The Issue The legal issues raised and the status of the parties in this cause are seemingly complex due to the manner in which the case was presented on the initial pleadings to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At bearing, it was determined that Fairways was seeking approval of a permit for use of its swimming pool. This application had been denied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on the grounds that the pool failed to meet the requirements of Rule 100-5.50, Florida Administrative Code. In order to place the parties in their proper positions, the Respondent, Fairways, was determined to be the movant party and its cross-petition considered to be the petition. The ultimate issue presented is whether the subject pool meets the requirements of Rule 100-5.50 and its use should be approved. PRELIMINARY RULINGS Fairways collaterally attacks the manner of application of the rule by the Department to its pool, asserting that the manner of application of the rule constitutes an unpromulgated rule. Fairways also alleges in its proposed findings that Rule 100-5.50 is an invalid exercise of validly delegated legislative authority, and that the Department is estopped to assert the pool fails to comply with Rule 100-5.50 because of a failure to communicate properly the conditional approval of construction of the pool. The allegations that the Department's application of Rule 100-5.50 constitutes an unpromulgated rule and that Rule 100-5.50 is invalid are raised for the first time in Fairways' proposed findings. The original petition (cross-petition) makes no allegation that Rule 100-5.50 is invalid, and makes no allegation that the manner of measurement is an invalidly promulgated rule. These allegations would not be properly raised within the context of a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, proceeding. Although invalidity of the rules on constitutional grounds is preserved in the record for appellate review, the nature of the allegations in this instance are not grounded in a constitutional challenge. Having failed to raise these issues in their pleadings under the appropriate provision of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, these attacks will not be considered in determining the issue presented in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a six-building complex containing 13 condominium units, each building being situated on a separate lot circumscribed by property lines outlining the property within the exclusive possession and control of the occupants of the condominiums. The pool in question is located upon jointly held property and is not intended to be and has not been open for use by the public or persons other than the occupants of the condominiums and their guests. On April 2, 1979, Fairways submitted a site plan (Joint Exhibit number 4) to Petitioner at the Manatee County Health Department. The site plan showed the proposed location of the pool in relation to the condominium buildings. Approval of these plans by the Department was necessary in order for a construction permit to be issued for the pool. By a letter dated May 30, 1979 (Joint Exhibit number 2), Mr. O. P. Randle, Jr., Engineer for the Department, granted approval for the pool plans with the condition that "Wet facilities shall be provided within two hundred (200) feet of the pool." Between April 4 and May 30, 1979, Ms. Rosemary Wiley, Engineering Technician with the Department, orally informed Fairways' "project engineer" that several units were more than 200 feet from the proposed pool and that wet facilities would be required. During this period, Wiley also informed Fairways' pool contractor of the same condition and requirements. A construction permit for the pool was secured by Fairways' pool contractor on June 4, 1979. Construction of the pool began during the first week of June, 1979, and was substantially finished by July 5, 1979. Shortly after June 17, 1979, Fairways contacted the Department's local pollution control director, who visited Fairways and measured the distance between the water's edge of the pool and the farthest building. The method of measurement employed by the Health Department was to measure the shortest distance between the edge of the pool and the structure of the building. The method of measurement used by the Department has been in use 16 years and evolved because measurement from the pool to the actual sanitary facility located within a building is impractical. The only building which was not within 200 feet of the water's edge of the pool was Building 6, containing two dwelling units, which was 241 feet from the edge of the pool. Part of Building 5 is more than 200 feet from the edge of the pool; however, its closest edge is within 200 feet of the pool, meeting the requirement for wet facilities. The only toilets and lavatories constructed at this site are those contained in the individual condominium units. These facilities are not open to use by the public or other condominium owners. By letter dated June 23, 1979, the local pollution director, at the request of the Health Officer, requested from the Chief of Public Health Engineering Services an interpretation of the method of measuring the 200 feet provided in Rule 100-5.50. The request of the Health Officer was precipitated by a request for section interpretation by Fairways' agent. The request dealt specifically with what was required to be within the 200-foot radius of the pool. The interpretation of the Chief of Public Health Engineering Services was contained in his letter dated July 5, 1979, addressed to the District VI pollution control director. This interpretation advised that the building's edge must touch or fall within a 200-foot radius of the pool. This letter also advised that the Department had no power to consider or grant variances or exceptions to the rules. The information contained in this interpretation was communicated to Fairways' agent. Other proposed findings of fact presented by the Petitioner and Respondent are specifically rejected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department deny the application of the applicant for a permit of use. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Amelia Park, Esquire Department of HRS W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, 4th Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 Janice Sorter, Esquire Department of HRS W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, 4th Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 David Paul Montgomery, Esquire 2103 Manatee Avenue, West Bradenton, Florida 33505
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Ocean Dunes Development Corporation, is the developer of a residential condominium known as Ocean Dunes, located in Highland Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Count One The first closing on a unit in Ocean Dunes occurred on April 30, 1982. The Respondent controlled the operation of the condominium association from the incorporation of the association up to February 4, 1986, when unit owners other than the developer elected a majority of the members of the board of administration of the condominium association. Pursuant to the Articles of Incorporation of the condominium association, the board of directors is composed of three members. According to the by-laws of the association, unit owners other than the developer are entitled to elect at least one-third of the members of the board when they own fifteen per cent of the units in the condominium. The by-laws further provide that within sixty days after unit owners other than the developer are entitled to elect a member of the board, the association shall call and give not less than thirty days notice of a meeting of the unit owners for this purpose. on July 15, 1982, unit owners other than the developer owned fifteen per cent of the total number of units in the condominium. The first association unit owner meeting after July 15, 1982, occurred in April of 1983. Present at the meeting were several unit owners and Mr. Philip Connor, president of both the association and the developer corporation. According to the association by-laws, a quorum is achieved by a majority of the votes of the entire membership. In April of 1983 there were 48 units in the condominium, 17 units were owned by someone other than the developer. Therefore, the developer's unit votes were absolutely necessary to achieve a quorum. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Connor, the president of the developer corporation, stated that he was not authorized to utilize the developer's unit votes through proxy or otherwise. Mr. Connor stated: First item, obviously is to determine whether we have a quorum in order to properly conduct business. I am not voting on behalf of the developing company this evening. Mr. Hubert (the general counsel of the developer) as far as I know we do not have a quorum. Therefore, the meeting is officially adjourned. But, Mr. Connor went on to add: However, I would like to spend some time with you this evening to go over and formulate any questions or problems, et cetra. Unit owners other than the developer did not elect a member of the board of administration of the association until April 17, 1984. Count Two While operating the condominium association, the Respondent used condominium association common funds to pay for certain carpentry expenses in the amount of $1,836. The carpentry expenses were the responsibility of the Respondent as developer. During the initial phases of the investigation of this case by the Department of Business Regulation, the Respondent agreed that the carpentry expenses were the developer's responsibility and reimbursed $1,836 to the association on August 29, 1984. Count Three An "election period" is a mechanism by which the developer, as the owner of units, is excused from the payments of assessments against those units for a certain period of time. See Section 718.116(8)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. During an election period, the developer does not pay assessments on developer-owned units, but instead pays the difference between the common expenses of the association and monies received from other unit owners in the form of assessments during that period of time. In other words, if assessments collected from other unit owners are insufficient to meet common expenses, the developer is required to pay the deficiency. The election period must terminate no later than the first day of the fourth calendar month following the month in which the first closing of a unit in a condominium occurs. See Section 718.116(8)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. The first closing on the first unit in Ocean Dunes Condominium occurred on April 30, 1982. During the election period, the developer periodically funded the association and made available to it funds to pay required bills on a current, "as-due" basis. Thus, the Respondent attempted to satisfy its election period payment requirements on a cash accounting basis. The developer did not perform an election period calculation on the condominium's books and records to determine the difference between expenses incurred during the election period and assessments collected form other unit owners. Mr. Larsen, a certified public accountant and the Petitioner's expert witness, reviewed the condominium's financial records and calculated an election period deficit of $45,077.88. Mr. Larsen arrived at the figure of $45,077.88 by calculating that assessment revenues from non-developer unit owners amounted to $5,393.92 and that common expenses during the period amounted to $50,471.40, the difference being $45,077.88. The $45,077.88 figure arrived at by Larsen was composed in part of unfunded reserves during the election period, certain association bills which were left unpaid during the election period but had balances which came due later and certain prepaid assessments from other unit owners paid in advance, but which would have come due after the expiration of the election period. In arriving at the election period deficit of $45,077.88, Larsen completed a review or compilation of the financial records of the association using generally accepted principles of accounting for a review or compilation of financial statements. Count Four Unit owners other than the developer remitted their assessments on a quarterly basis. In contrast, the Respondent developer provided some funds to the association on a monthly, "as-needed" basis. Typically, when the association funds became inadequate to pay outstanding bills, the developer would contribute its assessments. At the end of each calendar year, the developer calculated an outstanding assessment liability on its inventory units and recognized that liability on the association's books. The Declaration of Condominium at Article 6.2, provided that assessments not paid on a timely basis would bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when due until paid. Although unit owners were paying their assessments on a quarterly basis, neither the Declaration of Condominium nor the by-laws established a date when assessments were due. Count Five The percentage of ownership interest of each individual unit owner in the common elements of Ocean Dunes Condominium is set forth in Exhibit B to the Declaration of Condominium. The percentage of common elements per unit ranged from a minimum of .01959 to a maximum of .02170. The quarterly assessments to unit owners were not based on the percentages of their ownership of the common elements as outlined in the recorded Declaration. Prior to the formal hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that the proper percentages were not being assessed, and adjustments were made for all unit owners' assessments. Count Six A condominium association's annual budget must include a reserve account (unless specifically waived by the association) for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. The reserve account of the association is set aside for long term items such as roof replacement, building painting and pavement resurfacing. See Section 718.112(2)(f), Florida Statutes. Ocean Dunes Condominium Association established a budgeted annual reserve figure of $6,000 per year (reserves were not waived). On December 31, 1984, the reserve account, if fully funded, would have contained $16,569.86. While in control of the condominium association, the Respondent did not maintain a separate, funded reserve account. Rather, the Respondent showed the reserve account as a liability in its accounting statements. The listing of a reserve account as a liability on a financial statement would not violate, nor be contrary to, generally accepted principles of accounting. The Respondent believed in good faith that it was allowed to carry reserves as liability in the association's financial books. Count Seven The Respondent employed the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand to handle the financial books and records of the condominium association. Coopers and Lybrand has offices in both Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Although the Respondent maintained the corporate books and records of the association at the Royal Palm Beach Bank in Palm Beach County, portions of the accounting records were routinely transferred between Coopers and Lybrand's offices in Palm Beach and Broward Counties. Count Eight On February 4, 1986, unit owners other than the developer assumed control of the condominium association. After turnover, the Respondent provided the association with the annual audits performed by the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand. The annual audits did not cover the election period and the period early in 1986 which the audit for the year 1985 did not cover. After turnover of counsel of the association, the annual audits were the only review of the association's financial records provided to the association by the developer. After turnover, the association at all times made the corporate books and records available to the developer. Upon turnover, the Respondent offered to the association 9 pages of separate plans and specifications utilized in the construction of the condominium. Although the plans contained the certificate of a surveyor, only one of the nine plans contained a signed affidavit that the plans were authentic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is. RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Requiring the Respondent pay to the association $45,077.88 (representing the deficit which existed during the developer election period) no later than 45 days from the date of the Final Order; Requiring that Respondent obtain, and provide to the association, no later than 60 days from the date of the Final Order, a turnover review of the financial records of the association prepared in strict compliance with Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 7D-23.03, Florida Administrative Code; Requiring that Respondent obtain and deliver to the association no later than 60 days from the date of the Final order, a copy of the construction plans of the condominium with a certificate in affidavit form prepared in strict compliance with Section 318.301(4)(f), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a civil penalty of $5,000. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Philip R. Connor, Jr., President Ocean Dunes Development Corporation Suite 205 2929 East Commercial Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard Coats, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5 and 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 8. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as misleading as stated, but adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as misleading as stated, but adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19, 20 and 21. The last sentence of Paragraph 19 is rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Matters note contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 32. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Matters not contained therein are rejected as argument and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 35. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Matters not contained therein are rejected as Subordinate and/or a recitation of testimony. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The remainder of the paragraph is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Matters contained in Paragraph 3 which are inconsistent with the Findings of Fact previously mentioned are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20 and 21. Matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 25, 26 and 27. Matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or a recitation of testimony.
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are: Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued by the Petitioner; and Whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondent if Petitioner proves one or more of the violations charged in its Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Brian Vincent Burns ("Burns"), at all times material to this matter, was a certified general contractor subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Petitioner. Burns was first licensed on October 26, 1981. Petitioner issued Burns license number CGO 020464. Burns' license expires on August 31, 2012. Action Restoration Inc. ("Action"), is and was, at all times material in this matter, the company where Burns is qualified. On October 24, 2007, Brian Burns-Action Restoration entered a Contractor Agreement ("Contract") with owner, Donnell Bryant, to construct a bathroom addition at Bryant's residence located at 3314 NW 23rd Court, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33311. Burns admitted at the hearing that the Contract failed to include any written disclosure statement explaining consumer's rights under the Florida Homeowner's Construction Recovery Fund. The Contract provided a draw schedule detailing the amount of the payment and at which points during the project payments were to be made to Action. The total contract price was $36,000. Per Bryant's Contract, Bryant paid the first draw of $6000.00 down at contract signing and Action started the job. During the job, Burns followed the critical path method. The method consisted of each step of the job being completed before the next could take place because each built upon the other. Action applied for a permit to build the bathroom addition on the house under Burns' contractor's license and became the contractor of record for the project. Action began the job in November 2007. It included excavating, obtaining the soil test, forming up the plywood to form the concrete, putting the rebar in, and pouring. On November 26, 2007, Bryant paid Action $7,250 as draw two when the footing was completed. The next step of the project was the block. Burns hired three workers to pour the concrete block. On or about December 20, 2007, Action put the truss anchors in the wet concrete. On or about December 21, 2007, Action completed the tie beams and was paid $8000.00 for draw three of the contract. At some point, Burns and Bryant agreed to change the trusses to make them more energy efficient and structurally sound for windstorms. The design change delayed the job being finished by the deadline. During December 2007, there was a period when Burns did not return Bryant's phone calls. Bryant was very anxious for the bathroom addition project to be completed and became angry at Burns when he couldn't reach him. Bryant thought Burns had abandoned his job when he didn't see Burns from around the Christmas holiday until after the new year. After the new year, in January 2008, Bryant met with Burns and a third party, Walsh. At the meeting, Bryant determined that Walsh was the foreman for Action who oversaw the work. Walsh never worked for Burns or Action and has never been paid by either. Burns had only met Walsh in 2007 and worked on one previous project with him. Burns knew Walsh to be a mason. From the meeting, Bryant understood that the initial contract work had been transferred to Walsh to complete the bathroom addition project Action had contracted for originally. As a result, Bryant stopped paying Burns and agreed to pay Walsh the remaining sum of $14,000.00 on the contract. After the meeting, Burns continued to work on the Bryant contract off site. He worked to get the new trusses design approved so that the work could move forward at the residential site. Around January 17, 2008, Burns took the new trusses design to the truss shop professional engineers to do the drawings. After approval, Burns took the design to the architect, which was approved on February 1, 2008. Then, Burns processed the drawing though the City of Lauderdale, which approved them on February 18, 2008. After approval by the City of Lauderdale, Burns called Bryant several times, and Bryant never returned his call or responded. Burns never returned to the Bryant residence to work on the job because he thought a new contractor had been hired to complete the job in Action's place. Action had only completed 50% of the job on the contract at the time. Plumbing, electric, duct work, and stucco were left to be done for the bathroom addition to be completed. During the period when Burns was getting the new trusses design approved, Bryant paid Walsh $4000.00, with check number 5761 as a draw, on February 15, 2008. The Contract was amended and stated, "$Total owe $14,000-$4000.00 2/15/08>New Balance $10,000" Walsh's signature was by the total with "pd 5761 2/15"1 Burns admitted at hearing that Action was still the contractor of record because the permit remained open for the project in his name. Burns said, "I made an error in judgment in not going to see to it that it was closed out." Walsh continued to work on Bryant's bathroom addition and got paid monies until June 2008. As Walsh completed portions of the job, Bryant paid him the following: $800 on April 18, 2008, for the wall and tile; $3,500 on June 3, 2008, for the construction of the bathroom; and $325 on June 9, 2008, for the stucco for the bathroom. Walsh also was paid for other construction work beside the bathroom addition for Bryant. Bryant never heard from Walsh again after paying him $325.00 with the June 9, 2008, check. He contacted him numerous times to no avail. The job was not completed. On December 30, 2008, Bryant signed a contract with Complete Property Repair to complete the bathroom addition Action had started. The contract amount was for $36,800. The contract included redoing some of the previous work completed by Action and some upgrades including a two-person Jacuzzi and travertine rock instead of tile. The Charges: In Count I, Petitioner charges Respondent with abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor in violation of section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes. In Count II, Petitioner charges Respondent with failing to include a written statement explaining the consumer's right's under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund in the contract with Donnell Bryant in violation of Section 489.1425(1)(d)1.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order that: (a) finds Respondent guilty as charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, imposing as a fine of $2,500, and placing Burns' license on probation for a period of one year; (b) finds Respondent guilty as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, imposing a fine of $250.00; and (c) not imposing any restitution since it was not proven in this matter at hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 29th day of March, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner herein is the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales Condominiums and Mobile Homes. One Respondent in this matter is Tanwin Corporation (hereinafter "Tanwin") the developer of two residential condominiums known as Vista Del Lago Condominium I and Vista Del Lago Condominium II, located in West Palm Beach, Florida. The other Respondent is Vista Del Lago Condominium Association, Inc. (hereinafter "Association"), the condominium association for Vista Del Lago Condominiums I and II. Transition from developer control of the Association has not occurred, and at all times pertinent hereto, Respondent Tanwin has in fact controlled the operation of the Respondent Association. The Declaration of Condominium for Vista Del Lago Condominium I (hereinafter "Condo I") was recorded in the public records on December 12, 1980. The Declaration of Condominium for Vista Del Lago Condominium II (hereinafter "Condo II") was recorded in the public records on March 11, 1982. Condo I contains 16 units; and Condo II contains 18 units. Herbert and Judith Tannenbaum are the President and Secretary, respectively, of both Tanwin and the Association and are members of the Association's Board of Directors. The developer-controlled Association failed to provide a proposed budget of common expenses for Condo I for the fiscal year 1982. The developer-controlled Association failed to provide a proposed budget of common expenses for Condo I and Condo II for 1983 until the unit owner meeting in March or April of 1983. The budget provided at that time contained no provision for reserves. Although the document alleged to be the 1983 proposed budget admitted in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 17 does contain an allocation for reserves, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 17 is not the 1983 budget disseminated to unit owners at the annual meeting in 1983. In addition, the 1983 budget was received by the unit owners at the meeting at which the proposed budget was to be considered and not prior to the budget meeting. Statutory reserves were not waived during the period December, 1980 through December, 1983. The "start-up" budgets contained as exhibits to the Declarations of Condominium indicate that reserves were to be collected from unit owners at the rate of $15 per month per unit at least during the first year commencing December of 1980 with the first closing. Hence, reserves were not waived December, 1980 through December, 1981. From November, 1981 through December, 1983, no vote to waive reserves was taken by the unit owners. Although reserves were discussed at the 1983 meeting, no vote was taken during the period in question including 1983, to waive reserves. The developer as owner of unsold units; has failed to pay to the Association monthly maintenance for common expenses during the period December, 1980 through December, 1983. The developer Tanwin has, in the nature of an affirmative defense, alleged the existence of a guarantee of common expenses pursuant to Section 718.116(8), Florida Statutes, which purportedly ran from the inception of the condominiums to date. Accordingly, the initial issue for resolution is whether the developer pursuant to statute guaranteed common expenses. Section 718.116(8)(b) provides that a developer may be excused from payment of common expenses pertaining to developer-owned units for that period of time during which he has guaranteed to each purchaser in the declaration of condominium, purchase contract or prospectus, or by an agreement between the developer and a majority of unit owners other than the developer, that their assessments for common expenses would not increase over a stated dollar amount during the guarantee period and the developer agrees to pay any amount necessary for common expenses not produced by the assessments at the guaranteed level receivable from other unit owners, or "shortfall". Actual purchase agreements were admitted in evidence. Respondents seek to label certain unambiguous language in the purchase contracts as a guarantee. This language, uniform throughout all those contracts as well as the form purchase contract filed with Petitioner except that of Phillip May, provides as follows: 9. UNIT ASSESSMENTS. The Budget included in the Offering Circular sets forth Seller's best estimation of the contemplated expenses for operating and maintaining the Condominium during its initial year. Purchaser's monthly assessment under the aforementioned Budget is in the amount of $109.00. Until Closing of Title, Seller has the right (without affecting Purchaser's obligation to purchase in accordance with the provisions hereof, to modify the estimated Budget and assessments periodically if then current cost figures indicate that an updating of estimates is appropriate). [Emphasis added]. That portion of the purchase agreement set forth above does not constitute a guarantee. Instead, the purchase agreement simply includes a best estimation of expenses for the initial year. It does not govern assessments after the expiration of one year, and even as to the initial year, the language in the contract sets forth only a "best estimation" and not a guarantee that the assessments would not increase during the "guarantee period." Phillip May's purchase agreement reflects that he purchased his unit in August of 1983; after condominium complaints had been filed by the unit owners with the Florida Division of Land Sales Condominiums and Mobile Homes. His purchase agreement has been altered from the purchase agreement of earlier purchasers in that his purchase agreement expressly, by footnote contains a one- year guarantee running from closing. The guarantee contained in his purchase agreement was presented by the developer without any request from Mr. May for the inclusion of a guarantee in his purchase agreement. The guarantee language in this purchase agreement is useful for the purpose of comparing the language with those portions of the pre-complaint contracts which Respondents assert contain or constitute a guarantee. Similarly it is determined that no guarantee of common expenses exists in the Declarations of Condominium for Condo I and II or in the prospectus for Condo II. While Respondents seek to assert the existence of a guarantee in those documents, the portions of those unambiguous documents which according to Respondents contain a guarantee, have no relation to a guarantee or do not guarantee that the assessments for common expenses would not increase. Respondent Tanwin also seeks to prove the existence of an oral guarantee which was allegedly communicated to purchasers at the closing of their particular condominium units. However, purchasers were told by Herbert or Judith Tannenbaum only that assessments should remain in the amount of $109 per month per unit unless there existed insufficient funds in the Association to pay bills. This is the antithesis of a guarantee. During a guarantee period the developer in exchange for an exemption from payment of assessments on developer- owned units agrees to pay any deficits incurred by the condominium association. Accordingly, no guarantee was conveyed at the closing of condominium units. Further Respondent Tanwin's additional contention that an oral guarantee arose when the condominiums came into existence is plainly contradicted by the express language throughout the condominium documents and purchase agreements that there exist no oral representations and that no reliance can be placed on any oral representations outside the written agreements. Further, prior to December, 1983, no reference was ever made by the developer either inside or outside of unit owner meetings as to the existence of the alleged guarantee. Moreover, a comparison between on the one hand, the 1981 and 1982 financial statements prepared in March of 1983, and on the other hand, the 1983 financial statements, clearly reveals that even the accountant for Tanwin was unaware of the existence of a guarantee during the period in question. While the 1983 statements, prepared in 1984 after unit owners filed complaints with Petitioner contain references to a developer guarantee, the 1981 and 1982 statements fail to mention a guarantee. Instead, included in the 1981 and 1982 statements of the Association are references under the current liabilities portion of the balance sheets for those years, to a "Due to Tanwin Corporation" liability in the amounts of $2,138 for 1981 and $2,006 for 1982. Petitioner through Ronald DiCrescenzo, the C.P.A. for Tanwin, established that at a minimum, the $2,006 figure reflected in the 1982 balance sheet was in fact reimbursed to Tanwin. Section 7D-18.05(1),(c), Florida Administrative Code, entitled "Budgets" and effective on July 22, 1980, was officially recognized prior to the final hearing in this cause. That section requires each condominium filing to include an estimated operating budget which contains "[a] statement of any guarantee of assessments or other election and obligation of the developer pursuant to Section 718.116(8); Florida Statutes." The estimated operating budgets for Condo I and Condo II do not include a statement of any guarantee of assessments or other election or obligation of the developer. The testimony of Herbert Tannenbaum with regard to an oral (or written) guarantee is not credible. He first testified that an oral guarantee was communicated to purchasers at the closing of each unit. In contrast, Tannenbaum also testified that the first discussion he had regarding a guarantee occurred with his attorney after the filing of the Notice to Show Cause in this action. Tannenbaum further testified that he did not understand what a guarantee was until after this case had begun and was unaware of the existence of any guarantee prior to consulting with his attorney in regard to this case. Moreover, Ronald DiCrescenzo, the C.P.A. for Tanwin testified that it was Tannenbaum who informed DiCrescenzo of the existence of a guarantee but DiCrescenzo was unable or unwilling to specify the date on which this communication occurred. Respondent Tanwin also seeks to establish the existence of a guarantee through Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5 which is a document signed by less than the majority of unit owners even including Tannenbaum and his son, and signed on an unknown date during 1984. The document provides: The undersigned Unit Owners at the Vista Del Lago Condominium do not wish to give up the benefits of the developer's continuing guarantee which has been in effect since the inception of the condominium and agreed to by a majority of unit owners and whereby the developer has continuously guaranteed a maintenance level of no more than $109.00 per month per unit, until control of the condominium affairs is turned over to the unit owners in accordance with Florida's Condominium law. According to Respondent Tanwin, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5 constitutes a memorandum signed by unit owners evidencing their belief that a continuous guarantee of the developer has been in effect. First, however, this document was never admitted into evidence for that purpose; rather the document was admitted only to establish the fact that a unit owner had signed the document. Second, this document, unlike the purchase agreements or other condominium documents is ambiguous and is not probative of the existence of a guarantee. Instead, the evidence is overwhelming that the document was prepared by the developer in the course of this litigation for use in this litigation. Moreover, unit owner testimony is clear regarding what Mr. and Mrs. Tannenbaum disclosed to unit owners as the purpose for the document when soliciting their signatures, to- wit: that the document was a petition evidencing the unit owners' desire that their monthly maintenance payments not be increased and that prior confusion as to whether reserves had been waived needed resolution. Respondent Tanwin did pay assessments on some developer-owned units during the period December, 1980 through December, 1983, a fact which is inconsistent with its position that a guarantee existed. Noteworthy is the statement by Ronald DiCrescenzo, the C.P.A. for Tanwin, in his August 16, 1983, letter to Herbert Tannenbaum wherein it is stated: "It is my understanding that you are doing the following: . . .[Playing maintenance assessments on units completed but not sold." It is inconceivable that a developer during a "guarantee period" would pay assessments on some developer units as the purpose of the statutory guarantee is to exempt the developer from such assessments. The assessments for common expenses of unit owners other than the developer have increased during the purported guarantee period. At least some, if not all, unit owners paid monthly assessments of $128 - $130 for at least half of 1984. This fact is probative of the issue of whether a guarantee existed because unit owner assessments must remain constant during a guarantee period. At the Spring 1984 meeting chaired by Mr. Tannenbaum a vote was taken for the first time as to whether reserves should be waived. Although only 21 owners were present in person or by proxy; the vote was tabulated as 12 in favor and 12 opposed. Mr. Tannenbaum, therefore, announced an increase in monthly maintenance payments to fund reserves. Thereafter owners began paying an increased assessment. The fact that the developer-controlled Association collected increased assessments from unit owners during 1984, and had up to the time of the final hearing in this cause made no effort to redistribute those funds suggests that the developer-controlled Association and the developer considered themselves to be under no obligation to keep maintenance assessments at a constant level. There was no guarantee of assessments for common expenses by Tanwin from December, 1980, through at least December, 1983. Since there was no guarantee during the time period in question, Respondent Tanwin is liable to the Respondent Association for the amount of monthly assessments for common expenses on all developer-owned units for which monthly assessments have not been paid. In conjunction with the determination that Tanwin owes money to the Association (and not vice versa), Respondent Tanwin attempted to obtain an offset by claiming the benefit of a management contract between either Tannenbaum or Tanwin and the Association. No such management contract exists, either written or oral. Although a management contract is mentioned in one of the condominium documents there is no indication that one ever came into being, and no written contract was even offered in evidence. Likewise, no evidence was offered to show the terms of any oral contract; rather, Tannenbaum admitted that he may never have told any of the unit owners that there was a management contract. Tannenbaum's testimony is consistent with the fact that no budget or financial statement reflects any expense to the Association for a management contract with anyone. Likewise, the "budget" contained within Condo II's documents recorded on March 11, 1982, specifically states that any management fee expense was not applicable. Lastly, Tannenbaum's testimony regarding the existence of a management contract is contrary to the statement signed by him on February 10, 1981, which specifically advised Petitioner that the Association did not employ professional management. To the extent that Respondent Tanwin attempted to establish some quantum meruit basis for its claim of an offset, it is specifically found that no basis for any payment has been proven for the following reasons: Tannenbaum had no prior experience in managing a condominium, which is buttressed by the number of violations of the condominium laws determined herein; Tannenbaum does not know what condominium managers earn; no delineation was made as to specific duties performed by Tannenbaum on behalf of the Association as opposed to those duties performed by Tannenbaum on behalf of Respondent Tanwin; since there was no testimony as to duties performed for the Association, there was necessarily no testimony as to what duties were performed on behalf of the Association in Tannenbaum's capacity as President of the Association and member of the Association's Board of Directors as opposed to duties allegedly performed as a "manager." Tannenbaum's testimony as to the value of his "services" ranged from $10,000 to $15,000 a year to a lump sum of $60,000; it is interesting to note that the value of his services alone some years exceeded the Association's annual budget. Respondent Tanwin has failed to prove entitlement to an offset amount, either pursuant to contract or based upon quantum meruit. The financial statements of the Association--including balance sheets, statements of position, and statements of receipts and expenditures--for 1980-81 and for 1982 reveal consolidation of the records for Condo I and Condo II in these statements. Additionally, DiCrescenzo admitted that separate accounting records were not maintained for each condominium and Herbert Tannenbaum also admitted to maintaining consolidated records. Accordingly, the developer- controlled Association failed to maintain separate accounting records for each condominium it manages. The By-Laws of the Association provide: SECTION. 7. Annual Audit. An audit of the accounts of the Corporation shall be made annually by a Certified Public Accountant - and a copy of the Report shall be furnished to each member not later than April 1st of the year following the year in which the Report was made. The financial statement for 1981 bears the completion date of February 9, 1983. The 1982 financial statement contains a completion date of March 1, 1983. Both the 1981 and the 1982 statements were delivered to the unit owners in March or April, 1983. Accordingly, Respondents failed to provide the 1981 financial report of actual receipts and expenditures in compliance with the Association's By-Laws. As set forth hereinabove, statutory reserves were not waived during the period of December, 1980 through December, 1983. Being a common expense, reserves must be fully funded unless waived annually. In the instant case, Respondents, rather than arguing that reserves had in fact been fully funded, sought to prove that reserves had been waived during the years in question. The fact that reserves were not fully funded is established by reviewing the financial statements. In accordance with the start-up budgets, reserves were initially established at the level of $15.00 per unit per month. Therefore, during 1981, for Condo I containing sixteen units, the Association's reserve account should contain 16 multiplied by $15.00 per month multiplied by 12 months, or $2,880. Since the Declaration of Condominium for Condo II was not recorded until March 11, 1982, assessments for common expenses including allocations to reserves, were not collected from Condo II during 1981. Therefore, the balance in the reserve account as reflected in the balance sheet for the year 1981 should be no less than $2,880. The actual balance reflected in this account is $2,445. Both Tannenbaum and DiCrescenzo testified that most of the balance in that account was composed of purchaser contributions from the closing of each condominium unit "equivalent to 2 months maintenance to be placed in a special reserve fund" as called for in the purchase contracts. Tannenbaum further admitted that instead of collecting $15.00 per month per unit for reserves, the money that would have gone into the reserve account was used "to run the condominium." Similarly, for the year ending 1982, the balance in the reserve account also reflects that reserves were not being funded. First, the amount of reserves which should have been set aside in 1981 of $2,880 is added to the total amount of reserves which should have been collected for 1982 for Condo I ($2880), giving a total figure of $5,760. To this figure should be added the reserves which should have been collected from units in Condo II during 1982. This figure is derived by multiplying the total number of units in Condo II, 18 units, by $15.00 per unit multiplied by 8 months (since Condo II was recorded in March of 1982) to yield a figure for Condo II of $2,160. Adding total reserve assessments for Condo I and II, $2,160 plus $5,760 equals $7,920 the correct reserve balance at the close of 1982. The actual balance for the period ended December 31, 1982, is reflected to be $4,138. Similarly, the amount of reserves required for Condos I and II as of December 31, 1983, can be calculated using the same formula. Although the 1983 financial statement prepared in 1984 reflects the existence of a funded reserve account, both DiCrescenzo and Tannenbaum admitted there was no separate reserves account set up during the time period involved herein. Statutory reserves were not waived and were not fully funded for the period of December, 1980 through December, 1983. All parties hereto presented much evidence, unsupported by the books and records of the corporations, for the determination herein of the amounts of money owed by Respondent Tanwin to the Association to bring current the total amount which Tanwin should have been paying to the Association from the inception of each condominium for monthly maintenance on condominium units not yet sold by the developer, together with the amount owed by Tanwin to the Association so that a separate reserve account can be established and fully funded for all years in which the majority of unit owners including the developer have not waived reserves. No findings of fact determining the exact amount Tanwin owes to the Association will be made for several reasons: first, the determination of that amount requires an accounting between the two Respondents herein which is a matter that can only be litigated, if litigation is necessary, in the circuit courts of this state; second, the determination of the amount due between the private parties hereto is not necessary for the determination by Petitioner of the statutory violations charged in the Amended Notice to Show Cause; and third, where books and records exist; one witness on each side testifying as to conclusions reached from review of those records, even though the witnesses be expert, does not present either the quantity or the quality of evidence necessary to trace the income and outgo of specific moneys through different corporate accounts over a period of time, especially where each expert opinion is based upon questionable assumptions. It is, however, clear from the record in this cause that Respondent Tanwin owes money to the Respondent Association and further owes to the Respondent Association an accounting of all moneys on a specific item by item basis.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Finding Respondent Tanwin Corporation guilty of the allegations contained in Counts 1-7 of the Amended Notice to Show Cause; Dismissing with prejudice Count 8 of the Amended Notice to Show Cause; Assessing against Respondent Tanwin Corporation a civil penalty in the amount of $17,000 to be paid by certified check made payable to the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes within 45 days from entry of the Final Order herein; Ordering Respondents to forthwith comply with all provisions of the Condominium Act and the rules promulgated thereunder; And requiring Tanwin Corporation to provide and pay for an accounting by an independent certified public accountant of all funds owed by the developer as its share of common expenses on unsold units and the amount for which Tanwin is liable in order that the reserve account be fully funded, with a copy of that accounting to be filed with Petitioner within 90 days of the date of the Final Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph S. Paglino, Esquire 88 Northeast 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138 E. James Kearney, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Florida Land Sales Condominiums and Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL CONSENT ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND MOBILE HOMES DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND MOBILE HOMES, Petitioner, CASE NO. 84-0437 DOCKET NO. 84001MVC TANWIN CORPORATION and VISTA DEL LAGO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. Respondents. / FINAL CONSENT ORDER The Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, (hereinafter the Division), Vista Del Lago Condominium Inc., (hereinafter the Association), and Tanwin Corporation, (hereinafter Tanwin), hereby stipulate and agree to the terms and issuance of this Final Consent Order as follows: WHEREAS, the Division issued a Notice to Show Cause directed to Respondents and, WHEREAS, after issuance of the Recommended Order in this cause, the parties amicably conferred for the purpose of achieving a settlement of the case, and WHEREAS, Tanwin is desirous of resolving the matters alleged in the Notice to Show Cause without engaging in further administrative proceedings or judicial review thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed as follows:
