The Issue Whether the discriminatory housing practices alleged in Petitioner's amended housing discrimination complaint were committed by Respondents and, if so, what relief should the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) provide Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a woman of Native American heritage. The record evidence, however, does not reveal that, at any time material to the instant case, anyone outside of her family, including Respondents, was aware of Petitioner's Native American background; nor does the record evidence establish that Petitioner was ever subjected to derogatory remarks about being of Native American descent. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner has suffered from health problems that have substantially limited her ability to walk and have required her to use a motorized wheelchair to ambulate. Petitioner is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a resident of Kings Manor Estates (Park), a residential community of single-family mobile homes that is located in Davie, Florida. The Park is one of various mobile home communities that Respondent Uniprop Corporation (Uniprop) owns and operates. Like the other residents of the Park, Petitioner owns the mobile home in which she resides and pays rent to Uniprop for the use of the lot on which home is situated. Petitioner's home occupies lot 78 in the Park. As a resident of the Park, Petitioner has use of the Park's common areas and facilities, which include a swimming pool. There has been no showing that Petitioner has been denied access to any of these common areas or facilities due to her handicap. Residents of the Park must comply with the Park's rules and regulations. These rules and regulations reasonably require, among other things, that residents obtain, in addition to any permits they may need from the Town of Davie, the approval of Uniprop (referred to as "design approval") before constructing any improvements on their lots, including wheelchair ramps. To obtain such "design approval," a resident must submit to Park management a completed "design approval" application form and any supporting documentation. The application form provides a space for the resident to provide a "[d]escription, [d]rawing [l]ocation & [s]ize of [the proposed] [a]ddition." Immediately underneath this space on the form is the following pre-printed language: It is the Resident's responsibility to obtain all governmental approvals, to make certain the proposed improvement is suitable for the purpose intended and that the improvement complies with all applicable codes, standards and governmental requirements. Approval by Management of any improvement is limited to considerations of appearance. Resident agrees to have their home improvements built to the specifications listed above and illustrated in the space above and/or attached drawings, exhibits and permits. It is the responsibility of the Park's property manager, with the help of the Park's assistant property manager, to enforce the Park's rules and regulations. The duties of the Park's property manager and assistant property manager (whose work stations are located in the Park's business office) also include collecting rent from the Park's residents and taking appropriate action when residents are delinquent in their rental payments. There is a "drop off box" located outside the Park's business office in which residents can place their rental payments when the office is closed and the Park's property manager and assistant property manager are unavailable. Neither the property manager nor the assistant property manager is authorized to give residents "design approval." Only the Uniprop regional supervisor has such authority. The property manager and assistant property manager merely serve as "conduits" between the resident and the Uniprop regional supervisor in the "design approval" process. They take the completed "design approval" application form from the resident, provide it to the Uniprop regional supervisor, and, after hearing back from the regional supervisor, communicate the regional supervisor's decision to the resident. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent Delores Maddox was the Park's property manager. Ms. Maddox no longer works for Uniprop. Hazel Crain is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the Park's assistant property manager. At all times material to the instant case, Milton Rhines was the Uniprop regional supervisor having authority over the activities at the Park. Mr. Rhines was based in Ft. Myers, Florida, on the other side of the state from the Park. Josephine Patricia Silver is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, employed as a sales consultant for Uniprop. In this capacity, she engages in activities designed to facilitate the sale of mobile homes manufactured by Uniprop (to be placed in the Park and other mobile home communities Uniprop owns and operates). Although her office is located in the Park, she plays no decision-making role in Park management. Notwithstanding that it is not her job responsibility to accept rental payments, she sometimes will do so as a courtesy to Park residents when she is at the Park on weekends or during the evening hours and the business office is closed. Although Ms. Silver and Petitioner do not get along, Ms. Silver has never threatened to "throw away" Petitioner's rental payments; nor has she ever told any of Park's residents that Petitioner was not paying her rent. Ms. Silver, however, has "gossiped" and made derogatory comments about Petitioner, but no showing has been made that Petitioner's handicap, her Native American heritage, or her having exercised any of her rights under Florida's Fair Housing Act played any role in Ms. Silver's having made these comments. In August of 2002, Petitioner mentioned to Ms. Crain about her interest in having a wheelchair ramp constructed on her lot. Ms. Crain suggested to Petitioner that she contact the Town to discuss the feasibility of such a project. Petitioner subsequently telephoned Brian Dillon, the Town's chief structural inspector. Mr. Dillon not only attempted to assist Petitioner in her efforts to obtain a permit from the Town to construct the wheelchair ramp, he also helped her make arrangements to have a boy scout troop construct the ramp for her with donated materials. The Town would not issue Petitioner a permit for the ramp unless and until she obtained the written approval of the Park owner, Uniprop. The ramp was constructed for Petitioner by the boy scouts during a weekend in mid-November 2002, without Petitioner's having first obtained Uniprop's "design approval" or a permit from the Town. Prior to the construction of the ramp, Petitioner had received a "design approval" application form from Ms. Crain and, on or about November 12 or 13, 2002, with Ms. Crain's assistance, had begun the application process. Petitioner, however, did not wait to receive the "design approval" she had applied for from Uniprop before giving the boy scouts the go ahead to start constructing the ramp. After discovering that the ramp had been constructed, Park management attempted to "work" with Petitioner to enable her to complete the paperwork necessary to obtain (belatedly) "design approval" for the ramp. On November 21, 2002, Petitioner submitted to Park management the following note from her physician, James Milne, D.O.: Due to Medical Necessity, my patient Mary Helen Meacham requires use of a motorized wheelchair, and it is necessary for her to have ramp access. If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office. By December 5, 2002, Petitioner had yet to submit the design plans needed to obtain "design approval" for the ramp. Accordingly, on that date, Uniprop's attorney, Ernest Kollra, Esquire, sent Petitioner, by certified mail, a Notice of Violation of Community Covenants, which read as follows: Please be advised the undersigned represents Kings Manor Estates with respect to your tenancy at the Community. This Notice is sent to you pursuant to Florida Statute, Chapter, 723.061, Et Seq. Park Management has advised the undersigned that you are in violation of the following Community Covenants of Kings Manor Estates: 7. Improvements: Before construction of any type is permitted on the homesite or added to a home, the Resident must obtain written permission from Management in the form of a Design Approval. Additional permits may be required by the municipality in which the Community is located. 10. Handicap Access: Any Residents requiring handicap access improvements such as ramps are permitted. All plans for such ramps must be approved by Management and comply with all other Community Covenants and governmental standards. You are in violation of the above Community Covenants, in that you have failed to submit plans to Management prior to the construction of your ramp. Park Management has been apprised by the Town of Davie that permits are required and none was obtained by you prior to construction, in compliance with Town of Davie governmental standards. In order to correct the above violation, you must within seven (7) days from delivery of this Notice, remove the ramp from your homesite. Delivery of the mailed notice is deemed given five (5) days after the date of postmark. If you fail and/or refuse to comply with this Notice, your tenancy will be terminated in accordance with Florida Statute Chapter 723.061.[2] If you have any questions concerning any of the above, you may contact Park Management at . . . . Petitioner did not remove the ramp by the deadline imposed by the December 5, 2002, Notice of Violation of Community Covenants. Park management, however, took no action to terminate her tenancy. After receiving the December 5, 2002, Notice of Violation of Community Covenants, Petitioner stopped making rental payments to Uniprop and, instead, deposited these monies with the Florida Justice Institute to be held in escrow until the controversy concerning the ramp was resolved. In or around mid-January 2003, Park management received from Petitioner corrected design plans for the ramp (that had been prepared by Doug Amos of Doug Amos Construction). On January 15, 2003, Ms. Maddox sent to Mr. Rhines, by facsimile transmission, a copy of these plans. Petitioner was subsequently granted "design approval" for the ramp. It has not been shown that there was any unreasonable or excessive delay involved in the granting of such approval. On February 19, 2003, Ms. Maddox wrote the following letter to the Town's Building Department: Please be advised that MaryHelen Meacham Woods is authorized to have permits issued for site #78 at 12620 SW 6th Street Davie, Florida 33325 for the Installation of a handicapped ramp. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Following an inspection, the Town, in March 2003, issued a permit for the ramp. Petitioner has had use of the ramp since mid-November 2002 when it was first built (notwithstanding that she did not obtain Uniprop's "design approval" and a permit from the Town until some months later). On or about May 30, 2003, Petitioner authorized the Florida Justice Institute to deliver to Uniprop the rental payments it was holding (at Petitioner's request) in escrow. Uniprop accepted these rental payments when they were delivered. Petitioner has had raw eggs thrown at her wheelchair ramp. She suspects that Ms. Maddox's children were responsible for this vandalism, but there is insufficient record evidence to identify the culprits, much less ascertain their motives. On or about August 31, 2004, at a time when Hurricane Frances was approaching the Florida peninsula from the southeast, Park management sent Petitioner a Notice of Violation of Community Covenants, which read as follows: Pursuant to Florida Statute 723.061 et seq, you are hereby advised that you are in violation of the following Community Covenant(s) of which the Community first became aware on August 30, 2004. SECTION I: HOME AND SITE MAINTENANCE - Eachresident shall keep his/her site and home in a clean and neat condition and free of any fire hazards, there is no storage permitted around or under the home or in screened rooms. ALL items must be stored inside the home or storage shed. Although you have previously been furnished a copy of the Community Covenants of the park, and said Community Covenants are posted in the recreation center and business office, a copy of the rule(s) of which you are in violation is attached to this notice for your convenience. Specifically, you are in violation of the above Community Covenant(s) in that Your home, trim and utility shed are dirty, there is growth in the gutters and there is a window air conditioner on the home. In order to correct the above violation of the Community Covenant(s) you must Wash your home, trim and utility shed, paint with colors approved by management, clean the growth from the gutters and remove the window air conditioner within seven (7) days from delivery date of this letter. If you fail and/or refuse to correct the violations of the Community Covenant(s) in the manner listed above, the park will pursue all its rights and remedies pursuant to 723.061 et seq. PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY It has not been shown that Park management took this action to retaliate against Petitioner for having requested permission to construct a wheelchair ramp on her lot or that such action was motivated by any other improper purpose. Park management has not pursued the matter the further. At no time has Park management initiated legal action to terminate Petitioner's tenancy and evict her. The record evidence is insufficient to establish that Respondents, or anyone acting on their behalf, have said or done anything having the purpose or effect of disadvantaging Petitioner based on her handicap, her Native American heritage, or her having asked to be allowed to build a wheelchair ramp on her lot.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding that Respondents are not guilty of any "discriminatory housing practice" and dismissing Petitioner's amended housing discrimination complaint based on such finding. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___ STUART M. LERNER 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 5th day of May, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether any of the respondents is guilty of discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of her sex in connection with her rental of a lot in the Galaxy Mobile Home Park, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, section 760.23(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In September 2010, Petitioner, a 54-year-old female, moved into Galaxy Mobile Home Park, 5810 U.S. Highway 92, West, Plant City, Florida. Since her arrival at the park, Petitioner has occupied her lot based on a month-to-month rental agreement. The park consists of 33 mobile home lots, four cabins, six RV lots, and one house. At present, 27 females and 22 males live there; most residents are 55 years old and older. The park manager is Respondent Adams, an 85-year-old female. She and her late husband moved to Galaxy Mobile Home Park in 1988. Initially, she was not the manager, but her husband performed all of the maintenance and lawn mowing. Ownership and property-management duties lie with Respondent David and Respondent PGM; one of them employs Respondent Adams and pays her $300 per month to serve as the park manager. In 2002, Respondent Adams moved out of the park and into a nearby residence. She works mornings in a small office located at the park, although, if needed, she remains at the park until as late as 4:00 p.m. or returns to the park in the afternoon. Her duties include cleaning the laundromat, collecting rents, showing prospective tenants available lots, and arranging for repairs. She is paid $300 per month for her services. Respondent Perez, a male reportedly 68 or 70 years old, formerly was the maintenance man at the park--the lawn mowing responsibilities having been assigned to another person. Using supplies provided by Respondent David or Respondent PMG, Respondent Perez performed maintenance work around the park as needed. No one recorded his time, and he did not work according to a set schedule. At times, he would travel and be gone for extensive periods, during which minor maintenance duties were apparently deferred until his return, sometimes months later. Respondent Perez lived in a mobile home at the park, and his sole compensation was free lot rent of about $300 per month. This obviously was a part-time job. When she first moved to Galaxy Mobile Home Park, Petitioner owned an RV, so she rented lot 148, which is an RV lot. Petitioner first arrived at the park late in the day when the office was closed, so, the next morning, she and Respondent Adams were speaking in front of Petitioner's RV. After Petitioner had paid the first-month's rent, Respondent Adams was describing the park amenities to Petitioner when Respondent Perez approached the two women, cursing loudly. Few incidents involving Respondent Perez acquired much clarity in the record, and the first of these is no exception. As Respondent Perez approached Petitioner and Respondent Adams, he appeared to be concerned about an item of potentially dangerous maintenance equipment that Petitioner may have lent to another resident. Pointing a finger at Petitioner, evidently from some distance from the two women, Respondent Perez warned her that if she lent this equipment to someone, "it is on your fucking ass," implying that she, not he, would be responsible if the resident injured himself using the equipment. For emphasis, Respondent Perez then pounded his chest, shouting, "I'm a fucking man." Petitioner replied, "and I'm a fucking woman." Later that day, two male residents were helping Petitioner set up her RV. Driving by, Respondent Perez shouted a warning to Petitioner from his vehicle, "if you let those fucking men in your yard, you'll have a yard-full of fucking men." The following morning, Respondent Perez knocked on Petitioner's door. This appears to have been the only time that he did so, and he never entered Petitioner's home at any time. When Petitioner answered the door, Respondent Perez told her that everyone was "fucking complaining" that she was using too much toilet paper, plugging up the sewage system at the park. Petitioner replied that, due to problems with her holding tank, she did not flush her toilet paper, but disposed of it in her trash, and invited Respondent Perez to take a look. Respondent Perez declined, saying, "Well, I don't know. That's what the fuck they say." In October 2011, when a resident left her mobile home to move north, Petitioner moved into the mobile home, which was at lot 163. The mobile home had a screen porch, where Petitioner would often sit, enjoying watching television and smoking cigarettes, which she tried not to smoke inside. From time to time, Respondent Perez would walk by the screen porch, and sometimes he would utter unpleasantries to Petitioner, warning her that no one could do his work. On one occasion, Petitioner complained to Respondent Adams that Respondent Perez was disturbing her by his use of a flashlight as he walked through the park at night. Respondent Adams spoke to Respondent Perez, who replaced the flashlight with a brighter lantern. The evidence does not establish that Respondent Perez was walking at night to bother Petitioner; given the location of their lots, he would have to pass her lot as he walked or drove toward the front of the mobile home park where amenities were located. Also, Respondent Perez was in an intimate relationship with a woman named Mrs. Miller, and Petitioner's lot was between the lots of Respondent Perez and Mrs. Miller. ("Mrs. Miller" is a pseudonym to protect the privacy of the resident.) In the spring of 2012, while Petitioner was talking to a male resident at the picnic area, Respondent Perez drove up and began talking to the man, evidently ignoring Petitioner. Respondent Perez told him that, the prior evening, he had met a woman in a bar. Professing to be a Christian, she had told him that she did not believe in sex before marriage. But Respondent Perez loudly proclaimed that he had had sexual intercourse with the woman that very night. At this point in the story, Respondent Perez laid face down in the grass and began violently thrusting, in a pantomime of sexual intercourse, explaining that "when I get a woman, I can go all night." Other problems arose between Petitioner and Respondent Perez. When she moved from the RV, Petitioner placed a PVC pipe from the RV in her new yard, keeping it for the new owner of the RV. Respondent Perez removed the pipe, likely as part of his duties in keeping the park clean and thinking that the used pipe had been discarded. Petitioner called Respondent Adams, accused Respondent Perez of stealing the pipe, and threatened to call the sheriff's office. Respondent Adams told her that would not be necessary, and she would buy whatever PVC pipe the new owner required to connect his RV to the park's plumbing. At some point, dissatisfied with Respondent Adams' handling of her complaints about Respondent Perez, Petitioner demanded a meeting with Respondent David. Respondent David, Respondent Adams, and Petitioner met at the park. They were talking while looking at a repair job that Respondent Perez had done, suggesting that the focus of Petitioner's complaints at least included poor workmanship on Respondent Perez's part. But when Petitioner tried to talk about Respondent Perez, Respondent David declined to do so unless Respondent Perez was present. Respondent David and Petitioner had no further conversations. The final incident coincided with the death of a neighbor, according to Petitioner, who testified that Respondent Perez's animosity toward her intensified at this time. The death seems to have taken place in July 2013. The record is insufficiently developed to find any possible connection between the resident's death and Respondent Perez's increased animosity. However, at some point, Mrs. Miller died, and Respondent Perez and Respondent Adams believed that Petitioner and another neighbor entered Mrs. Miller's mobile home after the ambulance had removed her body to rifle through her medications in order to steal those that they wanted. Petitioner admitted that she was in the mobile home going through the medications, but only to assist the emergency medical technicians in their effort to identify Mrs. Miller's prescriptions. The record is poorly developed in other respects. Petitioner testified to a steady verbal barrage from Respondent Perez, seemingly on every occasion that the two met, usually featuring epithets describing Petitioner as a "whore" or "prostitute." Petitioner called as a witness her brother, who could recall only that Respondent Perez complained about where he and his son had parked and that Respondent Perez was always "on" his sister about something, although he could not recall anything in specific. The nephew also testified, adding only that Respondent Perez often told them that they could not "fucking park" where they had parked, and he generally swore a lot. The neighbor who had joined Petitioner in Mrs. Miller's mobile home testified that she had once overheard Respondent Perez say to a male resident that all women are "whores and prostitutes." On another occasion, she overheard Respondent Perez say to Respondent Adams, as he pointed to a woman some distance away, "there's another one of those whores over there." And the neighbor overheard Respondent Adams reply, "I told you to keep that word from your mouth." A deputy who was called out in response to a complaint made by Petitioner could not remember a single detail of the call. By contrast, Respondent Adams proved to be a memorable witness. Demonstrating the danger of compound questions posed to aged witnesses, when asked by her attorney if Respondent Perez drove by Petitioner's home every day and harassed her, Respondent Adams answered that he had to--meaning that he had to drive by Petitioner's lot. When asked by her attorney (twice) if Respondent Perez harassed Petitioner, Respondent Adams answered definitively, yes. She explained that he harassed everyone, but also denied that he harassed anyone. As Respondent Adams saw it, the relationship between Petitioner and Respondent Perez was that of two residents, not a resident and the park maintenance man. On occasion, though, Respondent Adams directed Respondent Perez to watch his language. One such occasion has been noted above; on another occasion, she said that Petitioner "has a name. It is Lisa. Use it." Respondent Perez's reference to Petitioner that prompted this directive is undisclosed. Respondent Adams also witnessed occasions during which Petitioner employed profanity toward Respondent Perez, as well as at least one other individual. On one such occasion, when a male tree-trimmer at the park warned Petitioner to keep a safe distance from his work area, she responded, "You son of a bitch. Drop a limb on me and I will sue you." It is difficult to characterize Respondent's state of mind at the time of his vulgar utterances, of which some, it is safe to assume, were uttered at Petitioner. The present record supports findings that Petitioner and Respondent Perez had a poor relationship. It is impossible to determine whether either party was at fault for this relationship or the degree of any fault that each party bore. However, from Respondent Perez's point of view, Petitioner's behavior was, on one occasion, substantially unjustified, as in the case of the removed PVC pipe from the yard, and, on another occasion, open to justifiable suspicion, as in the handling of the prescription medicines after Mrs. Miller's death. The present record supports a finding of abusive verbal exchanges between Petitioner and Respondent Perez, but not their frequency. If Petitioner's recounting of them were fully credited as all of them, there were very few such exchanges over the three years in question. Undoubtedly, Respondent Perez's swear words and other insults were grounded in gender relations or gender, as in his use of the words, "fuck" or "fucking," "bitch," and "whore." Respondent Perez was unable to direct a park visitor to move his car without uttering "fucking," employed either as an adverb to intensify the verb (i.e., "move") or an adjective to intensify the object (i.e., the "car")--or, of course, both. Most importantly, though, the present record in no way supports a finding that these exchanges were so frequent or intense as to deprive Petitioner of the use and enjoyment of her home and the amenities in the park.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Yaron M. David Properties Group Management, LLC 5810 U.S. Highway 92, West Plant City, Florida 33567 Rachel K. Beige, Esquire Cole, Scott and Kissane, P.A. 2nd Floor 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) C. Martin Lawyer, III, Esquire Bay Area Legal Services, Inc. 1302 North 19th Street, Suite 400 Tampa, Florida 33605-5230 (eServed) Melissa Ann Craig, Esquire Bay Area Legal Services, Inc. 18238 U.S. Highway 301, South Wimauma, Florida 33598 (eServed) Tammy Scott Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue A Notice to Show Cause issued on May 5, 1989, alleges that Respondent violated Sections 723.031(5) and (6), F.S. by increasing mobile home park lot rentals on January 1, 1987 and on October 1, 1987, and by collecting charges for water, sewer and waste disposal from at least one homeowner when such charges were not disclosed prior to tenancy. If it is determined that those violations occurred, it is necessary to recommend an appropriate penalty and corrective action.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to these proceedings, Alfred Herrick has been the park owner of Tan Tara Mobile Home Park, which is located in Melbourne, Florida. Respondent purchased the park in 1980. Eighty-four (84) lots are offered for rent or lease in the Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. Seventy-eight (78) lots are offered to tenants who own their home. Nineteen (19) lots were leased on or after November 1, 1986. The proposed prospectus for the Tan Tara Mobile Home Park was filed with the Division on September 13, 1985. The prospectus was deemed adequate to meet the requirements of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes on December 23, 1983. The prospectus was delivered to homeowners after January 1986. The prospectus review by the Division determines adequacy with Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. The prospectus is not reviewed to determine consistency with rental agreements or disclosures made to homeowners. Park owners are advised that approval of the prospectus by the Division does not relieve the park owner of any requirements under the law. The park owner determines the contents of the prospectus. Homeowners have no input as to the contents of or in the review process of the prospectus. The prospectus for Tan Tara Mobile Home Park contains a number of disclosures, as required by 723.012, F.S., relating to the mobile home park property, and sets out the terms and conditions of the rental agreement between the park owner and individual tenants of mobile home park. Included in the prospectus is the disclosure of all of the charges which may be charged by the park. Paragraph VII. UTILITY AND OTHER SERVICES, provides the following relevant disclosures: Water - Treated drinking water is provided by the City of Melbourne Utilities and is provided to each mobile home site. The charges for this service is [sic] currently included in the tenants' total monthly rental fee. * * * Sewage - Sewage disposal is provided by the City of Melbourne Utilities. The charges for this service is [sic] included in the tenants' monthly rental fee. * * * Waste and trash disposal - The collection of garbage and trash is provided by the City of Melbourne Utilities and is provided for each mobile home. The charge for this service is currently included in the tenants' total monthly rental fee. ... Paragraph VIII. RENT, RENTAL INCREASES AND OTHER CHARGES, provides the following relevant disclosures: The base rent and other charges applicable to your lot are effective January 1, 1985, as reflected in this section. The "base rent" refers to the regular monthly rent established by the Park Owner from time to time. The base rent is subject to annual rent increases effective each January 1st, after ninety (90) days notice from the Park Owner or Management of such increase. * * * "Other charges" refers to "special use fees" and "pass through charges". SPECIAL USE FEES refers to those separately itemized amounts charged in addition to the base rent for those specific items hereinafter set forth. The following special use fees are in effect within the park: Owner reserves the right to charge an Entrance or "Move-in" fee. The present amount charged for this fee in the Park is $1,000.00. Late rental payment fee of $10.00 after the fifth day of the month and $2.00 per day thereafter. Return check charge of $10.00 for each check not honored by the banking institution upon which the check is drawn. An additional charge of $5.00 per month for each and every person over two occupying a mobile home. Extra visitor and/or guest charge of $2.00 per person per day staying more than 15 consecutive days or 30 days total. Lawn maintenance fee, including mowing, edging, and trimming, in the amount of $10.00 for each required maintenance. If it becomes necessary for Management to place the Tenant' s garbage in proper containers, there will be an additional charge of $5.00 assessed to the Tenant for each occurrence. An additional charge of $5.00 per month for a Tenant's washing machine due to the extra water usage caused by the washing machine and also sewerage charges. For the purchaser, there will be a registration fee of $75.00 for investigating any proposed new Tenant into the Park. A new Tenant nonrefundable application fee of $75.00 for investigating any proposed new Tenant into the Park. A garbage and trash "removal" fee not included in the normal garbage or waste removal, of a minimum of $5.00, the exact charge to be determined by Park Management based upon size and weight of such excess refuse so removed by Management. Additional copies of the Prospectus are available at the park Off ice for Tenants requesting same for which there is a charge of $50.00 for each additional copy requested. Pet fee of 5.00 per pet per month. Skirting area clean up minimum fee of $20.00 if tenant fails to do this. * * * PASS THROUGH CHARGES, means those amounts other than special use fees, which are itemized and can be charged separately from the base rent and which represents the mobile home owner's share of cost charged to the park Owner by any State or local government or utility company. These charges will be passed on to the Tenant(s) on a pro rata basis. ("Pro rata basis" means that percentage derived by dividing the number of mobile home spaces leased by a resident by the total number of occupied mobile home spaces in the park.) The pass through charges which may be passed on to the Tenant(s) are as follows: Water charges or increases in same; Sewer charges or increases in same; Waste disposal charges or increases in same; * * * I. Replacement utility costs charged to the Park Owner by State or local government incurred as the result of the actions of any utility company for any utility or other services not provided or available to park residents on the delivery date that replaces, in whole or in part, any utility or other service that is provided or is available to park residents on the delivery date. * * * The above-mentioned pass through charges and costs which are billed by either the State or local governmental entities or utility companies may be passed through to the Tenants after providing at least ninety (90) days advanced written notice to all Tenants. The amount of an increase in pass through charges shall be limited to the increased costs or charges billed to the park owner by the State or local governmental agency or utility company plus any maintenance and administrative costs related to same as is permitted by 723.045, Florida Statutes. * * * (Petitioner's Exhibit #2, pp 11, 61-66, emphasis added) On September 2, 1986, Mr. Herrick gave a notice to all residents within the Tan Tara Mobile Home Park of a "base rent" increase effective January 1, 1987. On June 23, 1987, Mr. Herrick gave a notice of a pass through charge effective October 1, 1987. The notice provided for billing each tenant for the actual usage of water, sewer and waste disposal. In addition, the notice provided that the extra charge for washing machines would be eliminated effective October 1, 1987. Further, the notice indicated that due to the charges for water, sewer and waste disposal becoming effective October 1, there would not be a base rent increase on January 1, 1988. The cost of providing water, sewer and waste disposal, prior to October 1, 1987, had been included in the base rent charged by Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. Mr. Herrick calculated that the portion of base rent for those utilities was $12.50 for each lot. Individual water meters were installed and beginning October 1, 1987, the park owner began assessing all homeowners in the park for water, sewage and garbage based on individual usage. This cost was in addition to the base rent. The park owner also began assessing each homeowner two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) per month, for meter reading Beginning January 1, 1989, Herrick started deducting from the base rent the $12.50 previously computed for utilities. He then continued to add on the utility charge based on the individuals meter reading. Bonnie and Reginald Charron are residents of Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. They first assumed occupancy in the park in 1982, leasing lot number 18. At that time they were given the park rules and regulations marked Petitioner's Exhibit 6. No disclosures regarding water, sewage, and garbage were made prior to occupancy. On or after August 30, 1984, the Charrons moved to lot 23. No other disclosures were made regarding the homeowners' obligation to pay for water, sewage or garbage. The prospectus was delivered to the Charrons on January 25, 1986. Since assuming occupancy in the park, the Charrons have been continuous residents and have not been evicted pursuant to Section 723.061, F.S. The Charrons paid fifteen dollars ($15.00) extra per month for their three (3) children plus five dollars ($5.00) per month for the washing machine. Mrs. Charron was advised the five dollars ($5.00) per person was required to cover the cost for extra water and sewage being used by those persons. When the Charrons began to pay for water, sewage and garbage based on individual usage) the fifteen dollars ($15.00) per month was never deducted from the base rent. Since October 1, 1987, the Charrons cost for water, sewage, and garbage has exceeded twelve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50) per month. Peggy E. Headley is a resident of Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. She moved into the park in September of 1982. On August 23, 1982, she was given the park rules and regulations marked Petitioner's Exhibit 8. No other disclosures were made regarding her obligation to pay for water, sewage and garbage. The prospectus was delivered to Mrs. Headley on January 25, 1986. Mrs. Eddie Walters is a resident of Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. She moved into the park in May of 1977. At that time, she received a copy of the park rules and regulations. On January 16, 1986, she received the prospectus. Respondent stipulated that water, sewage, and garbage charges have not been collected from homeowners as a matter of custom. It is undisputed that prior to occupancy in the mobile home park, the tenants listed above did not receive a disclosure from the park owner that they would be responsible for paying pass through or pass on charges as defined in the park prospectus. The rules and regulations which were in effect in the park were amended at various times, and at various times provided that water would be included in the base rent and/or that the park owner may charge separately for water. The set of rules and regulations attached to the prospectus provided that the management reserved the right to assess "pass through charges", including for water, on a pro rata basis. "Pro rata basis" is defined in the rules and regulations in the same manner as defined in the prospectus: "...that percentage derived by dividing the number of mobile home spaces leased by a resident by the total number of occupied mobile home spaces in the park." (Petitioner's Exhibit #2, p. 73) Neither the prospectus nor the rules and regulations provide for collection of water or other utilities based on individual usage. Oral lot rental agreements are in effect in Tan Tara Mobile Home Park. No written lot rental agreements have ever been executed between homeowners and the Respondent or prior park owners of Tan Tara. The term of the oral lot rental agreements is one year and begins January 1 of each year. Respondent has not been required by any governmental agency to install individual water meters or assess homeowners based on usage. However, an official with the City of Melbourne Water and Sewage Operations recommended installing individual meters as a means of finding out where the water was going. Herrick had contacted the city regarding high water and sewer bills. After the meters were installed the city noted an average monthly reduction of 173,200 gallons of water at the park. Water charges within the park are determined by reading individual meters which are located on each individual lot within the mobile home park. The meter readings are forwarded to New York, where Mr. Herrick maintains his residence and main business. A bill for water usage is sent from New York to each tenant and the payment is received in the New York office. Water usage records are kept each month by the New York office in order to determine water usage and the appropriate billing rates for water and sewer for individual residents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding that Alfred Herrick, d/b/a Tan Tara Mobile Home Park violated Section 723.031(5), F.S., and requiring that: Respondent immediately cease assessing homeowner for utilities based on individual usage, and Respondent reimburse to each homeowner all sums collected since October 1, 1987, for utilities over and above that sum that would have been collected under a "pro rata" computation as described in the prospectus and park regulations. This latter computation should credit the homeowners for the $12.50 collected each month from October 1, 1987 until January 1, 1989. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra Roberts Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 David D. Eastman, Esquire P.O. Box 669 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James Kearney, Director Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1060 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Stephen R. MacNamara Secretary Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are whether the respondents engaged in a discriminatory housing practice, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2007),1 by discriminating against Petitioner, on the basis of her alleged disability, and by harassing Petitioner and retaliating against her.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a former resident of Broadview Mobile Home Park (Broadview), located at 1701 Post Road, Melbourne, Florida. Petitioner resided in Broadview for approximately six years from an undisclosed date in 2002 through September 8, 2008. Mr. Lamont Garber holds an ownership interest in Broadview. The record does not quantify the ownership interest of Mr. Garber. Mr. Garber manages Broadview with his brother, Mr. Wayne Garber. Broadview rents sites within the mobile home park to residents who own mobile homes. Each site has access to water and electric service. Each resident arranges his or her water and electric service directly with the respective utility provider. Sometime in 2005, Petitioner purchased a mobile home for approximately $6,500.00 and moved within Broadview to Lot 24. The rental agreement for Lot 24 required rent to be paid on the first day of each month. The rent for July 2008 was due on July 1, 2008. Petitioner failed to pay the rent payment that was due on July 1, 2008. On July 9, 2008, Broadview served Petitioner, by certified mail, with a notice that she had five business days in which to pay the rent due (the five-day notice). Petitioner received the five-day notice on July 10, 2008. The five-day period expired on July 17, 2008, with no rent payment from Petitioner. Petitioner had paid rent late in the past, but Petitioner had never been more than four or five days late. After July 17, 2008, Broadview initiated eviction proceedings. Petitioner tendered the rent payment on July 20, 2008, but Broadview proceeded with the eviction. Petitioner did not appear and defend the eviction proceeding. On August 26, 2008, the County Court for Brevard County, Florida, issued a Final Default Judgment of Eviction awarding possession of Lot 24 to Broadview. Law enforcement officers thereafter executed the Court's order and evicted Petitioner from Broadview on or about September 8, 2008. After Petitioner received the notice of eviction, she filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (DBPR). DBPR is the state agency responsible for regulating mobile home parks, including Broadview. The allegations in the complaint that Petitioner filed with DBPR were substantially similar to the claims of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and unlawful rent increases Petitioner asserts in this proceeding. DBPR rejected Petitioner's allegations and found that Broadview lawfully evicted Petitioner for non-payment of rent. The final agency action of DBPR is substantially similar to that of HUD and the Commission's proposed agency action in this proceeding. Each agency found that Broadview lawfully evicted Petitioner for non-payment of rent and rejected the allegations of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The DOAH proceeding is a de novo consideration of the proceeding before the Commission. A preponderance of the evidence does not establish a prima facie showing that Petitioner is disabled or handicapped. Petitioner has cancer and is receiving chemotherapy and radiation treatment. A preponderance of evidence does not show that the medical condition substantially limits one or more major life activities of Petitioner. Petitioner also alleges that she is disabled and handicapped by a mental condition. Petitioner submitted no medical evidence of the alleged disability or handicap. A preponderance of evidence does not establish a prima facie showing that, if such a mental condition exists, the condition substantially limits one or more major life activities of Petitioner. Assuming arguendo that a preponderance of the evidence showed that Petitioner were disabled or handicapped, a preponderance of evidence does not establish a prima facie showing that either of the respondents discriminated against Petitioner, harassed her, or evicted her in retaliation for Petitioner's disability or handicap. It is undisputed that Petitioner conducted neighborhood organization efforts to protest a rent increase at Broadview and repeatedly called law enforcement officials to report alleged drug and prostitution activity in Broadview.2 However, Broadview did not evict Petitioner for those activities, and Petitioner's testimony to the contrary is neither credible nor persuasive. Rather, Petitioner engaged in other activities that the respondents found objectionable. Petitioner baby sat for one or more dogs in violation of Broadview's prohibition against pets. Some of the dogs were dangerous to other residents. Petitioner also verbally abused Mr. Wayne Garber when he attempted to mediate with Petitioner concerning the presence of dogs and Petitioner's conduct toward management at Broadview. On July 1, 2008, Broadview served Petitioner with a seven-day notice concerning Petitioner's compliance with lease requirements. The notice, in relevant part, alleged that Petitioner harassed management and impaired the ability of management to perform its duties. The testimony of respondents describing the activities of Petitioner that precipitated the seven-day notice is credible and persuasive. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the respondents had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for requiring Petitioner to comply with the terms of the seven-day notice and for requiring Petitioner to comply with the requirement for rent to be paid on July 1, 2008. Petitioner failed to comply with either requirement, and Broadview evicted Petitioner for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The respondents did not harass or retaliate against Petitioner.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that the respondents did not engage in an unlawful housing practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 20th day of May, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Lake Waldena Resort is a mobile home park as defined by Section 723.003(6), Florida Statutes. It is located at Route 4, Box 300, Silver Springs, Florida 32688. The mobile home park is subject to regulation pursuant to Section 723.002(1), Florida Statutes. That law is administered by the Petitioner. All Respondents are mobile home park owners as defined by Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes. The Hilgemans are park owners and have been at all relevant times for this dispute. At the times relevant to the inquiry Pat Montgomery was the park operator, which equates to park owner under the terms of the statute. Pat Montgomery concluded her affiliation with Lake Waldena Resort in May 1989. Pat Montgomery, as the park operator, who had been employed by Donald L. Hilgeman, collected the rent from the mobile homeowners who had lots within the park. She attended any problems that the mobile homeowners confronted her with. She ordered supplies for the operation of the mobile home park. She sold mobile homes for use in the park and ordered them for sale. She was involved with the provision of carports and screen rooms associated with mobile homes in the park. She was responsible for the payroll and basically everything that transpired in the day-to- day operations in the mobile home park. The Hilgemans had limited affiliation with the park. Mr. Hilgeman was involved with doing physical labor at the park and was Montgomery's employer. On July 26, 1988, a notice of lot rental increase was mailed to all tenants in the Lake Waldena Resort Mobile Home Park. This notice was provided in accordance with Rule 7D-32.002(1), Florida Administrative Code. The basis for this increase was associated with the economic pressures on the park owner brought about by increases in real estate taxes, insurance costs, sanitation fees, other fees payable to the Petitioner, and wage increases. An exemplar of the form notice which had been sent out to each mobile home owner may be seen in Respondents' Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. All notices were dispatched by U.S. Mail. As contemplated by Rule 7D-32.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, official notice was considered to have been made within five days of July 26, 1988, which corresponded to July 31, 1988. A meeting within 30 days of the provision of notice as described in Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, would equate to August 30, 1988. The proposed lot increase was from $78 to $88. At the time of notification of the lot increase Lloyd Carter was the vice president of the homeowners' association at Lake Waldena Resort. He was residing in the mobile home park. Gordon Gibson was the president of the homeowner's association who, at the moment of the lot increase, was residing in Minden, Ontario, Canada. Mr. Carter picked up a copy of the notice of lot rental increase from the office at the mobile home park shortly after the notice had been prepared on July 26, 1988. He then called Mr. Gibson in Canada and explained the particulars of that notice. At that time, Mr. Carter stated no concerns to Mr. Gibson about the notice of lot rental increase. He merely informed Mr. Gibson of the pendency of the lot rental increase. Under ordinary circumstances the' expected time for delivery of mail dispatched from the United States to Canada was in the neighborhood of five to seven days; however, in August 1988, the Canadians were undergoing a postal strike which delayed matters. Nonetheless, Mr. Gibson received his copy of the notice and on August 4, 1988, he wrote Mr. Hilgeman. A copy of that correspondence may be seen as Respondents' Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence. Mr. Gibson informed Mr. Hilgeman in that correspondence that he wished to have a meeting to discuss the lot rental increase. The meeting would be attended by a committee of not more than four persons under the direction of Mr. Carter. He asked that the meeting be held at a convenient time prior to August 26, 1988. The basis for Mr. Gibson's action in which he requested a meeting with the park owner was through the process of discussion with his board of directors in independent conversations in which it was decided that a meeting was desired. A meeting to discuss the reasons for the lot rental increase was not held before August 26, 1988, or before August 30, 1988. When Mr. Gibson sent his August 4, 1988 correspondence he was aware of the problems of the postal strike in Canada and the delay that this might promote in the receipt of his letter by the park owner. He had not instructed Mr. Carter to make any contact with the park owner prior to the park owner's receipt of the correspondence which outlined the fact of Mr. Carter's duties as chairman of the committee. The return receipt correspondence from Gibson to Hilgeman dated August 4, 1988, was received by, Pat Montgomery in mid August 1988. By correspondence of August 22, 1988, addressed from Mr. Hilgeman to Mr. Gibson, a copy of which may be seen as Respondents' Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, Mr. Hilgeman demanded of Mr. Gibson that he confirm that a majority of the Lake Waldena residents had in fact selected Mr. Gibson to represent them. Reference is made in that letter to section 723.078(2)(b), Florida Statutes, having to do with the requirements for bylaws in homeowners' associations. This request of Mr. Gibson is not a prerogative of Mr. Hilgeman as park owner in dealing with the issue of the conduct of the meeting. Nor is it available to Mr. Hilgeman to remind Mr. Gibson that he had to comply Section 723.037(1), Florida Statutes or Section 723.076(1), Florida Statutes. To the extent that those provisions have any relevance to the homeowners' association, the former pertains to standing to challenge increases in such things as the lot rental amount through the homeowners' association, something that the park owner is not called upon to advise the homeowners' association about. This question of standing does not enter in to the matter of the ability to represent mobile home owners at a meeting pursuant to Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, for purposes of discussing the lot rental increase. Likewise, the latter statutory reference that describes the idea of incorporation of a homeowners' association and the need to notify the park owner is not associated with the meeting to discuss the purposes of the lot rental increase. On the other hand, when Mr. Hilgeman referred to Rules 7D-32.003(1) and 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, those are provisions which have some significance in considering the matter of a meeting to discuss a lot rental increase. Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Codes, states: If requested to do so by the park owner or subdivision developer, the committee shall certify that it has been selected as described Rule 7D-32.003, Florida Administrative Code. The certification shall include a certificate of all members of the committee attesting to its proper formation under the statute in these rules. Significantly, that provision does not describe the relationship of such a request to the obligation of the park owner to meet within 30 days of notice of lot rental increase as contemplated by Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. None of the principals, given the statutory scheme and rules that were designed to effectuate the purposes of the statute, could have reasonably understood on what terms the park owner was entitled to make this request taking into account the complications of corresponding back and forth between the United States and Canada in the midst of a mail strike, the consequence of which made it unlikely that the meeting would take place on or before August 30, 1988. In the conclusions of law a discussion is made of the effect of the request for certification and whether it tolls the time for conducting the informational session to discuss the reasons for the lot rental increase. The envelope for the August 22, 1988 correspondence was stamped in the United States on August 23, 1988, in Bradenton, Florida. It also bears a date of August 29, 1988, which is seen as a part of the verification of receipt of that letter in Canada. Mr. Gibson received the Hilgeman correspondence of August 22, 1988 on August 29, 1988. Mr. Carter also received a copy of the August 22, 1988 correspondence by Mr. Hilgeman and had a discussion with Mr. Hilgeman about that letter sometime around August 23 or August 24, 1988. That conversation took place in the mobile home park. This did not lead to the resolution of the certification request made by Mr. Hilgeman to the homeowners' association. It was left to Mr. Gibson to take care of the response to the request for certification. In the conversation being described, between Hilgeman and Carter, Carter made it known that he intended to complain to the Petitioner about the park owner not meeting with the homeowners' committee within 30 days of notice. A complaint was made as may be seen in a copy of that complaint which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. That complaint was sent out on August 26, 1988. The basis for the homeowners' association complaining to the Petitioner was related to their concern that they preserve their right to have the meeting even if it transpired beyond the 30 days contemplated in the statute. Notwithstanding the complaint's existence, Mr. Gibson went forward with his attempts to try to satisfy Mr. Hilgeman concerning certification and did so with the assistance of Victor Davis a member of the board of directors of the homeowners' association. Mr. Gibson's attitude about this was to the effect that the request by Mr. Hilgeman was a legitimate request that should be complied with. A discussion had also been held between Carter and Hilgeman on August 18, 1988, in which Mr. Hilgeman gave advance notice of the fact that he needed several questions answered and that there would be a delay in the meeting. The indication was made that a letter would be sent to Mr. Gibson to have those questions answered. That eventuated in the August 22, 1988 correspondence from Hilgeman to Gibson. Upon making these matters known to Mr. Carter on August 18, 1988, Mr. Carter's only remark was that this would be "fine." On September 9, 1988, a letter was written from Ralph B. Murray, Jr., Specialist Enforcement Section, Bureau of Mobile Homes within the Petitioner's department which was sent to Mr. Hilgeman reminding him of the necessity to respond to allegations that had been made by the Lake Waldena Resort Homeowners' Association concerning the claim that Mr. Hilgeman had refused to meet with those mobile homeowners in the statutorily prescribed time as announced at Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. On September 13, 1988, by correspondence, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence, Mr. Hilgeman offered his reply. He tells Mr. Murray that he is not sure whether the homeowners' association is legitimate and that they had not responded to his August 22, 1988 correspondence to Mr. Gibson which he enclosed in his letter to Mr. Murray. He spoke of delays in the mailing time for mail coming from Canada. He makes mention of the fact of having informed Mr. Carter that the manager, who was Ms. Montgomery was on vacation and would not return until August 30, 1988. In fact, Ms. Montgomery was not available to meet with the homeowners' association in the period August 18 through August 30, 1988. This would not have relieved Mr. Hilgeman of the necessity to meet with the homeowners' association on or before August 30, 1988, had they complied with his request for certification prior to that date. They did not. Compliance with the certification process was achieved by correspondence of September 12, 1988 from Gibson to Hilgeman in which he sets out the explanation of certification of the credentials of the homeowners' association to form a committee and meet with the park owner. That was received by the park owner on September 19, 1988, in the person of Pat Montgomery. A copy of this correspondence and the certification of receipt may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. After receipt of the information concerning the certification of the homeowners' association committee, Mr. Hilgeman sent a letter to Mr. Carter on September 29, 1988, to establish a meeting. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 13 admitted into evidence. It outlines the fact that Mr. Hilgeman is sufficiently satisfied concerning the certification to have the meeting and offers a meeting prior to October 4, 1988 or after October 9, 1988, and invites Mr. Carter to consult with Pat Montgomery to establish a mutually convenient time for the meeting. A meeting was held between Mr. Murray and Mr. Hilgeman in October, 1988, in which a discussion ensued concerning whether or not Mr. Hilgeman himself would meet with the homeowners' committee. Mr. Hilgeman held firm in his attitude that his manager Pat Montgomery would be available to meet with the homeowners' committee, but that Mr. Hilgeman would not be meeting with them. As explained in the correspondence of October 14, 1988, addressed from Mr. Carter to Mr. Murray, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 14 admitted into evidence, contact was made between Carter and Montgomery and Carter was told on October 11, 1988 that a meeting would be held at 10:00 a.m. on October 14, 1988, between Montgomery and the committee. She was told by Carter that this meeting would not be acceptable unless Mr. Hilgeman was in attendance. Based upon conversations with Mr. Murray, the homeowners' association had been persuaded that it was only appropriate to meet with Mr. Hilgeman. Consequently, by this logic it was not appropriate to meet with Ms. Montgomery. A copy of this correspondence of August 14, 1988 was made available to Mr. Hilgeman. On June 7, 1989, the Petitioner brought an action against the Respondent and he sought a formal hearing which was conducted on February 22, 1990. Prior to that hearing the homeowners did have their meeting with Mr. Hilgeman on November 14, 1989, in which they were made aware of the reasons for the lot rental increase. The homeowners accepted the explanation and the idea of the increase and do not desire to pursue the present complaint against the Respondents. When Mr. Hilgeman sought certification of the credentials of the committee assigned by the homeowners association he was acting in good faith. In addition, he was entitled to look to Pat Montgomery as park operator and by consequence park owner under the definition of Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes, to speak for him in the course of the meeting to discuss the lot rental increase. The misconception of the committee of mobile home owners concerning the necessity to meet with Mr. Hilgeman and not with his park operator, as fostered by the remarks of Mr. Murray, who lead those mobile homeowners to believe that they could only meet with Mr. Hilgeman, caused a delay in arranging the meeting. Mr. Hilgeman should not be hold accountable for that delay.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered that dismisses these actions against the Respondents. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 18th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-4100 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1-9 are subordinate to facts found. Although Paragraph 10 is an accurate portrayal of the meeting of August 24, 1988 between Mr. Carter and Mr. Hilgeman, it should be stated that any meeting to discuss lot rental increase was contingent upon the response to the certification request made by Mr. Hilgeman and replied to by Mr. Gibson on a date beyond the 30 day period. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 13, whatever Mr. Hilgeman perceptions would be about the role of Ms. Montgomery, whether she was considered to be the same as an attorney representing or in some other capacity, in law she was a park owner and entitled to act in behalf of the park owners at the meeting. Concerning Paragraph 14, the effect of failing to respond to the request for certification within the 30 day period was tantamount to a waiver or agreement to meet at a time later. Paragraph 15 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 16, to the extent this paragraph suggests that the length of the meeting or breadth of detail in the explanation made by Mr. Hilgeman was inadequate, that idea is rejected in that sufficient explanation was given to comply with the requirements of law. The comments in Paragraph 17 are not relevant. The accommodation that was made between counsel was not a necessary arrangement to mitigate the circumstance in an instance where Respondent Donald L. Hilgeman had violated Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. This meeting was beneficial to the homeowners and park owners alike, but came at this late date based upon the failure of the homeowners to meet with Pat Montgomery over a year earlier. Respondents' Facts Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution to the dispute. Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of those two sentences that come before the last sentence in that paragraph. Paragraphs 4 and 5 and all sentences save the last of Paragraph 6 are subordinate to facts found. That sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 7 through 11 with the exception of the second sentence in Paragraph 11 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is misleading in that it intimates that Mr. Carter was derelict in his duties to make contact with Mr. Hilgeman to establish a meeting; however, the contacts that were made were in accordance with the expectations of Mr. Hilgeman and Mr. Gibson who were controlling the timing of that meeting. Paragraphs 14 through 16 with the exception of the last sentence to Paragraph 16 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence to Paragraph 16 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 17 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence which is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence which is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute. Paragraph 21 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute and is an inaccurate portrayal of the requirements of law as to gaining the approval of the majority of homeowners before representing them in the course of a meeting to discuss lot rental increases. Paragraphs 22 through 25 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 David D. Eastman, Esquire Parker, Skelding, Labasky & Corry Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Susan C. Marvin Pamela Leslie Assistants General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL, 32399-1007
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 presented is whether subsections (1) and (4) of Rule 7D-32.002, Florida Administrative Code, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
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).
Findings Of Fact Michael Weiss is part owner of Suncoast International, Inc. and general manager of the corporation's only business, a trailer park in Flagler County known as Flagler by the Sea Mobile Home Park. At all pertinent times, the park has leased or offered for lease a total of 44 mobile home lots. In mid-1985, Mr. Weiss received a letter from petitioner Department of Business Regulation (DBR) informing him that park owners were required by law to prepare and distribute prospectuses to mobile home tenants. Efforts to draft a prospectus meeting petitioner's approval began in August of 1985. After several revisions, the petitioner approved a prospectus on June 13, 1986, No. 1802171P, for all lots. Mr. Weiss received written notice of approval, together with a copy of the prospectus to which it pertained, with attachments, on June 26, 1986; and promptly arranged for a copier to produce 50 uncollated copies of everything received from the petitioner, see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, including the cover letter. With the assistance of Mr. and Mrs. Whaley, who worked for the company at the park, he tried to assemble at least 44 complete sets of these materials. In late May of 1986, Mr. Weiss had given all tenants notice by registered mail of his intention to raise rents, effective September 1, 1986. Realizing he needed to distribute prospectuses before any rent increase, he had simultaneously informed tenants that a then current (but unapproved) version of the prospectus was available for inspection. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. Hand Delivery As instructed, Ms. Whaley encouraged tenants to pick copies of the prospectus up when they paid their rent. She kept a list of persons to whom she distributed copies of the prospectus. Part of the list survived and has been received in evidence. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. One tenant, Mary Oetken, received a copy of the approved prospectus on July 29, 1986. But the prospectus given to Ms. Oetken did not contain rules and regulations, a copy of the lot rental agreement, a lot layout plan, or the number of her lot. Ms. Oetken already had a copy of her lot rental agreement, and park personnel customarily distributed copies of rules and regulations to each tenant, before tenancies began. On August 29, 1986, another tenant, Betty Marinoff, wife of Peter, received a copy of an approved prospectus. Before September 1, 1986, Ms. Whaley hailed Mr. Philip H. Bird, and handed him a copy. Whether these copies of the approved pro-spectus included all attachments the evidence did not disclose. Robert Onusko, who has leased a lot in Flagler by the Sea Mobile Home Park continuously since August of 1981, has had a copy of the park's rules and regulations since he moved in. As did all other tenants, he paid increased rent beginning September 1, 1986. Although Mr. Onusko himself received no copy of an approved prospectus until January of 1989, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, Angela Whaley gave his daughter Marilyn a copy of the prospectus when Marilyn paid rent in July or August. Taped to Doors Not all tenants were then in residence at the park. About half lived there full time. (T.127) With respect to lots whose lessees were away, Mr. Weiss directed Mr. and Mrs. Whaley to tape copies of the prospectus on trailer doors. "That was common procedure with late payments or whatever . . . " T.112. In mid-August of 1986, Ms. Whaley told him that prospectuses had been distributed for each lot, either by delivery to a tenant or by posting. Clarence Rainey leased a lot from 1977 to 1989 at Flagler by the Sea Mobile Home Park, where he lived part of the year, returning to Illinois in the summer. Told by a neighbor that they were available, he asked for and received a prospectus in November of 1986. He had not received one earlier. With her husband Roger, Madeline DuJardin resided at Flagler by the Sea from February of 1979 until February of 1988. She did not get a copy of the approved prospectus before the rent increased on September 1, 1986, from $125.00 to $150.00 per month. Neither Mr. and Mrs. Rainey nor Mr. and Mrs. DuJardin received copies when they were originally distributed. Their trailers were among those to which copies were taped, weeks or months before their return in cooler weather. Charles A. Bond, who shared a trailer with a half-brother, resided at Flagler by the Sea from November 21, 1985, until December 31, 1988. While he lived at the park he never received a prospectus. Brothers surnamed Karcher each leased lots from respondent. Ms. Whaley gave one Mr. Karcher a copy of the approved prospectus, before September 1, 1986. But Richard Karcher, who in those days only spent a week at a time in the park, at intervals of several months, did not receive a copy of the approved prospectus before the rent increased. Richard Karcher had obtained a preliminary draft of the prospectus, but it differed in important respects from the draft which was eventually approved. In June of 1988, he obtained another copy of the prospectus, the copy, he testified, which he gave DBR's investigator, which also differs in important respects from the approved version. Attached to the copy Mr. Karcher gave DBR's investigator was a set of the park rules and regulations. It is not clear whether Ms. Whaley told Mr. Weiss that she had taped an approved copy to Mr. Richard Karcher's door. (T. 126, 128) Change of Law Effective July 1, 1986, statutory changes altered prospectus requirements. Petitioner mailed advice concerning the new requirements when it sent out annual fee statements to mobile park owners. Mr. Weiss did not personally receive this advice nor any written notice of the nine workshops petitioner conducted in August of 1986 to acquaint park owners with the statutory changes. Although approved a few days earlier, respondent's prospectus did not conform to all the new requirements. In early 1988, Mr. Weiss heard from Gloria Thompson, a DBR employee in its Tampa office, in connection with a complaint filed by Charles Jagde, the same person whose complaint led to the investigation that gave rise to the present proceedings. Ms. Thompson found no violation on the original complaint. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. Eventually Mr. Weiss learned that revisions to prospectus No. 1802171 were necessary. On November 18, 1988, he filed another proposed prospectus with petitioner. After its approval on January 30, 1989, park personnel distributed the revised, approved prospectus, No. 1802171P86, to the tenants.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DBR enter an order requiring respondent to send complete copies of currently approved prospectuses by registered mail to all tenants who have not received such copies personally and signed receipts so stating. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 11 through 14 and 16 through 19 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the evidence did not establish the contents of the copy of the prospectus the Miranoffs received. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 8, Mr. Onusko's adult daughter Marilyn received a copy of the prospectus before the rent increased. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 10 pertains to subordinate matters only. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 15, Mr. Karcher so testified, without contradiction. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 10, 12 through 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27 through 30 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the prospectus had not been approved at that time. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, she did not personally deliver prospectuses to all tenants. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 20, the differences were material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 23, 25 and 26 are immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Debra Roberts, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Paul Martz, Esquire Martz & Zimmerman 3 Palm Row St. Augustine, FL 32084 Stephen R. MacNamara Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 =================================================================
