The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of a discriminatory housing practice based on physical handicap, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20-760.37, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates McGregor Mobile Home Park in Fort Myers. His wife serves as the office manager. In February 1995, Petitioner met with Respondent and his wife to discuss leasing or purchasing a mobile home at the park. The following month, Petitioner leased a mobile home with an option to purchase. In March 1996, Petitioner purchased the mobile home. At all material times, Petitioner has rented from Respondent a mobile home lot at McGregor Mobile Home Park. Within two months of purchasing the mobile home, Petitioner filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The complaint concerned Respondent’s attempt to charge her for an extra person residing in Petitioner’s mobile home. Respondent claimed that she required the person for physical assistance. In May 1996, Petitioner had a fence built around her mobile home lot. She did not obtain a building permit or the permission of Respondent, as was required under the rules of the park. Four to six weeks later, Petitioner had a deck built, again without a building permit or the permission of Respondent. At the time of the construction of the fence and deck, Petitioner had complained to local media about conditions at the park. A local television station broadcast a story about the park. The Lee County building department inspected the park and, on July 15, 1996, cited Respondent for a number of violations for, among other things, Petitioner’s fence and deck. Respondent’s wife immediately told Petitioner to remove these items. The disputes between Petitioner and Respondent seem to involve nothing more than disputes between a mobile home park operator and a park resident. Petitioner produced no credible evidence of discrimination against her on any basis. It does not appear that Respondent treated her any differently than he has treated other park residents. Petitioner also produced no credible evidence of discrimination against her on the basis of physical handicap. Approximately half of the park residents are handicapped. Also, the nature of Petitioner’s handicap is not well defined. At the hearing, she walked with a cane and limped noticeably. However, in the nearly three years that she has resided at the park, she has never used a wheelchair and very rarely used a cane.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Hurd 16 Circle Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Terrence F. Lenick Terence F. Lenick, P.A. 12699 New Brittany Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues are whether, pursuant to section 393.0673(1), Florida Statutes (2018), Respondent, which holds a license to operate a group home facility, was identified in a verified report by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) as the perpetrator of exploitation of a vulnerable adult, failed to disclose on a renewal application a perpetrator of "the . . . abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult" (Maltreatment),1 and allowed a new employee to begin working at the group home before completing all of the background screening requirements; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, as authorized by the License, Respondent, a Florida not-for-profit corporation, has provided services to intellectually disabled persons residing at the Group Home. At all material times, Respondent's directors have been Etha Griffith, her daughter Kim Griffith, and Francis Griffith. The record does not disclose if Respondent has any members. Etha Griffith, who is 79 years old, serves as an officer and the onsite manager of the group home, for which Kim Griffith and Francis Griffith serve as the backup managers or supervisors of the Group Home. Petitioner presented no admissible evidence in support of Count I. Prominent among the excluded evidence is the Verified Report, as to which Petitioner failed to demonstrate its relevance, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, or its authenticity, given that it is unsigned and bears other indicia of an investigation that, although closed, was never completed.5 In support of Count II, Petitioner introduced the Application,6 which was filed on November 12, 2018. Etha Griffith7 completed the Application by providing the information requested on Petitioner's application form, which serves a natural person or legal entity who or that is an applicant or licensee seeking the issuance or renewal of a group home facility license (Application Form). Etha Griffith signed the Application as Respondent's designated representative, and her signature was notarized on November 8, 2018. The Application states the answer, "no," to the question posed in Section V, Item 2: "Have you or ownership controlling entity affiliated with this application ever been identified as responsible for the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a child or the abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult?" For several reasons, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the material facts in support of Count II. First, "no" was correct because the question refers to a determination, not allegation, of Maltreatment. The Application Form does not define "identified," whose common meaning is not "alleged," but "established,"8 such as after a completed investigation. As explained in endnote 5, the evidence fails to establish that DCF determined that Etha Griffith is the perpetrator of Maltreatment. Second, even if there had been a determination of Maltreatment in the Verified Report by November 12, 2018, "no" was not a willful or intentional misstatement or a false statement because neither Etha Griffith nor any other agent of Respondent knew about the Verified Report or DCF's determination of Maltreatment--and not for a lack of inquiry. Aware that an investigation had taken place during the summer of 2018, in October 2018, Kim Griffith contacted the DCF protective investigator who had conducted the investigation and asked for any findings. The investigator returned to her, not the Verified Report, but a Notice of Conclusion, stating only that the investigation was "complete" and "closed," and DCF had recommended no additional services. Etha Griffith has never received a copy of the Verified Report. No agent of Respondent knew anything about the Verified Report until preparing for the hearing in this case. On these facts, Etha Griffith and Respondent's other agents had no reason to think, as of November 12, 2018, that DCF had determined that Etha Griffith had perpetrated Maltreatment. Third, even if, by November 12, 2018, Etha Griffith were aware that DCF had determined that she had perpetrated Maltreatment, the failure to disclose this fact or the Verified Report was not material. An audit of the Group Home by Petitioner led to DCF's protective investigation, and the findings of the protective investigation, such as they were,9 implied that any misappropriation involved substantially smaller sums than those specified in the audit.10 Knowledge of the audit findings would thus include knowledge of the protective investigation findings. Fourth, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, "no" is correct because, in the question posed in Section V, Item 2, "you" refers to the applicant or licensee, and "ownership controlling entity affiliated with this application" does not effectively refer to Etha Griffith. The Application Form does not define these terms. Items 1, 3, and 4 also contain questions posed to "you." The questions in Items 1 and 3 alternatively address a "controlling entity affiliated with this application," so, except for dropping "ownership," the questions in Items 1 and 3 are directed to the same addressee as is the question in Item 2. The question in Item 4 is directed only to "you." All four of these items frame questions seeking potentially important information about past license discipline and adverse action involving the Medicaid and Medicare programs.11 Judging from her testimony at the hearing, Etha Griffith possesses modest language skills. Given the level of analysis required to determine the meaning of "you" and "ownership controlled entity affiliated with this application," Etha Griffith could not possibly have understood that the question in Section V, Item 2 addressed her. The two key issues in Count III are whether Ms. Meliard was an employee or a covered volunteer, as defined in the Conclusions of Law, and, if so, whether she had completed her local screening. Ms. Meliard did not testify, nor did Petitioner direct any questions to Kim Griffith as to Count III. Petitioner's investigator testified that, upon his unannounced arrival at the Group Home at 2:05 p.m. on January 1, 2019, he found Ms. Meliard "seated in a chair by the front window," presumably in a common area of the house, such as a living room. Tr., p. 63. Ms. Meliard was alone in the Group Home, as the residents typically returned from their day programs around 3:00 p.m. Tr., p. 63. On the investigator's arrival, Ms. Meliard called Etha Griffith, who arrived at the Group Home very shortly after the call. Tr., p. 64. On her arrival, Etha Griffith told the investigator that she was "trying to give [Ms. Meliard] a job." Tr., p. 64. The testimony recited in this paragraph is credited. Petitioner's witnesses were in conflict as to the screening that Ms. Meliard had cleared. Petitioner's operations management consultant testified that Ms. Meliard had not cleared level 1 or 2 screening. Tr., p. 44. Petitioner's investigator testified to the same effect, but immediately corrected himself by saying that she had cleared Level 2 screening, but not local screening. Tr., pp. 65-66. Petitioner is unable to produce documentary evidence of screenings because this material is confidential, even in hearings of this type, according to Petitioner's counsel. Tr., p. 46. When asked if Ms. Meliard had cleared her level 2 screening, Etha Griffith testified, "That is the one we got, yeah." Tr., p. 95. No one asked Etha Griffith directly if Ms. Meliard had not yet passed her local screening. In a clear-and-convincing case, no finding is possible based on the negative implication inherent in Etha Griffith's statement. Her modest communication skills and laconic communication style betray a lack of mental acuity, so no inference is possible by Etha Griffin's use of the definite article, "the." A personnel file, which may be opened for a candidate for employment, typically contains evidence of a local screening, which comprises an inquiry to the relevant local law enforcement agency and a response from the agency. Tr., p. 83. Proof of a failure to obtain a local screening thus depends on a negative-- the absence of documentation in the personnel file. Unable to recall clearly whether he had seen evidence of a level 2 screening, Petitioner's investigator testified that he recalled not seeing evidence in Ms. Meliard's personnel file of clearing the local screening. Tr., p. 83. The testimony on the issues of employment and local screening is too vague and uncertain to support findings by clear and convincing evidence that, on January 10, 2019, Ms. Meliard was employed by Respondent and had not passed her local screening. The investigator presented himself as exceptionally capable and articulate, but nothing in the record suggests that he investigated with any diligence the employment or local screening issues involving Ms. Meliard.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of all counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 26th day of November, 2019.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner has been the subject of a discriminatory housing practice by the Respondent through the alleged failure of the Respondent to provide a reasonable accommodation for a disability.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the case, the Respondent operated an age-restricted mobile home park in Sarasota, Florida. With limited exceptions, residents of the mobile home park are 55 years of age and older. In September 2000, the Petitioner, a woman over 55 years of age, purchased a mobile home located within the Ridgewood Mobile Home Park. The mobile home was purchased through a real estate broker. The mobile home park apparently identifies itself through signage as a community for persons 55 years of age and older. Prior to the purchase the Petitioner had no communication with the Respondent and made no inquiry of the Respondent as to whether her son, who is under 55 years of age, would be allowed to live in the mobile home park. Within a few days of the purchase, the Petitioner was advised that residence in the mobile home park was limited, with certain exceptions, to persons 55 years of age and older. The Respondent advised the Petitioner that her son, who is under 55 years of age, could remain with her only for a period of up to two months to help her "settle in." By lease application dated October 1, 2000, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that her son would remain with her for a period of two months. In November 2000, after the two months had passed, the manager of the mobile home park (Mr. Cobb) informed the Respondent that her son would have to leave the residence. At that time, the Petitioner's son asserted that he was his mother's full-time, live-in caregiver. Prior to this point, the Petitioner had not indicated to the Respondent that she suffered from a handicap or required the services of a full-time, live-in caregiver The evidence fails to establish that, either at the time of the Petitioner's initial residence at the Respondent's mobile home park or by November 2000, the Petitioner suffered from a handicap or from any condition that substantially limited any major life activity, or that the Petitioner required the assistance of a full-time, live-in caregiver. At the time the Petitioner moved into the Respondent's mobile home park, the Petitioner was able to accomplish all major life activities. Although diabetic, the Petitioner was able to walk, drive, and shop for food or other necessities. Her son assisted in house cleaning and in other routine activities, but there is no credible evidence that, prior to August 2002, such assistance was required for performing major life activities. In August 2002, shortly after a medical procedure on the Petitioner's carotid artery, the Petitioner suffered a stroke. She was hospitalized for a period of approximately ten days and then transferred into a rehabilitation hospital for a period of approximately six weeks. Letters submitted from medical professionals involved with the Petitioner's case at the time of her stroke suggest that assistance was needed during the period of incapacity related to the stroke. There is no credible evidence that, subsequent to rehabilitation, the Petitioner needed the services of a full- time, live-in caregiver. After rehabilitation, the Petitioner recovered from the stroke sufficiently to regain her ability to perform major life activities, including driving an automobile. A subsequent automobile accident wherein she ran down a stop sign in the mobile home park after going shopping suggests that driving at night may be inappropriate. Following post-stroke rehabilitation, the Petitioner's son continued to reside with his mother, to assist in household duties and in assuring that the Petitioner followed a medication regimen, but the evidence fails to establish that she currently requires a full-time, live-in caregiver. At the time of the hearing, neither the Petitioner nor her son was residing in the Respondent's mobile home park. The evidence establishes that disabled or handicapped persons in the mobile home park who require full-time, live-in caregivers are accommodated without regard to the age of the caregiver or to the mobile home park's age-related restrictions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the complaint of Dona M. Burgess against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth M. Boyle, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc. 1750 17th Street, Building 1 Sarasota, Florida 34234 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kimberly P. Walker, Esquire Kevin Bruning, Esquire Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen 200 South Orange Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34236-6802 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondents are James Brown and Bianca Brown, his wife. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondents were owners of the mobile home park known as "Carefree Cove Club" located in Hypoluxo, Florida. They have owned the park since 1957. On or about December 28, 1984, Respondents, as operators of the park, filed a prospectus with Petitioner as required by Section 723.011, Florida Statutes. Petitioner approved the prospectus on March 27, 1985. At that time, 195 lots were being offered in the park for lease or rent. The number of lots and approximate sizes were set forth in the prospectus. The prospectus was delivered by Respondents to tenants shortly after notice of approval was received from Petitioner. On or about June 5, 1986, Respondents, pursuant to Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, sent a notice of eviction to tenants residing in the park. The park took no new tenants and was virtually closed after January 1, 1987. Most of the tenants had voluntarily vacated the park with exception of four residents by December 1, 1987. On December 16, 1987, Respondents forwarded notices to the remaining four tenants of an intent to impose "pass through" charges resulting from the park's increased real property taxes. Provision for "pass through" of such charges is made in the prospectus. The taxes which were the subject of the "pass through" were levied on three parcels of property belonging to Respondents. All of the parcels are contiguous. Two of the parcels are divided into lots and are a part of the park as described in the prospectus. The record is unclear as to whether the third parcel was completely or partially platted into lots, but it is established that this property, while not explicitly described in the prospectus, was used for recreational purposes by tenants and parking of recreational vehicles. Further, the property was landscaped and is found to be a part of the park. Respondents' intention to pass the increase in property taxes on to the tenants was consistent with the prospectus and Respondents' previous practice in 1986, when a refund was given to park tenants as the result of a property tax reduction. Respondents' subsequently abandoned their intention, however, and no "pass through" charges were collected from the tenants. Currently, no mobile home tenants reside in the park. Items, including real estate taxes, normally considered as "pass through" charges were customarily included in rental charges to tenants prior to June 4, 1984, as "operating expenses" and not otherwise denominated on rental documents. After the legislative enactment creating Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, Respondent prepared the prospectus which sets forth separate "pass through" charges. Respondents experienced periodic episodes of vandalism of the facilities of the park as the number of residents decreased in 1987. The tenants maintained alternate residences in the northern part of the United States and none were in residence at the park in the summer of 1987, when Respondents locked the clubhouse to prevent vandalism of the facility. As the tenants returned, each of them were informed that a key and access to the clubhouse was available upon request. A written notice dated March 24, 1988, codifying this policy, was sent to club members by Respondents. Closure of the facility by Respondents was in accordance with the prospectus previously distributed to the tenants. The prospectus notes that the facility's hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., and that it may be closed earlier if there are no activities. Use of the facility for all activities and all meetings requires advance reservation and written approval of the club management. It is the position of Petitioner that Section 723.002, Florida Statutes, requires the application of the provisions of Chapter 723 to Respondents' park although less than 10 lots were rented or available for rent at the time of Respondents' alleged offenses. Petitioner's policy is that mobile home parks operating under provisions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, and having 10 or more lots offered for rent or lease when the tenancy is created, continue to be governed under those statutory provisions as to that tenancy even when the total number of tenants becomes less than the statute's threshold of 10 tenancies. Petitioner's policy also consistently holds that tenancies created prior to the enactment of Chapter 723 in June of 1984, and consequently prior to the requirement of an approved prospectus, continue to be governed for the remainder of the term of that tenancy by the previous understanding or custom established by the rental agreement between tenant and landlord and applicable provisions of law existing at the inception of the agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the charges set forth in the Notice To Show Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2549 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-3. Addressed with the exception of the last sentence of finding number three, which is unnecessary to conclusion reached. 4.-5. Addressed. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to result reached. Addressed. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to result. Addressed. 10 Addressed. RESPONDENTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS Respondents' findings consisted of five unnumbered paragraphs. Numbers 1 through 5 have been assigned to those paragraphs and they are treated as follows: 1.-2. Addressed. Addressed in part. Remainder unnecessary. Addressed. Addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra Roberts, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Alan S. Zangen, Esquire 1601 Belvedere Road, Suite 112 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 E. James Kearney Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue A Notice to Show Cause issued on May 5, 1989, alleges that Respondent violated Sections 723.031(5) and (6), F.S. by increasing mobile home park lot rentals on January 1, 1987 and on October 1, 1987, and by collecting charges for water, sewer and waste disposal from at least one homeowner when such charges were not disclosed prior to tenancy. If it is determined that those violations occurred, it is necessary to recommend an appropriate penalty and corrective action.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to these proceedings, Alfred Herrick has been the park owner of Tan Tara Mobile Home Park, which is located in Melbourne, Florida. Respondent purchased the park in 1980. Eighty-four (84) lots are offered for rent or lease in the Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. Seventy-eight (78) lots are offered to tenants who own their home. Nineteen (19) lots were leased on or after November 1, 1986. The proposed prospectus for the Tan Tara Mobile Home Park was filed with the Division on September 13, 1985. The prospectus was deemed adequate to meet the requirements of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes on December 23, 1983. The prospectus was delivered to homeowners after January 1986. The prospectus review by the Division determines adequacy with Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. The prospectus is not reviewed to determine consistency with rental agreements or disclosures made to homeowners. Park owners are advised that approval of the prospectus by the Division does not relieve the park owner of any requirements under the law. The park owner determines the contents of the prospectus. Homeowners have no input as to the contents of or in the review process of the prospectus. The prospectus for Tan Tara Mobile Home Park contains a number of disclosures, as required by 723.012, F.S., relating to the mobile home park property, and sets out the terms and conditions of the rental agreement between the park owner and individual tenants of mobile home park. Included in the prospectus is the disclosure of all of the charges which may be charged by the park. Paragraph VII. UTILITY AND OTHER SERVICES, provides the following relevant disclosures: Water - Treated drinking water is provided by the City of Melbourne Utilities and is provided to each mobile home site. The charges for this service is [sic] currently included in the tenants' total monthly rental fee. * * * Sewage - Sewage disposal is provided by the City of Melbourne Utilities. The charges for this service is [sic] included in the tenants' monthly rental fee. * * * Waste and trash disposal - The collection of garbage and trash is provided by the City of Melbourne Utilities and is provided for each mobile home. The charge for this service is currently included in the tenants' total monthly rental fee. ... Paragraph VIII. RENT, RENTAL INCREASES AND OTHER CHARGES, provides the following relevant disclosures: The base rent and other charges applicable to your lot are effective January 1, 1985, as reflected in this section. The "base rent" refers to the regular monthly rent established by the Park Owner from time to time. The base rent is subject to annual rent increases effective each January 1st, after ninety (90) days notice from the Park Owner or Management of such increase. * * * "Other charges" refers to "special use fees" and "pass through charges". SPECIAL USE FEES refers to those separately itemized amounts charged in addition to the base rent for those specific items hereinafter set forth. The following special use fees are in effect within the park: Owner reserves the right to charge an Entrance or "Move-in" fee. The present amount charged for this fee in the Park is $1,000.00. Late rental payment fee of $10.00 after the fifth day of the month and $2.00 per day thereafter. Return check charge of $10.00 for each check not honored by the banking institution upon which the check is drawn. An additional charge of $5.00 per month for each and every person over two occupying a mobile home. Extra visitor and/or guest charge of $2.00 per person per day staying more than 15 consecutive days or 30 days total. Lawn maintenance fee, including mowing, edging, and trimming, in the amount of $10.00 for each required maintenance. If it becomes necessary for Management to place the Tenant' s garbage in proper containers, there will be an additional charge of $5.00 assessed to the Tenant for each occurrence. An additional charge of $5.00 per month for a Tenant's washing machine due to the extra water usage caused by the washing machine and also sewerage charges. For the purchaser, there will be a registration fee of $75.00 for investigating any proposed new Tenant into the Park. A new Tenant nonrefundable application fee of $75.00 for investigating any proposed new Tenant into the Park. A garbage and trash "removal" fee not included in the normal garbage or waste removal, of a minimum of $5.00, the exact charge to be determined by Park Management based upon size and weight of such excess refuse so removed by Management. Additional copies of the Prospectus are available at the park Off ice for Tenants requesting same for which there is a charge of $50.00 for each additional copy requested. Pet fee of 5.00 per pet per month. Skirting area clean up minimum fee of $20.00 if tenant fails to do this. * * * PASS THROUGH CHARGES, means those amounts other than special use fees, which are itemized and can be charged separately from the base rent and which represents the mobile home owner's share of cost charged to the park Owner by any State or local government or utility company. These charges will be passed on to the Tenant(s) on a pro rata basis. ("Pro rata basis" means that percentage derived by dividing the number of mobile home spaces leased by a resident by the total number of occupied mobile home spaces in the park.) The pass through charges which may be passed on to the Tenant(s) are as follows: Water charges or increases in same; Sewer charges or increases in same; Waste disposal charges or increases in same; * * * I. Replacement utility costs charged to the Park Owner by State or local government incurred as the result of the actions of any utility company for any utility or other services not provided or available to park residents on the delivery date that replaces, in whole or in part, any utility or other service that is provided or is available to park residents on the delivery date. * * * The above-mentioned pass through charges and costs which are billed by either the State or local governmental entities or utility companies may be passed through to the Tenants after providing at least ninety (90) days advanced written notice to all Tenants. The amount of an increase in pass through charges shall be limited to the increased costs or charges billed to the park owner by the State or local governmental agency or utility company plus any maintenance and administrative costs related to same as is permitted by 723.045, Florida Statutes. * * * (Petitioner's Exhibit #2, pp 11, 61-66, emphasis added) On September 2, 1986, Mr. Herrick gave a notice to all residents within the Tan Tara Mobile Home Park of a "base rent" increase effective January 1, 1987. On June 23, 1987, Mr. Herrick gave a notice of a pass through charge effective October 1, 1987. The notice provided for billing each tenant for the actual usage of water, sewer and waste disposal. In addition, the notice provided that the extra charge for washing machines would be eliminated effective October 1, 1987. Further, the notice indicated that due to the charges for water, sewer and waste disposal becoming effective October 1, there would not be a base rent increase on January 1, 1988. The cost of providing water, sewer and waste disposal, prior to October 1, 1987, had been included in the base rent charged by Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. Mr. Herrick calculated that the portion of base rent for those utilities was $12.50 for each lot. Individual water meters were installed and beginning October 1, 1987, the park owner began assessing all homeowners in the park for water, sewage and garbage based on individual usage. This cost was in addition to the base rent. The park owner also began assessing each homeowner two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) per month, for meter reading Beginning January 1, 1989, Herrick started deducting from the base rent the $12.50 previously computed for utilities. He then continued to add on the utility charge based on the individuals meter reading. Bonnie and Reginald Charron are residents of Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. They first assumed occupancy in the park in 1982, leasing lot number 18. At that time they were given the park rules and regulations marked Petitioner's Exhibit 6. No disclosures regarding water, sewage, and garbage were made prior to occupancy. On or after August 30, 1984, the Charrons moved to lot 23. No other disclosures were made regarding the homeowners' obligation to pay for water, sewage or garbage. The prospectus was delivered to the Charrons on January 25, 1986. Since assuming occupancy in the park, the Charrons have been continuous residents and have not been evicted pursuant to Section 723.061, F.S. The Charrons paid fifteen dollars ($15.00) extra per month for their three (3) children plus five dollars ($5.00) per month for the washing machine. Mrs. Charron was advised the five dollars ($5.00) per person was required to cover the cost for extra water and sewage being used by those persons. When the Charrons began to pay for water, sewage and garbage based on individual usage) the fifteen dollars ($15.00) per month was never deducted from the base rent. Since October 1, 1987, the Charrons cost for water, sewage, and garbage has exceeded twelve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50) per month. Peggy E. Headley is a resident of Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. She moved into the park in September of 1982. On August 23, 1982, she was given the park rules and regulations marked Petitioner's Exhibit 8. No other disclosures were made regarding her obligation to pay for water, sewage and garbage. The prospectus was delivered to Mrs. Headley on January 25, 1986. Mrs. Eddie Walters is a resident of Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. She moved into the park in May of 1977. At that time, she received a copy of the park rules and regulations. On January 16, 1986, she received the prospectus. Respondent stipulated that water, sewage, and garbage charges have not been collected from homeowners as a matter of custom. It is undisputed that prior to occupancy in the mobile home park, the tenants listed above did not receive a disclosure from the park owner that they would be responsible for paying pass through or pass on charges as defined in the park prospectus. The rules and regulations which were in effect in the park were amended at various times, and at various times provided that water would be included in the base rent and/or that the park owner may charge separately for water. The set of rules and regulations attached to the prospectus provided that the management reserved the right to assess "pass through charges", including for water, on a pro rata basis. "Pro rata basis" is defined in the rules and regulations in the same manner as defined in the prospectus: "...that percentage derived by dividing the number of mobile home spaces leased by a resident by the total number of occupied mobile home spaces in the park." (Petitioner's Exhibit #2, p. 73) Neither the prospectus nor the rules and regulations provide for collection of water or other utilities based on individual usage. Oral lot rental agreements are in effect in Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. No written lot rental agreements have ever been executed between homeowners and the Respondent or prior park owners of Tan Tara. The term of the oral lot rental agreements is one year and begins January 1 of each year. Respondent has not been required by any governmental agency to install individual water meters or assess homeowners based on usage. However, an official with the City of Melbourne Water and Sewage Operations recommended installing individual meters as a means of finding out where the water was going. Herrick had contacted the city regarding high water and sewer bills. After the meters were installed the city noted an average monthly reduction of 173,200 gallons of water at the park. Water charges within the park are determined by reading individual meters which are located on each individual lot within the mobile home park. The meter readings are forwarded to New York, where Mr. Herrick maintains his residence and main business. A bill for water usage is sent from New York to each tenant and the payment is received in the New York office. Water usage records are kept each month by the New York office in order to determine water usage and the appropriate billing rates for water and sewer for individual residents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding that Alfred Herrick, d/b/a Tan Tara Mobile Home Park violated Section 723.031(5), F.S., and requiring that: Respondent immediately cease assessing homeowner for utilities based on individual usage, and Respondent reimburse to each homeowner all sums collected since October 1, 1987, for utilities over and above that sum that would have been collected under a "pro rata" computation as described in the prospectus and park regulations. This latter computation should credit the homeowners for the $12.50 collected each month from October 1, 1987 until January 1, 1989. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra Roberts Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 David D. Eastman, Esquire P.O. Box 669 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James Kearney, Director Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1060 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Stephen R. MacNamara Secretary Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the amount collected from the tenants of Corley Island Mobile Manor by the Respondent for improvement and repairs to its sewage treatment plant was a "pass-through charge" as defined in Section 723.003(10), Florida Statutes, or was it collected as a matter of custom between the mobile home park owner and the mobile home owner or disclosed prior to tenancy in accordance with Section 723.031 (6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is the state agency governing the landlord tenant relationship in mobile home parks subject to Chapter 723, Florida Statute. The Park is, and at all times pertinent to this proceeding, has been a mobile home park subject to Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. The Park is owned equally by Respondents, Dale B. Downing, R. E. Downing and H. W. Whitcomb. The Park is operated under the name of Corley Island Mobile Manor. The Park's wastewater is handled through a package treatment plant owned and operated by the Respondents (the WWTF). Under its original configuration, wastewater entered the WWTF through an aeration tank. The Park utilized two separate aeration tanks where the wastewater was agitated and allowed to come in contact with oxygen and enzymes. This started the treatment process. After the wastewater flowed through the first and the second aeration tanks, it spilled into a clarifier. The clarifier is a quiet tank where solids are allowed to settle into a hopper shaped bottom for removal or additional treatment. The clear wastewater at the top of the clarifier flows into a chlorine contact chamber and then out to percolation ponds which allow the wastewater to filter into the ground water through the bottom of the ponds. Prior to November of 1987, the Park was experiencing increased flows of wastewater through the WWTF. The Respondents first investigated the collection system for the infiltration of ground water into the system. The Park also inspected the mobile homes and fixed any leaky faucets, toilets, etc. The Respondents retained Altair Maintenance to examine the collection system using television cameras and to make necessary repairs. On July 8, 1983, Altair Maintenance invoiced the Park for $3,450.00 for these services. Altair Maintenance was called back for additional work in December of 1985 for the repair of manholes at a total charge of $4,124.25. Altair was again called on July 1, 1992 for maintenance of the WWTF at a cost of $1,898.75. Extensive repairs to the manholes and other parts of the WWTF were completed by Roto-Rooter Plumbing. Roto-Rooter was paid $24,090.00 for a May 13, 1983 invoice and $5,891.50 for a July 22, 1983 invoice. Even further repairs to the Park's WWTF were made by Superior Asphalt. It was paid $3,413.00 for replacement of a manhole. The above-described sums were not charged to the residents of the Park. In spite of the maintenance activities described above, the Park continued to experience problems with increased wastewater flows into the WWTF. During peak flow hours (approximately 11:00 A.M.) the normally clear wastewater flowing out of the clarifier into the chlorine contact chamber would become cloudy. This wash through of solids resulted from increased flows during peak flow hours. Wastewater would not remain in the clarifier for a sufficient period of time for the solids to settle out. These solids would spill out of the clarifier or "wash through" causing the wastewater flowing into the chlorine contact chamber to become dark due to the heavy solids content. The agency of state government having jurisdiction over the permitting and operation of wastewater treatment facilities is the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER"). On November 3, 1987, the DER issued a warning notice to the Park because of an abnormally high amount of solids content and a high BOD level in the wastewater flowing from the WWTF. The DER issued a notice of violation on the same grounds on December 1, 1987. The agency of local government having jurisdiction over the WWTF is the Lake County Pollution Control Department. Respondent, Dale Downing, spoke with an employee of the Lake County Pollution Control Department, Roy Green, to determine the measures necessary to resolve this "wash through" of solids. Green told Dale Downing that he would not be able to make the plant perform unless the Park modified the WWTF by adding a digester and surge tank. A digester is a holding tank for solids, a by-product of the treatment process. Solids remain in the holding tank until removed by a removal service. A surge tank is a large tank placed at the front of a wastewater treatment facility which catches the initial inflow of wastewater. Regardless of the rate of flow into the surge tank, pumps release the wastewater from the tank at a uniform rate. A surge tank allows an operator to balance the flow of wastewater through the WWTF eliminating these peak flow problems. The DER permit for the Park's WWTF was due to expire in January of 1988. The Respondents applied for a new permit but were told that the standard five year operating permit could not be issued because of the warning notices and notices of violation the Park had received because of high suspended solids and BOD levels in the effluent. The DER suggested that the Park get a temporary permit while corrections were being made to bring the plant up to performance standards. Respondent, Dale Downing, traveled to the DER's office in Orlando for a meeting with its permitting supervisor, Lee Miller. Miller confirmed that the Park's only options to alleviate its WWTF problems were a connection to the City of Leesburg's municipal system or the addition of a surge tank and digester to the existing plant. The Park's engineer, Richard Newman, prepared plans and specifications for the addition of a surge tank and digester to the WWTF which were submitted to the DER for approval. The DER accepted the modifications on the condition that the Park eliminate its single-cell percolation pond and construct a two-cell percolation pond system. The modifications were completed by the Respondents. As a result, the DER issued a standard five year permit. The WWTF has been trouble free since the modifications were placed in service. The actual expenses necessary for the plant modifications and the construction of the two-cell percolation ponds were passed through to the Park residents. The total costs of these improvements were divided by the Park's 151 lots and charged to each resident on a pro rata basis ($61,644.31/151= $408.24). The Respondents considered this charge as a "pass-through charge". The maintenance, or lack of maintenance, of the Park's WWTF had no impact on the need for the modifications (capital improvements) to the Park's WWTF. There is competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the capital improvements, including the two-cell percolation pond, made to the Park's WWTF by the Respondents were governmentally mandated in that DER would not have granted a permit to the Respondents for the operation of the Park's WWTF without these minimum capital improvements. And, the costs of such capital improvements come within the definition of "pass-through charges" as defined in Section 723.003(10), Florida Statutes. The prospectus for the park discloses in Article VIII that each resident's lot rental amount could be increased to recover the cost of the modifications to the WWTF.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Notice To Show Cause filed in this case and any enforcement action against the Respondents. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5692 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 in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 4, 8 through 13 and 15 through 21 are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant or immaterial. Proposed Findings of Fact 5 through 7 and 14 are rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 26 and 28 through 35 have been adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant or immaterial. Proposed Findings of Fact 27 and 28 are covered in the Preliminary Statement and Conclusions of Law, respectively. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Harper Field, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 J. Allen Bobo, Esquire LUTZ, WEBB, PARTRIDGE, BOBO & BAITTY, P. A. Suite 504, One Sarasota Tower Two North Tamiami Trail Sarasota, Florida 34236 Janet Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Henry M. Solares, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums And Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issues for consideration in this case concern the petition and challenge to the validity of Rule 7D-32.001(4); Rule 7D-32.003 and Rules 7D- 32.004(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. The basis for the challenge is premised upon an alleged vagueness, inadequacy in the establishment of standards for agency decisions, the vesting of unbridled discretion in the agency and the contention that the rules are arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of Lake Waldena Resort, a mobile home park located in Marion County, Florida. That park is regulated under the provisions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a mobile home park owner within the definition set out in Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes. In addition, Petitioner is presently charged, through a notice to show cause/administrative complaint, with violating Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes and Rule 7D- 32.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, by his alleged refusal to meet with a designated homeowners' committee within 30 days of the giving of notice of a proposed increase of lot rental. That disciplinary case was heard on the same date as the present case and is awaiting disposition through a recommended order. If Petitioner is found to have violated provisions within Chapter 723, Florida Statutes and Chapter 7D-32, Florida Administrative Code, he may be subjected to a civil penalty or have other administrative sanctions imposed. The rules that are under challenge are related to the formation of the homeowners committee; the activities of that committee in ascertaining the basis for the park owners' reason for a lot rental increase; the obligation of the park owner to meet with the committee and the opportunity of the park owner to request certification of the committee's selection to participate in the meeting envisioned by Section 737.0037(3), Florida statues. Respondent by the authority set forth in Section 732.006(6), Florida Statutes, is authorized to promulgate rules which it deems to be necessary to implement, enforce, and interpret the provisions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. In accordance with that authority and the authority set forth in Section 723.037, Florida Statutes, it enacted the rules which are the subject of this dispute. Intervenor is a Florida non-profit corporation which represents over 150,000 mobile home owners and tenants in Florida and has as its purpose the representation of those mobile home owners in various activities, to include legal issues. The Petitioner and Respondent and the mobile home owners whom the Intervenor represents are substantially affected by the decision concerning the validity of the aforementioned rules.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bertram Gould, is president and stockholder of Mohican Valley, Inc., d/b/a Indian Woods Subdivision. The Indian Woods Subdivision is located in Seminole County and consists of in excess of 150 subdivided lots. On May 20, 1982, Mohican Valley, Inc. purchased a mobile home park located in Seminole County, Florida, from Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation. The park was formerly known as Mohawk Village, but is now known as the Indian Woods Subdivision. Bertram Gould and Mohican Valley, Inc. acquired their interest in the subdivision by virtue of a purchase and sale agreement, deed and assignment of lease indentures from Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation. Individuals desiring to live in the mobile home park purchase their mobile home and contemporaneously sign a 99-year lease on the lots upon which the mobile homes are to be placed. The mobile homes purchased by prospective residents in the subdivision are typically purchased from Vaughn Motors, Inc., a corporation of which Mr. Gould is president. In 1981, Vaughn Motors, Inc. sold a mobile home to Alfred and Beverly Powers, which arrived at the park and was setup on November 30, 1981, or shortly thereafter. On March 1, 1982, Vaughn Motors, Inc. sold that mobile home to Warren E. and Sylvia Joyce Krummel, since the Powers had elected not to close the purchase. On the date of the sale to the Krummels, the mobile home was already setup on Lot 1, Block E, of the subdivision and ready for occupancy. On June 14, 1982, after the May 20 purchase of the subdivision by Mohican Valley, Inc, through its president, Bertram Gould, the Krummels executed an Indenture of Lease for Lot 1, Block E. There was thus a residential building on that property subject to the lease at the time the lease was entered into. On June 5, 1982, Dorothy Merritt signed a purchase agreement to buy a mobile home and the mobile home was delivered and setup on her lot on August 6, 1982. On that date she also signed a lease for the lot where the mobile home was placed. Thus, when the interest in that property was conveyed by lease, there was a residential building on the lot. Roy and Lydia Ardizzone initially leased a lot in the park from Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation before the sale to Mohican Valley, Inc. and Bertram Gould. In August, 1982, after Mohican Valley, Inc. purchased the subdivision, the Ardizzones decided to place a mobile home on their lot, but since the Phase II portion of the subdivision in which their original lot was located was not completely developed, it was not feasible to place the home on the lot at that time. Accordingly, they asked Mr. Gould to substitute their lot for a lot in Phase I in order to facilitate placing a home on the lot and begin living in the park. Mr. Gould agreed and the substitution occurred on August 31, 1982, on which date the Ardizzones also signed a lease for the lot. They ordered a mobile home to be placed on that lot, which arrived some 10 days later, on September 9, 1982. It was immediately setup on the Ardizzone's lot. Thus, at the time the lease of August 31, 1982, was executed by the Ardizzones and Bertram Gould, the Ardizzones had already ordered the mobile home for immediate delivery, which was delivered and setup some 10 days later. Thus, there was an obligation on the part of the Respondent to provide a mobile home to them in less than two years and indeed within days. On or about September 4, 1982, Bertram Gould caused a mobile home to be placed on Lot 3, Block B of the subdivision and had it prepared for occupancy. On November 5, 1982, George W. and Alice H. Woodward signed a purchase agreement for the mobile home and ultimately executed a lease for the lot upon which that mobile home sat on January 10, 1983. They moved into their home on or about February 17, 1983. Thus, at the time the lease was executed by the Woodwards and Respondent, a residential building was present on the property subject to the lease. Mohican Valley, Inc.'s predecessor in title, Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation, had, during the course of its development of the mobile home park, entered into approximately 156 ground leases for mobile home lots. In conjunction with the acquisition of title to the park by Mohican Valley, Inc., Mohican Valley Inc. was assigned all rights of Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation in those 156 leases which had already been recorded by Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation prior to the acceptance of assignment by Mohican Valley, Inc. It was not established that Mohican Valley, Inc. or Bertram Gould had participated in any offer or disposition of the property which was the subject of those leases prior to Mohican Valley, Inc.'s acceptance of their assignment. Prior to May 20, 1982, the Respondent had no ownership interest in either the mobile home park or in Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation, which owned and managed the Park. He was not an officer, director, employee, salesman or any type of agent for the owner of the mobile home subdivision prior to May 20, 1982. The only nexus between the Respondent and the mobile home park prior to May 20, 1982, was his position as president of Vaughn Motors, Inc. which had sold mobile homes to some of the residents of the park who had executed leases which ultimately became assigned to Mohican Valley, Inc. The Respondent caused certain advertisements to be placed in the Orlando Sentinel newspaper. Although an advertisement was placed April 25, 1982, the Respondent was not involved in the publishing of that advertisement. It appeared in the newspaper approximately a month prior to purchase of the park by Mr. Gould's company. On June 4 and 5, 1982; September 19, 1982; October 10, 1982; and January 29, 1983, the Respondent admittedly placed advertisements in the Orlando Sentinel representing amounts of monthly lot rent, terms of available bank financing, the office address, the phone number and hours of operation, as well as representing the fact that mobile homes could be purchased at the park for a listed price, including certain optional features, as well as the representation that the mobile home park then owned by Mohican Valley, Inc. offered quarter-acre lots and double-wide homes with certain amenities. The price for lot rent was represented as never increasing. Bank financing was advertised as available variously at 14 and a quarter percent interest and 13 and a half percent interest. The representations contained in those advertisements were true, however, at the time Mohican Valley, Inc. took title to the mobile home park, a foreclosure action and lis pendens had been filed on that property by Florida Land Company, the mortgagee on a mortgage executed by Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation, Mohican Valley, Inc.'s predecessor in title. That foreclosure had been filed on or before March 21, 1983, as evidenced by the Motion to Intervene (in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4), which was filed in that foreclosure proceeding by Mohican Valley, Inc. No representation was made in these advertisements concerning the fact that the property which was the subject of the mobile home lot leases offered by Respondent was the subject of a mortgage encumbrance which was then in foreclosure, which foreclosure predated those advertisements. Bertram Gould, as president of Mohican Valley, Inc., as the movant in that Motion to Intervene, and as the successor in title to the mortgagor-in-foreclosure, knew of the existence of the facts surrounding that foreclosure as they related to the interest in the land he sought to convey and the effects such a foreclosure might have on the persons or residents of the park who executed those leases as lessee thereafter. Bertram Gould thus materially participated in the offer or disposition of the lots for lease in the subdivision and advertised those dispositions or offerings without representing that the real property to which they related was the subject of a pending foreclosure action. No reservation program has been approved by Petitioner for Bertram Gould, Mohican Valley, Inc. and/or Indian Woods, nor has any application for such been filed. No public offering statement for Bertram Gould, Mohican Valley, Inc. or Indian Woods, nor any application for such has, as of the time of the hearing, been filed and approved. The Indian Woods Subdivision has not been registered with the Petitioner by either Bertram Gould or Mohican Valley, Inc. Bertram Gould has engaged in the disposition of these subdivided lands directly as well as on behalf of Mohican Valley, Inc., of which corporation he is president and stockholder. Bertram Gould has offered, disposed of or participated in the offer or disposition of interests in the subdivided lands involved herein, which are located in Florida, by offering the subject land for leases to prospective mobile home purchasers and park residents.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That Bertram Gould be found guilty of violations of Sections 498.023(1) and (2), and Section 498.049(4) and Sections 498.051(1)(a), (b), and (d); that a penalty of $2,000 be imposed and that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist the above described activities until the requirements delineated above involving registration of the subject subdivision, approval and promulgation of a current offering statement have been accomplished. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 31st day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ladd H. Fassett, Esquire Post Office Box 2747 Orlando, Florida 32802 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums 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
The Issue Whether Respondent's licenses to operate two group homes should be renewed, or whether renewal should be denied for the reasons charged in the administrative complaints issued by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact APD is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating group home facilities. The statewide headquarters, or "central office," is in Tallahassee. Regional offices carry out the licensing and regulatory functions within their designated regions, or "areas," in coordination with the central office. APD Area 14 covers Polk, Hardee, and Highlands Counties. Beginning in 2007 and at all times material to this proceeding, HIOTW has been a provider of various residential and non-residential services to developmentally disabled persons in Lakeland, Polk County, Florida, within APD Area 14. In 2007, HIOTW was licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to provide non-residential homemaker and companion care services. In November 2008, HIOTW became licensed by the APD Area 14 office to operate Paces Trail Group Home to provide residential habilitation services to developmentally disabled adults. Shortly thereafter, HIOTW was licensed by the APD Area 14 office to operate its second group home, Hampton Group Home. HIOTW was licensed by the APD Area 14 office to operate Timbergreen in May 2009. In February 2010, the APD Area 14 office issued a license to HIOTW to operate its fourth group home in Lakeland--Lake Miriam. The group home license renewal of these two group homes, each with a capacity to serve six adult male residents with developmental disabilities, is at issue in this proceeding. After initial licensure of a group home, the license must be renewed annually. All of HIOTW's group homes successfully have gone through the license renewal process one or more times, except for Lake Miriam, which is seeking its first license renewal. On November 12, 2010, HIOTW submitted an application to the APD Area 14 office to renew its license to operate Lake Miriam. On March 3, 2011, HIOTW submitted an application to renew its license to operate Timbergreen. By letter dated March 25, 2011, Petitioner denied the Lake Miriam license renewal application (March 25 Denial Letter). Petitioner relies on the following charges alleged in the March 25 Denial Letter as the basis for Petitioner's decision: On or about April 14, 2010, an employee of the applicant left two vulnerable adult group home residents alone in a car for at least ten minutes while that employee conducted business inside a bank. One of the adult residents who was left unsupervised in the car had a history of sexually molesting children and other vulnerable adults. The other resident who was left unsupervised in the car was non-verbal. This instance threatened the health, safety, and well being of the applicant's residents in violation of page A-8 of the Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook and Rule 65G-2.012(15)(b), F.A.C. On or about September 29, 2010, an employee of the applicant was transporting group home residents when one of the residents left the vehicle without the driver's knowledge. The vulnerable adult resident was later located at a neighborhood store. This instance threatened the health, safety, and well being of the applicant's residents in violation of page A-8 of the Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook and Rule 65G- 2.012(15)(b), F.A.C. The March 25 Denial Letter also alleged that HIOTW failed to submit a current approved emergency management plan as a third reason to deny the license renewal application. However, Petitioner abandoned the third charge at the outset of the final hearing. Petitioner sought to support its proposed denial of the Lake Miriam license renewal application solely as a penal measure based on the two alleged incidents quoted above. As such, but for these two alleged incidents, Petitioner acknowledges that Lake Miriam's license renewal application is otherwise entitled to approval. By letter dated April 29, 2011, Petitioner denied the Timbergreen license renewal application (April 29 Denial Letter). The April 29 Denial Letter set forth the same two charges that were alleged in the March 25 Denial Letter as the basis for Petitioner's decision. In other words, the same two incidents were asserted as grounds for denying both the Lake Miriam license renewal application and the Timbergreen license renewal application. But for these two incidents, Timbergreen's license renewal application, like Lake Miriam's application, is otherwise entitled to approval. First Alleged Incident (on or about April 14, 2010) The credible evidence established the following facts relevant to the first charged incident. In early April 2010, an employee of HIOTW's licensed companion care service, Frank Davis, was providing companion care to R.O., a developmentally disabled adult. R.O. was not a resident of any HIOTW group home. Instead, R.O. received only non-residential companion services through HIOTW from its employee Frank Davis. As previously noted, companion care services are licensed and regulated by a different agency, AHCA. R.O. was classified as developmentally disabled due to mild mental retardation and behavioral problems. R.O. had a history of sexually abusing children and vulnerable adults. R.O. also had a known tendency of "telling big whoppers," i.e., he was known to be a habitual liar. R.O. apparently told someone two stories of alleged incidents involving his companion, HIOTW employee Frank Davis. On April 14, 2010, the person to whom R.O. told the stories reported the two alleged incidents to the hotline operated by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), which fields reports of possible abuse or neglect.2/ One story told by R.O., as reported to DCF, was that Mr. Davis had left R.O. alone with Mr. Davis's three-year-old daughter. The other story told by R.O., as reported to DCF, was that Mr. Davis had left R.O. alone in a car with a non-verbal vulnerable adult for a period of time while Mr. Davis went into a bank to conduct some business. If true, these allegations of R.O. allegedly being left alone with a child in one instance and with a non-verbal vulnerable adult in the other instance would be of great concern. Both the child and the non-verbal vulnerable adult with whom R.O. was allegedly left alone would have to be considered at great risk of abuse by R.O., given R.O.'s known history of sexually abusing both children and vulnerable adults. With regard to R.O.'s first story, involving Mr. Davis's three-year-old daughter, a DCF adult protective investigator (API) was able to quickly determine that the allegation was completely baseless. In screening this allegation to determine if a formal investigation was warranted, the API spoke with R.O. and then with Samuel Cooper, one of the owners of HIOTW, on April 15, 2010, the day after the hotline call. Mr. Cooper provided a detailed description of the physical appearance of Frank Davis's daughter. When Mr. Cooper's description of Mr. Davis's daughter was compared to R.O.'s description of the girl with whom he was supposedly left alone, the two descriptions were so vastly different that the API was able to, and did, immediately determine that R.O. had fabricated the story, and the matter was closed without a formal investigation. The same API conducted an investigation of R.O.'s second story that he was left in Mr. Davis's car with a non-verbal vulnerable adult while Mr. Davis went into a bank. However, the API did not mention this story when he spoke with Mr. Cooper, nor did the API inform anyone from HIOTW that he was conducting a formal investigation. In conducting his investigation, the API spoke with R.O., twice with Mr. Davis, and with O.J. Bennett, another owner of HIOTW. HIOTW initially learned of R.O.'s story about the bank trip by a phone call from R.O.'s waiver support coordinator. Mr. Bennett immediately investigated the matter, speaking with Mr. Davis and also with the bank manager who was present and had personally observed the events that day. Mr. Bennett's report from his investigation was that when Mr. Davis drove up to the bank with R.O., he left R.O. in the car only to walk about nine feet from the car to the bank's glass entrance area. Mr. Davis signaled to a bank employee who came to the door. Mr. Davis told the employee he wanted to set up an account to make direct deposits of his paycheck. When Mr. Davis was told he would have to come into the bank and it would take a few minutes, Mr. Davis went back to the car for R.O. and brought him into the bank to wait while Mr. Davis set up the account. R.O. remained in Mr. Davis's sight at all times. Based on Mr. Bennett's report, which he reviewed with Mr. Cooper, HIOTW determined an unusual incident report (UIR) was not required, because there was no reason to suspect neglect of R.O. Several weeks later, when HIOTW learned from an APD employee that DCF was conducting a formal investigation, HIOTW submitted a UIR that set forth the details of Mr. Bennett's investigation and concluded that R.O. had been in Mr. Davis's sight and adequately supervised at all times. The APD Area 14 administrator confirmed in her testimony that if the facts were as Mr. Bennett found them to be in his investigation, there would not have been inadequate supervision, and there would have been no reason to submit a UIR. Of greatest significance with regard to R.O.'s story about the bank incident, the API determined that R.O. had lied about being left with a non-verbal vulnerable adult. Instead, the API found that Mr. Davis drove to a bank with R.O., and no one else, in the car. The DCF investigator's report summarized the differing versions of events told to him by R.O. and by Mr. Davis. R.O.'s version was that Mr. Davis left him in the car for the whole time that he went into the bank. Of course, R.O. also said that he was left with another adult, and that was not true. Therefore, R.O.'s statement to the DCF investigator could not be considered credible or reliable. According to the DCF investigator, Mr. Davis told him that he left R.O. alone in the car to go into the bank, but came back out of the bank to get R.O., who he then brought into the bank to wait while he conducted his business. However, Mr. Davis testified that he only told the DCF investigator that he walked up to the bank while R.O. was in the car. Mr. Davis's version of what happened and what he told the DCF investigator is more credible than the DCF investigator's report of what Mr. Davis told him. Mr. Davis's version was corroborated by the hearsay account of the bank manager, who told Mr. Bennett that Mr. Davis brought R.O. in the bank with him, only having left R.O. alone to walk up to the bank entrance. The bank manager confirmed Mr. Davis's testimony that R.O. was in Mr. Davis's sight at all times. In crediting Mr. Davis's version of events, corroborated by the bank manager, the undersigned finds it significant that Mr. Bennett told the DCF investigator about the bank manager eyewitness, and Mr. Bennett was under the impression that the DCF investigator would follow up by calling the bank manager. But the DCF investigator did not attempt to interview anyone at the bank, despite the fact that persons at the bank would have been the only other eyewitnesses besides Mr. Davis, who had a self-interest in the incident, and R.O., the habitual liar whose other story about Mr. Davis had been proven false. Petitioner did not undertake its own investigation of the facts, either at the time of the incident or at the time it was considering whether to rely on the incident as grounds to, in effect, revoke two of HIOTW's group home licenses. Instead, according to the area administrator for APD Area 14, Petitioner simply relied on the DCF investigation report. Indeed, the area administrator did not even seem to understand the DCF report, because at the hearing, she was adamant in her belief that DCF confirmed the allegation that Mr. Davis left R.O. in a car with a vulnerable non-verbal adult group home resident. The area administrator conveyed her misimpression to the central office in discussions to consider whether to non-renew two HIOTW group home licenses based on this incident. Ultimately at hearing, the area administrator conceded that she was improperly interpreting the DCF report, thinking that the allegation portion of the report contained the actual DCF findings. Even so, she steadfastly (and erroneously) asserted that she did not give any false information to the central office regarding HIOTW.3/ In addition to the misimpression conveyed about the R.O. incident, the area administrator testified that she had an employee convey numerous reports of allegations or suspicions of HIOTW improprieties to the central office in a single packet for the purpose of a decision on whether to renew the two HIOTW group home licenses. The area administrator explained other information about allegations and suspicions were sent in the same package so that the central office could also consider whether to terminate HIOTW's Medicaid waiver provider agreement at the same time. However, she admitted that the whole packet of material was sent for the purpose of review and a decision on whether to non-renew HIOTW's two group home licenses. As such, it would be difficult to ignore the extraneous allegations when making decisions regarding the license renewal applications, "[o]f course, you have all of that in your mind[.]" The actual transmittal package to the central office was not produced, apparently because it was sent by electronic mail, and there were some APD email system problems that got in the way of producing the email transmittal package. Nonetheless, the area administrator's description of what she believes was sent in a single package to the central office was sufficient to paint the picture of a litany of negative missives regarding HIOTW, intended, in part, to support the area administrator's recommendation to deny license renewal.4/ Petitioner did not allege in the administrative complaints and did not prove at the hearing that HIOTW itself was blameworthy for the R.O. incident. The APD Area 14 administrator testified that in recommending non-renewal of the two HIOTW group home licenses, a significant factor that she took into account was that HIOTW failed to promptly submit a UIR to report the R.O. incident. The facts found with respect to the R.O. incident do not demonstrate that a UIR was required. Moreover, HIOTW was not charged, in either administrative complaint, with a violation of its UIR reporting obligations. The DCF incident report concluded with a verified finding of inadequate supervision. The DCF investigator testified that it was his finding that "[p]rimarily, Mr. Davis was responsible for the inadequate supervision" of R.O. When asked whether HIOTW was also responsible as Mr. Davis's employer, the investigator said, "being his employer, and trainer, yes." However, neither the DCF investigator, nor Petitioner, presented any evidence to suggest that HIOTW was negligent in its hiring, training, or supervision of its companion care employees, generally, or Mr. Davis, in particular. Nor was there any evidence that HIOTW failed to appropriately respond to the R.O. incident once it was made aware of the incident. The DCF incident report found that Mr. Davis was an appropriately screened employee with no adverse history. Petitioner presented no evidence to the contrary. Both the DCF investigator and the area administrator for APD Area 14 concluded that HIOTW took appropriate action regarding the R.O. incident, by removing Mr. Davis from serving as R.O.'s companion and by putting Mr. Davis through additional "zero-tolerance" training. Mr. Davis's employment was terminated shortly thereafter for reasons unrelated to the R.O. incident. Although the DCF incident report verified a finding of inadequate supervision, the report concluded that the overall risk associated with the finding was low because of appropriate corrective action taken by HIOTW.5/ The area administrator for APD Area 14 candidly admitted at the final hearing that HIOTW handled the R.O. incident appropriately and took corrective action that was deemed sufficient by APD and alleviated any health and safety concerns. Inexplicably, she continued to support the charges in the two denial letters, which alleged that the R.O. incident "threatened the health, safety, and well being of the applicant's residents," because R.O., with his history of being sexually abusive, had allegedly been left alone with a vulnerable, non-verbal adult group home resident. Since the R.O. incident did not involve any HIOTW group home residents, but rather, involved non-residential services provided under HIOTW's companion care license, one would expect that if licensure disciplinary action was warranted against HIOTW at all for this incident, it would have been initiated by AHCA as the licensing agency for companion care services. No evidence was presented that AHCA took any disciplinary action against HIOTW's companion care license. Instead, the evidence established that HIOTW's companion care license remained in good standing as of the final hearing, more than one and one-half years after the R.O. incident. Notwithstanding APD's knowledge in June 2010 of the DCF report and findings regarding the R.O. incident, APD proceeded to renew annual licenses for the period of October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011, for two other HIOTW group homes--Pace's Trail Group Home and Hampton Group Home. The license certificates state that the facilities comply with the licensure rules of APD. No evidence was presented that APD issued administrative complaints seeking to revoke these group homes' licenses; however, the area administrator made clear that she did not intend to renew any licenses for any HIOTW group homes in the future. Second Alleged Incident (on or about September 29, 2010) The facts regarding the second alleged incident involving HIOTW employee Donyell Goodman, were not disputed. At the time of the incident, Ms. Goodman had been employed by HIOTW for three years, with a very good, unblemished employee record. On the day in question, she was serving as a van driver to transport several HIOTW companion care clients to various sites within the local community. E.K. was one of those clients receiving companion care services that day; E.K. also was a resident of HIOTW's Lake Miriam Group Home. E.K. is developmentally disabled due to his diagnosis of mental retardation. Ms. Goodman stopped to let off one client, and she watched the client walk to the appropriate destination and go inside. She then resumed driving. When she had driven for about five minutes, she glanced in her rear view mirror and realized that E.K. was not there. Ms. Goodman immediately called LaDonna Bennett, the third owner of HIOTW, to report that E.K. must have snuck out of the van at her last stop, and she was going back to find him. Ms. Bennett also headed over to where Ms. Goodman said she had stopped, to assist. When Ms. Goodman returned to the site of her last stop, she found E.K. there, inside the corner store. E.K. was fine and returned to the van without incident. E.K. apparently admitted to sneaking out of the van, saying he just wanted some fresh air. The entire incident spanned about ten minutes. Ms. Bennett and Ms. Goodman both immediately prepared and submitted UIRs to report the incident. Ms. Goodman received a written reprimand in her HIOTW personnel file and was suspended for several days. When she resumed work, she underwent additional training, was removed from the van driver position, and reassigned to the "third shift" with no direct interaction with residents. The UIR reports triggered a DCF investigation. The AIP who conducted the investigation confirmed the facts that were set forth in the two UIRs. The AIP's investigation included an assessment of E.K. at the Lake Miriam Group Home where E.K. was a resident. The DCF incident report concluded as follows: Victim Safety Factors Implications: No implications for the [victim's] safety. [Perpetrator] Factors Implications: Based on the informaiton [sic] rec'd, API has determined the [adult perpetrator] to pose no threat to the [victim]. No implication [sic] for the [victim's] safety. Facility Factors Implications: Based on the [victim] to the grouphome [sic], API has determined the [victim] to not be at any risk. The API found that the overall safety assessment was low; however, based on the UIRs and interviews with Ms. Goodman and Ms. Bennett, the incident report concluded with a verified finding of inadequate supervision. The API who conducted the investigation testified at hearing and confirmed that the inadequate supervision finding was directed to Ms. Goodman. When asked if HIOTW was also responsible because it was Ms. Goodman's employer, the API said he did not know and could not answer that question. Petitioner did not allege in the administrative complaints, and did not prove at the hearing, that HIOTW itself was blameworthy for the E.K. incident. Neither the DCF investigator, nor Petitioner, offered any evidence that HIOTW had negligently hired, trained, or supervised its employees, including Ms. Goodman in particular. Both the DCF investigator and the APD Area 14 area administrator agreed that HIOTW acted appropriately in response to the E.K. incident to alleviate any concerns about health and safety, by imposing appropriate discipline against Ms. Goodman for her lapse that caused the incident, and by taking steps to ensure no reoccurrence of the incident. In 2011, well after APD had knowledge of the DCF reports and findings on both the R.O. and E.K. incidents, APD issued a series of temporary or conditional licenses to both Lake Miriam and Timbergreen during the license renewal process to give HIOTW time to respond to certain identified omissions in the renewal applications, such as dental records, fire inspection reports, and the like. The temporary and conditional license certificates issued in February and March 2011 state on their face that the facilities comply with the licensure rules of APD. According to the APD Area 14 administrator, each of the DCF reports on the R.O. and E.K. incidents resulted in "a verified abuse finding." The area administrator testified that any DCF report resulting in a verified abuse finding is classified as a Class I offense, which is the most serious class of offenses and is sufficient, without more, to give APD legal authority to deny licensure or renewal of a license to a licensed applicant named in the report. Yet, despite the verified finding regarding the R.O. incident, Petitioner did not deny license renewal applications for other HIOTW group homes. Despite the verified findings in both the R.O. and E.K. incidents, Petitioner issued temporary and conditional licenses to Timbergreen and Lake Miriam during the license renewal process. Thus, Petitioner has not exercised its discretion consistently in dealing with HIOTW. Petitioner has not exercised its discretion consistently in contexts far more egregious than the two incidents charged here. For example, Petitioner acknowledged that a recent incident of abuse and neglect, resulting in the death of a group home resident, did not trigger action by Petitioner to take away all of the group home licenses held by the licensee. Instead, Petitioner only acted to suspend the license of the specific group home where the deceased resident had resided. Petitioner did not attribute this very serious incident to all facilities licensed by the same entity. It would be unreasonable for APD to automatically, without discretion, equate all verified findings--whether of abuse or neglect, whether deemed low risk or high risk, whether risk of death or imminent bodily injury was found or not found. A protracted period of abuse or neglect that actually causes death of a group home resident is on a different plane, in terms of seriousness, from a brief employee lapse in which an individual is not caught when he sneaks away, but is recovered without harm or incident ten minutes later. No explanation was offered by Petitioner as to why, in the more serious situation where a verified incident resulted in death, action was not taken to revoke all group home licenses held by the licensee, whereas here, two incidents verified as low risk situations by DCF (one of which was not proven at the hearing), would cause Petitioner to act more harshly.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, approving Respondent's applications to renew its annual licenses to operate Lake Miriam Group Home and Timbergreen Group Home and issuing standard licenses for one-year terms to those facilities. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 3rd day of February, 2012.
