The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application to transfer Alcoholic Beverage License No. 3900441/4COP should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, in consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Petitioner is an individual. At some time in the past, Petitioner, Ms. Hudson, Mary Pease, and Scott Wetmore incorporated as Peace and Love Enterprises, Inc. (P&L). P&L holds Alcoholic Beverage License No. 3900441/4COP (beverage license) issued by the Division. The Division is the state agency charged with the administration (including licensing), regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561 through 568, Florida Statutes (2018).3/ All applications filed with the Division are subject to investigation pursuant to section 561.18. Applications for the transfer of an alcoholic beverage license are considered pursuant to section 561.32. Ms. Scott is currently the Division’s senior management analyst II, over the Tampa, Fort Myers, and Orlando district offices. Ms. Scott supervises the processing and reviewing of applications for alcoholic beverage licenses, tobacco licenses, transfers of licenses, and permits. Once an application for the transfer of an alcoholic beverage license is submitted to the Division, it is reviewed for specific information. The Division looks at the named current license holder to ensure that the signature on the application matches the name of someone authorized to sign the application. The Division verifies that the application information is complete on its face, the alcoholic beverage license is current and can be transferred, and there are no “flags” on the license that would prevent a transfer. The Division must determine if the transferee has a current alcoholic beverage license or not. The Division then looks at the person, corporation, or LLC that wants the alcoholic beverage license transferred to it, and conducts background checks on all persons associated with the application. Once all the background checks are completed, then a recommendation of approval or denial is made. If the approval is given, an invoice on the transfer is generated and the applicant is told to pay the fee to complete the application transfer. If there is an intended denial, a notice is sent to the applicant with the reasons stated for the action. Prior to the transfer application, P&L used the beverage license to operate a restaurant/bar, The Manhattan Dolce Bar and Bistro (The Manhattan). Ms. Hudson was the primary force for The Manhattan’s operation on behalf of P&L. Petitioner or Ms. Hudson met an individual, John Clay Weldy, who wanted to get involved in the business. Mr. Weldy became associated with P&L and took actions that made it appear as though he had authority over the beverage license and The Manhattan. No evidence was presented that the P&L Board of Directors, officers, or shareholders conferred any authority on Mr. Weldy to make any P&L decisions or to act on its behalf. Additionally, no credible evidence was presented by Petitioner that the P&L Board of Directors, officers, or shareholders conferred any authority on Petitioner or Ms. Hudson to make any P&L decisions or to act on its behalf. At some point, when Ms. Hudson became too ill to run The Manhattan, Ms. Oliverio became its manager until she was fired by Mr. Weldy. At some point, Ms. Oliverio and her boyfriend attempted to purchase the beverage license from Mr. Weldy, but he made the offer too burdensome for that sale to be completed. On August 15, 2016, Petitioner filed an application to transfer the beverage license from P&L to Petitioner. On August 25, 2016, Beverage Law Institute, Inc. (BLI), filed an application to transfer the same beverage license from P&L to BLI. Ms. Oliverio was not an officer of P&L, and was not familiar with the details of the P&L corporate structure. Further, Ms. Oliverio did not participate in Petitioner’s transfer application. Mr. Housler worked at The Manhattan. Mr. Housler did not have any knowledge of the sale of the beverage license or the attempted transfer of the beverage license. The Division had completed its investigation of Petitioner’s application filed on August 15, 2016, and had signaled its intent to approve it by issuing an invoice for the transfer. However, the invoice had not been paid when the second application to transfer the same beverage license was filed by BLI. On September 7, 2016, the Division issued to Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Deny License, setting forth the following as the grounds for the denial: Authority: 561.18 and 561.32(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Reason: Due to transfer application and supporting documentation submitted to the Division by the Beverage Law Institute on August 25, 2016, the Division is unable to determine whether a bona fide sale of the business has been made such that the licensee may obtain a transfer. On September 7, 2016, the Division issued to BLI a Notice of Intent to Deny License, setting forth the following as the grounds for the denial: Authority: 561.18 and 561.32(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Reason: Due to transfer application and supporting documentation submitted to the Division by Marie Antoinette Rochette on August 10, 2016,[4/] the Division is unable to determine whether a bona fide sale of the business has been made such that the licensee may obtain a transfer. Ms. Hudson testified that a sale of P&L to either Petitioner or BLI had not and has not happened. Ms. Scott assisted Petitioner and Ms. Hudson as they attempted to maneuver the transfer application through the Division’s process. The affidavit of the applicant form fails to list the “DBA” (doing business as) on Petitioner’s August 15, 2016, transfer application, but contains Petitioner’s notarized signature. The affidavit of the transferor form also fails to list the “DBA,” but contains Petitioner’s notarized signature. Ms. Scott testified that although the Division records provided that Petitioner was authorized to sign on behalf of P&L, the transfer application was denied because a second transfer application was received prior to Petitioner’s transfer invoice being paid. In the August 25, 2016, BLI transfer application, the affidavit of the applicant form lists the “DBA” as “ESCROW,” and contains Horace Moody’s notarized signature. The affidavit of the transferor form also lists the “DBA” as “ESCROW” but contains Mr. Weldy’s notarized signature. Ms. Scott testified that the Division records also provided that Mr. Weldy was authorized to sign on behalf of P&L. This transfer application was denied because the first transfer application had been submitted. The two competing interests, each asserting that P&L wanted to transfer the beverage license to different transferees, made it impossible for the Division to approve either transfer application.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order denying Marie Antoinette Rochette’s application for the transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 3900441/4COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 1st day of May, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to the crime of possession of a controlled substance (for which adjudication was withheld) is sufficient to support the imposition of discipline with regard to his alcoholic beverage license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to issue beverage licenses pursuant to Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. Prior to September 11, 2000, Respondent, doing business as Smiley's, was the owner and holder of a beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP, which permits him to sell beer and wine for consumption on premises. On October 9, 1998, Respondent was charged by information with sale and delivery of cocaine. He was acquitted of that charge on May 12, 2000. Subsequently in a separate incident, Respondent was charged with possession of cocaine and on September 11, 2000, pleaded no contest to that charge. Pursuant to Respondent's timely request for formal proceedings, Petitioner's counsel initiated discovery in the course of this administrative proceeding through a Request for Admissions to which Respondent failed to respond. Respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this circumstance and, upon motion of Petitioner, the Request for Admissions was deemed admitted. Those admissions establish that Respondent entered a no contest plea on September 11, 2000, to the charge of possession of cocaine and that the plea bargain negotiated at that time also included two days' incarceration. Additionally, the admissions establish that Respondent is aware that possession of cocaine is a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years. Respondent's own testimony is uncorroborated by other direct evidence and fails to establish that he possesses good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 30th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Kwilecki, Jr., Esquire 629 North Peninsula Drive Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lt. John P. Szabo Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room 709 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: On October 24, 1985, Petitioner filed an initial application with Respondent to obtain an alcoholic beverage license. The alcoholic beverage license was to be used in the operation of a small restaurant which Petitioner owned, known as El Conquistador Restaurant, in Homestead, Florida. The Petitioner is the sole owner of El Conquistador Restaurant. The application listed the Respondent, Maria Andarcio as the sole proprietor and only person having a financial interest in the business known as El Conquistador Restaurant. During the processing of the application, Mr. Ross, the investigator assigned to Petitioner's case, noticed that the application appeared to have several discrepancies. In particular, Mr. Ross was concerned because the financial information submitted with the initial application listed Julio Andarcio, Respondent's estranged husband, as the sole depositor of the expense account but he was not listed as having any financial interest in the business. Secondly, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient information regarding her employment history. Lastly, a lease which was part of the initial application, identified a potential undisclosed interest, Jose Osario, as a co- leasee. On November 15, 1985, Mr. Ross, routinely mailed a "14 day letter" to Petitioner requesting additional information. In particular, the "14 day letter" directed the Petitioner to provide additional information within 14 days from the date of receipt of the letter. The additional information requested was as follows: List occupation for the past 5 years on personal questionaire. Julio Andarcio must be fingerprinted and submit personal questionaire." The Petitioner failed to provide the information requested in the 14 day letter. Thereafter, Respondent was unable to fully investigate the license application and denied the Petitioner's license on January 8, 1986. For some reason, the Petitioner did not receive the 14 day letter which Respondent sent by regular mail. Therefore, she did not respond within the requested time period. The Petitioner was born in Cuba and speaks very little English. The language barrier contributed to the apparent discrepancies in Petitioner's initial application. Mr. Ross opined that based on all of the information that he had received up to the time of the hearing, the Petitioner would have been granted a beverage license had she only responded to the "14 day letter."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered allowing the Petitioner 20 days from the date thereof in which to provide Respondent with the information requested in the initial "14 day letter," thereby making her application complete. The Respondent shall thereafter review and process the application in the standard and routine manner. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 24th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1176 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner (None Submitted) Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact. Matters not contained therein are rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or argument. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact. Matters no contained therein are rejected as subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Armando Gutierrez, Esquire 2153 Coral Way, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33145 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1077 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Thomas A. Bell, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits introduced into evidence and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On January 3, 1984, an application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license number 16-262, in the name of I. T. Chips, Inc., to JNJ, Inc., d/b/a Apples, was delivered to the Lauderhill District Office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco by Michael Rapp. The application and personal questionnaire of Michael Rapp, Vice President of JNJ, Inc., revealed that he had been convicted of a felony within the last 15 years. Upon being informed by Sgt. Pat Roberts that the application for transfer would be denied because Rapp's conviction was disqualifying, Rapp withdrew the application. On January 6, 1984, Michael Rapp submitted an amended application for transfer of this same alcoholic beverage license to JNJ, Inc., d/b/a Apples. The amended application listed Janet Swift, a/k/a Janet Swift Rapp, as sole corporate officer and shareholder. An agreement for purchase and sale submitted with the application revealed that JNJ, Inc., was purchasing from MAM Restaurant Corporation all assets located at 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, the address of the licensee, I. T. Chips, Inc., for a total price of $418,600.00. The purchase and sale agreement acknowledged that a down payment in the amount of $18,600.00 had been made by JNJ, Inc., and provided for the remaining debt of $400,000.00 to be paid in monthly installments of $4,800.00 and be secured by a mortgage. The application stated that Frederick Cusolito and Janet Swift would be the sole financial investors in the business and that the corporation's banking business would be conducted at the Bank of Hallandale & Trust Company. Janet Swift swore that the information provided on the application was true. Whatever, Inc., is a corporation with the same business address as JNJ, Inc. Michael Rapp is the President and Secretary of Whatever, Inc. Whatever, Inc., had a bank account at the Bank of Hallandale & Trust Company and Michael Rapp was an authorized signer on the account. During January of 1984, Whatever, Inc., was writing checks to pay some of the operating expenses of the business located at 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard. JNJ, Inc., with an address of 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, had a bank account at Flagship Bank of Miami. The bank records show Janet Swift as president of the corporation and Michael Rapp as Vice President. During December of 1983, the following deposits were made to the JNJ, Inc., account at the Flagship Bank of Miami: $92,500.00 from Martin I. Roth at L & M Consultants, $27,000.00 from David J. S. Gottfried, $39,000.00 from the Hanseatic Development Corporation (described as a "loan"), and $87,000.00 from an unidentified account at the Bank of Ireland in New York. None of the people or entities from whom these deposits were received were listed as financial investors of JNJ, Inc., on the sworn application filed by Janet Swift for the transfer to JNJ, Inc. None of them were listed as financial investors of I. T. Chips, Inc., on the sworn application filed by Janet Swift for change of business name and change of officers of I. T. Chips, Inc. Martin I. Roth, the authorized signer on the bank account of L & M Consultants who actually signed the L & M Consultants checks which were deposited in the JNJ, Inc., account, was convicted of a felony in 1981. On January 19, 1984, JNJ, Inc., borrowed $75,000.00 from Schmidt Industries, Inc., a Missouri corporation. To secure that loan, JNJ, Inc., entered into a Security Agreement (chattel mortgage) pursuant to which JNJ, Inc., pledged liquor license series number 4 COP, permit number 16-262, as security for the repayment of the $75,000.00 loan. Liquor license series number 4 COP, permit number 16-262 is the liquor license issued to I. T. Chips, Inc. 1/ The facts described in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6, above, came to the attention of DABT Investigator Michael D'Ambrosia during the course of his investigation of the January 6, 1984, application to transfer the I. T. Chips, Inc., license to JNJ, Inc. D'Ambrosia met with representatives of JNJ, Inc., discussed with them the information he had acquired during the course of his investigations, and requested that he be provided with certain additional information. Thereafter, District Supervisor Richard Boyd recommended disapproval of the January 6, 1984, application on April 3, 1984. On April 4, 1984, before any final agency action was taken on the application, JNJ, Inc., withdrew the application to transfer the I. T. Chips, Inc., license to JNJ, Inc. On April 4, 1984, Janet Swift signed an application for a change of business name and a change of corporate officers of the licensee corporation, I. Chips, Inc. 2/ This application was filed on April 11, 1984, with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Janet Swift was again listed as sole corporate officer and shareholder. The sworn application filed in April of 1984 contained the following financial information: JNJ, Inc., which held a temporary license, which has since been withdrawn, executed an Agreement for Purchase and Sale with MAM Restaurant Corporation on 12/8/83. JNJ, Inc., the stock of which is owned exclusively by Janet Swift, has abandoned the premises, since Janet Swift has purchased all of the stock in I. T. Chips, Inc., for which she paid no consideration other than assuming the existing debts. I. T. Chips, Inc. has agreed to assume the mortgage referred to in the Agreement for Purchase and Sale; to wit, the initial principal sum of $400,000.00, payable at the rate of $4,800.00 per month, which will be paid from the proceeds of the operation of the business herein. Janet Swift is the sole and exclusive owner of T. Chips, Inc., and no other person, firm or entity has any interest, direct or indirect, in the said business. The application which was signed on April 4, 1984, and filed on April 11, 1984, did not contain any information about the financing of the business other than what is quoted immediately above, and did not list any person as having an interest in the business other than Janet Swift. On April 4, 1984, Janet Swift swore to the truth of the following statement which is printed on the application form: I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury as provided for in Florida Statutes 837.06 and 559.791, that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge, and that no other person, persons, firm or corporation, except as herein indicated, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license or cigarette permit for which these statements are made. On April 4, 1984, Schmidt Industries, Inc., had an interest in the alcoholic beverage license which was the subject of the application signed by Janet Swift, because that same license was pledged as collateral for a $75,000.00 loan, and pursuant to a chattel mortgage, Schmidt Industries, Inc., had a security interest in that license to guarantee the payment of the loan. 3/ On April 4, 1984, JNJ, Inc., was a financial investor in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., received the benefit of the $18,500.00 down payment that JNJ, Inc., made to MAM Restaurant Corporation and I. T. Chips, Inc., received the benefit of the $75,000.00 that JNJ, Inc., borrowed from Schmidt Industries, Inc. On April 4, 1984, the persons and entities described in paragraph 4, above, who wrote checks deposited in the JNJ, Inc., bank account were indirect financial investors in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., was either the successor to or the alter ego of JNJ, Inc. On April 4, 1984, Frederick Consolito was an indirect financial investor in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., was either the successor to or the alter ego of JNJ, Inc. 4/ The foregoing findings of fact incorporate the substance of the vast majority of the findings of fact proposed by the parties. In those few instances where I have made findings contrary to the proposed findings, it is because the persuasive competent substantial evidence was to use contrary of the proposed findings. In those few instances where I have omitted the substance of findings proposed by a party, it is because the proposed finding was irrelevant, immaterial, cumulative, or not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order denying the application for change of business name and change of corporate officers of I. T. Chips, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated March 9, 1988, filed by Ocie C. Allen, Jr., should be approved by the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Ocie C. Allen, Jr., d/b/a OCA, filed an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated March 9, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Division. In the Application, Mr. Allen indicated under "Type of Application" that the Application type was "Other - ownership change because of contract and change of location." Mr. Allen listed himself as the "Applicant" and signed the Application as the "Applicant." The "Current License Number" listed in the Application to be transferred to Mr. Allen is 62-03498, current series 4 COP. The holder of this license was Terri Howell. At the end of the Application there is an "Affidavit of Seller(s)" to be executed by the licensee from whom the license is to be transferred. This affidavit has not been completed in the Application. The purchase price for the business was listed as $86,250.00. By letter dated March 16, 1988, the Division returned the Application to Mr. Allen and informed him that it was being returned for the following reasons: (1.) Need copy of loan in the amount of $86,250.00. (2.) If there are other agreements concerning this change, we will need copies. (Closing Statements) (3.) Need Affidavit of Seller signed by Ms. Howell making sure signature has been notarized on both applications. (4.) If no business name, please use applicants [sic] name also in that blank. Mr. Allen returned the Application to the Division with a letter dated March 21, 1988, and indicated, in part, the following: The Loan of $86,250.00 is 75% of the appraised value for which a 4 COP license was sold in Pinellas County prior to Ms. Howell winning the drawing. This amount is reduced by the amounts she has received from the operation of Spanky's. Thereby the actual amount owed by me to Ms. Howell is $86,250.00 LESS the amount she has received during the operation of Spanky's, approximately, $60,000.00. The Application was not modified by Mr. Allen. In a letter dated March 24, 1988, the Director of the Division requested the following additional information from Mr. Allen: (1.) Need Affidavit of Seller signed by Ms. Howell making sure signature has been notarized on both applications. (2.) Complete (No.5) Type of License Desired: (Series ). By letter dated March 28, 1988, Mr. Allen responded as follows to the Division's request for information: Enclosed is the application for transfer. Ms. Howell signature [sic] on the Independent [sic] Contractor Agreement is the only signature of hers that will be furnished to you. By letter dated April 4, 1988, the Division informed Mr. Allen that Terri Howell, the licensee, needed to sign the Affidavit of Seller. The Division notified Mr. Allen that it intended to deny the Application in a letter dated May 31, 1988. Mr. Allen was provided a Notice of Disapproval of the Application in a letter dated June 29, 1988. The following reasons were given for denial of the Application: Application to transfer the license does not bear the signature of the current licensee and, therefore does not evidence a bonafide [sic] sale of the business pursuant to [Section] 561.32, Florida Statutes. Application incomplete as applicant has failed to provide complete verification of his financial investment. Also, applicant has failed to provide records establishing the annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three years immediately preceding the date of the request for transfer. The Division is, therefore, unable to fully investigate the application pursuant to Florida law. By letter dated July 19, 1988, Mr. Allen requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the Division's denial of the Application. Mr. Allen sent a letter to the Division dated October 27, 1988, with an Affidavit requesting permission to pay a transfer fee of $5,000.00 "in lieu of the 4-mill assessment."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing the case with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 17th day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Ocie C. Allen, Jr. Post Office Box 10616 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lt. B. A. Watts, Supervisor Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 345 S. Magnolia Drive, Suite C-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry Hooper Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed December 19, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license number 60-0883 issued to James R. Rogers, trading as Ray's Tavern. As grounds therefor it is alleged that Rogers, in order to secure a license to sell alcoholic beverages, made false written statements to the agents of Respondent in violation of 537.06 and 561.29 F.S. One witness was called by Petitioner and four exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 1977, notice of the hearing scheduled to commence on January 12, 1978 at 1457 N. Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida was served on Respondent by a beverage agent of Petitioner. (Exhibit 1) In answer to question 13 on the application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License, which asked "Has a license covering the place described in this application or any other place in which any of' the above named persons were at the time interested ever been revoked by the Director?" Respondent answered "No". (Exhibit 2). By Order of the Director of the Division of Beverages dated September 30, 1955 (Exhibit 3) the alcoholic beverage license issued to James R. Rogers, Curley's Tavern, aka Ray's Tavern was revoked for maintaining gambling paraphernalia and permitting gambling on the licensed premises.
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked for violating a stipulation stated on the record in a prior license revocation proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2337, Series 2-APS and owns and operates Hammer's Package Store, the licensed premises, at 3231-A West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1981, DABT filed two administrative actions to revoke respondent's alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The charges were, apparently, disputed and a hearing officer requested, since the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Thereafter, on April 18, 1981, Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton, II, conducted a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the charges. At hearing, both parties were represented by counsel: DABT by James N. Watson, Jr., a staff attorney for the Department of Business Regulation; respondent by Ray Russell, whose address was 200 S. E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. At the outset, counsel for both parties advised Hearing Officer Benton that they had reached "an agreement" (P-1, p. 3), thus obviating the need for a hearing on the charges. Counsel then recited, on the record, the terms of their settlement agreement: respondent was given 90-days in which its corporate entity could be sold, with the period beginning to run from March 19, 1981--the next day--and ending on June 16, 1981; when the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period expired, whichever occurred first, respondent was to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation; respondent waived its right to an evidentiary hearing on the charges and to appeal any matters covered by the agreement; and, from the time the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period for sale expired, no corporate officers, directors, or shareholders of respondent would again engage in the alcoholic beverage business, make any application for a beverage license, apply for transfer of a beverage license, or hold an interest in any business involved in the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (DABT Ex. 1, p. 5-8). Without objection from respondent's counsel, DABT's counsel described the consent order (or settlement agreement) as "in the nature of a final administrative action and [respondent] acknowledges that its failure to abide by such would subject him to the provisions of Florida Statutes 120.69 (P-1, p. 6). Although this settlement agreement was effective and began to operate immediately (the 90-day period for sale commenced the next day) DABT's counsel contemplated that a written and signed consent order embracing the terms of the settlement agreement would be subsequently issued. Although such follow-up action was intended, it never occurred. DABT never issued a written order, consent or otherwise, embracing the terms of the settlement agreement. Hearing Officer Benton and, at least one party, thereafter relied on the settlement agreement. The hearing officer closed both Division of Administrative Hearings files, and DABT no longer prosecuted respondent under the pending charges. Since June 16, 1981, the expiration of the 90-day period provided in the agreement, respondent has continued to operate its licensed alcoholic beverage premises, has failed to sell its corporate entity, and has failed to surrender its alcoholic beverage license. Respondent has presented no evidence justifying or excusing its failure to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation on or before June 16, 1981. Neither does it seek to withdraw from or set aside the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1983.
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.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Acobos, Inc., d/b/a Christo's Cafe, is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 62-03732SRX, for licensed premises at 411 First Avenue North, St. Petersburg. In September, 1987, and particularly on September 11, 17, and 25, 1987, the Respondent's licensed premises were open for business, including the sale of alcoholic beverages under the authority of the Respondent's license. On at least three separate occasions--on September 11, 17, and 25, 1987,--the Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages at the licensed premises at times when the service of full-course meals had been discontinued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking the alcoholic beverage license of the Respondent, Acobos, Inc., license number 62-037325RX. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Tim Christopoulos, President Acobos, Inc., d/b/a Christo's Cafe 411 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
