Findings Of Fact On November 17, 1981, Petitioner submitted a preliminary application (Exhibit 5) for a New Quota alcoholic beverage license. This application, which was sworn to by Petitioner, contained the query whether applicant had been convicted in the past five years of any beverage law violation. To this question Petitioner marked the "No" block. This application was filled out by each applicant in pencil, gone over with the applicant by a beverage office supervisor, given to a secretary to type, and returned to the applicant to check for completion and accuracy before the applicant executed the application by signing the affidavit at the bottom of the application in which, under oath, he swore to the accuracy of the information contained in the application. On December 26, 1977, Petitioner was arrested for allowing alcoholic beverages to be served and consumed after hours in his father's bar. He was convicted of this misdemeanor and sentenced to serve ten (10) days in the county jail by order entered January 20, 1978 (Exhibit 4). As a result of this conviction of a beverage law violation within five years of the filing of the application for a New Quota beverage license, the information contained on the application was untrue and Petitioner was not then eligible for a New quota license. After Petitioner's application for a New Quota license was facially approved, Petitioner was required to, and did, furnish fingerprints to Respondent. A check of the fingerprint records disclosed Petitioner's prior conviction of a beverage law violation in January, 1978. No evidence was presented showing the date Petitioner applied to have a New Quota 4-COP license issued, but Petitioner testified this occurred more than five years after he was convicted of the beverage law violation, i.e., after January 20, 1983. By letter dated February 14, 1983 (Exhibit 2) , this application was denied because of the beverage law violation and the false entry in the application sworn to as true by Petitioner. Had Petitioner answered the question on the New Quota application regarding a beverage law violation within the past five years accurately, his application would have been disapproved. Again, no evidence was submitted when Petitioner submitted his application for a 2-COP license, but he testified this was after his 4-COP license application had been denied, i.e., after February 14, 1983. At this time an answer that he had not been convicted of a beverage law violation within the past five years would have been truthful. Petitioner presented his father and a friend of his father, who had worked part-time at the father's pizza shop, to testify that Petitioner had always been truthful in his dealings with them.
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked for violating a stipulation stated on the record in a prior license revocation proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2337, Series 2-APS and owns and operates Hammer's Package Store, the licensed premises, at 3231-A West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1981, DABT filed two administrative actions to revoke respondent's alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The charges were, apparently, disputed and a hearing officer requested, since the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Thereafter, on April 18, 1981, Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton, II, conducted a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the charges. At hearing, both parties were represented by counsel: DABT by James N. Watson, Jr., a staff attorney for the Department of Business Regulation; respondent by Ray Russell, whose address was 200 S. E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. At the outset, counsel for both parties advised Hearing Officer Benton that they had reached "an agreement" (P-1, p. 3), thus obviating the need for a hearing on the charges. Counsel then recited, on the record, the terms of their settlement agreement: respondent was given 90-days in which its corporate entity could be sold, with the period beginning to run from March 19, 1981--the next day--and ending on June 16, 1981; when the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period expired, whichever occurred first, respondent was to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation; respondent waived its right to an evidentiary hearing on the charges and to appeal any matters covered by the agreement; and, from the time the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period for sale expired, no corporate officers, directors, or shareholders of respondent would again engage in the alcoholic beverage business, make any application for a beverage license, apply for transfer of a beverage license, or hold an interest in any business involved in the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (DABT Ex. 1, p. 5-8). Without objection from respondent's counsel, DABT's counsel described the consent order (or settlement agreement) as "in the nature of a final administrative action and [respondent] acknowledges that its failure to abide by such would subject him to the provisions of Florida Statutes 120.69 (P-1, p. 6). Although this settlement agreement was effective and began to operate immediately (the 90-day period for sale commenced the next day) DABT's counsel contemplated that a written and signed consent order embracing the terms of the settlement agreement would be subsequently issued. Although such follow-up action was intended, it never occurred. DABT never issued a written order, consent or otherwise, embracing the terms of the settlement agreement. Hearing Officer Benton and, at least one party, thereafter relied on the settlement agreement. The hearing officer closed both Division of Administrative Hearings files, and DABT no longer prosecuted respondent under the pending charges. Since June 16, 1981, the expiration of the 90-day period provided in the agreement, respondent has continued to operate its licensed alcoholic beverage premises, has failed to sell its corporate entity, and has failed to surrender its alcoholic beverage license. Respondent has presented no evidence justifying or excusing its failure to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation on or before June 16, 1981. Neither does it seek to withdraw from or set aside the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1983.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s request to renew a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62- 08383 on or about July 8, 2011, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561- 568, Florida Statutes, including recordation of liens against alcoholic beverage licenses and provision of notice to lienholders pursuant to section 561.65. Petitioner is the holder of a recorded lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62-08383, a 4COP spirituous alcoholic beverage license, commonly referred to as a quota license, which was issued pursuant to sections 561.20(1) and 565.02(1)(a)-(f) for use in Pinellas County. Liens and Security Interests in Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Section 561.65 governs mortgages, liens, and security interests against spirituous alcoholic beverage licenses. DABT has a lien section within its Bureau of Licensing that is responsible for the oversight of lien recordings and lien searches. To perfect a lien or security interest in a spirituous alcoholic beverage license that may be enforceable against the license, the entity holding the security interest or lien must record it with DABT within 90 days of the date of creation of the lien or security interest, using forms authorized by DABT. The forms adopted by DABT require the names of the parties and the terms of the obligation being recorded. § 561.65(4), Fla. Stat. Form DBPR ABT-6022, Application for Mortgagee’s Interest in Spirituous Alcoholic Beverage License, is used to record a new lien, a lien assignment or assumption, or a lien renewal or extension. The form is adopted by rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-5.0012. Upon receipt of a request to record a lien or the renewal of an existing lien, DABT will review the provided documentation and, if the documentation is in order on approved forms and accompanied by the security agreement and statutorily- required payment, will record the lien or lien renewal. If there is a deficiency noted during review of the lien documentation submitted, DABT will issue a 14-day deficiency notice to the requesting entity to provide any missing information. If timely corrected, DABT will record the lien or lien renewal. Section 561.65(4) provides that any lien or security interest filed with DABT on or after July 1, 1995, expires five years after recordation by DABT unless renewed by the lienholder within six months prior to its expiration date. Statutory Notice Requirements to Lienholders Recording a lien not only makes it enforceable, but provides assurance to the lienholder that it will receive notice of pending actions by DABT against the license that may compromise the lien’s vitality. Section 561.65 also sets forth requirements for DABT to provide notice to lienholders of both pending actions against encumbered licenses and any suspension or revocation of a license subject to a lien. Specifically, section 561.65(3) provides that “such lienholder shall be notified in writing of the filing of an order to show cause as to why the license should not be suspended or revoked; and also the lienholder shall be furnished a copy of any order of suspension or revocation.” (Emphasis added). In other words, two separate notices are required: one when the agency institutes proceedings against the licensee and a second if the agency action against the licensee results in a suspension or revocation of the license. Respondent does not assert and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that Petitioner had knowledge of or participated in the cause for revocation of the license at issue in this proceeding, or that Petitioner would not otherwise be entitled to notice of the revocation proceeding. The holder of a recorded lien is entitled to notice because the lienholder has the right to enforce the lien against the licensee within 180 days after the entry of any order of revocation or suspension of the license. Section 561.65(3) specifies that “the 180 days within which to file for enforcement of the lien by the lienholder shall commence running from the date of the mailing of the copy of the order of revocation or suspension.” Thus, the 180-day period runs from when notice is sent to the lienholder, not from the entry of the final order of suspension or revocation. Once notice is provided to the lienholder, any enforcement of the lien is through foreclosure proceedings in circuit court. The process for foreclosure proceedings is outlined in section 561.65(5). Most importantly, both section 561.19(2) and section 561.65(1) provide that no revoked quota beverage license encumbered by a lien or security interest perfected in accordance with section 561.65 shall be issued until the 180-day period (from mailing of the suspension or revocation order) has elapsed or until such enforcement proceeding is final. Re-issuance Through Double Random Drawings Quota licenses may become available three ways: 1) when a dry county goes wet (i.e., a county that previously prohibited the sale of alcohol decides to allow it), three initial quota licenses are issued for the county; 2) when there are population increases in a county, an additional quota license is issued for every population increase of 7,500; and 3) when a quota license in a county has been revoked. When any of those instances occur, pursuant to the directive in section 561.19(2), quota licenses are issued through the use of a double random public drawing. While a revoked quota license may be reissued in a double random quota drawing, if a revoked quota license is encumbered by a perfected and recorded lien or security interest, as discussed previously, it may not be reissued until the 180-day period has elapsed or until enforcement/foreclosure proceedings are final. Damon Larry is currently the assistant bureau chief of licensing, and oversees the annual quota drawing. Each year, he runs a report of all revoked quota licenses and, if the revocation is final, determines whether the 180-day period has elapsed. Before a revoked quota license is placed in the double random drawing, there is communication between staff in different sections within the Department to determine if a license is eligible for inclusion in the quota drawing. The communications involve the quota drawing section, the licensing section, the administrative case unit, the Office of the General Counsel, and the lien section. During this process, DABT staff will determine whether there is a lien attached to the license and, if so, whether there was notice to the lienholder, and whether the 180 days has elapsed or foreclosure proceedings no longer remain pending. If all of these conditions have been met, the revoked license is placed in the quota drawing for reissuance under a new license number. The revoked license number is then deleted from the Department’s database. Petitioner’s Lien Against Alcoholic Beverage License No. 62-08383 Turning to the facts of this case, Daniel A. King, as debtor, executed and delivered a Demand Promissory Note in favor of Rebco on or about April 18, 1997, in the principal amount of $61,000, and simultaneously executed a security agreement in favor of Rebco, as the secured party, pledging license number 62-08383 (the License) as collateral for repayment of the sums due and owing under the Promissory Note. Rebco submitted the promissory note and security agreement to DABT for initial recordation as a lien against the License on or about May 1, 1997, within 90 days of the date of the creation of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien against the License effective May 8, 1997. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on May 8, 2002. Rebco submitted a request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about November 7, 2001, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement, and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective November 7, 2001. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on November 7, 2006. Rebco submitted a second request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about July 26, 2006, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective August 1, 2006. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on August 1, 2011. The License Revocation Proceedings On or about November 16, 2006, at a time when the lien was recorded in the records of DABT, DABT filed administrative charges against Daniel J. King, holder of the License, in Case number 2006-049240, alleging that the licensee failed to operate the License in accordance with section 561.29(1)(f). DABT was unable to achieve personal service on Mr. King, so it published notice of the administrative action in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. The published notice did not identify Petitioner, and no evidence was presented to indicate that DABT sent a copy of the notice to Rebco. Rebco clearly had a recorded lien against the License when the disciplinary action was filed against the License. DABT did not notify Petitioner of the pending action. On or about June 22, 2007, after receiving no written defense in the disciplinary proceeding, DABT issued a Final Order revoking the License effective July 31, 2007. The Final Order of Revocation was not served on Rebco, the owner of the security interest in the License. Petitioner had a recorded lien against the License on file with DABT both when proceedings were instituted against the License and on the date of the entry of the Final Order of Revocation. Stephanie Coxwell works in the administrative case unit of DABT and has done so for at least the last 14 years. The administrative case unit is responsible for determining whether an alcoholic beverage license that is pending revocation or suspension is encumbered by a lien and for notifying any lienholder of the revocation or suspension of an encumbered license. DABT’s practice was to mail any lienholder notice of the license suspension or revocation, along with a copy of the final order, soon after entry of the final order. It is this mailing of the notice and final order that commences the 180 days referenced in section 561.65. For at least the last 14 years, DABT has used a form “notice to lienholder” to notify lienholders of the revocation or suspension of an alcoholic beverage license, accompanied by a copy of the final order revoking or suspending the license. The notification form is a public record maintained by DABT. It is this notification, and not the publication of the pending action, that provides notice to the lienholder. Internal correspondence from Ms. Coxwell within the licensure file for the License indicates that in December 2006, she requested a lien search with respect to the License. Ms. Coxwell was advised by return e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the license. On or about March 21, 2007, Ms. Coxwell requested research for any bankruptcy proceedings affecting the License. She was again informed by intra-agency e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the License. Ms. Coxwell replied by e-mail that she was aware that there was a lien, but that they would notify the lienholder of the administrative action “in the usual way.” However, Ms. Coxwell’s March 27 e-mail was sent three months before the final order revoking the license, not simultaneous to the Order. There is no record that notification was sent to Rebco, either at the time of the administrative action, or after issuance of the final order. Beverly Peebles works in Rebco’s corporate office located at 701 Tennessee River Drive, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35661, and has done so since 1990. She is responsible for receiving, retaining, and disbursing any mail received by Rebco. Ms. Peebles testified regarding the process used to copy, scan into the company’s electronic database, and distribute any mail received by Rebco. Rebco did not receive any notice concerning the administrative action or the revocation of the License until Rebco received the letter denying the recordation of its lien renewal against the license in 2011. Rebco’s address was at all times on file with the DABT since the inception of the lien against the license in 1997. It is found that the DABT did not notify Rebco that there was an administrative action filed against the License, and did not notify Rebco of the Final Order of Revocation against the License. The licensure file contains all other expected documents from the first recordation of the lien in 1997 to the present. It does not include a copy of notice to Rebco of either the pending action or the Final Order of revocation. Moreover, both a letter dated August 19, 2011, to counsel for Rebco, as well as an e-mail dated March 21, 2007, from Ms. Coxwell, contain handwritten notes regarding the failure to send proper notification. The notes, which are clearly hearsay, are part of public records maintained in the normal course of business, and corroborate Ms. Peebles’ testimony that no notification was received. They also corroborate evidence of the absence of any record of notification to Rebco in DABT’s records of regularly-conducted activity. The August 19, 2011, letter contains a handwritten note at the top stating, “$61K lien no lien ltr sent,” and the e-mail dated March 21, 2007, referenced in paragraph 32, contains the following note: “are we the only group/people who check for current liens recorded before deleting the license? It was deleted on 5/4/2011. Lien was still recorded at that time.”2/ Respondent has presented no credible evidence to indicate that the notice was somehow sent despite the lack of any documentation to that effect contained in the DABT’s records. While the handwritten notes standing alone do not establish that no notice was sent, they do indicate that a question was raised internally regarding whether adequate notice was provided. Despite the failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the License was placed in the 2010 double random drawing held on March 10, 2011, at a time when a valid lien against the License was duly recorded. Only one license for Pinellas County was included in the drawing for that year, and no licenses for Pinellas County have been issued in a double random quota drawing since then. Shortly after the random drawing, the license number assigned to the License was removed from the Department’s system and a new number assigned to the license issued as a result of the drawing. While there is no direct testimony on the issue, it can be inferred that the purchaser of the new license received the license with no notice that there was any outstanding lien on the right to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages in Pinellas County under the new license. While it is DABT’s practice to delete a revoked license number from its database, no evidence or statutory reference was presented to support the premise that there is a legal impediment to renewing an existing lien for a revoked license when no notice of the revocation was provided. Given the Department’s failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the 180-day period identified in section 560.65 never began to run. On or about July 6, 2011, Rebco timely submitted a third request to DABT to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division, which request was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement. DABT notified Rebco by letter dated July 19, 2011, that it was unable to record the lien renewal because it was not submitted for recordation within 90 days of its creation. The July 19, 2011, notice of denial was issued based upon a review of the lien renewal request submitted to DABT, because the executed ABT6022 lien-recording form submitted with Rebco’s third renewal request mistakenly identified the effective date of the lien renewal as April 18, 1997, the date of the creation of the original lien. On or about July 25, 2011, Rebco submitted an amended form ABT6022 correcting the effective date for renewal of the lien as August 1, 2011. On August 3, 2011, DABT notified Rebco that it was unable to record the renewal of the lien against the License because “the alcoholic beverage license being pledged as collateral was revoked by the Division on July 31, 2007,” following service of a Notice of Action through publication in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. No action taken by Rebco compromised the vitality of its recorded lien against the License. To the contrary, Rebco faithfully adhered to the recording requirements outlined by statute to record and renew its lien. DABT, however, failed to take the action required by section 561.65 to provide notice to Rebco of the pending action and subsequent revocation of the License. As a result, the 180- day period required by section 561.65 did not run before the License was placed in the quota drawing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order approving the renewal of Rebco’s lien in the License at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for the delinquent renewal of their special restaurant licenses pursuant to Section 561.27(2), Florida Statutes, should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notices of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: There are various types of DABT-issued licenses authorizing the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Among them are quota licenses, SRX licenses, and SR licenses. All three of these licenses allow the licensee to sell liquor, as well as beer and wine. Quota licenses, as their name suggests, are limited in number. The number of quota licenses available in each county is based upon that county's population. SRX and SR licenses are "special" licenses authorizing the retail sale of beer, wine, and liquor by restaurants. There are no restrictions on the number of these "special" licenses that may be in effect (countywide or statewide) at any one time. SRX licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued in or after 1958.3 SR licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued prior to 1958. For restaurants originally licensed after April 18, 1972, at least 51 percent of the licensed restaurant's total gross revenues must be from the retail sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages.4 Restaurants for which an SR license has been obtained, on the other hand, do not have to derive any set percentage or amount of their total gross revenues from the retail sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. DABT-issued alcoholic beverage licenses are subject to annual renewal.5 License holders who have not timely renewed their licenses, but wish to remain licensed, may file an Application for Delinquent Renewal (on DABT Form 6015). Until recently, it was DABT's longstanding policy and practice to routinely grant applications for the delinquent renewal of SR and other alcoholic beverage licenses, regardless of the reason for the delinquency. DABT still routinely grants applications to delinquently renew alcoholic beverage licenses other than SR licenses, but it now has a "new policy" in place with respect to applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses. The "new policy" is to deny all such applications based upon these SR licenses' not having been in "continuous operation," action that, according to DABT, is dictated by operation of Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, a statutory provision DABT now claims it had previously misinterpreted when it was routinely granting these applications. Relying on Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, to blanketly deny all applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses was the idea of Eileen Klinger, the head of DABT's Bureau of Licensing. She directed her licensing staff to implement the "new policy" after being told by agency attorneys that this "was the appropriate thing [from a legal perspective] to do." Abkey and Amy Cat have SR licenses that were originally issued in 1956 "per general law and not pursuant to any special or local act." Maneros has an SR license that was originally issued in 1952 "per general law and not pursuant to any special or local act." As applicants applying to delinquently renew their SR licenses, Petitioners are substantially affected by DABT's "new policy" that SR licenses cannot be delinquently renewed because they have not been in "continuous operation," as that term is used in Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes. Their applications for the delinquent renewal of their licenses would have been approved had the status quo been maintained and this "new policy" not been implemented. Abkey filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on February 21, 2007. On the application form, Abkey gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was sold. Lost our lease." On April 2, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Abkey's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. Maneros filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on June 4, 2007. On the application form, Maneros gave no "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period"; however, the application was accompanied by a letter from a Maneros representative, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: I am today submitting a delinquent renewal application for the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. The building has been demolished, and there is a vacant lot at the site at this time. Redevelopment is scheduled for this area, and I expect new construction to begin shortly. The license was first issued to this location 55 years ago. I have inquired with the City of Hallandale Beach, Florida, and there remains a question as to whether zoning approval for this type of alcoholic beverage license would be permitted under current uses once reconstruction is complete. The licensee of record wishes to reinstate and possibly use or transfer the license. . . . On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Maneros' application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued. Amy Cat filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 1999) on December 6, 2006. On the application form, Amy Cat gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was closed." On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Amy Cat's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 1999, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting Petitioners' applications for the delinquent renewal of their SR licenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2008, 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 30th day of April, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Victor Ingargiola is the sole shareholder, director and officer of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East (Petitioner), a Florida corporation. The State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the Respondent. Both Mr. Victor Ingargiola and his wife, Mrs. Barbara Ingargiola, entered the Division's double random selection drawing for eligibility to apply for a new quota alcoholic beverage license. Mr. Ingargiola was selected in the drawing, and Mrs. Ingargiola was not. After receiving notice of his selection in the drawing, Mr. Ingargiola formed the Petitioner and applied for licensure on or about November 1, 1984. In his application, Mr. Ingargiola did not identify his wife as a person having an interest in Petitioner or its business, either directly or indirectly. The application also represented that Petitioner had a right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed at 4513 Causeway Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's application carries with it an application fee of $6,750. Mr. Ingargiola obtained a portion of the funds necessary to pay the application fee from funds held jointly by him and his wife and by loans to him and his wife secured by property jointly held by him and his wife. Virtually all money and property of the Ingargiolas is held in their joint names. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ingargiola conferred with the Division's Investigator Miller concerning the application. Miller initially requested that Mrs. Ingargiola be finger printed as a person having an interest in the license to be issued. Mrs. Ingargiola understood that she was not permitted to have an interest since she herself had entered the double random selection drawing. She therefore declined to be fingerprinted or to be made to appear on the application as a party having an interest in the license to be issued. Investigator Miller also discussed with the Ingargiolas the question of Mrs. Ingargiola's involvement and the financing of Petitioner. Investigator Miller led the Ingargiolas to believe that the only possible legal financing arrangement would be for Mrs. Ingargiola to give the funds to her husband outright. He led them to believe that this could be done by affidavit, and Mrs. Ingargiola signed and filed an affidavit which Investigator Miller approved as to form. The affidavit listed the financing in question and stated: "I swear that the following funds obtained are to be used by Victor A. Ingargiola and I will have no interest or control over these funds." Barbara Ingargiola also testified at final hearing that she claims no interest whatsoever in Petitioner, any license to be issued to it, or the funds she gave outright to her husband to finance Petitioner. Essentially, Mrs. Ingargiola gave her half of the joint funds and proceeds of joint loans used by Victor Ingargiola to finance Petitioner's application fee. If necessary, she was prepared to do the same with the proceeds from the sale of joint real property or loans secured by the Ingargiolas' joint real property. However, no mention was made or consideration given to Mrs. Ingargiola's liability for her husband's share of the joint borrowing in addition to hers. Mrs. Ingargiola did have an interest in the successful operation of Petitioner so as to enable her husband to pay at least half, if not all, of the joint borrowing used in part to finance Petitioner. On or about October 12, 1984, Mr. Ingargiola obtained a written lease to the premises to be licensed. However, the lease does not contain a commencement date. At the time the application was filed, the premises were occupied by another tenant, and, as of December 20, 1984, this tenant had a legal right to occupy the premises and had not been notified of the pending liquor license application or the lease. In addition, the purported lease contains a provision requiring Petitioner to secure its duties and obligations under the lease by depositing with the landlord the sum of $60,000 in cash or irrevocable letter of credit. There was no evidence that Petitioner had complied with or could comply with this requirement of the lease. Although Mr. Ingargiola testified to his understanding of his right to occupancy of the premises under the lease upon granting of Petitioner's application and issuance of the license, there was no testimony from the landlord on the ambiguities surrounding the lease and the rights of the tenant in possession. As a result, the evidence as a whole was insufficient to prove Petitioner's right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, deny the application of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East, for a quota alcoholic beverage license RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Diaz, Esquire 2522 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact The first paragraph of charges in the Amended Notice to Show Cause reads as follows: That you, P & D SOUTH OF MARTIN COUNTY, INC. d/b/a STAGE EAST, licensed under the beverage laws of the State of Florida as a licensed vendor holding a SRX series license, did in the year of 1982, violate the beverage laws, to wit: you failed to maintain as 51 percent of your gross revenue the sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages, based upon the average monthly gross revenue for the period 12/81 to 12/82, contrary to F.S. 561.20(2)(a)(3), Rules 7A-3.14 and 7A-3.15(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. In the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation and again at the commencement of the formal hearing in this cause, Respondent admitted the violation alleged in that paragraph. Also at the commencement of the formal hearing, Petitioner dismissed with prejudice the charges contained within paragraphs numbered too and three of the Amended Notice to Show Cause. The case therefore proceeded forward for the presentation of evidence in aggravation or in mitigation of any penalty to be imposed against Respondent. Respondent corporation, P & D South of Martin County, Inc., does business as Stage East and is the holder of alcoholic beverage license No. 53- 352, Series 6-COP SRX. Stage East opened for business on November 25, 1981, at 200 South Dixie Highway, Stuart, Martin County, Florida. When Richard Pouser, Respondent's president, applied for an alcoholic beverage license, he spoke with Beverage Officer Richard White. White explained to Pouser that an SRX license is a special license, carrying with it a requirement that the restaurant derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. Pouser advised White that Respondent intended to obtain an unrestricted quota license as soon as one became available in Martin County. When Respondent prepared to open Stage East, it leased a building containing two separate portions of space. It was Respondent's intention from the initial creation of its new business to open the first section of the restaurant as an area also geared to entertaining persons under the age of 50. In that section, Respondent has electronic games, televisions, pool tables, a dance and bandstand area, and two bars. There are approximately 25 tables in the "back bar" area and approximately 40 tables in the front or bandstand area. Full food service is available in both areas. In this section, Respondent also provides either recorded or live musical entertainment every day, ranging from local musical talent to "mini-concerts" by groups or individuals with national or international recognition. The second section of Stage East, which comprises an additional 4,000 square feet, is to be a family-type food service area, analogous to a "Bennigan's" style of restaurant. Only the first section of Stage East was opened on November 25, 1981, and Respondent continued its preparations to open the second section also. Respondent filed its plans for the proposed second section and application for a building permit and zoning approval with the City of Stuart on January 4, 1982. The City denied Respondent's application the same day, citing as its reason "inadequate parking." After Respondent expended substantial monies for legal fees and engineering studies, zoning approval was finally obtained in June 1983. The evidence is uncontroverted that the City had no legal basis for its denial of Respondent's application; rather, certain members of the City Commission personally did not approve of an establishment like Stage East. In February 1982, Beverage Officer White received an anonymous complaint that Respondent was not meeting its 51 percent requirement. He visited the premises and, upon examining the cash register receipts and food tickets, ascertained that only approximately 25 to 30 percent of Respondent's business had been from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. On February 9, 1982, White served on Pouser an Official Notice with a compliance deadline of August 9, 1982. On September 15, 1982, White returned to Stage East to make a compliance inspection. After speaking with Pouser and ascertaining that the 51 percent requirement was still not being met, White issued a second Official Notice. Although that Notice contained a compliance deadline of January 1, 1983, White returned to Stage East on December 23, 1982, met with Pouser, and reviewed Respondent's records. A cursory examination revealed that Respondent still had not met the 51 percent requirement. Between the time that White first advised Pouser of the 51 percent requirement and the date of the formal hearing in this cause, Respondent attempted to obtain a quota license, which carries no requirements as to food consumption on the premises. For a year, Respondent advertised daily in the Stuart newspaper that it wished to purchase a quota license. Respondent contacted Beverage Officer White, liquor distributors, and owners of quota licenses in Martin County to ascertain if they had a quota license for sale or if they knew someone who did. During this time, the quota license for Harper's became available. The license holder asked $250,000 cash, Respondent offered $200,000 cash, and Walgreen's purchased Harper's license for $215,000. By the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Respondent had entered into favorable negotiations for the SR license at Boston's. Although Respondent had inquired whether Petitioner would permit the transfer of Boston's license to Respondent, Petitioner had not answered Respondent's inquiry at the time this cause was heard. In addition to taking steps to expand its restaurant area and to obtain an alternate license throughout the time period in question, Respondent did all it could to encourage its customers to purchase food so that Respondent could meet the 51 percent requirement to which its license was subject. Respondent hired an experienced chef and additional kitchen staff in order to offer a larger variety of food at lower prices. Respondent changed its menu to add "quicker" foods and advertised its menu in the Stuart News. Respondent opened for lunch and advertised its daily luncheon specials; advertised its food service when advertising its new "happy hours" and those prices; opened for breakfast after 2:00 a.m.; advertised its dinner programs; hired male dancers to perform during certain hours on Monday nights "for ladies only;" offered discount Prices for women on Tuesdays for "ladies night;" and attempted to attract an older crowd on Sundays by providing a buffet and a Dixieland band or "the big band sound." Respondent increased its radio advertising to six to eight ads a week, sometimes advertising as a restaurant with a nightclub and sometimes only as a restaurant. Although Respondent had on its premises during 1982 sufficient foods, utensils, and personnel to serve everything on its menus, Respondent started a nightly buffet which was either self-service or could be served by a waitress. The cost of the buffet depended upon the day of the week, with ladies paying a small price on Tuesdays, ladies' night, for example. Sometimes the cost of the buffet (which is collected as the customer enters the premises) included the customer's alcoholic beverages on an "all you care to consume" basis, and sometimes the customer paid for his alcoholic beverages in addition to paying for the buffet. On the evening before the formal hearing, the buffet cost $10, and the price of drinks was not included. Since Respondent opened Stage East, it has made continuing good faith efforts to encourage the purchase of food at its premises, to add the "Bennigan's" family-style restaurant, and to obtain an alternate license without the 51 percent requirement. During the three-month period immediately before the formal hearing, Respondent approached, just exceeded, and then just missed the 51-percent mark.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charge in paragraph numbered one of the Amended Notice to Show Cause, dismissing with prejudice the charges in paragraphs numbered two and three of the Amended Notice to Show Cause, and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000 to be paid by Respondent within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order in this cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 17th day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles L. Curtis, Esquire 1177 Northeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation filed September 11, 1986, the parties agreed to findings of fact 1-11. Donna Sawyer filed a preliminary application to participate in the state lottery for liquor license on January 20, 1984, on Department of Business Regulation form No. 747L. On September 18, 1984, Donna Sawyer was notified by Respondent that she had been selected in the lottery held on September 12, 1984, to be eligible to apply for a state quota liquor license. That on or about November 2, 1984, Donna Sawyer, acting through her wholly owned corporation, Sarasota County Liquors, Inc., filed a sworn "application for Alcoholic Beverage License" (Department of Business Regulation Form No. 700L), with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. That application included a description of a location which was to be the licensed premises. A Personal Questionaire, Department of Business Regulation Form 710L, was also included by Petitioner with said application. The license application was denied by Respondent on March 8, 1985. The grounds for the denial as stated in the denial letter were Petitioner's failure to provide: (1) proof of right of occupancy to the premises Petitioner was seeking to license; (2) verification of financial investment; (3) business name, and (4) sketch of the premises affixed to the application. On April 10, 1985, Sandra Allen, Esquire, acting on behalf of Petitioner, requested an administrative hearing in order to contest the March 8, 1985, denial of the subject license. Joseph Forbes, Esquire, of Gainesville, Florida, was then retained by Petitioner to resolve the denial of the requested license, which was then pending before the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, as an informal administrative proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In this capacity, Forbes, among other things filed a Motion for Continuance and Stipulation in this case attached to a June 6, 1985 cover letter. Forbes thereafter reached an agreement in the informal proceeding with Thomas Klein, Esquire, then counsel of record for Respondent, evidenced by letter dated October 1, 1985, which in its relevant portions indicated: This is to continue our telephone conversation of October 1, 1985, in which the following was discussed and agreed upon: Sarasota Liquors - your client will have 45 days from the date of this letter to cure the defects set forth in the March 8, 1985 letter of denial. Please direct your client to respond to the Tallahassee office. In order to rectify the original deficiencies causing the license denial, Petitioner re-filed an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License, Department of Business Regulation Form 700L, including exhibits, with Respondent, on or about November 13, 1985. Petitioner's re-filed license application was denied by Respondent on February 19, 1986, for two reasons: (1) "Application incomplete as applicant does not have right of occupancy to the premises for which she is seeking to license," and (2) "Division is unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation." On or about November 4, 1985, while searching for a location to submit as the licensed premises, in the re-filed application of November 13, 1985, Donna Sawyer and Ocie Allen met with Alton Allen at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida, who was an agent for Walter Spector, owner of several retail store spaces at that address. Ocie Allen, acting on behalf of his corporation, Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, entered into a lease for a store at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. On or about November 4, 1985, Ocie Allen, acting on behalf of his corporation Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, purportedly subleased the premises at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida to Petitioner. That Petitioner had submitted a letter dated November 4, 1984, signed by Jim Irey, as President of Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., which is attached to the November 13, 1985 application, which stated that certain financial support would be available to the subject alcoholic beverage sales contemplated by Petitioner. That as a result of the investigation following the November 13, 1985 application, Respondent was "unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation," since Respondent's agents were unable to locate Jim Irey or his company at the address indicated on the November 4, 1984 letter. Based upon the evidence presented, the following additional findings of fact are made: Donna Sawyer's preliminary application to participate in the state lottery for a quota liquor license included instructions to the applicant that it was the first part of a two part application and that the second part would require proof of occupancy for the premises to be licensed. The second part of the application was that license application filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco on November 2, 1984, and again on November 13, 1985. As part of the notification that she was eligible to apply for a state quota liquor license, Donna Sawyer was advised that she had 45 days to file a full and complete application and that if she failed to do so, this failure would be deemed as a waiver of her right to file for a new quota liquor license. The letter also advised her that the Division had 180 days from the date of the drawing to act upon her application. The Petitioner's first quota liquor license application was denied on March 8, 1985. March 8, 1985, was within 180 days of the applicable lottery drawing held on September 12, 1984. The agreement of the parties to resolve the March 8, 1985, denial of the subject license evidences an tacit agreement by the parties to waive any applicable time limits existing at that time in order to allow the Petitioner to resubmit a corrected application within 45 days as allowed by the Thomas Klein letter of October 1, 1985. The Division investigated the Petitioner's second application and determined that the applicant did not have a right of occupancy to the premises sought to be licensed, 258 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida, because Petitioner only had a purported sublease for the subject premises from Ft. Myers A & T Corporation. Ft. Myers A & T Corporation had obtained a lease for the property on November 4, 1985, from Walter Spector, deceased at the time of the administrative hearing. Said lease between Walter Spector, lessor, and Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, lessee, provided that subleases must be approved by the lessor and be in writing. The Petitioner did not produce evidence of written authorization by Walter Spector to allow Ocie Allen or Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, Inc., to sublease the subject premises to the Petitioner or to any other person. The only evidence of such authorization was the hearsay statement by Ocie Allen that Walter Spector had orally given such authorization. Furthermore, Mr. Alton Allen, then agent for Mr. Spector for leasing this property testified he had no knowledge that Mr. Spector was ever informed of a sublease. Therefore it is found that the sublease violated a material provision of the underlying lease from Walter Spector to Ft. Myers A & T Corporation. Mr. Ocie Allen, agent for the Petitioner and Donna Sawyer, testified and it is found that there was no intention for the Petitioner to operate an alcoholic beverage license at the 258 Tamiami Trail location. Petitioner's November 13, 1985, license application was also denied on February 19, 1986, for: Application incomplete as . . . the Division is unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation. This denial was due to the Division's agents being unable to verify the availability of financial funding from Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc. The Petitioner had submitted a November 9, 1984 letter from that corporation in its November 13, 1985 license application offering certain funding. Upon checking phone directories and making attempted telephone calls to the source named in that letter, the Division was not able to find the named business as source of funding. The Division further investigated Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc. as an alleged source of funding by sending an agent, Robert B. Baggett, to the address supplied by the applicant in a November 9, 1984 letter from Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., only to find that no such business was located there and no neighbors knew of a new location. Sandra Allen, Esquire, testified that the source of the funding at the time of the second application was a new company run by the same person who was behind Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., which was named as the source in the November 9, 1984 letter. However, this new company's name and address and verification of continued financial support to the Petitioner could not reasonably be determined by the Division and no evidence was presented that the Division had ever been provided with said new company's name or location prior to the denial of the second license application. Contradictory testimony was presented by Lt. Ewing and Sgt. Mills as to the existence of a policy requiring a "14 day" deficiency notice letter to applicants. It is clear that that policy was not recognized in the office supervised by Sgt. Mills. It was also not established that Lt. Ewing had the authority to set or enunciate policy for the Division.
Findings Of Fact On December 15, 1981, Petitioner's beverage officer conducted a routine inspection of Respondent's licensed premises. He found a draft beer keg with an embossed Anheurser-Busch label leading to a spigot at the bar labelled "Miller High Life". Petitioner seized the keg and requested that Anheuser-Busch officials test the contents. Their brewers, who are trained beer tasters, established that the keg contained Anheuser-Busch and not Miller product. The evidence was inconclusive as to whether the Respondent or the Miller beer distributor was responsible for the mix-up. However, there was no intentional deception by Respondent and the misrepresentation is determined to have been accidental.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 563.03, Florida Statutes (1981), and imposing a civil penalty of $100. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of March, 1982. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esq. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Earle Bennett, Esquire 2726 College Street Jacksonville, FL 32205
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of all or any part of a transfer fee that was paid on or about December 5, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Laurie M. Brandt, d/b/a Alcohol Outlet, held a liquor license no. 58-03004, which was obtained as a quota license and issued to her on June 29, 1987. The subject license was to be used in the designated county of its origin, i.e., Orange County, Florida. Florida law allows for the transfer of quota liquor licenses based upon certain statutory guidelines. Such guidelines require the payment of a transfer fee which is calculated and assessed based upon the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three years immediately preceding the transfer. On or about August 6, 1991, an application for transfer of license no. 58-03004 was filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The license owner, Petitioner, was to transfer license no. 58-03004 to Joel Wagner (Wagner). Two previous applications to transfer the license were withdrawn prior to issuance of the transfer. The Petitioner, who was transferring the license to Wagner, had engaged in no sales activity under license no. 58-03004 for the three years immediately preceding the Wagner application for transfer. Ultimately, the Wagner transfer was completed and license no. 58-03004 was transferred from Petitioner to the applicant on December 13, 1991. Until the license transfer was completed to Wagner, Petitioner was the owner of record for the subject license. During the times framed by the two previous applications for transfer, entities other than Petitioner were allowed, on a temporary basis pending the outcome of the transfer requests, to do business under license no. 58-03004. The right to sell alcoholic beverages of those transfer applicants derived from the original license but were factually in no way connected to the original licensee. The previous applications for transfer were withdrawn before agency action was taken. The volume of alcoholic beverage sales for these businesses was approximately $164,000. Pursuant to a temporary license, until the transfer was finally completed and the license was formally transferred, Wagner's use license no. 58- 03004 generated a total of $74,119 in alcoholic beverage sales. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) interprets license history for purposes of calculating a transfer fee based upon the license owner's use of the license, not the use enjoyed by an applicant for transfer on a temporary license bearing the same number. Further, the DABT computes the amount of the transfer fee as of the date of the application for transfer not the actual transfer date as the application is to set forth the sales history relied upon in computing the amount to be charged. In this case, the DABT imposed the maximum fee ($5,000) upon the transfer of the license from Petitioner to Wagner. The DABT considers licenses held in escrow to be "inactive." The owner of the inactive, escrowed license may not engage in sales activity. Petitioner did not, by virtue of the escrow status or the efforts to transfer the license, engage in sales activity and was, therefore, inactive for the three years preceding the transfer to Wagner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for a refund as the transfer fee was correctly computed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 8th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 8th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6050 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13 are accepted. Paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 are rejected as unnecessary, or a discussion of law not supported by reference to the record of fact. With regard to paragraph 8, it is accepted that a quota license bears from its initial issuance throughout its existence but one number. That number is maintained only for convenience sake. The right to hold the license remains with the licensee or transferor until the transfer is completed. The temporary license is merely a convenience for the transferee not a benefit to the transferor. To the extent that paragraph 8 may suggest otherwise it is rejected as contrary to the weight of the record. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or argument. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 18, and 21 are accepted. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Harold F. X. Purnell Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood & Purnell, P.A. Barnett Bank Building, Suite 500 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Richard W. Scully, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated April 14, 1988, filed by Ocie C. Allen, Jr., should be approved by the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Ocie C. Allen, Jr., d/b/a OCA, filed an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated April 14, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Division. In the Application, Mr. Allen indicated under "Type of Application" that the Application type was "Other - ownership change because of contract." Mr. Allen listed himself as the "Applicant" and signed the Application as the "Applicant." The "Current License Number" listed in the Application to be transferred to Mr. Allen is 15-1924, current series 3 PS. The holder of the license was Thomas Tripp. At the end of the Application there is an "Affidavit of Seller(s)" to be executed by the licensee from whom the license is to be transferred. This affidavit has not been completed in the Application. The purchase price for the business was listed as $86,250.00. In a letter dated April 22, 1988, the Director of the Division requested the following additional information from Mr. Allen: Affidavit of seller must be signed by Thomas Tripp and notarized. Documentation as to the source of funds invested must accompany this application. The transfer fee on quota license is assessed on the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three (3) years immediately proceeding transfer and is levied at the rate of four (4) mills, and in no event exceeds $5,000. The parties may elect to pay the $5,000 transfer fee or submit documents (usually sales tax records), which will establish gross sales in order to compute the transfer fee. By letter dated May 2, 1988, Mr. Allen responded as follows to the Division's request for information: Mr. Tripp has signed the Independent Contractor Agreement which is the affidavit of seller. Source of funds comes from Mr. Tripp as per the Independent Contractor Agreement. The sales tax receipts will be submitted upon approval pending payment of transfer fee. The Division notified Mr. Allen that it intended to deny the Application in a letter dated May 9, 1988. Mr. Allen was provided a Notice of Disapproval of the Application in a letter dated June 29, 1988. The following reasons were given for denial of the Application: Application to transfer the license does not bear the signature of the current licensee and, therefore does not evidence a bonafide [sic] sale of the business pursuant to [Section] 561.32, Florida Statutes. Application incomplete as applicant has failed to provide complete verification of his financial investment. Also, applicant has failed to provide records establishing the annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three years immediately preceding the date of the request for transfer. The Division is, therefore, unable to fully investigate the application pursuant to Florida law. By letter dated July 19, 1988, Mr. Allen requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the Division's denial of the Application. Mr. Allen sent a letter to the Division dated October 27, 1988, with an Affidavit requesting permission to pay a transfer fee of $5,000.00 "in lieu of the 4-mill assessment."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing the case with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Ocie C. Allen, Jr. Post Office Box 10616 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lt. B. A. Watts, Supervisor Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 345 S. Magnolia Drive, Suite C-12 Tallahassee., Florida 32301 Harry Hooper Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927
