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 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondents, Wayne Jones, manager (Mr. Jones), and Sun Key Village (Sun Key), are entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to sections 57.105(5) and 120.595, Florida Statutes (2010),1/ and ,if entitled to an award, then the determination of a reasonable amount.
Findings Of Fact The Beaulieus are residents of Sun Key, a mobile home park located at 8607 26th Avenue, East, Palmetto, Florida. Mr. Jones is the manager of Sun Key. Sun Key is a mobile home park as defined by section 723.003(6), Florida Statutes. On March 25, 2010, the Beaulieus filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission stating: I still feel this is discrimination-- Mr. Jones states I am violating park rules by having a dog over 20 lbs this dog is a Visitor not a resident pet. It is my sons' dog--visits on occasion. There are many dogs over 20lbs & living in Sun Key. This is selective enforcement!!! Ms. Beaulieu attached to her Petition for Relief a lengthy hand-written document, alleging that other residents were violating Sun Key park rules concerning the size and number of permissible dogs. On March 30, 2010, the Commission forwarded the Beaulieus' petition to DOAH. An Initial Order was issued, requiring the parties to respond concerning, in part, the amount of time required for the hearing and the date and location for the hearing. On April 6, 2010, Carol S. Grondzik, Esquire (Ms. Grondzik), of Lutz, Bobo, Telfair, Eastman, Gabel & Lee, filed a response for Respondents. On April 8, 2010, the Beaulieus, acting as their own attorneys, filed a response. Based on the responses, the Administrative Law Judge set the case for final hearing on August 3, 2010. On April 12, 2010, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. In the Motion to Dismiss, Respondents argued that the Beaulieus "have not alleged they are members of a protected class under fair housing law." Further, the motion referenced Ms. Beaulieu's letter dated March 8, 2010, requesting an appeal of the Commission's no cause determination. Specifically, the Motion to Dismiss stated that the Beaulieus' complaint was for "selective enforcement" and not tied to retaliation based on the prior housing complaint filed by Ms. Beaulieu's sister. Thus, the Motion to Dismiss concluded that: [B]ecause Petitioners do not assert that they are members of a protected class under fair housing law, because they do not pursue a claim of retaliation against Respondents Wayne Jones and Sun Key, and because Bert Blanchard and the Sun Key Village Homeowners Association, Inc., are not providers of housing subject to fair housing laws, this Petition should be dismissed as a matter of law. On April 12, 2010, Ms. Grondzik served, by U.S. mail, a copy of the Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, pursuant to section 57.105, with a letter to the Beaulieus. Specifically, Ms. Grondzik's letter states: A Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs is also enclosed for your review. I will hold this motion for at least 21 days before filing with the Division as required by Florida law. This allows you time to analyze the relevant facts and law, to seek advice as necessary, and to take action. On April 19, 2010, DOAH issued a Notice of Ex-parte Communication after it had received a copy of a letter that had been sent by Kenneth Wiggins (Mr. Wiggins), an attorney for the Beaulieus, to Ms. Grondzik. The terms of the letter sought to settle the dispute between the Beaulieus and Respondents. Mr. Wiggins, however, did not make an appearance for the Beaulieus before DOAH, and it was unclear who mailed the letter to DOAH. In any event, the Beaulieus continued to represent themselves in the proceedings before DOAH. On July 7, 2010, the Beaulieus filed a motion for continuance of the August 3, 2010, hearing date. The Administrative Law Judge denied the motion. On July 19, 2010, the Beaulieus filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of their petition. On July 21, 2010, Respondents filed the Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs and Notice of Filing Affidavit of Carol S. Grondzik. Ms. Grondzik's affidavit set out the hourly rate and the scope of work performed to date in the case. On July 29, 2010, Respondents filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of Respondent's [sic] Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. At the January 14, 2011, hearing, Ms. Beaulieu testified about instances where the mobile home park failed to enforce its rules and regulations concerning the pet size for residents. Further, she testified that she had brought the DOAH proceeding to address the unfair and selective enforcement of the mobile home park's rules. Sun Key Village Mobile Home Park, Park Rules and Regulations provides, in pertinent part, that: 9. Pets: A maximum of two small pets are permitted, which at maturity must not weigh greater than 20 pounds each. Pets must be confined to the interior of the home when the resident is not present and must be on a leash at all times when outside of tenant's home. They must be transported to areas outside of residence or common areas for exercise. The record shows that the Beaulieus were provided a copy of the rule when moving into Sun Key. Mr. Wayne Jones testified that there were instances when exceptions had been made for residents to have dogs larger than 20 pounds. For example, he identified that residents, who had large, elderly dogs when they moved into Sun Key, were allowed to keep their pets. Mr. Peterson, an attorney who has extensive experience in representing mobile home park owners, testified concerning the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs. Mr. Peterson testified that he considered the factors outlined in Florida's Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), and reviewed the legal file in this case. Based on his review, Mr. Peterson found that 57.2 hours were reasonable in defense of this case and that the blended hourly rate of $235.92 was reasonable. Therefore, Mr. Peterson testified the reasonable attorney's fees to be $13,494.40 and the amount of taxable costs to be $575.00. Mr. Peterson also testified that Respondents would be entitled to attorney's fees for having to litigate the issue of fee entitlement. Mr. Peterson testified that 14 hours would not be an unreasonable amount of time for preparing and attending a hearing concerning the entitlement to fees, for a total of $3,302.88 using the blended hourly rate of $235.92. Based on a review of the record and testimony offered at trial, 71.2 hours is a reasonable amount of time spent on the defense of the instant case and litigating the issue of entitlement to attorney's fees. A review of the record and testimony shows that $235.92 an hour is a reasonable prevailing blended hourly rate. The parties stipulated that the Beaulieus are not members of a protected class under the fair housing law.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner has been the subject of a discriminatory housing practice by the Respondent through the alleged failure of the Respondent to provide a reasonable accommodation for a disability.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the case, the Respondent operated an age-restricted mobile home park in Sarasota, Florida. With limited exceptions, residents of the mobile home park are 55 years of age and older. In September 2000, the Petitioner, a woman over 55 years of age, purchased a mobile home located within the Ridgewood Mobile Home Park. The mobile home was purchased through a real estate broker. The mobile home park apparently identifies itself through signage as a community for persons 55 years of age and older. Prior to the purchase the Petitioner had no communication with the Respondent and made no inquiry of the Respondent as to whether her son, who is under 55 years of age, would be allowed to live in the mobile home park. Within a few days of the purchase, the Petitioner was advised that residence in the mobile home park was limited, with certain exceptions, to persons 55 years of age and older. The Respondent advised the Petitioner that her son, who is under 55 years of age, could remain with her only for a period of up to two months to help her "settle in." By lease application dated October 1, 2000, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that her son would remain with her for a period of two months. In November 2000, after the two months had passed, the manager of the mobile home park (Mr. Cobb) informed the Respondent that her son would have to leave the residence. At that time, the Petitioner's son asserted that he was his mother's full-time, live-in caregiver. Prior to this point, the Petitioner had not indicated to the Respondent that she suffered from a handicap or required the services of a full-time, live-in caregiver The evidence fails to establish that, either at the time of the Petitioner's initial residence at the Respondent's mobile home park or by November 2000, the Petitioner suffered from a handicap or from any condition that substantially limited any major life activity, or that the Petitioner required the assistance of a full-time, live-in caregiver. At the time the Petitioner moved into the Respondent's mobile home park, the Petitioner was able to accomplish all major life activities. Although diabetic, the Petitioner was able to walk, drive, and shop for food or other necessities. Her son assisted in house cleaning and in other routine activities, but there is no credible evidence that, prior to August 2002, such assistance was required for performing major life activities. In August 2002, shortly after a medical procedure on the Petitioner's carotid artery, the Petitioner suffered a stroke. She was hospitalized for a period of approximately ten days and then transferred into a rehabilitation hospital for a period of approximately six weeks. Letters submitted from medical professionals involved with the Petitioner's case at the time of her stroke suggest that assistance was needed during the period of incapacity related to the stroke. There is no credible evidence that, subsequent to rehabilitation, the Petitioner needed the services of a full- time, live-in caregiver. After rehabilitation, the Petitioner recovered from the stroke sufficiently to regain her ability to perform major life activities, including driving an automobile. A subsequent automobile accident wherein she ran down a stop sign in the mobile home park after going shopping suggests that driving at night may be inappropriate. Following post-stroke rehabilitation, the Petitioner's son continued to reside with his mother, to assist in household duties and in assuring that the Petitioner followed a medication regimen, but the evidence fails to establish that she currently requires a full-time, live-in caregiver. At the time of the hearing, neither the Petitioner nor her son was residing in the Respondent's mobile home park. The evidence establishes that disabled or handicapped persons in the mobile home park who require full-time, live-in caregivers are accommodated without regard to the age of the caregiver or to the mobile home park's age-related restrictions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the complaint of Dona M. Burgess against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth M. Boyle, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc. 1750 17th Street, Building 1 Sarasota, Florida 34234 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kimberly P. Walker, Esquire Kevin Bruning, Esquire Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen 200 South Orange Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34236-6802 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Did Westside Ridge Adult Mobile Home Community (Westside) violate Rule 10D-26.085, Florida Administrative Code, by having standing water in its mobile home park for more than 48 hours? If so, is this sufficient basis for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) to deny Westside's application for renewal of its mobile home park operating permit?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the deposition testimony and documentary evidence presented by the parties in this case, the following findings of fact are made: Westside Ridge, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, is the owner of Westside Ridge Adult Mobile Home Community. Under Chapter 513, Florida Statutes, the Department, in conjunction with the representative county public health units, such as the Polk County Public Health Unit, is the agency charged with the responsibility of inspecting mobile home parks such as Westside to assure their compliance with public health laws and rules. On August 14, 1995, the Department inspected Westside and found water underneath some of the mobile homes in the park; water covering some of lots in the park; and water ponding in some of the streets in the park. This water had been standing for more than 48 hours. The Department's inspector issued an Inspection Report dated August 14, 1995. This report indicated that the unsatisfactory condition found at the mobile home park was the park drainage. The report stated that all violations of standing water must be corrected within 14 days. Westside received a copy of the Inspection Report from the August 14, 1995, inspection in a timely manner. Sometime around September 10, 1995, Westside retained the services of J. D. Smith Exterminators, Inc. (Smith), a professional pest control service, to treat any standing water in Westside's mobile home park. Westside has not corrected the conditions which affected the drainage in the mobile home park and resulted in the water standing in the park for over 48 hours. The Department contends that the rule requires Westside correct the conditions - either fill in the depressions in the soil or provide proper drainage of the water - which affect the drainage and results in water standing over 48 hours in the mobile home park. Westside contends that the rule does not prohibit water standing over 48 hours where the water is treated and does not contribute to mosquito or fly breeding. By letter dated September 15, 1995, Westside advised the Department that Westside would retain a professional pest control service to prevent any standing water from contributing to mosquito or fly breeding. Westside also requested that the Department advise it if the Department intended to seek enforcement pursuant to the Department's interpretation of Rule 10D-26.085, Florida Administrative Code. Apparently, the request concerning enforcement was made as a result of a telephone conversation between one of the Department's representatives and Westside's counsel on Thursday, September 14, 1995, concerning the Department's interpretation of the rule and what the Department intended to require Westside to correct the alleged violation of the rule. The Department did not advise Westside or its counsel of its intent to pursue enforcement. On or about September 10, 1995, Smith visited Westside mobile home park and found water standing as reported on the August Inspection Report but did not treat the water because Smith did not have the necessary chemical on hand. On or about September 13, 1995, Smith returned to Westside's mobile home park to treat the standing water but, upon arrival, Smith did not find any standing water at the mobile home park that required treatment. Before Westside's current annual mobile home park operating permit expired, Westside timely filed its application with the Department for the renewal of its mobile home park operating permit. The Department issued a Denial Of Application For Mobile Home Park/Recreational Vehicle Park Operating Permit dated November 26, 1995, denying Westside's application for its annual mobile home park operating permit. The basis of the Department's denial was that Westside mobile home park had violated Rule 10D-26.085, Florida Administrative Code, in that the mobile home park had been found to have standing water in the park in excess of the 48 hour period allowed by the rule. The denial also warned Westside that unless it had requested a hearing, or ceased operating the park, or remit a plan of action to remove all standing water and measures to prevent reoccurrence of the violation that Westside would be cited for operating without a valid permit within 30 days. During the summer of 1995, there was an above-average rainfall in Polk County, Florida which resulted in flooding problems in mobile home parks located throughout Polk County, Florida, including Westside's mobile home park. Based on the testimony of the Department's employees involved with the inspection of mobile home parks, the flooding conditions were the worst seen in Polk County, Florida in 25 years. The is no evidence of how long water had been standing in Westside's mobile home park before the Department's inspection on August 14, 1995, other than it had been standing over 48 hours. There is no evidence of Westside being cited for having water standing in its park for over 48 hours at any time previous to the August 14, 1995, inspection. There is no evidence of any water standing, for any length of time, in Westside's mobile home park, after September 14, 1995. Although the inspection report for January 10, 1996, indicates water standing in drainage ditches along the sides of Westside mobile home park, there is no evidence that these drainage ditches are in fact within the park boundary. The Department did not inspect Westside mobile home park again until January 10, 1996, which was after the issuance of the denial of the permit on November 26, 1995. There were no violations or unsatisfactory conditions, such as drainage, indicated on the Department's January 10, 1996, Inspection Report, notwithstanding that the Department's position is that since Westside has failed to correct the drainage problem which resulted in the standing water it continues to be in violation of Rule 10D-26.085, Florida Administrative Code. Treating standing water with chemicals to prevent mosquito and fly breeding does not solve all of the public health problems that may be associated with water that has been standing for long periods of time. It is the Department's position that water standing in the park for more than 48 hours is a violation of Rule 10D-085, Florida Administrative Code, and, without any other violation, is sufficient to deny the application for the operating permit. Other than the violation for having standing water in the park for over 48 hours and the failure to correct the conditions which resulted in the standing water, the Department concedes that Westside meets all other criteria for granting the application for a mobile home park operating permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for a mobile home operating permit. However, it is further recommended that the Department monitor the Westside mobile home park so as to determine if conditions presently existing at the park result in water standing in the park in excess of 48 hours under normal rainfall. If water found is to be standing in the park in excess of 48 under normal rainfall, the Department should then move to require Westside to correct the condition. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of May, 1996, 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 7th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0273 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 11, 13, 16, 17, 19 through 25, 29, 30, 31 and 33 through 36 are adopted in substance as modified in the Findings of Fact 1 through 22. Proposed findings of fact 12 and 26 through 28 are neither material nor relevant. Proposed findings of fact 14, 15 and 37 through 41 are argument rather than findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact 18 and 32 are not supported by evidence in the record. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 22 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 22. Proposed findings of fact 23 and 24 are argument rather than findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Timothy F. Campbell, Esquire Clark, Comparetto & Campbell, P.A. 4740 Cleveland Heights Boulevard Post Office Box 6559 Lakeland, Florida 33807 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 14 270 Bartow Municipal Airport Bartow, Florida 33830
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bertram Gould, is president and stockholder of Mohican Valley, Inc., d/b/a Indian Woods Subdivision. The Indian Woods Subdivision is located in Seminole County and consists of in excess of 150 subdivided lots. On May 20, 1982, Mohican Valley, Inc. purchased a mobile home park located in Seminole County, Florida, from Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation. The park was formerly known as Mohawk Village, but is now known as the Indian Woods Subdivision. Bertram Gould and Mohican Valley, Inc. acquired their interest in the subdivision by virtue of a purchase and sale agreement, deed and assignment of lease indentures from Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation. Individuals desiring to live in the mobile home park purchase their mobile home and contemporaneously sign a 99-year lease on the lots upon which the mobile homes are to be placed. The mobile homes purchased by prospective residents in the subdivision are typically purchased from Vaughn Motors, Inc., a corporation of which Mr. Gould is president. In 1981, Vaughn Motors, Inc. sold a mobile home to Alfred and Beverly Powers, which arrived at the park and was setup on November 30, 1981, or shortly thereafter. On March 1, 1982, Vaughn Motors, Inc. sold that mobile home to Warren E. and Sylvia Joyce Krummel, since the Powers had elected not to close the purchase. On the date of the sale to the Krummels, the mobile home was already setup on Lot 1, Block E, of the subdivision and ready for occupancy. On June 14, 1982, after the May 20 purchase of the subdivision by Mohican Valley, Inc, through its president, Bertram Gould, the Krummels executed an Indenture of Lease for Lot 1, Block E. There was thus a residential building on that property subject to the lease at the time the lease was entered into. On June 5, 1982, Dorothy Merritt signed a purchase agreement to buy a mobile home and the mobile home was delivered and setup on her lot on August 6, 1982. On that date she also signed a lease for the lot where the mobile home was placed. Thus, when the interest in that property was conveyed by lease, there was a residential building on the lot. Roy and Lydia Ardizzone initially leased a lot in the park from Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation before the sale to Mohican Valley, Inc. and Bertram Gould. In August, 1982, after Mohican Valley, Inc. purchased the subdivision, the Ardizzones decided to place a mobile home on their lot, but since the Phase II portion of the subdivision in which their original lot was located was not completely developed, it was not feasible to place the home on the lot at that time. Accordingly, they asked Mr. Gould to substitute their lot for a lot in Phase I in order to facilitate placing a home on the lot and begin living in the park. Mr. Gould agreed and the substitution occurred on August 31, 1982, on which date the Ardizzones also signed a lease for the lot. They ordered a mobile home to be placed on that lot, which arrived some 10 days later, on September 9, 1982. It was immediately setup on the Ardizzone's lot. Thus, at the time the lease of August 31, 1982, was executed by the Ardizzones and Bertram Gould, the Ardizzones had already ordered the mobile home for immediate delivery, which was delivered and setup some 10 days later. Thus, there was an obligation on the part of the Respondent to provide a mobile home to them in less than two years and indeed within days. On or about September 4, 1982, Bertram Gould caused a mobile home to be placed on Lot 3, Block B of the subdivision and had it prepared for occupancy. On November 5, 1982, George W. and Alice H. Woodward signed a purchase agreement for the mobile home and ultimately executed a lease for the lot upon which that mobile home sat on January 10, 1983. They moved into their home on or about February 17, 1983. Thus, at the time the lease was executed by the Woodwards and Respondent, a residential building was present on the property subject to the lease. Mohican Valley, Inc.'s predecessor in title, Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation, had, during the course of its development of the mobile home park, entered into approximately 156 ground leases for mobile home lots. In conjunction with the acquisition of title to the park by Mohican Valley, Inc., Mohican Valley Inc. was assigned all rights of Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation in those 156 leases which had already been recorded by Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation prior to the acceptance of assignment by Mohican Valley, Inc. It was not established that Mohican Valley, Inc. or Bertram Gould had participated in any offer or disposition of the property which was the subject of those leases prior to Mohican Valley, Inc.'s acceptance of their assignment. Prior to May 20, 1982, the Respondent had no ownership interest in either the mobile home park or in Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation, which owned and managed the Park. He was not an officer, director, employee, salesman or any type of agent for the owner of the mobile home subdivision prior to May 20, 1982. The only nexus between the Respondent and the mobile home park prior to May 20, 1982, was his position as president of Vaughn Motors, Inc. which had sold mobile homes to some of the residents of the park who had executed leases which ultimately became assigned to Mohican Valley, Inc. The Respondent caused certain advertisements to be placed in the Orlando Sentinel newspaper. Although an advertisement was placed April 25, 1982, the Respondent was not involved in the publishing of that advertisement. It appeared in the newspaper approximately a month prior to purchase of the park by Mr. Gould's company. On June 4 and 5, 1982; September 19, 1982; October 10, 1982; and January 29, 1983, the Respondent admittedly placed advertisements in the Orlando Sentinel representing amounts of monthly lot rent, terms of available bank financing, the office address, the phone number and hours of operation, as well as representing the fact that mobile homes could be purchased at the park for a listed price, including certain optional features, as well as the representation that the mobile home park then owned by Mohican Valley, Inc. offered quarter-acre lots and double-wide homes with certain amenities. The price for lot rent was represented as never increasing. Bank financing was advertised as available variously at 14 and a quarter percent interest and 13 and a half percent interest. The representations contained in those advertisements were true, however, at the time Mohican Valley, Inc. took title to the mobile home park, a foreclosure action and lis pendens had been filed on that property by Florida Land Company, the mortgagee on a mortgage executed by Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation, Mohican Valley, Inc.'s predecessor in title. That foreclosure had been filed on or before March 21, 1983, as evidenced by the Motion to Intervene (in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4), which was filed in that foreclosure proceeding by Mohican Valley, Inc. No representation was made in these advertisements concerning the fact that the property which was the subject of the mobile home lot leases offered by Respondent was the subject of a mortgage encumbrance which was then in foreclosure, which foreclosure predated those advertisements. Bertram Gould, as president of Mohican Valley, Inc., as the movant in that Motion to Intervene, and as the successor in title to the mortgagor-in-foreclosure, knew of the existence of the facts surrounding that foreclosure as they related to the interest in the land he sought to convey and the effects such a foreclosure might have on the persons or residents of the park who executed those leases as lessee thereafter. Bertram Gould thus materially participated in the offer or disposition of the lots for lease in the subdivision and advertised those dispositions or offerings without representing that the real property to which they related was the subject of a pending foreclosure action. No reservation program has been approved by Petitioner for Bertram Gould, Mohican Valley, Inc. and/or Indian Woods, nor has any application for such been filed. No public offering statement for Bertram Gould, Mohican Valley, Inc. or Indian Woods, nor any application for such has, as of the time of the hearing, been filed and approved. The Indian Woods Subdivision has not been registered with the Petitioner by either Bertram Gould or Mohican Valley, Inc. Bertram Gould has engaged in the disposition of these subdivided lands directly as well as on behalf of Mohican Valley, Inc., of which corporation he is president and stockholder. Bertram Gould has offered, disposed of or participated in the offer or disposition of interests in the subdivided lands involved herein, which are located in Florida, by offering the subject land for leases to prospective mobile home purchasers and park residents.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That Bertram Gould be found guilty of violations of Sections 498.023(1) and (2), and Section 498.049(4) and Sections 498.051(1)(a), (b), and (d); that a penalty of $2,000 be imposed and that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist the above described activities until the requirements delineated above involving registration of the subject subdivision, approval and promulgation of a current offering statement have been accomplished. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ladd H. Fassett, Esquire Post Office Box 2747 Orlando, Florida 32802 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case concern the attempt by Petitioner to collect $11,684.62 in attorneys fees and costs associated with the defense of the case of State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Petitioner, vs. Donald L. Hilgeman and Marilyn Hilgeman, d/b/a DLH Enterprises; and Pat Montgomery, as park owners of Lake Waldena Resort, Respondents, DOAH Case No. 89-4100, and $931.50 in attorneys fees and costs attributable to the pursuit of the present case to collect those attorneys fees and costs attributable to the defense of the administrative prosecution. See Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this inquiry Petitioner was a mobile home park owner as defined by Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes (1987). Petitioner, Marilyn Hilgeman, his former wife, and Pat Montgomery had administrative charges brought against them through a notice to show cause. In that notice to show cause those three individuals were identified as park owners of Lake Waldena Resort in Silver Springs, Florida. In particular the present Respondent charged the Petitioner and the others with violating Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987) for having refused to meet with a designated mobile home owners committee within 30 days of giving notice of a lot rent increase and having been requested to conduct that meeting for purpose of discussing the reasons for the increase in the lot rental amount. The accused sought a formal hearing as envisioned by Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. That hearing was conducted by the undersigned and a recommended order entered on April 18, 1990, in the aforementioned DOAH Case No. 89-4100. For reasons set out in the conclusions of law found within the recommended order, the suggested disposition of that case was one which found the several Petitioners innocent of any wrong doing and called for the dismissal of the administrative prosecution. On July 25, 1990 the prosecuting agency entered its final order in DOAH Case No. 89-4100. It accepted the fact-finding in the recommended order; however, it modified the conclusions of law and recommended disposition. Unlike the recommended order, the final order in its conclusions of law specifically found that the present Petitioner and the others accused had violated Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, wherein at page 17 it was held "Therefore, it is concluded Respondent violated Sections 723.037(3), Florida Statutes." The conclusions of law in the final order went on to say that in mitigation of the violation the prosecuting agency had considered the apparent confusion of those Respondents regarding the affect of Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, as it might influence the actions of the accused and in particular, the present Petitioner. In the final order concerning the mitigating affects of Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, it was decided that notwithstanding any misunderstanding the accused had as to the significance of the Rule it could not alter the statutory requirements of having a meeting within 30 days of the notice of lot rental increase as described in Section 723.037(3), Florida Administrative Code (1987). The language within Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, stated: If requested to do so by the park owner or subdivision developer, the committee shall certify that it has been selected as described in Rule 7D-32.003, Florida Admin- istrative Code. This certification shall include a certificate of all members of the committee attesting to its proper formation under the statute and these rules. For reasons expressed in the recommended order that rule was seen as tolling the 30-day requirement for meeting expressed in Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987) on the facts found in both the recommended and final orders. This was based upon a recognition that the present Petitioner had employed the rule in an attempt to gain a certification from the committee of mobile home owners prior to the conduct of a meeting to discuss the increase in lot rentals. Again, this belief that the rule tolled the requirement for conducting the meeting within 30 days of the notice of lot rental increase expressed in the recommended order was rejected in the final order. The final order controls absent further relief by resort to the appellate court process. In describing the reasons why the prosecution maintained that the rule could not alter the statutory requirement for holding a meeting within 30 days, the final order states that there are policy considerations that make it important for the committee and the park owner to meet within 30 days and those reasons concern the fact that the rent increase becomes effective within 90 days over the notice, the informational value of having the reasons explained for the lot increase as a prelude to any request to having a dispute about lot rental increases submitted to mediation within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. The final order goes on to describe, through its conclusions of law, that the meeting to discuss lot rental increase was not held until November 14, 1989 over a year after the notice of lot rental increase. That statement comes immediately before the conclusion of law that the present Petitioner had violated Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. In the conclusions of law set out in the final order the prosecuting agency in its paragraph describing the mitigating circumstances acknowledges the possible confusion on the part of the accused as well as the mobile home owners committee when it describes, as did the recommended order, the filing of a complaint by the committee as a means of ostensibly preserving the right to have the meeting envisioned by Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987), when taken against the background of the opportunity to have a credential check of mobile home owners committee members as envisioned by Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code. This refers to the issue of whether a meeting could be held after 30 days from the notice of intended lot rental increase absent such a complaint. In the statement on mitigation the final order recognizes that the administrative prosecution was penal in nature and that Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987) and Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code needed to be read in context and should be strictly construed with ambiguities favoring the accused. The final order cites to State v. Pattishall, 99 Fla. 296, 126 So. 147 (1930) and Davis v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 457 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 1DCA 1984). The treatment of those cases and the resolution of the dispute through final order is one which finds the accused in violation of Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987), but mitigates the disposition in the way of the penalty based upon the reading given Pattishall and Davis, supra. That factual impression is given when the order in disposition is examined wherein it is stated through the final order, "Based upon the consideration of the facts found, the conclusions of law reached, and the mitigation evidence, it is ordered that the notice to show cause is hereby dismissed." On August 22, 1990, the present Petitioner noticed an appeal of the final order in the administrative prosecution but later abandoned that appeal before the court had the opportunity to speak to its merits. On October 22, 1990, the present Petitioner filed a petition for collection of attorneys fees and costs spoken to in the statement of issues. The petition for attorneys fees and costs were subjected to a motion to dismiss based upon a claim of untimeliness and that motion was denied by order of December 10, 1990. The present Respondent requested an evidentiary hearing as contemplated Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code, and the evidentiary hearing was conducted on the date described before. When the present Petitioner abandoned his appeal to the District Court, he necessarily was placed in the position of arguing that the final order drawn by the prosecuting agency constituted the basis for the claim that he was a small business party who had prevailed in the dispute related to DOAH Case No. 89-4100. See Section 57.111(3)(c)1, Florida Statutes. Contrary to his assertion the final order as described in these facts did not favor the present Petitioner. Although the prosecuting agency did not choose to impose a penalty against the present Petitioner based upon its assessment of matters in mitigation and dismissed the case without exacting a penalty, it had found the present Petitioner in violation of a substantiative provision of law, i.e. Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes (1987). Thus, the disposition cannot be said to favor the present Petitioner. Having decided this mixed question of fact and law against the present Petitioner, it is not necessary to make findings of fact concerning whether the present Petitioner is a small business party as defined at Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes and whether the present Respondent was substantially justified in this administrative prosecution related to law and fact as contemplated by Sections 57.111(3)(e) and (4)(a), Florida Statutes, or to examine whether special circumstances exist that would make the award of attorneys fees and costs unjust.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether, on three separate occasions, the Respondent raised the rent at Minerva Mobile Home Park without first delivering to the lessees an approved prospectus, as alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, Docket No. MH89446, issued on November 1, 1989; and (2), if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Haines City Investment, Inc., is the owner of Minerva Mobile Home Park located in Haines City, Florida. There are approximately 72 lots for lease in Minerva Mobile Home Park. On or about January 6, 1988, a Final Order was entered by the Petitioner finding, among other things, that the Respondent had raised the rent on lots in Minerva Mobile Home Park, effective January 1, 1986, without first filing a prospectus with the Petitioner (and therefore also without delivering to the homeowners an approved prospectus.) Among other things, the Final Order fined the Respondent $3,000 and ordered the Respondent to deliver an approved prospectus to each homeowner entitled to receive one within 15 days. During the pendency of a court appeal of the Final Order, on or about April 29, 1988, the Respondent entered into an Agreement to Remit Civil Penalty and Annual Fees. Effective January 1, 1987, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $11. Effective January 1, 1988, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $4.50. Effective January 1, 1989, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $6. Effective January 1, 1990, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $12.50, to $134.50 per month. The 11 homeowners who testified all paid all rent increases charged by the Respondent. The Respondent first filed a prospectus for Minerva Mobile Home Park for approval by the Petitioner in October, 1986. By this time, the Respondent had given the homeowners a copy of the proposed, but unapproved prospectus. However, the proposed prospectus was not approved by the Petitioner, and several revisions were made. The final revision was not approved until May 20, 1987. The approved prospectus was not delivered to the homeowners of the Minerva Mobile Home Park until some time in March, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a final order requiring that the Respondent refund the illegal rent increases to the homeowners (or former homeowners) in Minerva Mobile Home Park and requiring the Respondent to pay a $1,500 civil penalty. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 26th day of November, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra Roberts, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Albert Labossiere, President Haines City Investment, Inc. 2800 Minerva Park Haines City, Florida 33844 E. James Kearney, Director Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1007
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the respondent Division of Beverage issue the type 11-C license to petitioner without further delay. Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Charles A. Nuzum Division of Beverage Johns Building. Tallahassee, Florida
