Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding consists of approximately 66 lots (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"), located in Highridge Estates Subdivision (hereinafter referred to as "Highridge"). Each lot is approximately one-third acre in size. Highridge and the Subject Property are located in Clay County, Florida. Highridge was filed in the public records of Clay County, Florida, as a platted subdivision in January of 1970. At the time Highridge was platted, each lot met the zoning requirements applicable to Highridge. Pursuant to then-existing zoning, each Highridge lot could be developed as a single-family residence by construction or the placement of a mobile home thereon. Adoption of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan. Clay County adopted the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), on January 23, 1992, as required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). At the time of the adoption of the Plan, the Plan contained policies which would have permitted lots such as those in Highridge that had not yet been developed to be developed as a single-family residence by the placement of a mobile home thereon. As required by the Act, the Plan was submitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), for review and determination of whether the Plan was "in compliance" as defined by the Act. During the time that the Plan was being considered it was publicly known that the policies which would allow the placement of mobile homes on each of the lots in Highridge might not be accepted by the Department. Petitioner's Acquisition of the Subject Property. During the early 1990's William Bitetti began looking for real estate to invest in. Mr. Bitetti, through the services of Century 21 Lakeside Realty, became aware of the availability of lots in Highridge as a possible investment. Mr. Bitetti was assured by Century 21 Lakeside Realty's realtor that Highridge could be developed by the placement of a single mobile home on each lot. On or about March 25, 1992 Mr. Bitetti entered into a Contract for Sale and Purchase of 56 lots in Highridge. The following condition was included in the Contract for Sale and Purchase: this contract is only conditioned upon Buyer being able to place a Doublewide Mobile Home with attendant well, septic tank and system and electric service on each Lot, to be deter- mined by Buyer's attorney within 2 (two) weeks of the effective date of this contract. Mr. Bitetti intended that the lots would be purchased by the Petitioner, St. William Land Company, Inc. Mr. Bitetti is the sole shareholder and the President of Petitioner. Mr. Bitetti intended that the lots would be marketed for sale as single-family mobile home sites. Mr. Bitetti's attorney, Paul D. Newell, had experience with Highridge, having owned lots within Highridge himself. Mr. Newell was also aware of the language of the Plan that would allow development of the lots in Highridge. Mr. Newell had attempted to keep himself informed as to the progress of the Plan. Mr. Newell spoke to an official of the Clay County Planning and Zoning Department to confirm the language that would allow development of the lots in Highridge was included in the Plan and was told that it was. Mr. Newell also confirmed that regulations in existence at the time would allow Mr. Bitetti to market the lots as intended. The evidence failed to prove that any official of Clay County gave Mr. Newell assurances that the Plan would be approved by the Department as written. Mr. Newell was aware that the Plan had been submitted to the Department for review and had not yet been approved by the Department. Mr. Newell was also aware that it was possible that the Department would not accept the portion of the Plan that allowed continued development of developments like Highridge. On May 21, 1992 the Petitioner purchased the 56 lots in Highridge. Two of the 56 lots were subsequently sold by Petitioner. On or about October 12, 1992, Petitioner purchased an additional 12 lots in Highridge. The 12 lots purchased on October 12, 1992 and 54 of the lots purchased on May 21, 1992 constitute the Subject Property. At the time of purchase, the Subject Property lots could be sold for the installation of a mobile home on each lot pursuant to the law then in effect. The Plan was, however, still being reviewed by the Department. The Subject Property lots have direct access to a publicly owned and maintained right-of-way or to a privately owned platted right-of-way. Alleged Government Action Relied Upon by the Petitioner. On or about July 5, 1992, after acquiring the first 56 lots, Petitioner was issued a permit by the Clay County Building Department authorizing Petitioner to place a mobile home sales model on one of the lots. The evidence failed to prove that Clay County made any representation to Petitioner or Mr. Bitetti, or their representatives, that the policies of the Plan which would allow each lot of the Subject Property to be developed as individual sites for mobile homes would be approved by the Department or that, if it was, the law would not subsequently be changed. Nor did the evidence prove that Clay County represented in anyway that the Subject Property could be developed as Petitioner intended. Petitioner's Alleged Detrimental Reliance. Petitioner purchased the Subject Property for approximately $49,048.18, including closing costs. Two of the 68 lots purchased by Petitioner were subsequently sold. Petitioner realized a profit of approximately $2,582.31 on the sale of these lots. During 1992 Petitioner paid $29,515.37 to purchase and locate a mobile home as a model on one of the lots, to furnish the mobile home, and for landscaping, utilities, and the installation of a well, septic tank and power pole associated with the lot the mobile home was placed on. Petitioner also incurred the following expenses: $1,452.29 for postage associated with attempting to sell lots; $250.00 for charitable donations; $167.66 in bank account service fees; $2,957.85 for hazard and liability insurance; $36.50 in "miscellaneous" expenses; $2,355.72 for ad valorem taxes; and $510.00 in legal fees. Similar expenses were also incurred in 1993. The evidence failed to prove that Petitioner incurred any expenses or obligations for the development of the Subject Property. Rights That Allegedly Will Be Destroyed. Subsequent to Petitioner's acquisition of the Subject Property, the issuance of the permit to place a mobile home sales model on one of the lots and the acquisition of the mobile home and placement of the mobile home on one lot, the Plan was determined to not be in compliance with the Act. In particular, it was determined that the policies of the Plan which would have permitted lots such as those in Highridge that had not yet been developed to be developed by the placement of a mobile home on each lot caused the Plan to be "not in compliance". Clay County subsequently amended the Plan to eliminate the policies that would have permitted lots such as those in Highridge that had not yet been developed to be developed by the placement of a mobile home on each lot. The Plan was determined to be in compliance on April 27, 1993. As a result of the elimination of the policies pertinent to this matter, Clay County was required to modify the zoning for the Subject Property. The Subject Property was zoned for use for the smallest lot size allowed pursuant to the Plan: one-half acre. As a result of the foregoing, most of the Subject Property lots are too small to be developed individually. Pursuant to the Plan, lots that stand alone may be developed by the placement of a single mobile home thereon. Two of the 66 lots stand alone and, therefore, may be developed by the placement of a single mobile home thereon. The remaining 64 lots of the Subject Property are located in contiguous groups and, pursuant to the Plan, must be combined into one-half acre lots or larger. As a result, the Petitioner will lose the ability to sell some number of his lots for the placement of a single mobile home thereon. The evidence failed to prove what the actual economic impact will be to Petitioner if it cannot sell each lot for use as a single mobile home lot. Petitioner was notified by a letter dated August 24, 1993 and a letter to its real estate broker dated January 24, 1994 and a letter to Mr. Bitetti dated February 2, 1994, of the restrictions on the use of the Subject Property. The letters were all from Clay County personnel.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioners based on race regarding the renting of a house.
Findings Of Fact LM Rentals owns 80 houses, which it rents. Mr. Peeples manages LM Rentals. LM Rentals contracts with Vantage to provide management of the rental properties, and Ms. Mossow is employed by Vantage. LM Rentals rented a house to the Odoms for approximately eight years, beginning in 2003. Mrs. Odom is a Native American. Mr. Odom is White and is not a Native American. No evidence was presented to establish that either anyone from LM Rentals or Ms. Mossow was aware that Mrs. Odom is a Native American. Mrs. Odom's physical appearance, her speech, and her surname could reasonably lead one to think that she is not a Native American. Her appearance would lead one to believe that she is White. The application which the Odoms filled out to rent the house did not require the Odoms to state their race. Mrs. Odom never informed employees of LM Rentals or Ms. Mossow that she is a Native American. Mrs. Odom claims that her children have darker skin than she, and, therefore, Ms. Mossow and employees of LM Rentals should have known that she is a Native American by looking at her children. However, no testimony was presented that Ms. Mossow or anyone from LM Rentals ever met Mrs. Odom's children prior to the filing of the discrimination complaint. Ms. Mossow did not meet any of Mrs. Odom's children until a short time before the final hearing when she delivered copies of exhibits to the Odoms' home. Mr. Peeples, the representative of LM Rentals, did not meet the Odoms' children and never met the Odoms until a few days before the final hearing. The house which the Odoms rented from LM Rentals developed a mold problem. Instead of bringing the mold problem to the attention of Ms. Mossow or anyone at LM Rentals, the Odoms contacted the Polk County Health Department (Health Department), which sent an environmental specialist to investigate the mold situation in January 2010. LM Rentals received a letter from the Health Department concerning the mold. LM Rentals hired a third-party testing company to test the house for mold. The coils on the air conditioner were replaced. The Odoms were not satisfied and requested that Ms. Mossow find them another rental house in the same school district in which they currently resided. LM Rentals has an average vacancy rate of five percent, which equates to about four houses at any given time. At the time that the Odoms requested to be relocated, there was only one house vacant in the school district which the Odoms wanted. The Odoms did not like the house and refused to relocate. Mrs. Odom claims that there were other houses available, but could not point to any specific house. Her claim is based on sheer speculation. The Odoms requested that the carpet be replaced, but, based on the tests of the third-party testing company, LM Rentals refused to do so. About the time they were having the mold problems, the Odoms' daughter was suspended from school. Mrs. Odom attributes the suspension to discrimination by Respondents. Mrs. Odom called, as a witness, the teacher who made the referral which resulted in Mrs. Odom's daughter being suspended. The teacher did not know Ms. Mossow and did not know Mr. Peeples. The teacher, who is also an attorney, was not sure if she had ever represented LM Rentals in the past as an attorney. The suspension was totally unrelated to any mold problems and any alleged discrimination. Mrs. Odom also claims that her son was arrested for disorderly conduct about the time of the mold problem, and she lays the arrest at the door of Respondents. Her rationale for her claim is that the arrest happened at the time they were dealing with the mold issues and that LM Rentals knew people. There is not a scintilla of evidence to connect the arrest of the Odoms' son to any actions by Respondents. In April 2010, during the period in which the mold was an issue, a code enforcement inspector saw a small grill on the Odoms' driveway, which was apparently a code violation. The inspector told the Odoms that the grill needed to be removed. LM Rentals received a letter from the code enforcement department stating that LM Rentals would be fined if the violation was not corrected. Ms. Mossow contacted the Odoms in an attempt to get the grill removed in order to avoid being fined. Mrs. Odom claims that Ms. Mossow and LM Rentals caused the code enforcement inspector to come to the Odoms' home and ask that the grill be removed. Mrs. Odom's claim is without merit. It is unlikely that Ms. Mossow or LM Rentals would request a code enforcement inspector to find a code violation which would result in LM Rentals, as owner of the property, being fined. No evidence was presented to show that Respondents treated non-minorities any differently than the Odoms were treated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Lawrence and Candace Odom's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND 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 6th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Has Respondent's connection permit number C-16-095-93 (permit) expired under Section 335.185, Florida Statutes? Has Respondent timely complied with the requirements and conditions of the permit? If not, does Respondent's noncompliance cause safety or operational problems on State Road 555 (SR 555) which would require closing Respondent's connection to SR 555?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department was the state agency responsible for regulating vehicular access and connections to or from the State Highway System in accordance with Sections 335.18-335.188, Florida Statutes, known as the State Highway System Access Management Act. Respondent owns the property in issue which is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of SR 555 and SR 655 in Polk County, Florida. As a cure for the problem created by the eminent domain proceeding in FDOT v. Shaffer concerning the preexisting connections to SR 555 and SR 655, the Department agreed to provide connections to SR 555 and SR 655 for the property involved in the instant case. By letter dated September 27, 1993, the Department agreed to honor this agreement even though it was not included in the final order in FDOT v. Shaffer. In its letter, the Department agrees to issue a permit and construct the connections "on the condition that the remaining lands are reconstructed as shown in the attachment." The letter informs Respondent that the attachment was prepared by Reggie Mesimer for the Department and that "it appears that the settlement was based on that cure." The letter also informs Respondent that the "permit will contain limiting language to make clear that the permit has not been reviewed for compliance with DOT standards and that it is issued for replacement of preexisting access." Attached to the letter was a site plan showing: (a) the parking layout for the site which included two parallel parking spaces in front of the building, six perpendicular south to north parking spaces on the south end of the building and eight perpendicular north to south parking spaces on the south side of the south parking area; (b) a connection to SR 655 on the north side of the building; (c) a connection to SR 555 at the front of the building; and (d) a connection to First Avenue, a side street, on the south side of the building. The site plan shows a driveway commencing at the connection to SR 655 and continuing on in front of the building to First Avenue on the south side of the building. The site plan does not show any signings or pavement markings to indicate traffic flow in and out of the site. Sometime around June 1993, the agreement in FDOT v. Shaffer notwithstanding, the Department attempted to close the preexisting connections to SR 555 and SR 655. As a result, Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing and Department of Transportation vs First Mortgage Corporation, DOAH Case No. 93-9037 was filed with the Division. This case was later rendered moot by the issuance of the permit for the connections to SR 555 and SR 655 and the Department's agreement to construct the connections to SR 555 and SR 655. By letter dated December 15, 1993, with an addendum dated December 16, 1993, the Respondent agreed "to designating two parallel parking spaces in front of the building and have the striping done immediately." In return, the Department would "agree to have the driveway installed as shown on the drawing originally submitted." In the addendum, Respondent states that the two designated parallel parking spaces in front of the building were being striped on December 16, 1993, and that the Respondent was removing the chain link fence on the south side of the building to provide additional parking. The addendum also states that the Respondent will resurface the entire area of the drive and parking areas after the Department finishes the road construction. Additionally, the Respondent agreed to substantially comply with the driveway and parking area as shown on an attachment. The attachment was a copy of site plan referred to above in Finding of Fact 3. Respondent's Connection Application, number C-16-095-93, was approved by the Department on December 20, 1993, and the permit was issued. The application "requests permission for the construction of a connection(s) on Department of Transportation right-of-way. . . " The connections are described as: "REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING CONNECTION: ONE 24 FT INGRESS ON SR 655, ONE 30 FT INGRESS & EGRESS ON US 17 (SR 555) FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE AND RESTAURANT." Although the permit provides blank spaces where the mandatory beginning and completion of construction dates are to be filled in, these spaces were left blank on the permit. Likewise, there is no expiration date shown on the permit. A site plan was attached to the permit. The site plan is a copy of the site plan attached to the Department's September 27, 1993, letter referred to above with signings and pavement markings added to indicate the traffic flow in and out of the site. General Provision one of the permit provides: The permittee agrees and obligates himself to perform at his own expense the relocations, closure, alteration of the permitted connection, should the Department determine that the traffic patterns, points of connection, roadway geometrics or traffic control devices are causing an undue disruption of traffic or creating safety hazards at the exiting connections. Special Provisions one through five provide: This permit application has not been reviewed for compliance with DOT standards and is issued for replacement of preexisting access by the Florida Department of Transportation. The permit is subject to the limitations in Chapter 335, Florida Statutes, to the same extent as the preexisting access. The permittee shall place signing and pavement marking, as indicated on the attached site plan, so that the connection on SR 655 is operated as ingress only. Parking layout and traffic flow will be constructed and maintained in substantially the same manner as indicated in the attached site plan. The permittee acknowledges that the attached site plan was the cure in the settle- ment in DOT vs. EDWARD M. SHAFFER, case number GC-G-91-786, Parcel 105. The permittee acknowledges that with the issuance of this permit and the Florida Depart- ment of Transportation's agreement to construct the two connections referenced in this permit, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. FIRST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, case number 93-3037 has been rendered moot. Further- more, the permittee agrees to make the appropriate filing with the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. (Emphasis supplied). The permit application was signed by Dennis G. Davis as president of First Mortgage Corporation. Dennis G. Davis also signed accepting the Special Provisions attached to the permit. As to signings and pavement markings the site plan shows: a designated driveway beginning at the SR 655 connection (north end of property) and proceeding around the front of the building (east side) to the south end of the building and commencing on to the First Avenue connection; large arrows within the designated driveway indicating ingress only from SR 655 and one-way traffic around the front of the building to a point on the south end of the building where stop signs are to be located; stop signs on each side of the one-way driveway where the one-way driveway intersects a designated two-way driveway; to the south of the stop signs, arrows indicating that the one-way traffic is to move into the south side parking lot or move into the south-bound lane of the two-way driveway that exits onto First Avenue; arrows indicating that incoming traffic from First Avenue is to move into the south side parking lot only; a No Right Turn sign on the east side of the one-way driveway just south of the stop signs where the one-way driveway intersects the two-way driveway; a No Left Turn sign on the southwest side of the south side parking lot where the south side parking lot intersects the outgoing lane of the two-way driveway that exits onto First Avenue; a stop sign just south of the southeast corner of the south side parking lot to the west of the outgoing lane of the two-way driveway just before First Avenue; and a No Exit sign on each side of the one-way driveway facing the opposite direction of the traffic flow in the one-way driveway at the northeast corner of the building. As to the parking layout, the site plan shows: two parallel parking spaces running north to south in front of the building along the west side of the one-way driveway; six perpendicular parking spaces running south to north abutting the south side of the building, and eight perpendicular parking spaces running north to south abutting the south side of the property west of the two-way driveway. The Department constructed the connection on SR 655 for ingress to the property from SR 655 and the connection on SR 555 for ingress to the property from SR 555 and egress to SR 555 from the property sometime in June 1993, which was before the expiration of one year after the date of issuance of the permit. Respondent started to comply with the signings and pavement markings of the site plan attached to the permit as early as December 16, 1993. Respondent has complied with the signings and pavement markings for traffic flow and parallel parking as shown on the site plan attached to the permit beginning at the connection to SR 655 and up to and including the two stop signs at the south end of the one-way driveway where it intersects the two-way driveway. The Respondent has maintained these signs and pavement markings during the construction on SR 555 by restriping the pavement and replacing signs that were torn down. However, due to the wear on the striping caused by construction traffic the pavement markings for the parallel spaces and traffic flow are dim and need painting. Due to a misunderstanding as to the Department's jurisdiction over First Avenue, Respondent has not completed the signings and pavement markings from the stop signs where the one-way driveway intersects the two-way driveway over to First Avenue or over to the parking lot. The Respondent has not completed the striping for the south to north perpendicular parking spaces abutting the south end of the building where there is pavement which would allow such striping. A segment of a chain link fence abuts the south end of the building preventing any further perpendicular parking abutting the south end of the building without going inside to the grassed area (green area) enclosed by the chain link fence. However, instead of parking perpendicular to the south end of the building, customers are parking east to west, perpendicular to the existing chain link fence. At the time the permit was issued, a chain link fence surrounded the green area on the south end of the property. Respondent removed the middle section of the chain link fence on the east side of the green area to provide additional parking inside the green area. Respondent has not placed signs or pavement markings around or at the entrance to the green area so that customers are made aware that the green area is available for parking. However, some customers are using the green area for parking. Although the parking layout of the site plan includes delineated parking spaces in the green area, nothing in the permit, including the site plan, specifically requires the green area to be paved. Although Respondent has indicated a willingness to stripe the designated parking spaces in the green area as shown on the site plan, striping the green area is neither feasible nor is it required under the permit. While all of the parking spaces have not been delineated by striping, there was no evidence that there were insufficient parking spaces on the site or that the lack of designated parking spaces was creating any safety or operational problem on SR 555. Although the site plan does not indicate by signings or pavement markings that the connection to SR 555 is an ingress and egress connection, the permit specifically provides for ingress and egress at the SR 555 connection and nothing on the site plan prohibits such access. On occasions customers park perpendicular to the front of the building ignoring the delineated parallel parking spaces in front of the building. Respondent has agreed to place a solid concrete curb along the building side (west side) of the parallel parking spaces and remove the yellow concrete stop blocks now in place that may be unintentionally inviting customers to park perpendicular to the building. The Department's expert, Michael Tako, testified that perpendicular parking in front of the building could result in vehicles on SR 555 having to slow down for vehicles that are backing out of those perpendicular parking spaces onto SR 555, creating a hazard on SR 555 known as stacking. However, there was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that stacking actually occurred or that there was any safety or operational problem being created on SR 555 by customers parking perpendicular to front of the building rather than parking in the two parallel parking spaces in front of the building. There was no engineering study presented that had been conducted subsequent to the issuance of the permit substantiating any safety or operational problem on SR 555 resulting from the failure of the Respondent to comply with signings and pavement markings of the site plan or any of the special provisions of the permit or from customers parking perpendicular to the building rather than in the parallel parking spaces. Construction on SR 555 had not been completed as of the date of the hearing. However, Respondent agreed that construction was at the stage where the driveway and parking area could now be resurfaced and restriped without substantial damage to the striping, pavement markings and signings due to construction activity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order requiring the Respondent to: comply with the placement of signs as shown on the site plan attached to the permit including those signs required for the First Avenue connection; (b) comply with the pavement markings for traffic flow as shown on the site plan attached to the permit, including those necessary for the First Avenue connection and direction for entrance to the green area; (c) pave any surface necessary to comply with the pavement markings provided for in (b) above, including that necessary for the First Avenue connection and to allow necessary pavement markings for traffic flow into the green area but not to include the green area; (d) restripe the parallel parking spaces in front of the building and place a solid curb on the immediate west side of the parallel parking to replace the curb stops now in place; (e) stripe the perpendicular parking spaces that abut the south end of the building where pavement presently exists; (f) place the necessary signs at the entrance to the green area so that customers will be aware of the additional parking inside the fenced green area and; (g) remove whatever portion of the chain link fence is necessary to allow reasonable entrance to and exit from the green area. It is further recommended that Respondent be allowed sufficient time to complete the above, not to exceed 60 days unless the Respondent wishes to resurface the entire driveway area including the First Avenue connection and any parking area that is presently paved. In that event, it is recommended that Respondent be allowed 90 days. It is further recommended that Respondent not be required to pave any area that is to be used for parking including the green area and that adjacent to the green area that does not already have existing pavement. RECOMMENDED this day 12th of October, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0673 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1-7, 10-13, 16-18, 20, and 21 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 21 of the Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8 and 9 are covered in the Preliminary Statement. Proposed findings of fact 14, 22 and 24 are rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Proposed findings of fact 19 and 23 are rejected as being argument rather than findings of fact. Proposed finding of fact 15 goes to the weight to be given to Tako's testimony and is not a finding of fact per se. The Respondent Proposed Findings of Fact. The first two sentences of Respondent's introductory paragraph under "Findings Of Fact" are covered in the Preliminary Statement. The balance of the introductory paragraph and unnumbered paragraphs 2 - 6 are presented as restatements of Tako's and Davis' testimony and not as findings of fact. However, this testimony has been adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 - 21 of the Recommended Order and where it has not been so adopted it is rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Francine M. Fflokes, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Stephen W. Moran, Esquire Moran & Tileston 1738 East Edgewood Drive Lakeland, Florida 33803
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Petitioner) proved that Derek Welling (Respondent) is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and whether Petitioner proved that Respondent is guilty of failing to account and deliver funds in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes; and if so, what is the appropriate discipline?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed realtor and has been at all times material hereto, having been issued license number 0582890 under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. In 1989, Respondent founded UK Realty, a real estate brokerage firm, with his son-in-law, Russell Christner. From 1989 thru the summer of 1996, Respondent primarily served as UK Realty's international sales representative while Mr. Christner served as its qualified broker. Respondent traveled to various trade shows primarily in Europe and encouraged customers to purchase rental properties in the central Florida area. In 1991, Respondent and Mr. Christner formed a short- term rental property management company known as Connoisseur Homes, Inc. (Connoisseur) to manage the rental properties of UK Realty's domestic and international clients. In 1993, Respondent and Christner sold a one-third interest in Connoisseur to Mr. Graham Greene, who immediately became president of Connoisseur and served as its day-to-day operations manager. Although Respondent maintained a one-third ownership in Connoisseur, he remained the company's international sales associate. Respondent was generally not involved in the day-to-day management and operations of Connoisseur and had little personal knowledge of the factual circumstances surrounding the client complaints that form the basis of Petitioner's allegations. Each of the allegations levied against Respondent in Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint involves complaints filed by property owners relating to contract services with Connoisseur. There is no evidence in the record that any of the property owners was dissatisfied with the services of Respondent or Connoisseur prior to the summer/fall of 1996. Hart Property In 1994, Michael Hart, a resident of England, engaged the services of UK Realty and purchased a rental home property in Davenport, Florida. Mr. Hart was referred to Mr. Richard Wilkes, a representative of Connoisseur, to manage his property. On May 17, 1995, Mr. Hart contracted with Connoisseur to provide rental management services. Mr. Hart placed an initial deposit with Connoisseur to purchase various items and maintained a $1000 balance in an escrow account to pay the annual taxes and monthly expenses associated with the management of the property. Pursuant to his contract with Connoisseur, Mr. Hart received periodic statements from Connoisseur detailing all moneys collected from tenants, escrow balances, and any other activity in his account. According to the statements Mr. Hart received, Connoisseur booked nine persons to stay in his property between October of 1996 and January of 1997. While Connoisseur received approximately $9,844.60 for these rentals, Mr. Hart received none of the rental proceeds. On or about January 3, 1997, Mr. Hart received notice from the Polk County tax collector indicating that the "tourist development tax" associated with his property was delinquent for the months of September, October, and November of 1996. In addition, the letter indicated that Connoisseur made a payment to Polk County for September 1996 that was returned for insufficient funds. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hart was advised that the cable and electricity to the property had been disconnected for non-payment. Glass Property In May 1993, Mr. Colin Glass purchased a rental home in Davenport, Florida, and contracted with Connoisseur to manage the property. Pursuant to the contract, Connoisseur agreed to advertise and list the property, manage the reservations and timely pay the rental property's expenses. Mr. Glass agreed to receive $500.00 for each week that the property was rented minus a cleaning fee. Pursuant to the contract, Mr. Glass placed a $1000 deposit with Connoisseur to pay the initial maintenance costs associated with the property. Thereafter, Mr. Glass received periodic statements from Connoisseur detailing the funds received, occupancy, and expenses paid to manage his property. The statement for the month ending November 30, 1996, indicates that Connoisseur collected $5,290.00 in rental proceeds from tenants who rented the property between August of 1996 and January of 1997 and paid $110 for cleaning services on November 8 and 21, 1996. In November, 1996, Mr. Glass requested a detailed accounting from Connoisseur regarding his property. On December 6, 1996, Mr. Glass received a written letter on Connoisseur stationary, signed by Kelleen Newman, a Connoisseur employee responsible for preparing accounting statements during the relevant period. The letter advised Mr. Glass that Connoisseur owed Mr. Glass approximately $1,750.00 for payments received pursuant to bookings under the names Beaumont and Tullet. To date, Mr. Glass has not received the rental proceeds. In addition, Connoisseur failed to pay the property tax bill associated with the Glass property as required by the management contract, and it became delinquent. Hamlyn Property On September 22, 1993, John Hamlyn purchased a home in Davenport, Florida. Five months later, on February 22, 1994, Mr. Hamlyn hired Connoisseur to manage his rental property. Pursuant to the contract, Connoisseur agreed to advertise and rent the property, manage the collections, and pay the operational expenses. Mr. Hamlyn placed a $500.00 deposit with Connoisseur to perform the contract and was required to maintain that balance in the account. In November of 1995, Respondent and Connoisseur increased the required escrow balance to $1000.00. In January of 1997, immediately following the demise of Connoisseur, Mr. Hamlyn maintained an escrow account with Connoisseur. Mr. Hamlyn did not receive an accounting of the escrowed funds or a refund of the balance. The evidence is undisputed that Mr. Hart, Mr. Glass, and Mr. Hamlyn each delivered funds in trust to Connoisseur which were not accounted for or returned. The evidence is undisputed that Connoisseur, in 1996, received rental proceeds as agents on behalf of Mr. Hart and Mr. Glass, which were not remitted to the owners. The evidence is undisputed that Connoisseur, in 1996, failed to pay certain utility bills and tax bills as required in its contracts with Mr. Hart and Mr. Glass. Connoisseur's Collapse Connoisseur's operational and financial failure surfaced on September 13, 1996, when Mr. Green, the company's co-owner and day-to-day operations manager, without notice, resigned as President of Connoisseur and formed a competing property management company. To make matters worse, within days, Mr. Green hired key staff away from Connoisseur including Richard Stanton, Connoisseur's office manager, accountant and licensed real estate broker, as well as Dyer Scott, the company's book-keeper. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Green's new company was operational and selectively securing new management agreements with Connoisseur's client list. In response, Respondent immediately evaluated Connoisseur's financial and operational status and attempted to manage its problems. Respondent advised all of Connoisseur's homeowners of the company's status, including the departure of the key operational owner and employees, but tried to assure them that the company was headed in the right direction. In fact, in a news update dated October 15, 1996, Respondent advised all of the clients, including Mr. Hart, Mr. Glass, and Mr. Hamlyn of the following: Upon investigation we were appalled to find that most of our homeowners are waiting on payments and upon further investigation we found that in many cases payment had never been collected from the tour operator. This situation is being corrected immediately and manual invoices are being prepared for collection . . . I'm happy to say that approximately $200,000 in back bookings will be properly allocated to our homeowners this month. Connoisseur did not recover. Within two months, 150 of Connoisseur's 270 homeowners cancelled their management contract with Connoisseur and on January 1, 1997, Respondent sold his interest in Connoisseur to Richard Wilkes and received a total of $15,000.00. Respondent experienced complete financial loss as a result of the demise of Connoisseur. His home was foreclosed and his vehicle was repossessed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this matter be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 3rd day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Victor L. Chapman, Esquire Barrett, Chapman & Ruta, P.A. 18 Wall Street Post Office Box 3826 Orlando, Florida 32802-3826 Christopher J. DeCosta, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Hurston Building, North Tower 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N809 Orlando, Florida 32801 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy P. Campiglia, Acting Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner has standing to bring this action; and if so, (2) whether Respondent properly denied his application for a driveway/connection permit.
Findings Of Fact On February 24, 1998, Petitioner submitted a Driveway/Connection Application, Number 98A3940018 to Respondent. Petitioner's application sought a permit to construct a driveway/connection to a proposed retail sales office project for Lot 13, Block 396, Avolon Beach Subdivision, in Santa Rosa County, Florida. The site of the proposed project is located at 2996 Avolon Boulevard (State Road 281), between the I-10 exit ramp and San Pablo Street. STANDING Petitioner entered his name on the application as owner of the subject property. Petitioner signed the application as owner with title to the property. He signed the application certifying that he was familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the best of the applicant's knowledge and belief, the information contained therein was true and correct. Petitioner did not fill out a section of the application entitled, "Are You An Authorized Representative?" Respondent relied on Petitioner's certification that he was the owner of the property and processed his application. During the hearing, Petitioner initially testified that he bought the subject property in February of 1998. There was no driveway connection from Lot 13 to Avolon Boulevard in February of 1998. Petitioner did not have a copy of the deed to the subject property with him at the hearing. He admitted on the record that a deed indicating his ownership interest was not filed with the public records in Santa Rosa County. He also admitted that no such deed existed. Petitioner claims that the land was under contract but "had not gone to closing yet." Petitioner did not have a copy of the contract to offer as an exhibit at the hearing. Respondent produced copies of two deeds for the subject property at the hearing. The most recent of these deeds was recorded on July 14, 1997. It indicates that the property is owned by the George H. Moss Trust, George H. Moss, Trustee. Petitioner's post-hearing exhibit consisted of two documents. The first is a Memorandum Agreement dated February 2, 1998. The memorandum indicates that Tim Oden, Agent for 3/0 Partners, LLC, paid $500 in earnest money as a deposit for the purchase of the subject property belonging to George Moss, with the closing to take place on or before April 15, 1998, contingent on specified terms of purchase. One of the terms of purchase requires proof of legal access to San Mateo Avenue which is the subject of this proceeding and has not been fulfilled. Additionally, Petitioner did not present evidence that any of the other conditions of the contract have been fulfilled. The Memorandum Agreement is signed by Tim Oden, Agent for 3/0 Partners, LLC, as buyer and George H. Moss as seller. The second document included in Petitioner's post- hearing exhibit is a copy of a cancelled check in the amount of $500 payable to George Moss for the subject property and signed by Tim Oden. Mr. Moss endorsed the check for deposit. Petitioner's name does not appear anywhere on the Memorandum Agreement. There is no direct evidence showing Petitioner's relationship to Tim Oden or 3/0 Partners, LLC. He has not demonstrated that he has an ownership interest in the property. PERMIT APPLICATION In a Notice to Deny Permit dated March 23, 1998, Respondent advised Petitioner that his application was denied. Respondent's notice gave the following reasons for denying the application: The Limited Access Right of Way and fence were not shown on the plans. A field review found this proposed connection within the Limited Access Right of Way. This section of State Road 281 is a Limited Access Facility, in conjunction with I-10. Access to the property can not be permitted through the Limited Access Fence or across the Limited Access Right of Way. Access rights were acquired for the construction of I-10 and the interchanges. Access can not be permitted to the ramps or ramp tapers. On or about April 7, 1998, Petitioner provided Respondent with a revised Driveway Permit Drawing showing the Limited Access Right-of-Way and fence. Petitioner admitted in a telephone conversation with Respondent's permit engineer that a previous owner had been compensated for the loss of access to Avolon Boulevard when the I-10 interchange was constructed. The subject property did not have an existing driveway connection when the I-10 interchange was constructed. The Shell service station and the used car lot, which are located at the Avolon Boulevard interchange, had existing driveway connections before the interchange was constructed. Similarly, driveway sites near the intersection of Davis Highway, in Escambia County, and I-10, were in existence at the time the I-10 interchange ramps were constructed. These existing driveways were allowed to remain after construction of the ramps. New driveway connections would not be permitted at these locations. Permits will not be granted if these properties undergo a substantial change in use which requires a change in permitting. Petitioner's description of the location of the off ramp, ramp taper, and limited access area of Avolon Boulevard are erroneous. The proposed driveway for the subject property is located in the off ramp lane. Federal highway regulations require control of connections beyond the ramp terminal of an interchange for at least 100 feet in urban areas and 300 feet in rural areas. This control for connections to crossroads must be effected by purchase of access rights, providing frontage roads, controlling added corner right-of-way areas, or denying driveway permits. Petitioner's proposed driveway would be located within 300 feet from the end of the taper of the off ramp. Federal regulations prohibit the issuance of a new connection permit for a site within that area. Additionally, Petitioner's proposed driveway connection would cause a safety and operational problem on the state highway system due to its location in the off ramp of the I-10 interchange. There is no persuasive evidence that Santa Rosa County has abandoned the street which is adjacent to Lot 13 and the Shell station, 32nd Avenue. Petitioner did not establish that there is no legal access from Lot 13 to Avolon Boulevard other than by issuance of the subject permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's appeal for lack of standing and/or dismissing Petitioner's appeal on its merits. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Hugh Allen Oden 8612 Westview Lane Pensacola, Florida 32514 James C. Myers, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Continental Country Club is a residential subdivision consisting of several mobile home lots located in Wildwood, Florida. Each of the residents in the subdivision owns his or her mobile home and, although some residents lease their lots from Continental Country Club, Inc., the great majority of the residents own lots in the subdivision which were purchased from Respondent, or its predecessors, and upon which the residents' mobile homes are placed. This administrative action relates solely to the individuals owning lots in the subdivision. All of the property in the Continental Country Club subdivision is subject to an instrument entitled "Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictions," recorded on January 27, 1975, in the Public Records of Sumter County, Book 160, page 315 (Exhibit A). The only modification to the declaration referenced in paragraph 3 above is a document dated September 9, 1983, which applies only to certain lots and is entitled "Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictions" (Exhibit B). The Respondent, Continental Country Club, Inc., is the current developer of Continental Country Club and has succeeded to the rights of Continental Country Club Community, Inc., the previous developer of the subdivision. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent owned and operated a portion of the Continental Country Club subdivision, or amenities exclusively serving the subdivision, including a marina, streets, street lights, and drainage facilities. Exhibit C contains a true and correct graphical description of the Continental Country Club subdivision. Prior to March 1, 1985, each lot owner was required to pay a monthly maintenance charge of sixty-five dollars ($65.00) as provided in paragraph 3 of the Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictions (Exhibit A). On or about February 20, 1985, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictions, Respondent mailed a notice to the lot owners in the subdivision (Exhibit D), advising them that effective March 1, 1985, the monthly maintenance charge would be one hundred thirty-five dollars ($135.00). This was the first notice the lot owners received regarding the increase in maintenance fees. On or about July 8, 1985, Respondent sent the lot owners a letter regarding maintenance charges (Exhibit E). On or about July 12, 1985, Respondent, through its attorney, Chris Ford, mailed another letter to the lot owners (Exhibit F). The fact that the above-referenced July 8 and July 12 letters, regarding the notice of increase in maintenance charges, were mailed to each of the lot owners is not at issue in this case. Subsequent to mailing the above-referenced letters, Respondent has billed lot owners at Continental Country Club for maintenance charges at a monthly rate of one hundred thirty-five dollars ($135.00) effective June 1, 1985. Pursuant to the declaration of restrictions (Exhibit A), Respondent has sent notices of intent to file liens and has recorded liens against lots in the subdivision based upon the failure of the lot owners to timely pay the increased portion of maintenance fees charged after June 1, 1985. Rules and regulations for the Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictions are as contained in Exhibit G. All lot owners at closing were given a copy of the declaration of restrictions (effective December 16, 1974, Exhibit 3). Paragraph 3 thereof provides for owners to pay monthly maintenance charges which "shall be subject to adjustment at any time during the term hereof and shall be effective as far as each owner is concerned upon receipt of an invoice containing a new maintenance charge." These purchasers were also told that the covenants and restrictions outlining the duties and responsibilities of the developer and lot owners ran with the land and followed the property to subsequent purchasers. The warranty deed to the lot purchased conveyed these lots subject to "covenants, conditions, restrictions, rules and regulations of record, together with amendments thereto" (Exhibit 4.) Two lot owners testified in these proceedings that they did not recall receiving a copy of these covenants and restrictions at closing but both of them signed an acknowledgment that they had received a copy at closing (Exhibits 5 and 8).
The Issue Whether Respondent, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Respondent), discriminated against Petitioner, Wikindson Philippe (Petitioner) in the origination of Petitioner's mortgage loan on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, and, if so, what remedy is available.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Wikindson Philippe, is a black male of Haitian origin. He filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint against Respondent on November 5, 2008. At all times material to the allegations of the complaint, Respondent was a lender in partnership with KB Home, a construction entity developing a residential community described in the record as Blackstone. On May 20, 2007, Petitioner and his wife ventured forth to look at homes for purchase. They initially went to a KB Home development to inquire about homes but were told it was sold out. The proceeded to a nearby development, Blackstone, and met with a salesman who Petitioner described as "aggressive." The salesman showed Petitioner various lots and Petitioner and his wife were impressed by the community. In order to get "pre-qualified" for a loan to purchase a home, the KB Home salesman referred the couple to Lydia Lapotaire, a loan consultant who was located in Respondent's sales center. Mrs. Lapotaire was employed by Countrywide KB Home Loans, the preferred lender for KB Home residential properties. Working in tandem, KB Home the builder/developer and Countrywide KB Home Loans, the preferred lender, sought to accommodate Petitioner's interest in purchasing the Blackstone home. Both entities had a financial interest in securing Petitioner's business. Despite his concerns that he was being inappropriately pressured to purchase a home, Petitioner signed a contract to acquire a lot and single-family dwelling to be constructed on the lot. The purchase agreement recognized that the final purchase price could be stated in an addendum to the initial contract. Based upon the purchase agreement Petitioner planned to acquire a home with a total sales price of $302,490.00. At all times material to the negotiation of the purchase agreement, Petitioner had advised the salesman and Mrs. Lapotaire that he could not afford to pay more than $1,600.00 per month for a mortgage payment. Petitioner was not concerned regarding the amount of the loan so long as the total monthly payment did not exceed his cap. Because he relied on the representations of the salesman and the lender's consultant and wanted to have the home, Petitioner deposited $5,000.00 down on the purchase agreement. At all times material to the purchase, both Mrs. Lapotaire and the salesman assured Petitioner that the lender would work with him to allow him to acquire the home. Nevertheless, when Petitioner consulted a friend who had more experience in the purchase of homes, Petitioner became concerned that the home he desired could not be acquired for the amount he could pay. When Petitioner brought these concerns to the salesman's attention he was advised that he would lose his deposit if he attempted to cancel the contract. Petitioner believed that the only way he could recover his deposit money was to be denied for the loan. To that end, Petitioner and his wife selected upgrades from the base price of the home. In so doing, Petitioner was required to make additional deposits. In accordance with the time lines specified by the builder, Petitioner deposited a total of $20,000 toward the purchase price of the home. As evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit B (also admitted into the record as Respondent's Exhibit 7), Petitioner's loan application for the Blackstone home was not approved. The Notice of Action Taken specified several reasons Countrywide KB Home Loans was unable to approve the loan. Petitioner claimed he did not receive the notice; it was sent to an incorrect address. Instead of being addressed to apartment 772, it was addressed to apartment 72. In the meanwhile, the lender continued to seek financing for Petitioner's purchase. At that time, Respondent had an affiliated company called Full Spectrum Lending that worked as a subprime unit. By going that route it was presumed the buyer was still actively seeking to purchase the home and that various lending scenarios could be explored to determine whether Petitioner might qualify. It is undisputed that Petitioner did not qualify for a loan under the standard loan scenario. None of the lending procedures used by Respondent, Countrywide KB Home Loans, or Full Spectrum Lending required Petitioner to disclose his race or ethnic origin. In fact, Petitioner did not prove that any of the loan processors or underwriters knew Petitioner's race or ethnic origin. There is no evidence that Petitioner's race and ethnic origins were considered in the decision to approve or not approve the loan. The motivations of Respondent and KB Home were likely similar. As joint venture partners, they would have wanted Petitioner to be approved for a loan and to close on it. KB Home would not likely decline to sell to Petitioner nor want to refund his deposit. Respondent would not likely profit from not approving the loan. None of the business reasons for wanting the loan and sale to be consummated were based upon Petitioner's race or ethnic origin. In short, financial interests and not a desire to harm a person of Petitioner's race or ethnic origin were the key reasons for the seller and lender to work in concert to achieve the closing on Petitioner's home. After an extended amount of time, Petitioner did close on the home. He claimed that he was pressured into closing due to the fear that his deposit would be lost but he nevertheless signed all of the closing documents necessary to own and finance the home. It was undoubtedly too expensive for Petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to keep current on his mortgage obligation. Facing foreclosure, he now asserts that Respondent's actions were to take advantage of him based upon his race or ethnic origin. Respondent and KB Home may have unduly pressured Petitioner to purchase a home he could not afford, but there is no evidence they did so based upon his race or ethnic origin. Petitioner is an articulate person. Through out these proceedings he has stated his position on the issues of the case in a well-reasoned and cogent manner. He is understandably disenchanted with the financial results of his home purchase. He has, however, continued to enjoy the residence and his wife likes the home. Petitioner's purchase agreement provided, in pertinent part: 5.5 Failure to Obtain Commitment. Prior to the Loan Approval Deadline, if Buyer's loan application is denied or Buyer obtains an unsatisfactory loan approval (in Buyer's reasonable discretion) Buyer may cancel this Agreement with written notice to Seller and receive a refund of all Deposits. Based upon the Notice of Action Taken (dated July 13, 2007); Petitioner could have canceled the purchase agreement. He chose to close on the transaction. If Petitioner was not approved for a loan or if the terms of a loan were unreasonable, Petitioner did not have to accept the terms of the loan. Petitioner erroneously presumed he would not receive a refund of his deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint of discrimination filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 2nd day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert C. Graham, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt 50 North Laura Street, Suite 2500 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Wikindson Philippe 2413 Country Pond Court St. Cloud, Florida 34771-8868 COPY FURNISHED BY CERTIFIED MAIL Sylvia Bakrevski Country Wide Home Loans 5220 Las Virgenes Road Calabasas, California 91302 (Certification No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 2966)
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, the Respondent, Department of Transportation, was the state agency responsible for the monitoring and control of vehicular access to and traffic control on the state highways of this state. Petitioner, Pablo Sanchez, owns the property in issue. This property is a 24 x 40 foot house located on a 70 x 103.62 foot lot located at the corner of East 8th Avenue (LeJeune Road) and East 7th Street in Hialeah, Florida. LeJeune Road, depending upon the location, both has and does not have a restrictive median. At this location it does not. Mr. Sanchez currently and historically, over the 3 years he has lived in the property in question, enters and exits the property, which has no formal driveway, from LeJeune Road. By the same token, guests who visit him enter and exit the property the same way. During this 3 year period there have been no accidents or traffic problems as a result of this use even though traffic on LeJeune Road, a main thoroughfare, is heavy. There is no obstruction on or near the property to hinder visibility of either an individual exiting the property onto LeJeune Road or a driver on LeJeune Road observing anyone coming off the property. In Mr. Sanchez' opinion, a permitted driveway practically would change nothing from the current situation. The area in which the property is located is rapidly changing from residential to commercial. Mr. Sanchez is trying to have the zoning of his property changed from residential to office use. His efforts in this regard are with the City of Hialeah. If his application for zoning change is approved, it is his intention to use the house as an office for his insurance business which is currently conducted at a different location at 24th Street and LeJeune Road. The current office is located on a corner lot from which Mr. Sanchez has access onto LeJeune Road and it is his contention there have been no traffic problems at that location either. No evidence to rebut this contention was forthcoming. There are currently commercial businesses in operation on both sides of LeJeune Road between the area now being used as a business by Petitioner and the area for which he submitted his application. The majority of these enter onto LeJeune Road. Mr. Sanchez contends that the use of the property in issue as an insurance office would not generate as much traffic as either the neighboring bank or service station in the area, and if he were to receive the driveway permit for this property, he claims, the amount of traffic onto LeJeune Road from it would not be increased by any significant amount. He submitted his application and paid the $1,000.00 fee. Most of Mr. Sanchez' time is spent at his business building because his parents live at that location and when he is not working, he spends a great deal of time with them. His experience has been that he can easily go from his home to his office on LeJeune Road at any time without difficulty, and he goes up and back each day expending 6 or 7 minutes for each trip. Petitioner introduced photographs of several businesses purported to be in the area which, he claims, have commercial entrances onto LeJeune Road. Respondent entered no evidence to contradict the identity or location of the sites reflected in the photos and they are, therefore, accepted as offered. One of them is a bank which, he contends, has been in operation for approximately 10 years. Another is a service station which has been in operation for "a considerable amount of time." This facility was there before Petitioner arrived in the area. Another business depicted, Marina Insurance, opened approximately two years ago. The facility used to be a residence and Mr. Sanchez does not know when or if a driveway permit was issued for that property. Another service station in the area was opened "many years ago" and a store for wedding gowns was opened "seven or eight years ago." The photographs fail to show any traffic, however, either in front of, exiting, or entering the properties. Mr. Sanchez claims they are active businesses and have been contributing to traffic on LeJeune Road for many years. In the absence of evidence to contradict that assertion, it is accepted. Mr. Sanchez' contentions were supported by his son, Joel, who is in business with his father and who used to live in the house in question with his father, his mother, his wife and his two children. With four adults living there, three cars were frequently in use, and all usually entered and exited the property from LeJeune Road. On occasion, they would come in or exit from 7th Street, but between 80 and 85% of the time the LeJeune Road access was utilized, primarily because the property faces on LeJeune Road. Visitors to the property usually park to the right of the front door, and so far there has been no problem getting on or off of LeJeune Road. The younger Sanchez confirms his father's testimony that entrance onto or exit from LeJeune Road from either the current residence or the current business property has not been a problem over the years, and he sees no traffic hazard. According to Joel Sanchez, LeJeune Road is no longer a residential street. He confirms his father's statement that new businesses are constantly going in and all seem to have been able to get driveway access onto LeJeune Road. The older businesses have had access to LeJeune for a long time and there appears to have been no problem with traffic. The property in issue here became a problem only when the Sanchezes tried to rezone it. Notwithstanding the fact that at the residence they already use an access onto LeJeune Road, according to the city zoning officials, if the property were to be converted into a business use property, a formal access onto LeJeune, to accommodate 8 parking spaces on the property, would be necessary. The only way 8 parking spaces could be placed onto the existing property would be to place the entrance and exit onto LeJeune Road. From a practical standpoint, the only change would be the actual paving of access ramps out to the highway instead of driving onto and off the property across the lawn as is the current practice. The number of the customers the business would bring to the new site would not be heavy, no more than 6 or 7 per day. This would be a maximum, Petitioner claims, because the nature of the insurance business he is conducting is changing to that which would reduce to an even lesser amount the traffic required. Most of the business customers are now renewals who deal with the company by mail, and the only traffic would be new business. In that regard, they are changing more to commercial lines of insurance, dealing with businesses, which does not have a large office visit rate. Neither of the Sanchez men have any training in traffic management or safety, but both sincerely feel their proposal will not increase traffic or pose a risk to traffic safety in the area. Debora Moran Rivera, a traffic engineer with the Department's Miami District is familiar with the instant permit application and, in fact, reviewed it when it was submitted. When first received by the District, the application was sent to the field for comments. It was determined that a 25 foot radius exit was required. Photographs were received along with the comments and based on the review by both the field office and the District office, it was determined that the application here was not consistent with the rules of the Department governing permits of this nature. As a result, on February 26, 1991, a Notice of Intent to Deny the application was sent to Mr. Sanchez in which the reason for denial was the availability of access to the State Highway from another public road, (East 7th Street). Sometime thereafter, Ms. Rivera was contacted by Joel Sanchez who asked for a formal denial which could be appealed and thereafter, a formal denial letter dated March 19, 1991 was sent. This letter indicated the Department rules limited access to a point at least 115 feet from the nearest connection, East 7th Street. The denial decision was based on information provided by the field operations office to whom the application was sent for verification. The decision to grant or deny is a joint one made by several individuals whose identity is dependant upon where the property in question is located. Mr. Pego, Ms. Rivera's supervisor and Ms. Rivera were the individuals who made this decision based upon the input from the staff in the field. In this case, the field information consisted of a statement based upon his visit to the site and two photographs. Based on this information along with that provided by the applicant, the decision to deny was made. Admittedly no traffic study of the area in question was made by either party. Further, in evaluating the application, however, Ms. Rivera did not look at any other driveway permits for property in the immediate area. She thinks she went out to visit the site before the official denial letter was sent out on March 19, 1991 but she does not recall what the business characteristics of the area were like. While she is generally familiar with the area, she does not recall the specifics. Based on the evidence presented, nothing was put before the undersigned to demonstrate the insufficiency or impropriety of the Department's evaluation and decision making process and it is accepted that the process was sufficient and adequate. There is some indication from the testimony of Petitioner that he had called the District office to request a Spanish speaking representative come out to the property. In response, the District sent out a Mr. Montez. According to Mr. Sanchez, Montez initially told him that the application would probably not be approved because the property fronted on LeJeune Road. However, Sanchez claims Montez later changed his mind and indicated the application would probably be granted because of the small nature of the business. The evidence on this point is unclear as to whether the visit by Mr. Montez is the site visit described by Ms. Rivera. No evidence was presented to clarify this, but in any case, there is no showing that Montez had any authority to commit the Department to a position. His opinions, therefore, are irrelevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case denying Petitioner's application for a connection from his property located at 700 East 8th Avenue, Hialeah, onto East 8th Avenue, (Lejeune Road). RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 29th day of January, 1992. 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 29th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Juan Carlos Perez, Esquire 4770 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137 Michael A. Bienstock, Esquire 25 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1240 Miami, Florida 33134 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Did Respondent violate Section 723.037(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to give timely written notice of rent increase on mobile home lots, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent owned the Arcadia Peace River Campground (Campground) located in DeSoto County, Florida, whose mailing address is 2988 Northwest Highway 70, Arcadia, Florida 34266. From October 3, 1996 through March 21, 1998, the Campground had 14 or more of its mobile home lots occupied by mobile homes. From October 3, 1996 through March 21, 1998, seven or more of the mobile homes located in the Campground were owned by residents of the Campground other than Respondent. Furthermore, these mobile homes were placed on lots leased by the mobile home residents from the Campground. From October 3, 1996 through March 21, 1998, four or more of the mobile homes located in the Campground were owned by Respondent's employees and placed on lots in the Campground. The rental for these lots was considered as part of the employees' compensation. On January 1, 1997, Respondent implemented and began collecting a $30.00 increase in the monthly lot rental from those mobile home owners leasing spaces in the Campground. Respondent gave the affected mobile home owners written notice of the January 1, 1997, monthly lot rental increase on November 26, 1996, some 36 days prior to the effective date (January 1, 1997) of the increase. No other notice of the lot rental increase was given to the affected mobile home owners. Respondent collected the $30.00 lot rental increase from the affected mobile home owners during the period from January 1, 1997, through March 21, 1998. On January 1, 1998, Respondent implemented and began collecting a $15.00 increase in the monthly lot rental from those mobile home owners leasing spaces in the Campground. Respondent gave the affected mobile home owners written notice of the January 1, 1998, monthly lot rental increase on October 28, 1997, some 65 days prior to the effective date of the increase. Respondent collected the $15.00 monthly lot rental increase from January 1, 1998, through March 21, 1998. Each of the following affected mobile home owners paid both the $30.00 monthly lot rental increase from January 1, 1997, through March 21, 1998 and the $15.00 monthly lot rental increase from January 1, 1998, through March 21, 1998: Charles Collins; Arthur P. McRae; Harold Martin; Maurice W. Jackson; Robert F. Martin; Irene K. Apps and; Reba Conner. On March 21, 1998, the Peace River flooded the Campground. The mobile homes located in the Campground were damaged. Subsequently, the mobile homes were removed from the Campground, purchased by Respondent, or were purchased by one or more new employees of Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and having specifically reviewed the factors set out in Section 723.006(5)(c), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the Division enter a final order assessing Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00. It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to refund to Charles Collins, Arthur P. McRae, Harold Martin, Maurice W. Jackson, Robert F. Martin, Irene K. Apps, and Reba Conner all sums collected from these individuals as increases in lot rental during the period of January 1, 1997 through March 21, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip Nowick, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Eric H. Miller, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 George Lempenau, Qualified Representative 2998 Northwest Highway 70 Arcadia, Florida 34266
