The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a new quota license should be approved or disapproved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On December 17, 1986, the Department processed a preliminary application for a new quota alcoholic beverage license for Broward County which was submitted in the name of Donald Chester Morton. The preliminary application provided, in pertinent part, an affirmation for the applicant and all persons listed which stated: I hereby certify and affirm under penalty of perjury as provided for in 837.06 and 559.791, Florida Statutes, that the foregoing information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The preliminary application instructions further stated: Each person listed anywhere on the application must sign affirming that the answers are true and correct to the best of their knowledge. Following notification of being selected, Petitioner filed an application for a new-temporary 3 PS license on August 21, 1987. This temporary license was issued by the Department and was to expire on November 18, 1987. During the period the temporary license was in effect, the Department conducted an investigation which revealed that the original preliminary application had not been signed by the applicant, Donald Chester Morton. Instead, the applicant's father, William Chester Morton, had signed his son's name on that portion of the preliminary application which required an affirmation. Based upon this discovery, the Department issued a Notice of Disapproval on April 25, 1988 The notice provided as follows: As a disapproved applicant you are entitled to a hearing pursuant to 120.57, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Procedure Act, provided you file a written request for an administrative review of this decision within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter. Thereafter, on May 16, 1988, Petitioner filed a request for an administrative review of the decision and alleged the basis to be "Chapter 120.57 of the Florida Statutes." Prior to the submission of the preliminary application Donald Chester Morton had authorized his father to sign the form on his behalf. This authorization was given in a telephone conversation when the younger Morton determined he could not, due to work scheduling, file the preliminary application for himself. The senior Morton also filed a preliminary application in his own behalf. Coincidentally, both Mortons were chosen for quota licenses. Prior to the submission of the preliminary application in the name of Donald Morton, no written power of attorney was executed. William Chester Morton, acting on the verbal instructions from his son, signed the preliminary application. All information on the preliminary application, other than the affirmation, was true and correct. Neither Morton notified the Department of the manner in which the preliminary application had been executed. The facts regarding the father signing for his son came out during the background investigation of the license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Bureau of Licensing and Records enter a final order disapproving Petitioner's application for a new quota beverage license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2924 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are rejected as a recitation of the proceedings, argument, or commentary which have not been set forth in a form which allows specific rulings to be made. The following facts gleaned from the discussion offered by Petitioner are accepted: That William C. Morton had no interest in the license acquired by the applicant, Donald C. Morton. That Donald C. Morton took all steps to comply with the Department's regulations regarding the temporary license. That William C. Morton was verbally authorized to sign the preliminary application for his son. It is the policy of the Department to require an applicant to personally sign the preliminary application although the rule does not specifically prohibit execution by verbal power of attorney or agency. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1,2, and 3 are accepted. While the exact date is uncertain from the record, the fact that during the investigation it was discovered that Morton's father executed the preliminary application is accepted. Consequently, that portion of paragraph 4 which makes that assertion is accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted. With the exception of the date, paragraph 6 is accepted. See the comment to paragraph 4 above. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary to the resolution of the issue of this case. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond A. Doumar ALLSWORTH DOUMAR CAZEL CURTIS & CROSS 1177 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316-1197 Harry Hooper Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Daniel Bosanko, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Van B. Poole, Secretary The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Bell, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether, on four separate occasions, agents, servants, or employees of respondent sold alcoholic beverages to persons under 19 years of age, in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, as alleged in petitioner's Notice to Show Cause.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2587, Series 2-APS, be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Don Allen, Esquire 600 S.W. 4th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33315 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s request to renew a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62- 08383 on or about July 8, 2011, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561- 568, Florida Statutes, including recordation of liens against alcoholic beverage licenses and provision of notice to lienholders pursuant to section 561.65. Petitioner is the holder of a recorded lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62-08383, a 4COP spirituous alcoholic beverage license, commonly referred to as a quota license, which was issued pursuant to sections 561.20(1) and 565.02(1)(a)-(f) for use in Pinellas County. Liens and Security Interests in Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Section 561.65 governs mortgages, liens, and security interests against spirituous alcoholic beverage licenses. DABT has a lien section within its Bureau of Licensing that is responsible for the oversight of lien recordings and lien searches. To perfect a lien or security interest in a spirituous alcoholic beverage license that may be enforceable against the license, the entity holding the security interest or lien must record it with DABT within 90 days of the date of creation of the lien or security interest, using forms authorized by DABT. The forms adopted by DABT require the names of the parties and the terms of the obligation being recorded. § 561.65(4), Fla. Stat. Form DBPR ABT-6022, Application for Mortgagee’s Interest in Spirituous Alcoholic Beverage License, is used to record a new lien, a lien assignment or assumption, or a lien renewal or extension. The form is adopted by rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-5.0012. Upon receipt of a request to record a lien or the renewal of an existing lien, DABT will review the provided documentation and, if the documentation is in order on approved forms and accompanied by the security agreement and statutorily- required payment, will record the lien or lien renewal. If there is a deficiency noted during review of the lien documentation submitted, DABT will issue a 14-day deficiency notice to the requesting entity to provide any missing information. If timely corrected, DABT will record the lien or lien renewal. Section 561.65(4) provides that any lien or security interest filed with DABT on or after July 1, 1995, expires five years after recordation by DABT unless renewed by the lienholder within six months prior to its expiration date. Statutory Notice Requirements to Lienholders Recording a lien not only makes it enforceable, but provides assurance to the lienholder that it will receive notice of pending actions by DABT against the license that may compromise the lien’s vitality. Section 561.65 also sets forth requirements for DABT to provide notice to lienholders of both pending actions against encumbered licenses and any suspension or revocation of a license subject to a lien. Specifically, section 561.65(3) provides that “such lienholder shall be notified in writing of the filing of an order to show cause as to why the license should not be suspended or revoked; and also the lienholder shall be furnished a copy of any order of suspension or revocation.” (Emphasis added). In other words, two separate notices are required: one when the agency institutes proceedings against the licensee and a second if the agency action against the licensee results in a suspension or revocation of the license. Respondent does not assert and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that Petitioner had knowledge of or participated in the cause for revocation of the license at issue in this proceeding, or that Petitioner would not otherwise be entitled to notice of the revocation proceeding. The holder of a recorded lien is entitled to notice because the lienholder has the right to enforce the lien against the licensee within 180 days after the entry of any order of revocation or suspension of the license. Section 561.65(3) specifies that “the 180 days within which to file for enforcement of the lien by the lienholder shall commence running from the date of the mailing of the copy of the order of revocation or suspension.” Thus, the 180-day period runs from when notice is sent to the lienholder, not from the entry of the final order of suspension or revocation. Once notice is provided to the lienholder, any enforcement of the lien is through foreclosure proceedings in circuit court. The process for foreclosure proceedings is outlined in section 561.65(5). Most importantly, both section 561.19(2) and section 561.65(1) provide that no revoked quota beverage license encumbered by a lien or security interest perfected in accordance with section 561.65 shall be issued until the 180-day period (from mailing of the suspension or revocation order) has elapsed or until such enforcement proceeding is final. Re-issuance Through Double Random Drawings Quota licenses may become available three ways: 1) when a dry county goes wet (i.e., a county that previously prohibited the sale of alcohol decides to allow it), three initial quota licenses are issued for the county; 2) when there are population increases in a county, an additional quota license is issued for every population increase of 7,500; and 3) when a quota license in a county has been revoked. When any of those instances occur, pursuant to the directive in section 561.19(2), quota licenses are issued through the use of a double random public drawing. While a revoked quota license may be reissued in a double random quota drawing, if a revoked quota license is encumbered by a perfected and recorded lien or security interest, as discussed previously, it may not be reissued until the 180-day period has elapsed or until enforcement/foreclosure proceedings are final. Damon Larry is currently the assistant bureau chief of licensing, and oversees the annual quota drawing. Each year, he runs a report of all revoked quota licenses and, if the revocation is final, determines whether the 180-day period has elapsed. Before a revoked quota license is placed in the double random drawing, there is communication between staff in different sections within the Department to determine if a license is eligible for inclusion in the quota drawing. The communications involve the quota drawing section, the licensing section, the administrative case unit, the Office of the General Counsel, and the lien section. During this process, DABT staff will determine whether there is a lien attached to the license and, if so, whether there was notice to the lienholder, and whether the 180 days has elapsed or foreclosure proceedings no longer remain pending. If all of these conditions have been met, the revoked license is placed in the quota drawing for reissuance under a new license number. The revoked license number is then deleted from the Department’s database. Petitioner’s Lien Against Alcoholic Beverage License No. 62-08383 Turning to the facts of this case, Daniel A. King, as debtor, executed and delivered a Demand Promissory Note in favor of Rebco on or about April 18, 1997, in the principal amount of $61,000, and simultaneously executed a security agreement in favor of Rebco, as the secured party, pledging license number 62-08383 (the License) as collateral for repayment of the sums due and owing under the Promissory Note. Rebco submitted the promissory note and security agreement to DABT for initial recordation as a lien against the License on or about May 1, 1997, within 90 days of the date of the creation of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien against the License effective May 8, 1997. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on May 8, 2002. Rebco submitted a request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about November 7, 2001, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement, and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective November 7, 2001. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on November 7, 2006. Rebco submitted a second request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about July 26, 2006, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective August 1, 2006. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on August 1, 2011. The License Revocation Proceedings On or about November 16, 2006, at a time when the lien was recorded in the records of DABT, DABT filed administrative charges against Daniel J. King, holder of the License, in Case number 2006-049240, alleging that the licensee failed to operate the License in accordance with section 561.29(1)(f). DABT was unable to achieve personal service on Mr. King, so it published notice of the administrative action in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. The published notice did not identify Petitioner, and no evidence was presented to indicate that DABT sent a copy of the notice to Rebco. Rebco clearly had a recorded lien against the License when the disciplinary action was filed against the License. DABT did not notify Petitioner of the pending action. On or about June 22, 2007, after receiving no written defense in the disciplinary proceeding, DABT issued a Final Order revoking the License effective July 31, 2007. The Final Order of Revocation was not served on Rebco, the owner of the security interest in the License. Petitioner had a recorded lien against the License on file with DABT both when proceedings were instituted against the License and on the date of the entry of the Final Order of Revocation. Stephanie Coxwell works in the administrative case unit of DABT and has done so for at least the last 14 years. The administrative case unit is responsible for determining whether an alcoholic beverage license that is pending revocation or suspension is encumbered by a lien and for notifying any lienholder of the revocation or suspension of an encumbered license. DABT’s practice was to mail any lienholder notice of the license suspension or revocation, along with a copy of the final order, soon after entry of the final order. It is this mailing of the notice and final order that commences the 180 days referenced in section 561.65. For at least the last 14 years, DABT has used a form “notice to lienholder” to notify lienholders of the revocation or suspension of an alcoholic beverage license, accompanied by a copy of the final order revoking or suspending the license. The notification form is a public record maintained by DABT. It is this notification, and not the publication of the pending action, that provides notice to the lienholder. Internal correspondence from Ms. Coxwell within the licensure file for the License indicates that in December 2006, she requested a lien search with respect to the License. Ms. Coxwell was advised by return e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the license. On or about March 21, 2007, Ms. Coxwell requested research for any bankruptcy proceedings affecting the License. She was again informed by intra-agency e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the License. Ms. Coxwell replied by e-mail that she was aware that there was a lien, but that they would notify the lienholder of the administrative action “in the usual way.” However, Ms. Coxwell’s March 27 e-mail was sent three months before the final order revoking the license, not simultaneous to the Order. There is no record that notification was sent to Rebco, either at the time of the administrative action, or after issuance of the final order. Beverly Peebles works in Rebco’s corporate office located at 701 Tennessee River Drive, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35661, and has done so since 1990. She is responsible for receiving, retaining, and disbursing any mail received by Rebco. Ms. Peebles testified regarding the process used to copy, scan into the company’s electronic database, and distribute any mail received by Rebco. Rebco did not receive any notice concerning the administrative action or the revocation of the License until Rebco received the letter denying the recordation of its lien renewal against the license in 2011. Rebco’s address was at all times on file with the DABT since the inception of the lien against the license in 1997. It is found that the DABT did not notify Rebco that there was an administrative action filed against the License, and did not notify Rebco of the Final Order of Revocation against the License. The licensure file contains all other expected documents from the first recordation of the lien in 1997 to the present. It does not include a copy of notice to Rebco of either the pending action or the Final Order of revocation. Moreover, both a letter dated August 19, 2011, to counsel for Rebco, as well as an e-mail dated March 21, 2007, from Ms. Coxwell, contain handwritten notes regarding the failure to send proper notification. The notes, which are clearly hearsay, are part of public records maintained in the normal course of business, and corroborate Ms. Peebles’ testimony that no notification was received. They also corroborate evidence of the absence of any record of notification to Rebco in DABT’s records of regularly-conducted activity. The August 19, 2011, letter contains a handwritten note at the top stating, “$61K lien no lien ltr sent,” and the e-mail dated March 21, 2007, referenced in paragraph 32, contains the following note: “are we the only group/people who check for current liens recorded before deleting the license? It was deleted on 5/4/2011. Lien was still recorded at that time.”2/ Respondent has presented no credible evidence to indicate that the notice was somehow sent despite the lack of any documentation to that effect contained in the DABT’s records. While the handwritten notes standing alone do not establish that no notice was sent, they do indicate that a question was raised internally regarding whether adequate notice was provided. Despite the failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the License was placed in the 2010 double random drawing held on March 10, 2011, at a time when a valid lien against the License was duly recorded. Only one license for Pinellas County was included in the drawing for that year, and no licenses for Pinellas County have been issued in a double random quota drawing since then. Shortly after the random drawing, the license number assigned to the License was removed from the Department’s system and a new number assigned to the license issued as a result of the drawing. While there is no direct testimony on the issue, it can be inferred that the purchaser of the new license received the license with no notice that there was any outstanding lien on the right to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages in Pinellas County under the new license. While it is DABT’s practice to delete a revoked license number from its database, no evidence or statutory reference was presented to support the premise that there is a legal impediment to renewing an existing lien for a revoked license when no notice of the revocation was provided. Given the Department’s failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the 180-day period identified in section 560.65 never began to run. On or about July 6, 2011, Rebco timely submitted a third request to DABT to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division, which request was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement. DABT notified Rebco by letter dated July 19, 2011, that it was unable to record the lien renewal because it was not submitted for recordation within 90 days of its creation. The July 19, 2011, notice of denial was issued based upon a review of the lien renewal request submitted to DABT, because the executed ABT6022 lien-recording form submitted with Rebco’s third renewal request mistakenly identified the effective date of the lien renewal as April 18, 1997, the date of the creation of the original lien. On or about July 25, 2011, Rebco submitted an amended form ABT6022 correcting the effective date for renewal of the lien as August 1, 2011. On August 3, 2011, DABT notified Rebco that it was unable to record the renewal of the lien against the License because “the alcoholic beverage license being pledged as collateral was revoked by the Division on July 31, 2007,” following service of a Notice of Action through publication in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. No action taken by Rebco compromised the vitality of its recorded lien against the License. To the contrary, Rebco faithfully adhered to the recording requirements outlined by statute to record and renew its lien. DABT, however, failed to take the action required by section 561.65 to provide notice to Rebco of the pending action and subsequent revocation of the License. As a result, the 180- day period required by section 561.65 did not run before the License was placed in the quota drawing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order approving the renewal of Rebco’s lien in the License at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether an administrative fine should be imposed on Respondent for unlawful possession of certain alcoholic beverages on its licensed premises, as alleged in the Administrative Action dated June 2, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this disciplinary action, Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), seeks to impose a penalty on the license of Respondent, M and Y Vaco, Inc., doing business as M and Y Food Mart ("M and Y"). Respondent, M and Y is the holder of Beverage License Number 1618148 Series 2-APS, that permits the sale of beer and wine but no other alcoholic beverages. On or about May 29, 2008, Special Agent David Kordzikowski conducted a routine inspection of M and Y at 301 East Sunrise Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. During the inspection, the special agent looked in an unlocked cabinet on the west side of the premises and found four 750 mililiter bottles of Barbancourt Rhum, one 1.44 liter bottle of Disaronno Liquor, one 1 liter bottle of Ron Llave Puerto Rican Rum, one 1 liter bottle of Bailey's Irish Cream, and one 1.75 liter bottle of Florde Cana Rum. Of the eight bottles, two were unsealed. Five of the bottles, the Barbancourt Rhum and the Disaronno Liquor, did not have the necessary proof that approximately $7.67 in Florida excise taxes had been paid. At the time the alcoholic beverages were found, the employee on duty was M and Y's Vice President Monette Corneille. Mrs. Corneille and her husband, Yves Corneille, testified that they did not know that it was illegal for them to possess alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine, and that the rums and liquors were gifts and were kept for religious purposes to protect the premises. The special agent testified that the location of the cabinet, Mrs. Corneille's immediate response, and her explanation of religious beliefs about "spirits" led him to believe the violation was unintentional. In its proposed order, the Division suggests the imposition of fines of $1,507.67, but notes that a reduced penalty may be imposed if mitigating circumstances are established.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order determining that Respondent has violated Sections 562.01 and 562.02, Florida Statutes (2008), as charged in the Administrative Action, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500 and an excise tax of $7.67. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 19th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Yves Corneille Monette Corneille M and Y Vaco, Inc., d/b/a M and Y Food Mart 301 West Sunrise Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Gerda Desir M and Y Vaco, Inc., d/b/a M and Y Food Mart 301 West Sunrise Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Michael John Wheeler, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cynthia Hill, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Ramesh Gordon Kowlessar, held license number 16-12937, series 2APS, authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) for consumption off the premises known as K's American & West Indian Grocery & Food, located at 4486 West Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Pembroke Park, Florida (hereinafter "the licensed premises"). On March 25, 1997, Sergeant Carol Owsiany, an agent with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Michael Kaufman, a special agent with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, operating undercover, visited the licensed premises to investigate a complaint that Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises (a practice not permitted by Respondent's license). Sergeant Owsiany and Agent Kaufman entered the premises at or about 10:15 a.m., and were greeted by Respondent who, after assuring the agents that they could dine on the premises, seated them at the counter. Sergeant Owsiany ordered a meal of curry and rice, and Agent Kaufman requested beer with the meal. The Respondent directed Agent Kaufman to the beer cooler. Agent Kaufman selected two cans of "Budweiser" beer (an alcoholic beverage) from the cooler and returned to the counter, where he handed one beer to Sergeant Owsiany. The agents opened their respective beers, and consumed a portion of the beer while seated at the counter in the presence of Respondent. Following service of her meal, Sergeant Owsiany consumed a small portion of food, and requested that the remainder be packaged to go. The agents then proceeded to the check-out counter with the two open and partially consumed beers, as well as the packaged meal. At the counter, the agents observed 52 packages of unstamped, non-Florida-tax-paid cigarettes offered for sale. Sergeant Owsiany paid for her meal and the two beers, and the agents exited the building.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charges set forth in the Administrative Action; imposing a civil penalty in the total sum of $1,000 for such violations, subject to Respondent's option to substitute a period of suspension in lieu of all or a portion of the civil penalty; and, requiring Respondent to pay to the Department excise taxes in the sum of $17.63. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 16-637 S, Series 4-COP, be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1983.
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent properly denied Petitioner's entitlement to a quota beverage license in Bradford County, Florida. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses Allen F. Nash and, by deposition, L. B. Schoenfeld. Petitioner also testified on her own behalf. The Respondent called as its only witness Allen F. Nash. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. The Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions in this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as being not supported by the evidence or unnecessary to the disposition of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this case is an applicant for a quota beverage license and filed her initial application for that license on October 23, 1981. That application was titled "Preliminary Application for New Quota Alcoholic Beverage License." Paragraph five of the instructions contained in the preliminary application referred to above states: This is Part I of a two (2) part application. Part II will be fur- nished to you if selected in the drawing. Part II includes among other things, health approval (if required), zoning approval and proof of right of occupancy. On October 13, 1982, the Petitioner was notified by letter from the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco that she had been selected in the random drawing on October 6, 1983, for a new quota beverage license for Starke, Bradford County, Florida. This letter informed Petitioner that her name had been drawn and that the agency must act on her application within 180 days of the drawing. Paragraph three of that letter states: We suggest that you contact our Jackson- ville field office located at the Richard P. Daniel Building, 111 East Coastline Drive, Suite 514, Jacksonville, as soon as pos- sible. You must file your complete appli- cation which will include, among other items, a location, zoning approval, and fingerprints, if you are not already a current licensee, for yourself and those to be interested with you in your business. Please bear in mind that our agency has only 180 days from the date of the drawing to act upon your application. We urge you to move forward in order to save time necessary to process the appli- cation and complete the investigative process. On October 22, 1982, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco forwarded to Petitioner the forms necessary to complete Part II of the application process. Those forms and the accompanying letter were received by the Petitioner. Petitioner failed to file Part II of the application and on April 7, 1983, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco by letter notified the Petitioner that her entitlement to a quota beverage license had been disapproved. The authority for such disapproval was given as Florida Statute 561.17 and Florida Statute 561.19. The information which was to be provided subsequent to the drawing, which was not included in the preliminary application, included: Information relating to the right of the applicant to occupy the premises to be licensed. The health approval of the premises to be licensed. This approval must be signed by a proper representative of the state/county health authorities. Information relating to the zoning of the premises to be licensed. A portion of the second application form in section 7 must be completed by the local zoning authorities and must reflect that the premises to be licensed complies with the local zoning ordinance for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for a quota beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire 516 North Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida u2301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute that the licensee is holder of Beverage License Permit no. 23-1940, 1-COP. On January 23, 1976, 1/ Ed Wayne Pfitzenmaier, a beverage officer for approximately 6 years visited the Calder Race Track stable area and on the dates January 23 and January 30, witnessed the sale of food from a vending truck. He approached the truck where the sales of food and other items were taking place and approached one Joann McFadden, who according to Pfitzenmaier is an employee of Calder Race Track Concessions, Inc. He viewed the windshield of the vehicle and noted that it did not have a permit authorizing the transportation of alcoholic beverages. He phoned the Department of Motor Vehicles dispatcher to determine the registered owner of the vehicle and it was later revealed by the Department that the vehicle was registered to Calder Race Track Concessions, Inc. Pfitzenmaier and Officer Bokberg witnessed the sale of a sealed can of Schlitz and Falstaff Beer on the dates January 23 and 30. On the second occasion, January 30, Pfitzenmaier asked to speak to the agent in charge and he was referred to Mr. Cleissnor who is the manager of the concession area. He also spoke to a Mr. Fernandez, who as it later turned out, was and is one of the licensee's corporate officers. Pfitzenmaier was given a transfer sheet which reflected the transfer of goods i.e., food and other beverages from the track kitchen to the vendor's truck. It is clear that the licensee has not made application from the Division of Beverage to obtain a permit to transport alcoholic beverages in the vehicle witnessed by officers Pfitzenmaier and Bokberg. The Licensee's agent testified that the sale of food and other beverages including beer was done exclusively for the use and consumption of its employees and that there was no overt act on the licensee's part to violate any of the alcoholic beverage laws. It was also noted that the application for beverage license was accompanied by a sketch of the entire race track stable area and there was no stipulation in the grant of the license indicating that the sale of alcoholic beverages were to be restricted to the concession area. In fact, the application itself reveals that the location of the business designates the street address 21001 Northwest 27th Avenue/stable area, Opa Locka, Dade, Florida. Based on this fact and the concluding fact that the sale took place in the stable area, I therefore find and conclude that the sale of the alcoholic beverages, to wit, two cans of beer, was not in violation of Florida Statutes 562.06, inasmuch as the stable area was the area designated in the license application itself. I further find that the licensee, by permitting to be transported alcoholic beverages in a vehicle not authorized to transport alcoholic beverages by a permit violated Administrative Rule 7A-3.27.
The Issue Whether Sections 301 and 302 of the DABT's policy manual and form DBR 700L are unpromulgated rules which cannot be used as a basis for the DABT's decision to refuse three applications for alcoholic beverage licenses submitted by the Petitioners. Whether the agency's requirement that an applicant have county zoning approval before a state alcoholic beverage license will be granted is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Whether form DBR 700L is an invalid rule because of DBR's failure to file forms with the Secretary of State.
Findings Of Fact The joint stipulation of facts entered into by the parties on December 21, 1988, are adopted as the findings of fact in this proceeding. A copy of the stipulation is attached and made part of this Final Order.
The Issue This case concerns action by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, through a Notice to Show Cause (Administrative Complaint) to assess a civil penalty, suspend or revoke or deny the renewal of the beverage license of the Respondent, Keith Nothnagel. This action is promoted on the allegation that the Respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan of the offense of conspiracy to possess marijuana in violation of the United States Code, Title 21, Section 846, on May 25, 1978, in that this conviction constituted a violation of Subsections 561.15(2) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and thereby subjects the Respondent to penalties found in Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Keith Nothnagel, holds license No. 62-1311, series 2- COP, issued by the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license allows the Respondent to sell beer and wine to be consumed on his premises located at 606-608 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. The beverage license was issued on January 17, 1977, at a time subsequent to the commission of an offense for which the Respondent pled guilty to conspiracy to possess marijuana in violation of the United States Code, Title 21, Section 846, and this plea was made on March 15, 1978. On May 24, 1978, the Respondent was found guilty of the offense and convicted and sentenced to serve one (1) year. The Respondent did serve seven (7) months of that sentence. A copy of the Judgment and Commitment Order may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. It is on the strength of this plea and adjudication of guilty and sentence that the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with violations of Subsections 561.15(2)(a) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that the action through this Notice to Show Cause filed against the Respondent, Keith Nothnagel, be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Waldense D. Malouf, Esquire 325 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Petitioner, v. DOAH NO. 79-1287 DABT NO. 33234A THE INN BETWEEN/KEITH NOTHNAGEL, Respondent. /
