The Issue This matter arises out of the denial or rejection of a filing by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien against a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. Mr. Charles L. Hoffman, attorney for Liberty Bank of Cantonment, testified on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner offered two exhibits into evidence and both were accepted without objection. The Respondent presented no evidence on its behalf. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Law in support of its legal argument as to why it should be granted a lien against Beverage License No. 27- 426. To the extent that the legal conclusions presented in that memorandum of law and the facts stated are not adopted in this order, they are considered to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the facts or the law.
Findings Of Fact On July 10, 1981, The Rafters, Inc. executed a security agreement in favor of the Liberty Bank of Cantonment. That security agreement is a part of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and included a security interest in State Liquor License No. 27-426 issued in the name of The Rafters, Inc. On July 24, 1981, the necessary U.C.C. documents were filed in order to permit the Liberty Bank of Cantonment to file the proper documents with the Secretary of State. No documents were filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On September 20, 1982, the Petitioner first filed the necessary documentation with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco rejected the filing on the grounds that it was filed beyond the 90-day period provided in Section 561.65(4), Florida Statutes. On October 19, 1982, The Rafters, Inc. filed its answer to an amended complaint in foreclosure which had been filed by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment against the property set forth in the aforementioned security agreement. In its answer, The Rafters, Inc. admitted all allegations of the amended complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order rejecting the application for a lien filed by the Petitioner to perfect a security interest in Beverage License No. 27-426. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles L. Hoffman, Jr., Esquire Seventh Floor, Seville Tower 226 South Palafox Street Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire William A. Hatch, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Dept. of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Gary Rutledge, Secretary Division of Alcoholic Beverages Dept. of Business Regulation and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact 1718, Inc. held alcoholic beverage license number 58- 1581, Series 2-Cop; for the premises of the Fox Hunter, 1718 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida, at all times relevant to these proceedings. The license was issued on June 18, 1981. Although the testimony of Captain Jack B. Wallace that John and Fay Knight (Knights) were the owners of the real property located at 1718 South Orange, Orlando, Florida, went unrebutted, the record does not reveal the date when John and Fay Knight became the owners of the real property located at 1718 South Orange Street, Orlando, Florida. The Knights were absentee landlords and leased the premises to 1718, Inc. d/b/a/ Fox Hunter (Fox Hunter) through a real estate agency in Orlando, Florida. On June 3, 1985 Petitioners mailed a letter to the Knights informing them that the alcoholic beverage license of Fox Hunter had been suspended on an emergency basis due to 13 alleged sales of narcotics on the premises by employees of Fox Hunter; that Respondent had requested a hearing on the charges; that Petitioner would seek license revocation with prejudice as provided in Section 561.58, Florida Statutes (1983); that the Petitioner would present evidence at the hearing in support of license revocation with prejudice; and that the Knights would be advised of the date, time and location of the hearing at a later date. The record does not reveal that Petitioner ever advised the Knights as to the date, time and location of the hearing, however, counsel for Respondent announced at the time of the hearing that he would be representing the Knights. Additionally, the record does not reveal that a copy of the original or Amended Notice To Show Cause was ever furnished to the Knights. Nor does the record reveal that the Knights had any knowledge of any previous violations at the premises. On April 29, 1985, Orlando Police Officer Kerry Farney (Farney) went to the premises of Fox Hunter and spoke to dancer Joyce Travis concerning the purchase of cocaine. Joyce agreed to sell Farney a half gram for $50.00. Farney gave Joyce $55.00, including $5.00 for a dance which she performed, and Joyce returned to Farney a dollar bill wrapped around two- plastic packages of cocaine. Officer Farney returned to the Fox Hunter on April 30, 1985, and spoke with dancer Lisa Nolen a/k/a Dusty concerning the purchase of a quarter gram of cocaine. Dusty agreed to sell the cocaine and obtained $25.00 from Farney. She later returned to Farney and handed him a plastic package containing cocaine. Officer Farney again returned to the Fox Hunter on May 2, 1985 and was later met there on this same day by Investigator Rodney Russ (Russ). The Officers arranged to purchase cocaine from the dancer Dusty. Farney gave Dusty $30.00, $5.00 for a dance and $25.00 for a quarter gram of cocaine. Russ gave Dusty $50.00 for one half gram of cocaine. After going into the dancers' locker room, Dusty returned to the officers and handed to Farney a dollar bill wrapped around two plastic packages of cocaine and asked Farney to pass it to Russ. Farney passed the cocaine wrapped in the money to Russ which Russ opened and inspected the two plastic-packages of cocaine contained therein. Later that same night Dusty delivered the cocaine to Farney which he had paid for earlier. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter on May 3, 1985 and entered into conversation with dancer Laura, who asked if he was looking for a quarter gram of cocaine. Russ stated that he wanted a half gram and Laura responded that she would see what she could do. After speaking with an unknown male patron, Laura returned to Russ and stated that all he had left was three- tenths of a gram for $30.00. Russ stated that he would take the three tenths of a gram and gave Laura $30.00. Laura again approached the unknown patron and then returned to Russ after being assured by Russ that he was not a cop or with law enforcement, placed a bill in his pocket. Russ removed and opened the bill and inspected the plastic package of cocaine. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter on May 7, 1985 and entered into conversation with the dancer Joyce concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. Joyce stated that she would be able to get it later. Joyce subsequently asked Russ how much he wanted to buy and Russ responded that he wanted a half gram. Russ gave Joyce a $100.00 bill and she went into the women's dressing room. Joyce later returned to Russ and gave him $25.00 change wrapped around two clear plastic packages of cocaine. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter on May 8, 1985, and was solicited by dancer Joyce for the purchase of two beers. Russ returned to the premises of the Fox Hunter on May 9, 1985, and entered into conversation with the dancer Joyce concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. Joyce left Russ to talk to an unidentified black male and returned to inform Russ that she could get the half gram of cocaine from the black male after he split it up and that Russ would have delivery soon. The male went into the restroom and when he emerged from the restroom, Joyce approached him and then went into the women's restroom. After exiting the restroom, Joyce performed a dance for Russ, during which she told him to take a dollar bill out of her garter. Russ took the dollar bill and opened it up to inspect two tinfoil packages of cocaine. Russ returned to the licensed premises on May 10, 1985, and again entered into conversation with the dancer Joyce concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. When Joyce agreed, Russ handed her $75.00. Joyce subsequently returned to Russ and handed him a plastic package of cocaine which Russ placed into the cellophane wrapper of his cigarette pack. Joyce stated that the person from whom she had obtained the cocaine only had a quarter gram but would be getting a delivery soon, at which time Joyce would give Russ his other quarter gram. Russ did not obtain the additional quarter gram prior to leaving the premises on this occasion. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter later the night of May 10, 1985 and spoke with Joyce about obtaining his remaining quarter gram of cocaine and she advised him that delivery had not been made. Russ then talked with dancer Laura about obtaining some cocaine. Laura first said that it would be after 2:00 a.m. when the bar closed but when Russ told her he could not wait that long she obtained a short quarter gram from an unidentified white male. Laura then left to go into the women's restroom. When she returned to Russ, Laura placed a plastic package of cocaine in his pocket stating that she had tried the substance and it was good. Russ removed the package from his pocket and inspected it. As Russ was leaving, Joyce approached him near the entrance and handed him a plastic package containing his remaining quarter gram of cocaine. Russ returned to the premises of the Fox Hunter on May 15, 1985, and was solicited by the dancer Dusty to purchase her a bottle of champagne for $5.75, which he did. Russ again went to the Fox Hunter on May 16, 1985 and entered into conversation with the dancer Laura concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. Laura stated that she would be able to get him some. Laura approached and spoke to an unknown patron and the dancer Michelle, after which she went into the women's dressing room. She shortly returned to Russ and placed two plastic packages of cocaine into his pocket. On May 17, 1985, the Respondent served an Emergency Order of Suspension and Search Warrant on the Fox Hunter. Located during the search was a dollar bill wrapped around a package of cocaine, a plastic package of cocaine, a package of marijuana and several marijuana cigarettes. The sale or delivery of the cocaine on April 29, 30, 1985 and May 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 16, 1985 to investigator Farney and Russ took place in and around the dance area of the premises. On April 20, 1982 the Respondent served a letter of warning to Fox Hunter alleging that on August 4, 1981, an employee had solicited the sale of an alcoholic beverage in violation of Section 562.131, Florida Statutes and further alleging that on October 30, 1981, an employee had delivered a controlled substance to a police officer on the premises. No proof was offered as to the disposition of those matters, or indeed, whether the incidents ever actually took place. In July, 1984, the manager of Fox Hunter --Lawrence Siegel -- apprehended one of its employees and a patron engaged in a drug transaction: he detained them and called the Orlando Police Department, and the two were taken into custody. The Petitioner's response to this action was to issue a citation against the Fox Hunter for the alleged sale, even though it was Lawrence Siegel who uncovered the transaction and apprehended the perpetrators. Mr. Siegel contacted Lt. Farmer of the Orlando Police Department and requested assistance in placing an undercover officer in the lounge as an employee. Mr. Siegel wanted to interdict narcotics and assist in the apprehension of the persons who might be dealing with them. However, the request was turned down because, as Lt. Farmer explained, the police department did not have the necessary resources to assist in this manner. The record is not clear as to the period of time Lawrence Siegel maintained contact with the police, but he did contact them about the problem, identifying suspected dealers and providing names and descriptions of vehicles. However, Jason Robaudo replaced Lawrence Siegel as night manager during this period of time. James Robaudo was present in the licensed premises during most of, if not all of, the time during which the unlawful activities accursed. Although the record is not entirely clear on the details, there were other alcoholic beverage establishments in the same general area that had been charged with the sale of controlled substances on the premises where a heavy fine plus a short license suspension had been imposed rather than a license revocation or a license revocation with prejudice.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 58-1581, Series 2-COP, issued to 1718, Inc., d/b/a Fox Hunter. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 3rd day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esq. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Richard L. Wilson, Esq. 1212 East Ridgewood Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr. Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Respondent's 1 APS license 15-00386 should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Notice to Show Cause filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in issue here, the Division was the state agency responsible for the licensing of the sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages in Florida. Respondent operated the S & D Food Market at 531 Blake Avenue, Cocoa. On August 27, 1991, SA Wylie, a member of the Division's Orlando office, was, along with several other Special Agents, including SA Felton, assisting the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to serve search warrants and search covered premises, including that of the Respondent. When he arrived at the Respondent's facility he asked the clerk on duty to show him the alcoholic beverage license for the store and determined it permitted only the sale of packaged beer for off-premises consumption. He conducted an inspection of the store to insure only beer was being sold in compliance with the license and discovered several bottles of wine in the cooler along with wine cooler and beer. These items were in the display section open to the public. Mr. Wylie went around back into the cooler and found more wine, and when he went into the store's back storage room, found cases of wine stacked up against the wall. When he saw this, he went back to the clerk and asked why wine was being sold when the license permitted only the sale of beer. The clerk claimed to know nothing about it. Wylie asked for the invoices for the wine purchases and the clerk went to get them. While waiting in the office, Mr. Wylie also saw several cartons of cigarettes which showed a Publix stamp on the end. The presence of these stamps on the cartons indicated to him that the cigarettes had been purchased at Publix and not from a wholesale distributor. He assumed the cigarettes were for resale, though all other cigarettes in the store were in the display rack out front. These cigarettes were legal. When the clerk came back with the invoices, Wylie also asked him for the purchase receipt for the cigarettes and the clerk went to get that, too. In the meantime, SA Felton arrived on the scene and Wylie turned over all the wine and the cartons of cigarettes to her. Felton inventoried the wine and determined there were in excess of 76 full cases of wine in addition to numerous loose bottles.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered in this case dismissing the allegation that Respondent, Edward Andre Jones, possessed cigarettes not purchased from a wholesale dealer, but finging him Guilty of the allegation of possessing unauthorized alcoholic beverages on the premises covered by 1 APS license 15- 00386; placing his license on probation for one year, and assessing an administrative fine of $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of January, 1993. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 27th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lane Vaughn, Esquire 2007 South Melbourne Court Melbourne, Florida 32901 Janet E. Ferris Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard W. Scully Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, alcoholic beverage license No. 26-01841, Series No. 2-APS, was issued to Respondents, Frank D. and Estella S. Ryers, for their establishment known as the Big B Restaurant, located at 5570 Avenue B, Jacksonville, Florida. A 2-APS license permits the package sale only of beer and wine. It does not permit the consumption on the premises of beer, wine, or liquor. On March 27, 1983, Investigator Wendell M. Reeves conducted an undercover operation directed against the Big B Restaurant predicated upon reports received by Petitioner that Respondents were conducting sales of alcoholic beverages not permitted by the license at the licensed premises. In furtherance of that operation, Reeves utilized another beverage agent, Van Young, in an undercover capacity to make a controlled buy of an improperly sold substance from the licensees. Prior to sending Young into the licensed premises, Reeves searched Young to ensure that he, Young, had no alcoholic beverage or money in his possession. Satisfying himself that that was the case, he gave Young $15 in U.S. currency and sent him into the licensed premises to make the buy. Young entered the Big B Restaurant at 1:00 p.m. and came out 17 minutes later. When he came out of the licensed premises, Young came over to where Reeves was waiting and turned over to him a sealed 200 ml bottle of Fleishman's Gin. Young told Reeves that he had purchased the gin in the licensed premises from a black male whose description matched that of Respondent Frank D. Byers which is contained on Respondent's application for license. Respondent Frank Byers denies making the sale. On balance, however, there is little doubt it was Respondent who made the sale, especially in light of the fact that this same licensee was issued a letter of warning by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in October 1981 for possession on the premises of an alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold under the license. Young also stated that he purchased a second bottle which he consumed on the premises with another black male. However, this evidence was in the form of Reeves' report of what was told him by Young. As such, it is clearly hearsay and can be used only to corroborate or explain other admissible evidence. Therefore, as to the allegation regarding the consumption of the gin on the premises, since it is the only evidence of that offense, it cannot be used to support a finding of fact on that allegation. It may, however, be used to explain how Young got the bottle with which he was seen by Reeves to come out of the licensed premises. Several days later, on March 30, 1983, Reeves again entered the licensed premises, where he told Respondent Estella Byers he was there to inspect the site. She opened the cooler for him and he inspected the beer inside and the cigarettes. While he was doing that, however, he noticed her take a cloth towel and drape it over something behind the bar. He went over to it, removed the towel, and found that it covered a bottle of Schenley's gin. Mrs. Byers immediately said she thought it was her husband's, Respondent Frank Byers, but another individual present at the time, Sharon Thomas, said she had taken it from her brother, who was drunk, and had put it there. Again, as to Ms. Thomas' comments, they, too, are hearsay and can only serve here to explain or corroborate other admissible evidence. In any case, after Ms. Thomas made her comment, she was immediately contradicted by Respondent Estella Byers, who again indicated she thought the bottle was her husband's. In any case, at the hearing, Respondent Estella Byers contended she did not know it was there. On balance, Mr. Reeves' testimony that she covered it with a towel while he was inspecting and the evidence of the prior warning for an identical offense tend to indicate she did know it was there and that it was unlawful for it to be there. There is, however, no evidence to establish sufficiently the reason for its being there.
The Issue This case arises out of a Notice to Show Cause dated January 13, 1982, served by the Petitioner upon the Respondent requiring that the Respondent show cause as to why his Beverage License No. 26-02065 should not be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for having committed violations of the laws of Florida, and thus, a violation of Florida Statutes 561.29(1)(b). On January 28, 1982, the Respondent, by and through his attorney, Lacy Mahon, Jr., requested, in writing, a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. On March 30, 1983, a Notice of Hearing scheduling the formal hearing in this matter for April 28 and 29, 1983, was served upon Mr. Lacy Mahon, Esquire, attorney for the Respondent. Prior to the formal hearing, Mr. Mahon contacted Mr. Watson, counsel for the Petitioner, and informed him that his client, Mr. Billy Freeman, had requested that he not appear at the hearing on behalf of Mr. Freeman and that Mr. Freeman also would not appear. The undersigned Hearing Officer also received an ex parte communication from the Respondent, Mr. Billy Freeman, inquiring as to the purpose of the formal hearing, and I explained to him that a Notice to Show Cause had been filed against his beverage license and that if he had any further questions, he should contact either his attorney or Mr. James Watson of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The Respondent nor his attorney appeared at the formal hearing in this matter. The petitioner presented as its evidence three exhibits. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is an indictment charging the Respondent with burglary and arson dated June 4, 1982. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is a certified copy of a judgment convicting the Respondent of arson in violation of Florida Statute 806.01(2). And Petitioner's Exhibit 3 was a late filed exhibit reflecting the license status and license number of the Respondent's beverage license. The Respondent did not appear, and, therefore, did not present any evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Billy Freeman d/b/a The Mug, holds Beverage License No. 26-02065, Series 2-COP. On August 10, 1982, the Respondent, Billy Freeman, was convicted of arson, a second degree felony, in violation of Florida Statute 806.01(2). The Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 18 months. The conviction occurred in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, Case No. 81-11038CF.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Beverage License No. 26-02065, 2-COP be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lacy Mahon, Esquire 350 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of its license under the beverage law. Specifically, Respondent purportedly violated the actions set forth in two counts, as follows: Count I--Respondent failed to "provide the required service area, seating and equipment to serve 200 persons full course meals at tables at one time as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes"; and Count II--Respondent failed to "provide at least 4,000 square feet of area dedicated to the operation of the restaurant as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes." Respondent has also raised the issue of whether Petitioner should be estopped from enforcement actions concerning the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, issuing and monitoring licenses to businesses within the state relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR (the "License"). An SR, or Special Restaurant, license is a unique kind of license which was issued by the Division prior to the establishment of quota licenses. Holders of SR licenses are allowed to sell beer, wine and liquor, package sales and sales by the drink on the premises. Quota licenses are issued based on a population ratio, i.e., no more than one license per 7,500 people in a given geographic area may exist. When Respondent obtained its SR license in 1979 (by way of transfer from the original owner of that license), the existing statutes mandated that the License be housed in a building of not less than 4,000 square feet with room in the building to seat at least 200 people at any one time. The statutes also required that food be served at all times the establishment was open. In 1979, when Respondent filed an application seeking to obtain the transfer of the SR license that had been issued in 1957, the application included an Affidavit from Marianne Gunn agreeing to a specific location (2704 Anderson Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida)1 for the business, which was to be known as the Stardust Lounge. The Affidavit affirmed Marianne Gunn's agreement to maintain the premises with the necessary equipment and supplies to seat 200 people at any one time. The Affidavit affirmed that the building housing Stardust Lounge would be at least 4,000 square feet in size. The License was then transferred to Respondent by the Division. Approximately one year after receiving the License and commencing operations, the Stardust Lounge burned down. Some undisclosed portion of the building remained, but no business could be operated on the site. It would have been difficult to rebuild the building under the then-current building codes. Further, the City of Fort Myers expressed its opposition to the existence of an alcoholic beverage establishment at that site. Some time after the fire, Respondent asked the Division to place the License in an inactive status (also known as placing a license in escrow). The request from Respondent asked that the License be placed in escrow for up to eight months. Respondent represented that it was in negotiation with the City of Fort Myers concerning a land swap to settle certain claims Respondent had against the city. Respondent estimated the negotiations would go on for approximately two months. Respondent advised the Division that if negotiations were successful, it would allow the License to be cancelled upon transfer of the premises to the city. If the negotiations were not successful, Respondent estimated it would need at least six months to sell the property at a private sale. It was Respondent's intent that the License be "taken care of" along with the land deal. "That's what that was all about," Fox testified at final hearing. Based upon Respondent's request, the Division apparently placed the License in escrow. There was no documentation presented at final hearing to substantiate this fact. However, the Division sent Respondent a bill each year to renew the License despite there being no physical site for operating a business by the licensee. Respondent dutifully paid the renewal fee each year. Eighteen years after the License was placed in escrow, the State of Florida commenced condemnation proceedings relating to a portion of the premises where the Stardust Lounge had formerly existed.2 During this nearly two-decade hiatus, Respondent continued to renew the License each year upon notice from the Division. Respondent's counsel sent a letter to the Division dated June 27, 2000, which said in pertinent part: We send you this letter at the request of our client, Mrs. Fox. . . . She has a liquor license in escrow with the Department. Due to the condemnation taking, she will not be able to utilize the license at this location and she has agreed that if this license can be moved to another location, it would not be an issue in the condemnation case. The letter did not address the issue of Respondent's prior representation that the License would be cancelled within eight months of its May 21, 1982, letter, some 18 years earlier. The Division responded to Respondent's counsel in a letter dated the very next day which stated in pertinent part: I am responding to the request of you and the licensee wanting to know if the liquor license that is held in the name of Marianne Gunn, DBA Stardust Lounge is movable. In the case of the property being taken by the state, the license may be moved one time and only one time. Providing that we have copies of all paperwork involved with the property condemnation taking. This license is not a moveable license unless in a case like this. The only thing that the licensee needs to understand is that it is changing location only one time. The Division's letter did not mention the escrow status of the License, either. The inartfully worded request and nebulous response added to the confusion concerning the status of the License. There is no evidence indicating whether any information concerning the condemnation was ever provided to the Division. Respondent could not say at final hearing when the condemnation actually occurred, how much land was taken, or how much was paid for the land. The License apparently remained in escrow at that time pending a move to some other location. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that the reason for her negotiations with the City of Fort Myers in 1982 was partly because the city did not want the bar located at the site where it had burned down. She testified that she had received insurance proceeds from the fire and intended to rebuild the lounge, but the city objected. That was the only testimony given as to why the lounge was not rebuilt during the 18 years it remained in escrow. Glen Fox testified that the original site of the Stardust Lounge would not be acceptable for rebuilding the structure after the fire due to certain building code issues. Both Mr. and Mrs. Fox testified that there was insufficient land available to build on site after the property condemnation taking. Fox testified that she owned three lots at the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Cranford Avenue. Those lots were 50-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep (for a presumed total lot size of 150-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep). Fox does not know the size of the lots after the condemnation proceeding. It has long been the policy of the Division, pursuant to its interpretations of the Beverage Law set forth in statute, that SR licenses could not be moved from their original location. In 2005 or 2006, a licensee who was operating a business in American Beach filed a lawsuit against the Division seeking to move his SR license to a different location. As a result of the lawsuit, the Division changed its existing policy to allow for such a change. The new policy was posted on the Division's website for review by SR license holders. There is no evidence that SR license holders were notified about the change in policy by any other means. Respondent does not remember receiving any notice whatsoever regarding the change in policy. Within four to six months, and as a result of further legal research by Division attorneys, the Division once again altered its policy concerning the transfer of SR licenses. The newly-revised policy established the current Division position, i.e., that no SR license could be moved for any reason. Further, the policy states that all licensed premises must be in continuous operation or else the license would be forfeited. Again, the Division posted the new policy on its website and notified all SR license holders by way of letters to their establishments (or, in the case of Respondent, to the last known address). It is unclear from the record whether the letter was ever sent to or received by Respondent, although the Division obviously had Respondent's address because it sent renewal notices there each year. Some time after the change in policy, the Division determined that Respondent's license must be terminated or revoked. At that time, there were no premises associated with the License. The last time the License was in operation was 1979 or 1980, some 28 years prior to the Administrative Action being filed. The official address of the premises on the License during each of the renewal periods since 1980 had been "Escrow." That is, there was no site address associated with the License. There was obviously some address associated with the License, however, since Fox received annual billing statements from the Division. In November 2007, the Division issued an Administrative Action against Respondent concerning the License. The Administrative Action alleged that Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the License, i.e., size of premises and on-going operations. The Division indicated that it would sanction the License, including, but not limited to, revocation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that it is not complying with the requirements for an active license, but maintains that its escrowed license is exempt from those requirements. The License, despite being inactive for 28 years, is still apparently valid at this point in time (based on the Division's acceptance of Respondent's renewal payments each year). The License may have some monetary value, but there was no competent, substantial evidence presented at final hearing as to what the value might actually be. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that she did not know how much the License was worth, only that "nothing is worth as much as it used to be." Fox cannot remember how much she paid for the License when it was transferred to her. She cannot remember how much she asked for the License when she offered it for sale. She cannot remember how much was offered for the License as part of the condemnation sale. Fox does know that she paid an annual fee each year for renewal of the License. She does not know what the fee was each year, but "I paid whatever the state told me was due." (The Division testified that the annual fee was $1,820.00. Presuming 28 years of payments, the total paid to-date would be approximately $50,960.) When suggested to Fox by her counsel that the License was worth $300,000, she agreed with that amount, but could not substantiate why that amount was valid. Fox testified that she would like a "reasonable time" to market the License for sale. She did not express what a reasonable time might be, but has not been able (or willing) to sell the License for over 28 years. Respondent put the License "out for feelers" three or four years ago, but did not include an asking price for the License. About seven months ago, someone told Fox that the License was worth approximately $326,000, but there is no support for that estimate. Patrick Roberts, former law enforcement major with the Division, opined that he would have handled Respondent's case differently had it come across his desk. He opined that the requirement for 4,000 square feet and seating for 200 people should only apply to an existing business, not one in escrow. Roberts agreed that only quota licenses are allowed escrow status by statute. Roberts did not express any opinion as to the requirement that a business be on-going at all times. Roberts agreed that an SR license should not be placed in escrow, but said he'd try to negotiate a settlement, rather than file an Administrative Action. He did concur that an Administrative Action might be necessary if all else failed. Roberts did not opine that an Administrative Action was improper, only that it wasn't his first choice of action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoking Respondent, Fox Marianne Gunn, d/b/a Stardust Lounge's, License No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 11th day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 19th day of August, 1975, the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, his agent, servant or employee, one Robert Henry Williams did unlawfully sell an alcoholic beverage, to wit: one 16 ounce can of Budweiser beer, in a manner not permitted by the Respondent's beverage license, to wit: while the license was suspended, contrary to Section 562.12, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 19, 1975, the beverage license which the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage was on active suspension. The notice of suspension had been served on Leartis Frazier at Frazier's Grocery, 2273 Commonwealth Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. Furthermore, a sign had been posted at that address which indicated that the license of Leartis Frazier t/a Frazier's Grocery was suspended. On August 19, 1975, while the license was under suspension an officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office observed one David Brooks enter Frazier's Grocery, without any objects in his hands. This observation occurred after the officer had encountered Brooks moments before in the conduct of an investigation and Brooks had not been carrying any objects in his hands at that moment either. Several minutes after entering the Frazier's, the same David Brooks exited Frazier's Grocery with a paper bag in his hands which contained one 16 ounce can of Budweiser beer. The Officer then entered the licensed premises and went to the beer counter and opened it up and discovered one can of beer missing from a six-pack container of Budweiser beer. At the time the officer made this investigation the sign which had been placed in the window of Frazier's Grocery to indicate the license suspension was being displayed. A Mr. Williams was sitting behind the counter inside the licensed premises as an employee, agent or servant of the Respondent at the time the officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office discovered the missing can of beer. Mr. Brooks, when questioned about where he had bought the can of beer, after discussion, indicated that he had bought it at Frazier's Grocery. By Mr. Brooks' statement and the officer's observation, it is established that Mr. Williams sold the Budweiser beer to Brooks. The Mr. Williams was identified in the hearing, as being Robert Henry Williams.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, be suspended for a period of one year for the violation as established in the hearing on this Notice to Show Cause. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Leartis Frazier 2273 Commonwealth Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 16th day of January, 1976, the licensees, I. and Christine Lockett, did unlawfully fail to maintain the operation and responsibility of their licensed business by relinquishing the control of said licensed premises to Louise Bryant, in violation of Rule 7A-3.17, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, I. J. and Christine Lockett, were holders of Series 2- COP beverage license issued by the State of Florida, Division of Beverage during the period of October 1, 1975 up to and including the date of the hearing, as evidenced by the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. This Exhibit No. 3 is a copy of the beverage license. On or before January 16, 1976, I. J. Lockett left the city of Jacksonville, Florida, and his licensed premises at 846-848 East First Street, Jacksonville, Florida, and went to Miami, Florida to bring back his wife, Christine Lockett. Christine Lockett had gone to Miami, Florida, after the death of their son. Christine Lockett had been running the bar in conjunction with I. J. Lockett prior to her departure for Miami, Florida. When I. J. Lockett left the city of Jacksonville he turned the control and management, responsibility over to one Louise Bryant. This control and management transfer was evidenced by the fact that he gave Louise Bryant $400.00 to purchase items of stock and a salary of $65.00 per week, plus additional monies if Ms. Bryant was successful in the operation of the bar. Upon his return from Miami, Florida, I. J. Lockett gave Ms. Bryant an additional $120.00 for purchase of stock items for the bar. While I. J. Lockett was in Miami and dating from January 16, 1976, Louise Bryant was authorized to purchase wine and beer and did make purchases of that wine and beer as evidenced by the checks written on her bank account to various distributors. Copies of those checks are found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. In addition, Louise Bryant had the electric service placed in her name for Chris and J's Beer Garden located at 846-848 East First Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Louise Bryant got the profits from the business as her compensation for maintaining the business in the absence of I. J. and Christine Lockett, she also paid the rent on the premises to the landlord. Sine I. J. Lockett's return from Miami, Louise Bryant has continued to work in the business.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondents, I. J. and Christine Lockett, d/b/a Chris and J's Beer Garden be revoked, but the imposition of that revocation be withheld upon a satisfactory showing that Louise Bryant is not currently the defacto manager aid operator and responsible party in the licensed premise. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles C. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 I. J. and Christine Lockett 846-848 East First Street Jacksonville, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondent Lois Davis, who does business under the name of The Cotton Club, holds License No. 60-00245, a Series 2-COP license issued by petitioner authorizing her to sell beer and wine for consumption on the licensed premises, which are located at 233 Southwest Fifth Street, Belle Glade, Florida. At one time Ms. Davis held License No. 60-576 which authorized sale of hard liquor as well as wine and beer for consumption on the premises of The Cotton Club. On January 25, 1980, as a result of foreclosure proceedings against respondent's landlords, an order was entered directing that "all right, title and interest to Alcoholic Beverage License 60-576" be conveyed to Mr. and Mrs. Robert Daniel. Robert Daniel, et ux. v. Gilbert Adams, et al. v. Lois Davis, No. 78-4667 CA (L) 01 G (Fla. 17th Cir.). At the time respondent applied for her current license, shortly before the previous license expired, she asked that the latter be extended so that she could sell off her stock of hard or spirituous liquors. Petitioner's Lieutenant Little explained that the matter was before a court but agreed to approach the judge. In September of 1980, L. Dell Grieve, a six-year veteran of the Belle Glade Police Department, visited The Cotton Club, saw liquor in a storeroom, and told the bartender that it should be removed. The bartender protested that it was all right to store the liquor while something was being worked out about the license, or words to that effect. Beverage Officers Ramey and Rabie accompanied Officer Grieve on November 15, 1980, on a visit to The Cotton Club, where they found Andre Lavince Moore, respondent's son, tending bar. In the storeroom, they found numerous bottles of spirituous liquors which they confiscated. Petitioner's Exhibit No. Wine and beer were stored in a separate place in the same storeroom. At no time after she lost License No. 60-576 did respondent or her agents or employees sell any alcoholic beverages other than wine or beer at The Cotton Club, or have any intention of doing so without petitioner's permission.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 14th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Lt. J. E. Little 725 South Bronough Street Post Office Drawer 2750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 West Palm Beach, FL 33402 Lois Davis The Cotton Club 233 Southwest Fifth Street Belle Glade, Florida
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for transfer of an alcoholic beverage license should be granted, or denied on the ground that the license has been revoked.
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 1977, Armando Calo, through counsel, filed a Notice of Lien with DABT stating that he was a bona fide mortgagee on an alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, lic. no. 23-1901) held by the Intimo Lounge, Inc., 1601 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. Citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, he enclosed a copy of his chattel mortgage and a check payable to DABT in the amount of $5.00. (P-1) By return letter dated February 4, 1977, C. L. Ivey, Jr., DABT's Licensing Supervisor, acknowledged receipt of Mr. Calo's Notice of Lien and stated that it would be made part of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license file. At that time, administrative license revocation proceedings were pending against Intimo Lounge, Inc. So Mr. Ivey sent a copy of his February 4, 1977 acknowledgment letter to DABT's Miami Office, and included this notation: P.S. John: You need to immediately notify Attorney Solomon's [Calo's attorney's] office if and when an order to revoke is issued. He will then go to court to seek a judicial transfer. (P-2) On March 22, 1977, Charles A. Nuzum, DABT's Director, executed an order revoking Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license. (R-1) Eight days later, on March 30, 1977, Armando Calo sued Intimo Lounge, Inc., seeking to foreclose his chattel mortgage on its alcoholic beverage license. By letter of the same date, counsel for Mr. Calo, citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, notified DABT of the filing of the foreclosure action; he also asserted that Mr. Calo had no knowledge of or participation in the causes for which the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license was revoked. Copies of subsequent pleadings filed in the action were sent to DABT's legal department. DABT thus knew the suit was filed and was aware of its continued progress. (Testimony of Barone; P-3, P-4, P-11) The Circuit Court of Dade County ultimately entered a final judgment of foreclosure in Mr. Calo's favor. On August 17, 1979, pursuant to such judgment, the Clerk of the Court sold the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license, at public sale, to intervenor Rene Valdes, 1710 N.W. 7th Street, Suite 7201, Miami, Florida for $25,000. Notice of the sale was published in the Miami Review, a newspaper circulated in Dade County. On August 28, 1979, the Clerk issued a Certificate of Title pursuant to Chapter 45, Florida Statutes. This Certificate certified that Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, license no. 23-1901) had been sold to Rene Valdes on August 17, 1979, and that "no objections to the sale have been filed within the time allowed for filing objections." (Testimony of Valdes; P-5, P-6) Although DABT was aware of the protracted mortgage foreclosure litigation involving the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license --which it had earlier revoked -- it never protested or sought to block the foreclosure action. It was not a party to the action; neither did it attempt to become one. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) In September, 1979, a month after the judicial foreclosure sale, Nathaniel Barone, counsel for Intimo Lounge, Inc., wrote R. B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Business Regulation, asking what steps were necessary to keep the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license viable. An internal memorandum suggests that DABT was, at first, unprepared to answer that question and preferred, instead, to delay answering until an application for the license was filed. But, on October 4, 1979, Harold F. X. Purnell, the Department's General Counsel replied on behalf of Secretary Burroughs: It is the Division's position that the . . . license has been and presently is revoked pursuant to the actions pre- viously taken by [DABT]. Further, that in the absence of an order of appropriate jurisdiction entered in a proceeding to which the Division is a party we are powerless to transfer such license. (Testimony of Barone; P-7, P-10) Meanwhile, Rene Valdes, notified DABT of his purchase of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license and asked that it be held in escrow while he found a suitable purchaser and location. When DABT refused, Mr. Valdes petitioned the court, which had rendered the foreclosure judgment, to require DABT to process and transfer the license. The court denied his petition, at least in part, because DABT was not a party to the proceeding. After the court hearing, Mr. Valdes, together with his attorney, Charles Kelly, and DABT's counsel, Mr. Purnell, met outside the chambers and discussed their next step. Mr. Kelly discussed seeking a mandamus ordering DABT to issue the license. Mr. Purnell suggested, instead, that Mr. Valdes find a location and purchaser for the license, then submit an application to DABT -- something which Mr. Valdes had not yet done. Although Mr. Purnell did not assure them that the application would be approved, both Mr. Valdes and Mr. Barone gained an impression that it would be. 2/ Mr. Valdes, following Mr. Purnell's suggestion, found a location and buyer, then applied for a transfer of the license. DABT's denial resulted in this proceeding. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) Under Section 561.65(1), Florida Statutes (1977), a lender licensed by the state holding a lien on an alcoholic beverage license had the right to enforcement of his lien against the license within 12 days after any order of revocation, provided it was revoked for causes which the lienholder had no knowledge and did not participate. If the lienholder purchased the license at foreclosure sale, he could operate under it or transfer it to a qualified person. Until August 17, 1980, it was DABT's long-standing practice and policy to make no distinction between licensed and unlicensed lenders (lien-holders). It allowed both licensed and unlicensed lienholders to file notice of liens against beverage licenses and honored the subsequent transfer of the license if the lien was enforced within 12 days of revocation. This practice was abruptly changed on the basis of an agency legal opinion. On August 17, 1980, one month before Gui-Dom filed its application, DABT's General Counsel rendered a legal opinion limiting Section 561.65 relief to lenders licensed by the state. After that date, until 1981, when the legislature removed the "licensed lender" language of Section 561.65, DABT applied Section 561.65 literally and only accepted liens filed by licensed lenders. (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13) But in October, 1980, DABT did not deny Gui-Dom's application for transfer of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license because Armando Calo, the lienholder, lacked a lender's license. Instead, the application was denied because the license had been earlier revoked. As later explained by Barry Schoenfeld, DABT's Chief of Licensing: 2 [DABT] felt at the time that . . . there really was no license, that the license had already been revoked, and that there was no license for the court to sell [to Valdes]. (P-13, p. 25). But Section 561.65 specifically permits liens, under specified conditions, to survive license revocation. When asked to explain DABT's position in light of Section 561.65, Mr. Schoenfeld replied, "I don't know that I can explain it." (P-13, p. 16) Neither could Mr. Schoenfeld adequately explain why, in cases similar to this, DABT has approved license transfers while, here, they have not. (P-13, p. 23) It was not until after the denial of Gui-Dom's application that DABT contended that Section 561.65, Florida Statutes (1977), provides no relief because Armando Calo was not a licensed lender. (P- 9, P-13). Rene Valdes, a beverage license broker, operates a business known as "Beverage License, Inc." He specializes in obtaining and transferring alcoholic beverage licenses for clients and has a working knowledge of the Beverage Law, including DABT rules and practice. When he purchased the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license at the judicial sale, he did not know that it had been revoked by DABT. He did, however, know that there was license revocation litigation between Intimo Lounge, Inc. and DABT. He also knew that DABT had issued an emergency order suspending Intimo Lounge, Inc.'s license; and he knew that there were circuit court foreclosure proceedings involving the license. Yet he failed to ascertain the status of the license -- either by checking the files of DABT or the circuit court. But even if he had discovered that the license had been revoked, under DABT's long-standing practice and interpretation of Section 561.65, it would have made no difference. The license would have "survived" revocation because Armando Calo had timely enforced his lien. And it could have been sold at a judicial sale and transferred to a new qualified purchaser. (Testimony of Valdes, Harris; P-13) DABT has provided no record foundation for its abrupt discontinuance of prior agency practice and policy in August, 1980, a policy which allowed both licensed and unlicensed lien holders to file and timely enforce liens against beverage licenses. This policy enabled a lien to survive license revocation; and the license, which had been revoked earlier could then be transferred by judicial sale. The only explanation given for the change in policy, a change which DABT now relies on as cause for denying Gui-Dom's application, is that the agency changed its legal interpretation of Section 561.65 (1977). (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Gui-Dom's application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 23-1901, series 4-COP, be granted. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 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 3rd day of February, 1983.
