately 1,600 rental sites. According to Mr. Leeds, approximately 30 percent of Sherwood Forest residents were Hispanic, and he had never met Ms. Diaz. According to Mr. Leeds, Ms. Diaz's background check reflected insufficient income that raised an alert. Her second application, based upon his conversation with Ms. Diaz, would include her sister, Ms. Cassermere, as co-applicant. Ms. Diaz was unaware that in October 2003, Ms. Koze placed her mobile home back on the market and was willing to sell to her. This information was made available to Ms. Diaz by and through Respondent through the report provided to Respondent by the Commission's investigator. Based on the evidence of record, Ms. Diaz failed to present any credible evidence to substantiate her claim of discrimination. Ultimate Factual Determinations Respondent rejected Ms. Diaz's initial lot rental application, not because of her handicap or her Hispanic ethnicity, but because through a reasonable process of credit check references, it was discovered that Ms. Diaz's disability income was insufficient to meet Respondent's requirements for lot rental. The additional income of $400.00, an apparent loan from her friend, entered on her second rental lot application raised reasonable concerns; and, when inquiry was made, she refused to respond. There is no credible, competent evidence that Respondent attempted to influence and/or pressure the mobile home owner, Ms. Koze, to take her mobile home off the market and/or cancel her contract for sale with Ms. Diaz. Ms. Koze voluntarily returned Ms. Diaz's deposit money. There is no credible, competent evidence that Respondent intentionally delayed processing Ms. Diaz's second lot rental application with the intent or for the purpose of denying her approval because of her disability, gender, or her Hispanic ethnicity. In short, Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against Ms. Diaz; rather, the delay caused by her second lot rental application to Respondent was for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason and was not proven to be the reason Ms. Koze took her mobile home off the market.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing Petitioners', Irene Cassermere and Milagross Diaz, Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 2004.
The Issue Did Respondent violate Section 723.037(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to give timely written notice of rent increase on mobile home lots, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent owned the Arcadia Peace River Campground (Campground) located in DeSoto County, Florida, whose mailing address is 2988 Northwest Highway 70, Arcadia, Florida 34266. From October 3, 1996 through March 21, 1998, the Campground had 14 or more of its mobile home lots occupied by mobile homes. From October 3, 1996 through March 21, 1998, seven or more of the mobile homes located in the Campground were owned by residents of the Campground other than Respondent. Furthermore, these mobile homes were placed on lots leased by the mobile home residents from the Campground. From October 3, 1996 through March 21, 1998, four or more of the mobile homes located in the Campground were owned by Respondent's employees and placed on lots in the Campground. The rental for these lots was considered as part of the employees' compensation. On January 1, 1997, Respondent implemented and began collecting a $30.00 increase in the monthly lot rental from those mobile home owners leasing spaces in the Campground. Respondent gave the affected mobile home owners written notice of the January 1, 1997, monthly lot rental increase on November 26, 1996, some 36 days prior to the effective date (January 1, 1997) of the increase. No other notice of the lot rental increase was given to the affected mobile home owners. Respondent collected the $30.00 lot rental increase from the affected mobile home owners during the period from January 1, 1997, through March 21, 1998. On January 1, 1998, Respondent implemented and began collecting a $15.00 increase in the monthly lot rental from those mobile home owners leasing spaces in the Campground. Respondent gave the affected mobile home owners written notice of the January 1, 1998, monthly lot rental increase on October 28, 1997, some 65 days prior to the effective date of the increase. Respondent collected the $15.00 monthly lot rental increase from January 1, 1998, through March 21, 1998. Each of the following affected mobile home owners paid both the $30.00 monthly lot rental increase from January 1, 1997, through March 21, 1998 and the $15.00 monthly lot rental increase from January 1, 1998, through March 21, 1998: Charles Collins; Arthur P. McRae; Harold Martin; Maurice W. Jackson; Robert F. Martin; Irene K. Apps and; Reba Conner. On March 21, 1998, the Peace River flooded the Campground. The mobile homes located in the Campground were damaged. Subsequently, the mobile homes were removed from the Campground, purchased by Respondent, or were purchased by one or more new employees of Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and having specifically reviewed the factors set out in Section 723.006(5)(c), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the Division enter a final order assessing Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00. It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to refund to Charles Collins, Arthur P. McRae, Harold Martin, Maurice W. Jackson, Robert F. Martin, Irene K. Apps, and Reba Conner all sums collected from these individuals as increases in lot rental during the period of January 1, 1997 through March 21, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip Nowick, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Eric H. Miller, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 George Lempenau, Qualified Representative 2998 Northwest Highway 70 Arcadia, Florida 34266
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's proposed rule 7D-31.002 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Petitioners and the Intervenor MLH Property Managers, Inc., contend that the rule is invalid. The Respondent and the Intervenor Federation Of Mobile Home Owners Of Florida contend the proposed rule is valid.
Findings Of Fact Facts stipulated to by the parties Petitioner, Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc. (FMHA), is a Florida nonprofit corporation whose address is 115 North Calhoun Street, Suite 5, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The agency affected by this proceeding is the Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (DBR), whose address is The Johns Building, 725 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000. The DBR is charged with the implementation, enforcement and interpretation of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, concerning mobile home park lot tenancies. The DBR also possesses statutory authority to impose civil penalties against a mobile home park owner for any violation of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, a rule of the Department promulgated thereunder, or a properly promulgated park rule or regulation. This proceeding concerns the Respondent's proposed rule 7D-31.002, which was published in Vol. 16, No. 7 of the Florida Administrative Weekly (April 27, 1990). The FMHA is a Florida nonprofit corporation, which is organized and maintained for the benefit of the owners of approximately 1,000 mobile home parks containing a combined total of approximately 300,000 to 350,000 mobile home lots. The owners of the 1,000 mobile home parks comprise a substantial portion of the membership of the FMHA. One of the primary purposes of the FMHA is to act on behalf of its members before the various governmental entities of this state, including the Respondent, Florida Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes. FMHA member mobile home parks are subject to the provisions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, and the rules of the DBR contained in Rules 7D-30 through 7D-32, Florida Administrative Code. FMHA member mobile home parks are required to register with the DBR, to pay annual fees to the DBR, to file prospectuses and pay filing fees for the same to the DBR, to submit advertising to the DBR for approval, and are otherwise subject to the regulatory authority of the DBR with respect to the operation and management of their mobile home parks. Additionally, FMHA member mobile home parks are subject to the DBR's enforcement authority, which includes the power to fine or impose other civil penalties for failure to comply with the above-referenced rules and statutes. Each of the owners of the FMHA member mobile home is engaged in the business of leasing individual mobile home lots to mobile home owners. The mobile home owners lease mobile home lots for the purpose of installing on the lots a mobile home owned by the tenant. The Federation of Mobile Home Owners of Florida (FMO) is a Florida nonprofit corporation whose membership is comprised of over 100,000 mobile home owners residing in Florida. The normal activities of the FMO include, among other things, representing the interests of Florida's mobile home owners before Florida administrative agencies, including DBR and the Division of Administrative Hearings, in rulemaking proceedings and otherwise. Thousands of FMO members reside in mobile home parks which are governed by Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, and the rules adopted thereunder by DBR. Thousands of FMO members were tenants of those parks on June 4, 1984, and thousands more have become tenants by purchasing a home located in those parks from a former mobile home owner who was a tenant of those parks on June 4, 1984. MLH Property Managers, Inc. (MLH), a Delaware corporation, is the managing general partner of MLH Income Realty Partnership V, a New York limited partnership. MLH Income Realty Partnership V is the owner of eight mobile home parks in the State of Florida, each of which contain 26 or more mobile home lots which are offered for lease or rent for the placing thereon of mobile homes to be used as residences. NIH has entered into rental agreements with the majority of residents in each of the parks which have a one-year term, with the intent of NIH that the terms and conditions of tenancy be established on a yearly basis. The NIH parks contain lots which were leased to their present mobile home owner tenants (or their predecessor mobile home owners) prior to June 4, 1984. The full text of the proposed rule which is the subject of this proceeding is as follows: 7D-31.002 Tenancy. (a) A tenancy under chapter 723, Florida Statues, begins when the mobile home park owner and mobile home owner enter into an initial rental agreement as defined in section 723.003(4), Florida Statues, or when the mobile home owner assumes occupancy in the park, whichever occurs first. (b) Once a tenancy begins in accordance with paragraph (1)(a) of this rule, it is continuous and cannot be terminated by the mobile home park owner except pursuant to section 723.061, Florida Statutes. (a) The enactment of chapter 723, Florida Statutes, did not terminate the tenancy of a mobile home park owner which was in existence on June 4, 1984, the effective date of the chapter. Furthermore, chapter 723, Florida Statutes, does not allow or authorize the mobile home park owner to terminate a tenancy in existence on June 4, 1984, the effective date of the chapter, in any manner other than pursuant to section 723.061, Florida Statutes. (b) A tenancy in existence on June 4, 1984, the effective date of chapter 723, Florida Statutes, shall be deemed a tenancy under chapter 723 if, prior to June 4, 1984, the mobile home owner either entered into a rental agreement with the mobile home park owner, or the mobile home owner assumed occupancy in the mobile home park. The rest of the facts The Respondent has previously attempted to adopt a similar rule. In Volume 14, Number 7, of the Florida Administrative Weekly of February 19, 1988, the Respondent published a proposed rule 7D-31.002. The rule proposed in February of 1988 read as follows: 7D-31.002 Fee, Charges and Assessments. For tenancies in existence before June 4, 1984, including any assumptions of those tenancies pursuant to Section 723.059, Florida Statutes, the mobile home owner is not obligated to pay any fees, charges or assessments which were not disclosed fully in writing prior to occupancy, any provision to the contrary in a prospectus notwithstanding, unless the park owner can establish that the fees, charges or assessments have been collected as a matter of custom as defined in subsection (4) of this rule. Furthermore, the mobile home owner is not obligated to install any permanent improvements at all, including those mandated by governmental entities or utility companies. For tenancies created on or after June 4, 1984, pass through charges, as defined in Section 723.003(9), Florida Statutes, may be imposed by the mobile home park owner if the mobile home owner's obligation to pay such charges was disclosed in general terms pursuant to Sections 723.011 and 723.012, Florida Statutes, or pursuant to Section 723.013, Florida Statutes, even though the charge being imposed was not disclosed specifically, and the imposition of such pass through charges is not a violation of section 723.042, Florida Statutes. However, pass through charges may not be imposed if the mobile home owner's obligation to pay such charges was not disclosed generally and prior to occupancy as required by Sections 723.011(2) and 723.012, Florida Statutes, or Section 723.013, Florida Statutes, whichever is applicable. No fee, charge or assessment shall be imposed by a mobile home park owner on the purchaser of a mobile home situated in the park that is offered for sale by a resident of the park and as a condition to the purchaser being reviewed or approved for residency in the park. A fee, charge or assessment has been collected as a matter of custom if it was collected prior to July 1, 1967. In the case of Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc., v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, et al., 10 F.A.L.R. 3919 (June 24, 1988), the former proposed rule quoted immediately above was determined to be invalid on several grounds. The proposed rule that is the subject of this case will substantially affect the substantial interests of the Petitioner and each of the Intervenors. A substantial number of the members of the FMHA and the FMO are substantially affected by the proposed rule and the relief sought is the type and nature which these associations may properly seek on behalf of their respective members. Mr. Bob Custer is a Vice President in De Anza Corporation. De Anza Corporation is the owner of Mobile Americana Mobile Home Park. De Anza Corporation is a member of the FMHA. De Anza Corporation purchased the park in July 1976. At that time there was a written lease offered to all home owners in the park. Subsequently, the park offered written leases to home owners in the park. After the adoption of Chapter 723 on June 4, 1984, the park owner filed a prospectus with the DBR, received approval from the DBR, and distributed the approved prospectus to the mobile home owners in the park in 1985. The prospectus contains provisions, including fees and charges, that are different from the earlier offered rental agreements used in the park. The prospectus is the controlling document used by De Anza Corporation in determining increases in lot rent and fees and charges that will be collected during the tenancy. Mr. Tom Keenan is the Vice President for Property Operations for Mobile Home Communities, Inc., which owns and operates 10 mobile home parks in Florida. Each of the individual-parks is a member of the FMHA. Lake Haven Mobile Home Park is owned and operated by Mobile Home Communities, Inc. Lake Haven Mobile Home Park entered into 4 year leases with its tenants, beginning in 1975 and again in 1979. After the adoption of Chapter 723, on June 4, 1984, Lake Haven Mobile Home Park filed and received approval for a prospectus from DBR, which was distributed to mobile home owners in 1985. The prospectus, including the rental agreement therein, contains terms and conditions different from the earlier 4 year leases (including the term of the rental agreement which is changed to annual), and there are different fees and charges which can be collected. Of the 379 lots that are rented in the park, approximately 200 tenants entered the park prior to the delivery of the prospectus. Mobile Home Communities, Inc., operates the park pursuant to the disclosures contained in the prospectus. Ms. Jan West is the owner and operator of Eagle's Nest Mobile Home Estates, a 64 space mobile home park located in Fruitland Park, Florida. Ms. West is a member of the FMHA. Eagle's Nest was developed in the 1930's and purchased by Jan West's parents in the 1940's. Prior to 1987 the rental agreements in the park were all oral. Ms. West does not know the terms and conditions of the rental agreements offered to tenants when her parents operated the park. All 64 of the lots in the park were offered for rent or lease on June 4, 1984, the effective date of Chapter 723. In 1987 Eagle's Nest filed a prospectus with the DBR and the prospectus was approved. All of the tenants of the park signed the lease agreement contained in the prospectus in 1987 when the approved prospectus was delivered. The fees and charges that are included in the prospectus were never disclosed in writing to any of the tenants prior to the delivery of the prospectus. The prospectus is the document that Eagle's Nest uses to determine the landlord tenant relationship under Chapter 723. Eagle's Nest collects lawn mowing fees and special services fees when they apply. Ms. West does not know if there were charges, other than the base rent, that were collected prior to 1987. She does not know if other charges, like late charges, return check charges, guest fees, vehicle storage fees, pet fees, special services fees, or pass-through charges were charged prior to delivery of the prospectus. Lawn mowing fees and maintenance fees were collected prior to 1987. It is a common practice in the industry to use a fixed term lease, or a lease for a term of years, in the prospectus and rental agreement approved by the DBR. The Mobile Home Study Commission was created in 1988 to study problems with alternative dispute resolution relating to mobile home park rents. Chapter 88-147, Laws of Florida. The Study Commission was reauthorized in 1989 for another one year period to study this issue. Chapter 89-202, Laws of Florida. The Study Commission was in existence, in 1988, when the Florida Manufactured Housing Association challenged an earlier proposed rule, 7D-31.002, which regulated the fees and charges that could be collected in mobile home parks. In that case the Division of Administrative Hearings issued a Final Order invalidating the earlier proposed rule on several grounds. That Final Order was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal. Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 10 F.A.L.R. 3919 (DOAH 1988), affirmed, 547 So.2d 636 (1st DCA 1989) (hereafter referred to as FMHA I). The DBR appeared at the Study Commission in 1990 and suggested legislation to directly overturn the hearing officer's decision in FMHA I. That suggested legislation was virtually identical to the proposed rule at issue in this proceeding. The legislation suggested by the DBR was not adopted. Thirty-five to forty percent of the tenants residing in MLH parks today resided there prior to the enactment of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, on June 4, 1984. MLH or its predecessors in interest delivered prospectuses approved by DBR to all tenants residing in the parks on June 4, 1984, at or before the expiration of those tenants' pre-Chapter 723 leases. The prospectuses delivered to such residents disclosed the manner in which the residents' lot rental amount would be increased, other fees and charges which the resident would thereafter be charged, and the manner in which pass-through charges (for governmentally- mandated capital improvements) would be assessed. In some of its barks MLH has passed on ad valorem property tax increases to park tenants. A number of tenants in MLH's parks are now contending that such charges cannot be passed on to them, even though such charges are disclosed in the park prospectuses which they received after enactment of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, because (the tenants assert) such charges were not disclosed to them prior to their moving into the parks before the enactment of Chapter 723. MLH has no knowledge as to whether each charge disclosed in its approved Chapter 723 prospectuses was disclosed by the previous owners of MLH parks at the time that the original tenant moved onto a particular lot before the enactment of Chapter 723. MLH intends to continue passing on ad valorem tax increases. The prospectuses for MLH parks approved by DBR provide for the collection of a $3.00 annual DBR filing fee. The obligation to pay that filing fee was not disclosed to tenants who moved into the parks before the enactment of Chapter 723 because, at that time, neither DBR nor any other state agency had regulatory jurisdiction over the parks and the legislature did not impose such a filing fee until the passage of Chapter 723 and the concomitant creation of the Bureau of Mobile Homes. As to the years prior to the enactment of Chapter 723, it is sometimes very difficult, if not impossible, for a current park owner to ascertain and establish what fees, charges, and assessments were disclosed to tenants before they moved into a park. There was no central regulatory authority at that time which was charged with the responsibility to monitor such disclosures. There was no required, standardized disclosure document such as the prospectus which is now required of most parks by Chapter 723. Some parks now subject to regulation under Chapter 723 came into existence as early as the 1930's and operated as informal, family-run businesses. Thus, for the industry in general, the records are not available to establish what disclosures were made to tenants who long ago moved in, and still reside in the parks, at the time they initially took up residence. MLH intends to continue the operation of its parks in Florida and, therefore, will be governed directly by the proposed rule, if it is adopted. Prior to the enactment of Chapter 723, there was no statutory limitation on the frequency of rent increases, no requirement that the park owner disclose the factors which would be considered in setting rents, and no requirement of the park owner to mediate rent disputes with statutorily recognized tenant organizations, all of which are now imposed under Chapter 723. All of the approved MLH prospectuses contain the land use descriptions required by Section 723.012(4)(c), (5), (14) (b), Florida Statutes, including a lot layout showing the location and size of all lots in the parks (whether vacant or occupied), the location of all recreation and common facilities, and a detailed description of those facilities. MLH was a member of the Florida Manufactured Housing Association at the time that the Division of Administrative Hearings rendered its opinion in Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 10 F.A.L.R. 3910 (D.O.A.H. 1988) ("FMHA I") and at the time FMHA I was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal. DBR will apply the proposed rule to the administration of Section 723.031(5),(6), Florida Statutes. DBR will apply the proposed rule to the administration of existing rule 7D-31.001(5), Florida Administrative Code. "Length of tenancy," as used in existing rule 7D- 31.001(5), F.A.C., is not defined by Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, or by existing DBR rules. Nor is the term "tenancy" expressly defined in Chapter 723, Florida Statutes or in DBR's implementing rules. The word "continuous" used in the proposed rule is intended to have its common and ordinary meaning. The resale value of a tenant's mobile home in a park, as compared to the value of a comparable mobile home purchased from a dealer's lot, is significantly higher due to the recreational and other amenities which are provided by the park owner for the tenants' use. The resale value of a tenant's mobile home in a park, as compared to the value of a comparable mobile home purchased from a dealer's lot, is significantly higher if the tenant can pass on to the purchaser of the in-place home a rent schedule which is more favorable than the current rent schedule being charged for a home newly being placed in the park. MLH uses and has entered into fixed-term, twelve-month leases with tenants in some of its parks. Those leases are part of DBR-approved prospectuses for the parks. MLH's parks and other parks regulated under Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, compete vigorously for tenants and are willing to and, in fact, do negotiate long-term leases and even lifetime leases with residents of the parks. It is important to park operators to have the flexibility to modify the prospectus disclosures regarding the use of vacant lots, vacant common areas, and land and improvements devoted to recreation facilities, in order to meet market changes and competition. It is very difficult, and sometimes impossible to obtain unanimous consent of residents in a mobile home park on most issues. In the case of MLH's park at Ellenton, Florida, the park land and improvements are valued at approximately $22,000,000. Yet it would cost MLH conservatively, $56,300,000 to purchase the homes in the park from the tenants. It would cost MLH, conservatively, $9,200,000 to $22,000,000 to move all of the tenants' homes from the park. Moreover, a portion of that required purchase price is for value added to the homes by reason of the placement of the homes in the owner's park. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the 1000 members in the full park division of the FMHA have parks that contain more than twenty-five (25) spaces. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services licenses a total of 5,500 mobile home parks in the State of Florida. FMHA developed a model prospectus for its members to comply with the law as enacted in 1984. FMHA advised its members to put all potential fees, charges, and assessments in prospectuses although such fees, charges, and assessments may not have been disclosed to the homeowner prior to the homeowner's occupancy in the park or prior to the homeowner entering into his or her initial rental agreement. Mobile Americana Mobile Home Park, a Pinellas County mobile home park, was purchased by De Anza in July, 1976. The park's prospectus number 5200119P was approved and delivered to homeowners in 1985. Since 1976, several leases and rules and regulations have been in effect in the park. The prospectus number 5200119P includes fees, charges, and assessments that were not previously disclosed in prior leases to homeowners. However, De Anza is not presently charging or collecting these undisclosed fees. De Anza manages A Garden Walk Mobile Home Park for MLH. Prospectus numbers 5000867P and 500086P86 are offered in the park. MLH offers various leases in A Garden Walk, including lifetime leases and the leased marked MLH Ex. $9. MLH Ex. #9 was used in the park after 1985 although the exact time of use is not known. Neither De Anza or MLH know what fees, charges, or assessments were disclosed to homeowners by previous park owners. For the last 3 years, De Anza has managed Hacienda Village Mobile Home Park. De Anza sets the rental amounts in its parks and uses the market approach. With the market approach, the park owners arrive at a market rent by comparing the rents in their parks with rents of other mobile home communities of comparable value. The park owners unilaterally arrive at the market value rent. The collection of governmental fees is accounted for in arriving at the market value rent. Approximately 5 to 7 years prior to the enactment of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, De Anza disclosed to homeowners living in De Anza owned parks the homeowners' obligations to pay for increased costs due to governmental actions and increases in taxes. All pre-1984 De Anza leases were subject to Chapter 83. Mobile Americana, Hacienda Village, and A Garden Walk are members of the FMHA. Mobile Home Communities also operates Windmill Village Mobile Home Park. Homeowners in Windmill Village were provided a prospectus in 1985. The prospectus contains terms and conditions that are different from the rental agreement that was in effect from 1983 until 1985. Five of the parks owned by MLH were purchased on July 1, 1987. The other three parks were purchased between July 2, 1986, and 1989. At the time MLH purchased its eight parks each park had an approved prospectus in place. One of MLH's parks, Colony Cove Ellenton, is located in Ellenton, Florida, and offers three separate prospectuses, including prospectus numbers 410024P, 410024P86 and 410024P2. Pages 74, 75, and 76 of Colony Cove Ellenton prospectus number 410024P describe the park's recreational facilities. The park owner, on page 77, paragraph 4(f), reserves the right from time to time to alter or change any of the facilities by the removal, relocation, or alteration of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities. Page 85 of this prospectus provides for the collection of costs incurred as a result of state and local government actions. MLH owns and operates Clearwater Cascade Mobile Home Community of Clearwater, Florida. Prospectus Number 5200525P86 lists each lot, including lot size, as well as describes recreational facilities and common facilities in the park. LaCasa Mobile Home Park, a MLH park, offers at least two prospectuses in the park, prospectus numbers 5800237P and 5800237P86. Prospectus number 5800237P describes the recreational facilities in the park. The prospectus provides for an assessment to homeowners for ad valorem taxes. The park owner also reserves the right from time to time to change any of the facilities by the removal, relocation, or alteration of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities. MLH has not been told by the Division it would not have a right to make modifications to its facilities in accordance with its prospectuses. The prospectuses delivered to homeowners in MLH parks allow for a variety of lease situations. There are no provisions in the prospectuses delivered by MLH which state that a prospectus applies only to persons who were in residence on June 4, 1984. All of the MLH prospectuses include reservation language similar to language contained in the Colony Cove Ellenton prospectus, reserving the right to modify facilities. MLH owns and operates Valleydale Estate Mobile Home Park, which it purchased on July 1, 1987. The Valleydale Estates prospectus contains some fees that were not disclosed to homeowners prior to occupancy. When MLH purchased Valleydale, it did not inquire as to disclosures made to homeowners. MLH also owns Heritage Village Mobile Home Park. Prior to its purchase of the park, MLH did not inquire as to disclosures made to homeowners living in the park. Since 1984, Dr. Faye Mayberry has been the Chief of the Bureau of Mobile Homes. The Division has the duty to review and approve prospectuses. Park owners draft prospectuses and submit them to the Division for review. Approximately 3000 prospectuses have been approved by the Bureau of Mobile Homes. As part of the approval process the Division does not verify the accuracy of the contents of the prospectus, nor does the Division determine if the contents of the prospectus are consistent with rental agreements offered to a particular mobile home owner. Park owners are advised by the Division that failure to cite deficiencies in the prospectus filing does not relieve them of obligations under the law. On January 10, 1985, Rule 7D-30.003 Florida Administrative Code, was adopted. Mobile home parks may offer more than one version of a prospectus in a park. Park owners sometimes submit subsequent prospectus filings that are inconsistent with previously delivered prospectuses. The Division has not established a policy regarding subsequent prospectus filings which contain disclosures concerning the number of lots in the park which are inconsistent with the disclosures in the previously approved and delivered version of the prospectus. Such inconsistencies between the subsequent prospectus and the previously approved and delivered prospectus filings are handled by the Division on a case by case basis. Prior to June 4, 1984, the primary issue of concern for mobile home owners was the mobile home park owners' failure to live up to disclosures that were given prior to the homeowners' occupancy in the park. (TV V, pg. 613). The prospectus delivered to mobile home owners residing in the following mobile home parks included fees, charges, and assessments other than pass-through charges, which were not disclosed to homeowners until after they moved into the parks: Park East Club -- Sarasota, Florida Caribbean Estates -- New Port Richey, Florida River Grove Mobile Home Village -- Sebastian, Florida Hacienda Village -- Winter Springs, Florida Ocean Pines Mobile Home Park - Indialantic, Florida A Garden Walk -- Palm Beach Gardens, Florida The amount for which a mobile home located in a mobile home park can be sold tends to decrease when the lot rental amount charged by the park increases. It costs several thousand dollars to move a double- wide mobile home within a 50 mile radius and set it up again the way it was before the move. /1 Many FMO members have complained to the FMO leadership of prospectuses being delivered in their mobile home parks which include fees, charges, or assessments which were not disclosed prior to June 4, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Oak Park Village is a mobile home park which is owned and operated by the COOPERATIVE. All of the one hundred and thirty three (133) corporate shareholders are former renters who formed the corporation in order to purchase the park from Mr. Paster and Mr. Perrault, the previous park owners. When the purchase was made, the remaining sixty-six (66) mobile home owners who rented lots within the park did not participate in the purchase. These mobile home owners remained within the park in their status as renters. The COOPERATIVE'S predecessors in title filed a mobile home park prospectus and an amended prospectus with the DIVISION, as required by law. The renters who received the initial prospectus between April 1985 and October 1986, continued their relationship with the park under this prospectus. All of the newer renters were subject to the amended prospectus, which became effective October 1986. Each prospectus contains a copy of the lease form. All of the renters had to sign a written lease before they could enter the park. The term of a lease within the park was normally for a one year period, which ended on December 31st. However, if a tenancy did not begin on January 1st of any year, the first term would end on December 31st of the year the lease was made. Each lease contains an automatic renewal clause. Unless the renter notifies the mobile park owner in writing sixty (60) days in advance of the automatic renewal on December 31st of his intention to leave the park, the lease is automatically renewed for another one year period. In the lease and in each prospectus, only the renters can prevent the automatic renewal from taking effect. On September 19, 1986, the mobile home park owners, Mr. Paster and Mr. Perrault gave written notice to the renters of their intent to increase the lot rental amount effective January 1, 1987, from one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) a month to one hundred and fifty six dollars and forty cents ($156.40) per month for a one year period. This advance notice gave the renters the opportunity to terminate their leases and relocate before the automatically renewal or January 1, 1987, which would include this lot rental price increase. None of the renters gave the owners a sixty (60) day advance written notice of their intention to leave the park at the end of the term. Therefore, potential purchasers were on notice that sixty-six (66) renters intended to automatically renew their written leases on January 1, 1987, for a one year term. On January 1, 1987, the automatic renewal went into effect. Under the lease terms and each prospectus, every renter owed one thousand eight hundred seventy six dollars and eighty cents ($1,876.80) as lot rent for the year 1987. The renters had the option to pay this amount in equal monthly installments of one hundred and fifty six dollars and forty cents ($156.40) over the twelve month period. However, the mobile home park owner's right to the one thousand eight hundred seventy six dollars and eighty cents ($1,876.80) vested on January 1, 1987. Contrary to the stipulation of the parties, the law and the evidence shows that written leases were in effect on January 1, 1987. On December 26, 1986, the COOPERATIVE purchased Oak Park Village. At the time of purchase, the COOPERATIVE took the property subject to the existing leases, and the automatic renewals which were inchoate on December 26, 1986, but which would become operative on January 1, 1987. After the sale was completed, Mr. Paster attempted to rescind the notice of rent increase, which was to take effect on January 1, 1987. As Mr. Paster no longer owned the property at the time he attempted this recision, he was unable to effectuate a recission. On December 30, 1986, the COOPERATIVE mailed written notices to its sixty-six (66) renters. The notices informed the renters that the rent would remain at one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) for three months and would then increase to one hundred and eighty seven dollars ($187.00) per month from April 1, 1987, to December 31, 1987. This came to an annual rental amount of two thousand one hundred and thirty three dollars ($2,133.00). This was an annual increase of two hundred and fifty six dollars and twenty cents ($256.20) per renter during the 1987 lease term, when the increase initiated by the prior owners is compared with the proposed increase. In comparing the notice of increase dated September 19, 1986, and the notice dated December 24, ,1986, it appears that the first three reasons listed for the proposed increases are identical. The only additional reason for an increase which is listed on the notice dated December 24, 1986, from the new owners is "Maintenance needs of the park." The notices sent by the new owners, the COOPERATIVE, were postmarked December 30, 1986, and were placed in the individual post office boxes of all of the tenants on the same day. Page twelve of each prospectus defines "notice" as follows: Unless otherwise provided by statute, administrative rule, or this Prospectus, any notice shall be deemed given by posting by first class mail or by actual hand delivery. Rule 7D-32.02(3), Florida Administrative Code, the applicable rule to these proceedings, provides as follows: Notice given by personal delivery shall be deemed given when actually delivered to the homeowner. Notice by U.S. Mail shall be deemed given five days after notice is placed in the U.S. Mail addressed to the mobile homeowner's last known address. As the prospectus and the amended prospectus both defer to the administrative rule in effect which defines the term "notice," the COOPERATIVE's notice did not occur within a ninety day period, even under the COOPERATIVE's theory of the case, as set forth in its Proposed Recommended Order.
The Issue Whether the discriminatory housing practices alleged in Petitioner's amended housing discrimination complaint were committed by Respondents and, if so, what relief should the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) provide Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a woman of Native American heritage. The record evidence, however, does not reveal that, at any time material to the instant case, anyone outside of her family, including Respondents, was aware of Petitioner's Native American background; nor does the record evidence establish that Petitioner was ever subjected to derogatory remarks about being of Native American descent. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner has suffered from health problems that have substantially limited her ability to walk and have required her to use a motorized wheelchair to ambulate. Petitioner is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a resident of Kings Manor Estates (Park), a residential community of single-family mobile homes that is located in Davie, Florida. The Park is one of various mobile home communities that Respondent Uniprop Corporation (Uniprop) owns and operates. Like the other residents of the Park, Petitioner owns the mobile home in which she resides and pays rent to Uniprop for the use of the lot on which home is situated. Petitioner's home occupies lot 78 in the Park. As a resident of the Park, Petitioner has use of the Park's common areas and facilities, which include a swimming pool. There has been no showing that Petitioner has been denied access to any of these common areas or facilities due to her handicap. Residents of the Park must comply with the Park's rules and regulations. These rules and regulations reasonably require, among other things, that residents obtain, in addition to any permits they may need from the Town of Davie, the approval of Uniprop (referred to as "design approval") before constructing any improvements on their lots, including wheelchair ramps. To obtain such "design approval," a resident must submit to Park management a completed "design approval" application form and any supporting documentation. The application form provides a space for the resident to provide a "[d]escription, [d]rawing [l]ocation & [s]ize of [the proposed] [a]ddition." Immediately underneath this space on the form is the following pre-printed language: It is the Resident's responsibility to obtain all governmental approvals, to make certain the proposed improvement is suitable for the purpose intended and that the improvement complies with all applicable codes, standards and governmental requirements. Approval by Management of any improvement is limited to considerations of appearance. Resident agrees to have their home improvements built to the specifications listed above and illustrated in the space above and/or attached drawings, exhibits and permits. It is the responsibility of the Park's property manager, with the help of the Park's assistant property manager, to enforce the Park's rules and regulations. The duties of the Park's property manager and assistant property manager (whose work stations are located in the Park's business office) also include collecting rent from the Park's residents and taking appropriate action when residents are delinquent in their rental payments. There is a "drop off box" located outside the Park's business office in which residents can place their rental payments when the office is closed and the Park's property manager and assistant property manager are unavailable. Neither the property manager nor the assistant property manager is authorized to give residents "design approval." Only the Uniprop regional supervisor has such authority. The property manager and assistant property manager merely serve as "conduits" between the resident and the Uniprop regional supervisor in the "design approval" process. They take the completed "design approval" application form from the resident, provide it to the Uniprop regional supervisor, and, after hearing back from the regional supervisor, communicate the regional supervisor's decision to the resident. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent Delores Maddox was the Park's property manager. Ms. Maddox no longer works for Uniprop. Hazel Crain is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the Park's assistant property manager. At all times material to the instant case, Milton Rhines was the Uniprop regional supervisor having authority over the activities at the Park. Mr. Rhines was based in Ft. Myers, Florida, on the other side of the state from the Park. Josephine Patricia Silver is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, employed as a sales consultant for Uniprop. In this capacity, she engages in activities designed to facilitate the sale of mobile homes manufactured by Uniprop (to be placed in the Park and other mobile home communities Uniprop owns and operates). Although her office is located in the Park, she plays no decision-making role in Park management. Notwithstanding that it is not her job responsibility to accept rental payments, she sometimes will do so as a courtesy to Park residents when she is at the Park on weekends or during the evening hours and the business office is closed. Although Ms. Silver and Petitioner do not get along, Ms. Silver has never threatened to "throw away" Petitioner's rental payments; nor has she ever told any of Park's residents that Petitioner was not paying her rent. Ms. Silver, however, has "gossiped" and made derogatory comments about Petitioner, but no showing has been made that Petitioner's handicap, her Native American heritage, or her having exercised any of her rights under Florida's Fair Housing Act played any role in Ms. Silver's having made these comments. In August of 2002, Petitioner mentioned to Ms. Crain about her interest in having a wheelchair ramp constructed on her lot. Ms. Crain suggested to Petitioner that she contact the Town to discuss the feasibility of such a project. Petitioner subsequently telephoned Brian Dillon, the Town's chief structural inspector. Mr. Dillon not only attempted to assist Petitioner in her efforts to obtain a permit from the Town to construct the wheelchair ramp, he also helped her make arrangements to have a boy scout troop construct the ramp for her with donated materials. The Town would not issue Petitioner a permit for the ramp unless and until she obtained the written approval of the Park owner, Uniprop. The ramp was constructed for Petitioner by the boy scouts during a weekend in mid-November 2002, without Petitioner's having first obtained Uniprop's "design approval" or a permit from the Town. Prior to the construction of the ramp, Petitioner had received a "design approval" application form from Ms. Crain and, on or about November 12 or 13, 2002, with Ms. Crain's assistance, had begun the application process. Petitioner, however, did not wait to receive the "design approval" she had applied for from Uniprop before giving the boy scouts the go ahead to start constructing the ramp. After discovering that the ramp had been constructed, Park management attempted to "work" with Petitioner to enable her to complete the paperwork necessary to obtain (belatedly) "design approval" for the ramp. On November 21, 2002, Petitioner submitted to Park management the following note from her physician, James Milne, D.O.: Due to Medical Necessity, my patient Mary Helen Meacham requires use of a motorized wheelchair, and it is necessary for her to have ramp access. If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office. By December 5, 2002, Petitioner had yet to submit the design plans needed to obtain "design approval" for the ramp. Accordingly, on that date, Uniprop's attorney, Ernest Kollra, Esquire, sent Petitioner, by certified mail, a Notice of Violation of Community Covenants, which read as follows: Please be advised the undersigned represents Kings Manor Estates with respect to your tenancy at the Community. This Notice is sent to you pursuant to Florida Statute, Chapter, 723.061, Et Seq. Park Management has advised the undersigned that you are in violation of the following Community Covenants of Kings Manor Estates: 7. Improvements: Before construction of any type is permitted on the homesite or added to a home, the Resident must obtain written permission from Management in the form of a Design Approval. Additional permits may be required by the municipality in which the Community is located. 10. Handicap Access: Any Residents requiring handicap access improvements such as ramps are permitted. All plans for such ramps must be approved by Management and comply with all other Community Covenants and governmental standards. You are in violation of the above Community Covenants, in that you have failed to submit plans to Management prior to the construction of your ramp. Park Management has been apprised by the Town of Davie that permits are required and none was obtained by you prior to construction, in compliance with Town of Davie governmental standards. In order to correct the above violation, you must within seven (7) days from delivery of this Notice, remove the ramp from your homesite. Delivery of the mailed notice is deemed given five (5) days after the date of postmark. If you fail and/or refuse to comply with this Notice, your tenancy will be terminated in accordance with Florida Statute Chapter 723.061.[2] If you have any questions concerning any of the above, you may contact Park Management at . . . . Petitioner did not remove the ramp by the deadline imposed by the December 5, 2002, Notice of Violation of Community Covenants. Park management, however, took no action to terminate her tenancy. After receiving the December 5, 2002, Notice of Violation of Community Covenants, Petitioner stopped making rental payments to Uniprop and, instead, deposited these monies with the Florida Justice Institute to be held in escrow until the controversy concerning the ramp was resolved. In or around mid-January 2003, Park management received from Petitioner corrected design plans for the ramp (that had been prepared by Doug Amos of Doug Amos Construction). On January 15, 2003, Ms. Maddox sent to Mr. Rhines, by facsimile transmission, a copy of these plans. Petitioner was subsequently granted "design approval" for the ramp. It has not been shown that there was any unreasonable or excessive delay involved in the granting of such approval. On February 19, 2003, Ms. Maddox wrote the following letter to the Town's Building Department: Please be advised that MaryHelen Meacham Woods is authorized to have permits issued for site #78 at 12620 SW 6th Street Davie, Florida 33325 for the Installation of a handicapped ramp. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Following an inspection, the Town, in March 2003, issued a permit for the ramp. Petitioner has had use of the ramp since mid-November 2002 when it was first built (notwithstanding that she did not obtain Uniprop's "design approval" and a permit from the Town until some months later). On or about May 30, 2003, Petitioner authorized the Florida Justice Institute to deliver to Uniprop the rental payments it was holding (at Petitioner's request) in escrow. Uniprop accepted these rental payments when they were delivered. Petitioner has had raw eggs thrown at her wheelchair ramp. She suspects that Ms. Maddox's children were responsible for this vandalism, but there is insufficient record evidence to identify the culprits, much less ascertain their motives. On or about August 31, 2004, at a time when Hurricane Frances was approaching the Florida peninsula from the southeast, Park management sent Petitioner a Notice of Violation of Community Covenants, which read as follows: Pursuant to Florida Statute 723.061 et seq, you are hereby advised that you are in violation of the following Community Covenant(s) of which the Community first became aware on August 30, 2004. SECTION I: HOME AND SITE MAINTENANCE - Eachresident shall keep his/her site and home in a clean and neat condition and free of any fire hazards, there is no storage permitted around or under the home or in screened rooms. ALL items must be stored inside the home or storage shed. Although you have previously been furnished a copy of the Community Covenants of the park, and said Community Covenants are posted in the recreation center and business office, a copy of the rule(s) of which you are in violation is attached to this notice for your convenience. Specifically, you are in violation of the above Community Covenant(s) in that Your home, trim and utility shed are dirty, there is growth in the gutters and there is a window air conditioner on the home. In order to correct the above violation of the Community Covenant(s) you must Wash your home, trim and utility shed, paint with colors approved by management, clean the growth from the gutters and remove the window air conditioner within seven (7) days from delivery date of this letter. If you fail and/or refuse to correct the violations of the Community Covenant(s) in the manner listed above, the park will pursue all its rights and remedies pursuant to 723.061 et seq. PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY It has not been shown that Park management took this action to retaliate against Petitioner for having requested permission to construct a wheelchair ramp on her lot or that such action was motivated by any other improper purpose. Park management has not pursued the matter the further. At no time has Park management initiated legal action to terminate Petitioner's tenancy and evict her. The record evidence is insufficient to establish that Respondents, or anyone acting on their behalf, have said or done anything having the purpose or effect of disadvantaging Petitioner based on her handicap, her Native American heritage, or her having asked to be allowed to build a wheelchair ramp on her lot.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding that Respondents are not guilty of any "discriminatory housing practice" and dismissing Petitioner's amended housing discrimination complaint based on such finding. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___ STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2005.
The Issue The issues are whether the respondents engaged in a discriminatory housing practice, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2007),1 by discriminating against Petitioner, on the basis of her alleged disability, and by harassing Petitioner and retaliating against her.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a former resident of Broadview Mobile Home Park (Broadview), located at 1701 Post Road, Melbourne, Florida. Petitioner resided in Broadview for approximately six years from an undisclosed date in 2002 through September 8, 2008. Mr. Lamont Garber holds an ownership interest in Broadview. The record does not quantify the ownership interest of Mr. Garber. Mr. Garber manages Broadview with his brother, Mr. Wayne Garber. Broadview rents sites within the mobile home park to residents who own mobile homes. Each site has access to water and electric service. Each resident arranges his or her water and electric service directly with the respective utility provider. Sometime in 2005, Petitioner purchased a mobile home for approximately $6,500.00 and moved within Broadview to Lot 24. The rental agreement for Lot 24 required rent to be paid on the first day of each month. The rent for July 2008 was due on July 1, 2008. Petitioner failed to pay the rent payment that was due on July 1, 2008. On July 9, 2008, Broadview served Petitioner, by certified mail, with a notice that she had five business days in which to pay the rent due (the five-day notice). Petitioner received the five-day notice on July 10, 2008. The five-day period expired on July 17, 2008, with no rent payment from Petitioner. Petitioner had paid rent late in the past, but Petitioner had never been more than four or five days late. After July 17, 2008, Broadview initiated eviction proceedings. Petitioner tendered the rent payment on July 20, 2008, but Broadview proceeded with the eviction. Petitioner did not appear and defend the eviction proceeding. On August 26, 2008, the County Court for Brevard County, Florida, issued a Final Default Judgment of Eviction awarding possession of Lot 24 to Broadview. Law enforcement officers thereafter executed the Court's order and evicted Petitioner from Broadview on or about September 8, 2008. After Petitioner received the notice of eviction, she filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (DBPR). DBPR is the state agency responsible for regulating mobile home parks, including Broadview. The allegations in the complaint that Petitioner filed with DBPR were substantially similar to the claims of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and unlawful rent increases Petitioner asserts in this proceeding. DBPR rejected Petitioner's allegations and found that Broadview lawfully evicted Petitioner for non-payment of rent. The final agency action of DBPR is substantially similar to that of HUD and the Commission's proposed agency action in this proceeding. Each agency found that Broadview lawfully evicted Petitioner for non-payment of rent and rejected the allegations of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The DOAH proceeding is a de novo consideration of the proceeding before the Commission. A preponderance of the evidence does not establish a prima facie showing that Petitioner is disabled or handicapped. Petitioner has cancer and is receiving chemotherapy and radiation treatment. A preponderance of evidence does not show that the medical condition substantially limits one or more major life activities of Petitioner. Petitioner also alleges that she is disabled and handicapped by a mental condition. Petitioner submitted no medical evidence of the alleged disability or handicap. A preponderance of evidence does not establish a prima facie showing that, if such a mental condition exists, the condition substantially limits one or more major life activities of Petitioner. Assuming arguendo that a preponderance of the evidence showed that Petitioner were disabled or handicapped, a preponderance of evidence does not establish a prima facie showing that either of the respondents discriminated against Petitioner, harassed her, or evicted her in retaliation for Petitioner's disability or handicap. It is undisputed that Petitioner conducted neighborhood organization efforts to protest a rent increase at Broadview and repeatedly called law enforcement officials to report alleged drug and prostitution activity in Broadview.2 However, Broadview did not evict Petitioner for those activities, and Petitioner's testimony to the contrary is neither credible nor persuasive. Rather, Petitioner engaged in other activities that the respondents found objectionable. Petitioner baby sat for one or more dogs in violation of Broadview's prohibition against pets. Some of the dogs were dangerous to other residents. Petitioner also verbally abused Mr. Wayne Garber when he attempted to mediate with Petitioner concerning the presence of dogs and Petitioner's conduct toward management at Broadview. On July 1, 2008, Broadview served Petitioner with a seven-day notice concerning Petitioner's compliance with lease requirements. The notice, in relevant part, alleged that Petitioner harassed management and impaired the ability of management to perform its duties. The testimony of respondents describing the activities of Petitioner that precipitated the seven-day notice is credible and persuasive. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the respondents had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for requiring Petitioner to comply with the terms of the seven-day notice and for requiring Petitioner to comply with the requirement for rent to be paid on July 1, 2008. Petitioner failed to comply with either requirement, and Broadview evicted Petitioner for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The respondents did not harass or retaliate against Petitioner.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that the respondents did not engage in an unlawful housing practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 20th day of May, 2009.
The Issue Whether respondent should refund sales tax petitioners paid on account of their purchase of a manufactured home?
Findings Of Fact On September 12, 1984, petitioners made a $160 down payment on a 75 x 150 foot lot in High Ridge Estates in Bay bounty by a check drawn in favor of Ed Franklin. They wanted the lot in order to put a manufactured home on it. After acquiescing to a request by personnel of the Bay County building department that they pay $21.00 for a mobile home permit, the Baileys improved the property in anticipation of placing a manufactured home on it. They put in a septic tank and poured a concrete pad. On November 21, 1984, the Baileys signed a form "FHMA SALES CONTRACT" as buyers. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2. Jack Lee signed as seller on behalf of "DD&L Joint Venture." Id. Petitioners gave Lee a down payment of $13,400; DD&L undertook to procure from Fleetwood Homes of Georgia, Inc., a manufactured home to be placed on the High Ridge Estates lot. The form contract, which purported to obligate the Baileys for $53,000, describes the lot, but makes no mention of the manufactured home. In December of 1984, the manufactured home arrived at High Ridge Estates, borne by temporary axles and wheels, which were unbolted after its arrival, and left with the truck that had brought it. Statewide of Florida, Inc., placed it on its new foundation. With an exterior of wood siding and an asphalt-shingled roof, the 25.7 by 54 foot structure met VA and FHA materials requirements for standard housing. Carpet was laid over plywood subflooring. Wall joists stand 24 inches apart. The Baileys added a carport, a driveway, three decks and a separate storage shed. On March 13, 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Bailey borrowed money from Peoples First Financial Savings and Loan Association of Panama City (Peoples) to pay the balances they owed for the lot and home. Of the loan proceeds, $6,100.00 went to "C. Ed Franklin and wife, Frances P. Franklin," Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1, to pay for the lot on which the manufactured home stood; and $23,328.80 went to "ITT Comm. Finance." Id. To secure repayment of its loan to the Baileys, Peoples took a mortgage from the Baileys encumbering the lot and the manufactured home affixed to it. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1. Apparently the payment to "ITT Comm. Finance" retired indebtedness the Baileys incurred in acquiring their 1985 Fleetwood Chadwick 3523D. Mrs. Bailey executed a retail buyer's order for their manufactured home in December of 1986, although the form, which showed Best Home Center, Inc., as the "DEALER," was dated March 22, 1985. Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2. The form reflects a total price for the manufactured home of $29,045.87, the sum on which sales tax was computed at $1,452.53. The Baileys paid tax in this amount to Best Home Center, Inc., "upon the sales (sic) of tangible personal property." Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2. Best Home Center, Inc., forwarded the taxes they collected from the Baileys, along with other taxes collected in March of 1985, to the Florida Department of Revenue. Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2. At the time the Baileys purchased the manufactured home it had no license tag. It never had a license tag and, at the time they purchased it, had never been assessed as real property. Best Home Center, Inc., made a written assignment to the Baileys of its rights, if any, to recover the sales tax the Baileys paid.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioners' application for refund. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 5th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX The second sentence of respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 1 and respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the first sentence of respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 1, it is not entirely clear who sold the Baileys the manufactured home. The documentation reflected a sale by Best Home Center, Inc., for $29,045. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 2, Ed Franklin and his wife conveyed the lot. The down payment was $160 and a $6,100 balance was paid in March. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 5, the Peoples Mortgage originated in March, with indebtedness secured by lot and home. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the Bay County Building Department required them to purchase a permit on September 20, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 Charles Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 Mr. and Mrs. Bailey 22012 High Ridge Drive Lot 24 Panama City Beach, Florida 32407 D. Alan Burns, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact Pleasant Living Mobile Home Park (Pleasant Living) is an established park with 245 lots in Riverview, Florida. It has been in existence for a number of years, and has had at least three different owners, according to the records and testimony presented at hearing. One witness who testified at hearing recalls moving into the park between 1974 and 1975. Since at least 1981, Pleasant Living has had written leases with each of its tenants. For purposes of this proceeding there are two different paragraphs in the lease that are important: (1) Paragraph 5 which limits annual rent adjustments to fifteen percent of the existing rental amount. (2) Paragraph 6 which requires the tenant to pay as additional rent its proportionate share of any increases in real estate taxes, utility assessments, or any other governmental costs or taxes if such taxes or costs increase during the term of this lease. In 1981, published park rules and regulations made it clear to park residents that lot rent includes water, sewer and trash collections. On June 4, 1984, Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, which is also known as "The Florida Mobile Home Act", was enacted. The Division is the state agency charged with the responsibility to enforce the statutes involving landlord/tenant relationships in mobile home parks in which homes are owned by the tenants and are affixed to lots owned by the landlord. Pleasant Living is a park which falls in the category of parks regulated by these statutes. Once Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, became law, park owners were required to file a prospectus or offering circular with the Division prior to entering into an enforceable rental agreement with tenants. The Division was to review the prospectus and decide if it meets the requirements of the act. If the prospectus did not meet the requirements, the park owner was to be notified of the deficiencies. Prospectus number 2900243P was prepared by the owner of Pleasant Living in order to comply with the act. It was filed with the Division in November 1984. As part of the prospectus review process, the park owner was required to complete a Park Owner Filing Statement. The owner notified the Division that two hundred and twenty-two mobile home lots would receive the prospectus being filed. The lot designations and the names of the two hundred and twenty-two tenants in the park on December 18, 1984, were given to the Division. In a separate listing, the names and lot designations of the two hundred and eight tenants residing in the park on June 4, 1984, were also provided. Copies of the two different rental agreements to be offered with the prospectus were also filed. One was going to be used for resales, the other would be used for new sales. The lease that applies to resales is the same lease used since 1981. The lease that applies to new sales contains the same wording as the other lease concerning the payment of additional rent for proportionate shares of any increases in real estate taxes, utility assessments, or any other governmental costs or taxes during the term of this lease. Again, this tenant obligation was found in paragraph 6 of the new agreement. Paragraph 5 provided that rent increases would not exceed an average of ten percent annually. The prospectus filed by Pleasant Living went through the review process within the Division, and after some revision, it was determined that the document met the requirements of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. The prospectus was officially approved on April 26, 1986. The approved prospectus advised tenants that they would receive at least ninety days notice in advance of an increase in rent. Only the new rental agreement originally designated as the one that applies to new sales was referenced in the prospectus. It was emphasized that all lots are governed by this rental agreement, which provides for rental increases not to exceed an average of ten percent annually. The payment of pass through charges by the tenant was also mentioned in the approved prospectus. Tenants were referred to the rental agreement, and were informed that the tenant will be responsible for payment of all costs charged to the park owner as a result of any action by state and local government, or public/private utilities. Tenants were further advised, as follows: The charges may be assessed more often than annually. The costs charged to the Park Owner will be assessed to the tenant on a pro rata basis. Any such increases shall be shared equally by the tenants of all leased lots in the mobile home park. The amount of an increase in pass-through charges shall be limited to the increased costs charged to the Park Owner and maintenance and administrative costs as permitted by Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. As to pass-through charges, the Park Owner cannot with any degree of accuracy disclose the potential financial obligation which the tenant will be responsible for paying. The rent may only be increased as is stated in the above Rental Agreement. The only other increased (sic) to rent will be per the increases that result from pass-through charges created by any governmental (sic) or utility as explained above. Tenancies under the 1981 lease form were still in effect, and the tenants could rely on the representations set forth in them. However, the landlord voluntarily waived his right to any maximum average annual rent increase that exceeded ten percent annually. Pursuant to these leases, which were obligations of contract that could not be impaired by the new laws, these leases were automatically renewed annually. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, the landlord informed all tenants that they would receive ninety days notice before any increases in rent occurred, as opposed to the thirty days set forth in the leases. This was a procedural change in the notice requirements that was governed by the new Florida Mobile Home Act. During the 1986 legislative session, amendments were made to the portions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, that set forth the information a prospectus or offering circular is required to contain. More stringent disclosure regarding services, user fees, and lot rental amounts charged by the park owner were required. To reconcile these changes with existing laws, the Legislature allowed previously approved prospectuses delivered to tenants on or before July 1, 1986, to remain valid if the park owner complied with all of the conditions set forth in the newly amended Section 723.011, Florida Statutes [1986 Supp.]. In order to comply with the new disclosure requirements in the laws relating to prospectuses for mobile home parks, the 1986 Pleasant Living park owner filed amendments to the original prospectus with the Division in August of 1986. The amended prospectus was given identification number 2900243P86, and was deemed adequate to meet the 1986 amendments to the statutes on September 26, 1986. When the proposed amendments to the prospectus were examined by the Division on August 28, 1986, the park manager was advised in writing that pursuant to Rule 7D-30.04, Florida Administrative Code, the approved amendments must be delivered to existing tenants prior to the renewal of their rental agreements. The two rental agreements used by the park remained the same after the amended prospectus became the park's disclosure document for tenants who came to the park on or after July 2, 1986. Respondent Wilder purchased Pleasant Living on June 11, 1987. Prior to the purchase, Respondent's predecessor in interest increased the rent to be paid in the 1987 rental year beginning August 1, 1987 by $7.00 per month for the upcoming one year term. Notice was given of the increase on April 24, 1987, to each affected mobile home owner. Notice was also given to the board of directors of the homeowner's association on April 29, 1987. These notices of rental increase complied with all of the procedural and time requirements imposed on the owner by Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. The notices specifically informed the recipients that Hillsborough County increased the ad valorem taxes for the park in the 1986 tax year, during the current term of each lease. The increase per unit was $76.22. Under the annual leases, the increase was payable at $6.35 per month for twelve months, effective August 1, 1987. The pass-through of the increased ad valorem taxes to tenants is authorized by Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, and was disclosed prior to occupancy to tenants who came to the park when the 1981 lease, the 1986 prospectus number 2900243P and the 1986 amended prospectus under number 2900243P86 were in effect. As all tenants who lived in the park prior to 1981 had the same written lease as the 1981 lease, according to the Park Owner Filing Statement completed in December 1984, the landlord had the right to charge additional rent based upon the tax increase. All leases specifically mention the ad valorem taxes, increases in governmental costs, as well as the three utilities: water, sewer and garbage. The notices sent in April 1987 by Respondent Wilder's predecessor in interest, also informed the recipients of the increases in the costs of the following utilities: rubbish pick-up, water charges, and sewer charges. The increase of the cost of rubbish pick-up during 1986 by $20.76 per unit charged by East Bay Sanitation was an increase in a utility charge which occurred during the current term of each lease. Under the leases, the increase was passed on to the mobile home owners. The charges were to be paid as additional rent or pass-through charges for one year at the rate of $.94 per month, effective August 1, 1987. The increase in the cost for water during 1986 by $18.36 per unit charged by Hillsborough County was an increase in a utility charge which occurred during the current term of the annual lease. Under the leases, the increase was passed on to the mobile home owners. The charges were to be paid as additional rent or pass-through charges for one year at the rate of $1.53 per month. The increase in the cost of sewer charges during 1986 by $9.48 per unit charged by Wilder corporation was an increase in a utility charge which occurred during the current term of the annual leases. Under the leases, the increase was passed on to the mobile home owners. The charges were to be paid as additional rent or pass-through charges for one year at the rate of $.79 per month. At the time of the purchase of the park, Respondent Wilder was aware that tenants had been given notice of the additional rent or pass-through charges which increased the payments to the park owner for the use of the lots during the 1987 rental year. The additional rent or pass-through charges were collected by Wilder for the one-year period, as stated in the notices. All of the above listed facts were contained in the agency's files prior to the issuance of the Notice to Show Cause.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended the Division enter a Final Order finding the Respondent not guilty of the alleged violations of Section 723.031(6), Florida Statutes, set forth in the Notice to Show Cause dated July 16, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER,CASE NO. 90-5933 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted for purposes of this proceeding. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. 6. Accepted. See HO #17, #18, #20 - #23. Accepted. Accepted. 9.-21. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #24. Accepted. See HO #25. Rejected. Contrary to fact. The charges related only to increases in charges. Rejected. Irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9 and HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2 and HO #12. Accepted. See HO #11 - #12. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E. Price, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 David S. Bernstein, Esquire Robbins, Gaynor & Bronstein, P.A. Post Office Box 14034 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent time Country Meadows Estates, Ltd. (Country Meadows), a Florida limited partnership, has been the park owner of Country Meadows Mobile Home Park (the Park) which is located in Plant City, Florida. Century Realty Funds, Inc. (Century), is the general partner of Country Meadows Estates, Ltd. Century has been in the business of operating adult and retiree mobile home parks for approximately seven years. It operates over 20 different parks. Country Meadows has been in existence for approximately five years. Approximately 510 lots have been offered for rent or lease in the Park. When the last phase of the Park is completed, approximately 750 lots will have been offered for rent or lease. Yearly rental increases at Country Meadows equate to the increase in the consumer price index, or a $5 minimum increase, whichever is greater. This rental agreement is guaranteed by Century for the lifetime of the mobile home owners as long as they reside in the Park. Charge Of Failure To Deliver Approved Prospectus. Century retained a law firm to provide assistance in securing approval of its proposed prospectus, lease agreement and park rules and regulations and paid the law firm a fee for its services. On November 27, 1984, Country Meadows filed with the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (the Division), a prospectus for the Park. In order to be able to increase rent in January, 1985, as provided in existing lot leases, Country Meadows tried to get a copy of the filed prospectus to all existing lot lessees by the end of 1984. Starting December 31, 1984, Country Meadows began delivering a copy of this prospectus to each new lessee of lots in the Park. On January 7, 1985, the Division notified Country Meadows of deficiencies in the prospectus. Century, often through its supervisor of property management operations, and its legal counsel held numerous telephone conferences with the Division and numerous conferences among themselves regarding the notice of deficiencies. On February 25, 1985, Country Meadows sent the Division a revised prospectus addressing the deficiencies. Country Meadows substituted the revised prospectus as the prospectus delivered to new lessees of lots in the Park after February 25, 1985. On March 13, 1985, the Division sent Country Meadows another notice of deficiencies. The deficiencies found this time were in the original prospectus but were not noted in the first notice of deficiencies. On March 15, 1985, Country Meadows stopped delivering a prospectus to new lessees of lots in the Park after March 15, 1985. Country Meadows believed the law prohibited it from delivering an unapproved prospectus after that date but did not believe that it was prohibited from continuing to do business until a prospectus was approved. Rather, Country Meadows believed the law allowed it to continue to enter into new lot leases in the Park without an approved prospectus after March 15, 1985, but that it would have to deliver a prospectus when approved and give lessees the right to rescind their lot leases after review of the approved prospectus. On May 22, 1985, Country Meadows sent the Division a second revised prospectus. On November 6, 1985, Country Meadows sent the Division yet another revised prospectus that distinguished between increase in base rent on a lot and increase in other fees associated with rental of a lot. On November 21, 1985, the Division approved Country Meadows' last revised prospectus for the Park. Between March 16 and November 5, 1985, Country Meadows entered into 79 new Park lot rental agreements without delivering a prospectus to the lessee. Instead, the applicable filed but not yet approved prospectus was made available for inspection. Within 45 days after approval of the third revised prospectus on November 21, 1985, Country Meadows distributed an approved prospectus to all lessees, including those who entered into leases between March 16 and November 5, 1985. Century made a good faith effort to correct the deficiencies the Division cited in its proposed prospectuses. Charge Of Failure To File Advertising. In late summer or early fall, 1985, William and Nancy Hines responded to an advertisement in a magazine and asked for information. Century sent them documents. Some were not identified. One was entitled Greetings From Sunny Florida! (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Century generally gives this document to persons who express an interest in Country Meadows, inviting them to pursue their interest and make a visit to the Park, free of charge. Later, Century sent a follow-up letter giving new information, further "selling" the benefits of Century parks, and finally asking the Hineses to indicate if they were still interested. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10). The Hineses arranged to make a visit to the park on November 15, 1985. At the Park, a County Meadows sales representative spoke with the Hineses and gave them a document entitled "Approximate Monthly Living Expenses At Country Meadows" (Petitioner's Exhibit 9). Country Meadows gives this document to persons who request information about Country Meadows. During the visit, the Hineses also were given a document entitled "Before You Purchase A Home: Questions And Answers You Should Know" (Petitioner's Exhibit 8). Country Meadows (and Century in general) usually sends this document to persons who express an interest in Country Meadows (or another Century park). It poses and answers general questions about mobile home parks and, in so doing, touts Century and its mobile home park developments. None of the documents (Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 8, 9 and 10) were filed with the Division. The Hineses entered into a lease agreement on November 15, 1985. In late winter or early spring of 1985, Elmer and Adele Johnson also saw an advertisement in a magazine and arranged to visit Country Meadows. At the visit, a Country Meadows sales representative gave the Johnsons a copy of a document entitled "Century: Mobile Home Communities, Affordable, Award-Winning, Adult Mobile Home Living-Now offering 11 outstanding Central Florida Mobile Home Communities for your inspection!" (Petitioner's Exhibit 11). It identified and listed information on each of the eleven parks, including Country Meadows. After the visit, Country Meadows sent the Johnsons a follow-up letter giving new information, further "selling" the benefits of Century parks and finally asking the Johnsons to indicate if they were still interested. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10). The letter is a standard letter (addressed "Dear Friend") used to re- contact prospective customers who have visited a Century park (as, for example, hundreds have visited Country Meadows). On March 15, 1985, the Johnsons returned to Country Meadows. They were given a copy of Petitioner's Exhibit 8 and entered into a lease agreement. None of these documents (Petitioner's Exhibits 8, 10 and 11) were filed with the Division. Petitioner's Exhibit 11 also was used and given to Myre Lutha Tillman, a prospective purchaser, in approximately July, 1985. From at least May 29, 1984, through October 6, 1986, a billboard sign advertising Country Meadows (a picture of which is Petitioner's Exhibit 4) was located on Frontage Road and could be seen from Interstate 4, approximately six miles east of Plant City. Century admits the billboard was advertising that was not filed with the Division. The billboard was removed some time after October 6, 1986, and no longer is in use. Country Meadows also placed newspaper advertisements of the Park in the Tampa Tribune on Sunday, February 2, and Sunday, February 26, 1986 (Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively). Century admits that this advertising was not filed with the Division. Some of the information Century gave prospective purchasers including Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11-- was given only to persons who expressed an interest in a Century mobile home park or at least requested information. Century's supervisor of property management operations did not think this information was "public" and therefore not "advertising" under the mobile home park statutes. This partially explains why Century did not file this information with the Division. Charge Of False Or Misleading Advertising. Century admits that it used a pamphlet entitled "Country Meadows: The Golden Dream" (Petitioner's Exhibit 12), which it properly filed with the Division, as advertising distributed to the public. The pamphlet advertises "Exercise Facilities & Locker Rooms" and "Security with Access Gatehouse." The only locker rooms ever at Country Meadows were small package lockers located in the mailroom. The pamphlet, while technically not false, was misleading because it gives the impression of a locker room that would be used to change clothes in conjunction with the exercise room. There always has been "Security with Access Gatehouse" at Country Meadows. Initially, the gatehouse was placed at the entrance of the Park and was manned by paid residents of the Park. The gatehouse was manned during the day until early evening hours and on weekends (in part to direct visitors and guests to residents.) Later, approximately in early 1986, the gatehouse was moved back from the entrance and was equipped with automatic security gate arms. The residents were given an access code which, when punched in at the gatehouse, would automatically open the gate arm on either entering or leaving the Park. Country Meadows no longer hired residents to man the gatehouse but hired a full- time security guard who roves Country Meadows and an adjacent Century park that now has approximately 100 home sites leased. The security guard's hours of employment include the early morning and the evening hours. Sometime after installation of the new gatehouse (no witness could say when), lightning struck the gate and blew out the computer that controls the gate arm. The computer was fixed and was operative for a while without access codes. It was anticipated that the access code mechanism would be operative and new access codes would be given to the residents by the end of August, 1987. Again, no witness could testify to more precise time frames in which these events took place. Century also admits that it used another pamphlet or brochure, similar to Petitioner's Exhibit 12 but not filed with the Division, for advertising to the general public. This other pamphlet or brochure was entitled "The Golden Dream: Country Meadows" (Petitioner's Exhibits 13). It was given to Gerald Gott, among others, at a seminar in Merrillville, Indiana, sometime between October 10 and December 20, 1985. Like Petitioner's Exhibit 12, Petitioner's Exhibit 13 includes a color-coded map of Country Meadows showing: (1) "Home Sites Sold"; (2) "Home Sites Available"; and (3) "Final Phase, Future Home Site." In other colors, the map shows one clubhouse and one pool located between the first two color-coded areas (and bordered on the third side by golf course), and a second clubhouse and second pool nestled inside the third color- coded area (the "Final Phase"). Neither of the two pamphlets (or brochures) use the word "proposed" to describe the second clubhouse or second pool. The "Final Phase" of Country Meadows now is underway, and it will include a clubhouse and pool. The clubhouse will be a closed pavilion with a patio. The billboard advertising Century used for at least from May 29, 1984, through October 6, 1986, (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) stated: "Price [$29,900] Includes: Golf-Lakes-Pool- Clubhouse." However, Country Meadows actually was selling homes (and leasing lots) in the Park without golf included in that price. (Golf is optional for purchasers who pay an additional golf membership fee.) When prospective purchasers made an issue of the billboard advertising, Country Meadows on at least one occasion made an accommodation, including in the purchase price two years of free golf on the "gold card program" and charging $240 per year for golf privileges after that. The Tampa Tribune newspaper advertising (Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6) included the statement: "Free *Golf For 5 Years [under certain conditions]." The asterisk was intended to refer the reader to an asterisk near the bottom of the ad that said: "*No Free Golf On $32,900 Homes." Mitigation. Century has made reasonably diligent efforts in many respects both to cooperate with the Division to achieve compliance with the statutes and rules and to address and resolve the complaints and desires of residents of the Park.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, enter a final order: Dismissing the first and fourth charges alleged in the Notice To Show Cause; Holding the Respondent, Century Realty Funds, Inc., d/b/a Country Meadows Estates, Ltd., guilty of the violations alleged in the second and third charges in the Notice To Show Cause; Ordering the Respondent to cease and desist from the use of unfiled and false or misleading advertising; and Ordering the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner a total civil penalty in the amount of $5000 for the violations for failure to file advertising and false or misleading advertising. RECOMMENDED this day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 4th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0165 Explicit rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact are made to comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985): Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. 5.-6. Subordinate and unnecessary. 7.-26. Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary and not subordinate. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not within the charges in the Notice To Show Cause. 29.-30. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as irrelevant and not within the charges in the Notice To Show Cause. Accepted and incorporated. Subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 36.-38. Subordinate to facts found. 39.-41. Accepted and incorporated. 42.-44. Subordinate to facts found. 45.-47. Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary and not subordinate. 48.-53. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. There are lockers in the mailroom, but the advertising is misleading. Subordinate to facts found. Subordinate. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact: 1-8 Accepted and incorporated. Unnecessary. Except that the reasonableness of the fee was not the subject of any evidence, accepted and incorporated. 11.-12. Accepted and incorporated. 13. Unnecessary. 14.-18. Accepted and incorporated. 19. Rejected as not proven if, when or why a third revision was demanded. The evidence proves only that the third revision provides some information the Division had requested. 20.-21. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to fact found. (It was not simply a matter of Century waiting for the Division to approve a filed prospectus.) Accepted and incorporated. 24.-31. Irrelevant and unnecessary. (As to 29. to 31., the issues were not the same as in this case.) 32.-35. Subordinate to facts found (except it was not proven that every reasonable effort was made.) 36.-40. Accepted and incorporated except, as to 38, "financial security" was not an issue in the Notice To Show Cause and is irrelevant.) 41. Accepted and incorporated (but the lockers were in the mailroom, and the advertisement of them is misleading.) 42.-43. Accepted and incorporated. Irrelevant and unnecessary. Subordinate to facts found. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Irrelevant and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. See 47, above. Rejected as contrary to facts found. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12 was.) Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated (although the first notice of deficiency, while incomplete, was timely.) Rejected as not proven precisely what Century's decision, i.e., the understanding of its supervisor of property management operations, was based on. 54.-59. Accepted and incorporated. Unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as conclusion of law. 63.-64. Accepted and incorporated except to the extent conclusion of law. 65. Rejected as not proven. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra Roberts, Esquire Paul Thomas Presnell, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927 Ronald L. Clark, Esquire Michael A. Tewell, Esquire MURPHY & CLARK, P.A. Post Office Box 5955 Lakeland, Florida 33807-5955 Richard Coats, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927
