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 The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Café was a restaurant, serving full course meals, and was located at 1599 North State Road 7, Lauderhill, Florida. At all times material hereto, the sole owner of Café was Mary Fernand. On December 18, 2003, Café, through Ms. Fernand, made application for a license from DABT. The type of license applied for was a retail alcoholic beverage license, in particular a special alcoholic beverage license, allowing it to purchase and sell alcoholic beverages. In a section of the application, "SECTION VIII-SPECIAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS," Ms. Fernand was notified, among other things, that the "Special Alcoholic Beverage License" was "issued pursuant to 561.20(2)(b), Florida Statute [sic] or Special Act and as such we acknowledge the following requirements must be met and maintained: ... DERIVE 51 % OF GROSS REVENUE FROM FOOD AND NON- ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. SERVICE OF FULL COURSE MEALS MUST BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE BEING SERVED." As the person completing the application, Ms. Fernand was required to read, initial, and date Section VIII. A temporary special alcoholic license was issued by DABT to Café on December 18, 2003. The application was approved by DABT on December 19, 2003, and, subsequently, a permanent special alcoholic license was issued by DABT. DABT issued Café license number BEV16-17022 4-COP SRX. The license was held through Ms. Fernand. As a result of having been issued such a license by DABT, Café was and is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of DABT. DABT conducts periodic audits of all restaurants holding a special SRX license to make sure that the restaurants are complying with the special license requirements. As part of this audit process, special agents from DABT, among other things, conduct announced visits, as well as undercover visits, at the restaurants and request the licensee to submit all necessary records for the audit. A SRX license holder has a continuing requirement to derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages. DABT places the burden upon the licensee to show compliance with the SRX license requirements. Furthermore, DABT requires the licensee to keep clear, legible records in English and to submit such records if requested by one of its agents. When DABT requests the licensee to produce the records to establish compliance with the SRX license requirements, but the licensee fails to show compliance through the requested records, DABT determines that the licensee was not meeting the requirements to operate with the SRX license. The proof that DABT considers to establish compliance include monthly sales and purchase records of food and non- alcoholic beverages and sales and purchase records of alcoholic beverages, guest checks, z-tapes, monthly income statements (showing separately the food and non-alcoholic beverage sales), and sales of alcoholic beverages. On July 19, 2004, DABT's Special Agent Trenesa Davis visited Café to request Café to produce the records necessary for an audit under the SRX license. She found Café closed and locked. Special Agent Davis obtained Ms. Fernand's telephone number and contacted her that same day. Special Agent Davis informed Ms. Fernand of the records needed for the audit, and Ms. Fernand indicated that she would provide the requested records on July 21, 2004. However, Ms. Fernand failed to provide the requested records on July 21, 2004. The following day, July 22, 2004, Special Agent Davis again contacted Ms. Fernand by telephone. Ms. Fernand indicated that she would provide the requested records on July 23, 2004. But, again, Ms. Fernand failed to provide the requested records. On July 26, 2004, once again, Special Agent Davis contacted Ms. Fernand by telephone regarding the non-production of the requested records. Ms. Fernand indicated that she was ill, and Special Agent Davis informed Ms. Fernand that she could come to where Ms. Fernand was living and issue her an official notice of what DABT needed, with the compliance date. Ms. Fernand agreed, and Special Agent Davis proceeded to where Ms. Fernand was living. On that same day, July 26, 2004, Special Agent Davis issued Ms. Fernand an official notice to produce certain documents. The notice provided, among other things, that Ms. Fernand had "14 days to produce the following records: Separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages & alcoholic beverages, Guest checks, cash register tapes, and any other documentation used to determine your food & beverage sales." Furthermore, the notice warned that "Failure to comply may result in administrative charges being filed against your alcoholic beverage license. *COMPLIANCE DATE AUGUST 13, 2004*." The notice was dated July 26, 2004. Ms. Fernand signed the notice. Ms. Fernand received the notice on July 26, 2004. On August 6, 2004, Special Agent Davis received a package from Café, but did not open it. She immediately took the package to DABT's auditor assigned to conduct Café's audit, Ronald Flores. Special Agent Davis opened the package in the presence of Auditor Flores. Inside the package were the following: (1) 11 receipts, dated between May 6 and June 23, 2004, showing purchases of alcohol from another vendor, BJ's Wholesale Club; (2) three blocks of guest checks: block one--numbered from 512402 to 512450; block two--numbered 100703, 100705, 100707- 100709, 100711, and from 100713 to 100750, with the guest checks from 100713 to 100750 being blank; and block three--numbered from 100592 to 100595 and 100632; and (3) 26 loose kitchen tickets, numbered from 84551 to 84570 and from 84572 to 84577. All of the kitchen tickets failed to reflect a date, the name Café or of any restaurant, and food sales. Further, the guest checks reflected only sales of alcoholic beverages; reflected only dates on those numbered 100708 and 100709 ("05-28-04" and "6/4"); and reflected dates ("4/18/04" through "5/31/04") and the name Café on those numbered 512402-512450, with the dates on three checks not being legible. The package contained no other record of food sales or purchases and no record of purchasing alcoholic beverages from distributors. Furthermore, the package contained no record of monthly schedules showing food and non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverage sales. Based on the records presented by Ms. Fernand, Auditor Flores was unable to perform an audit required by Café's SRX license and unable to make a determination as to whether Café met the 51 percent requirement of its license. On August 8, 2004, Special Agent Davis contacted Ms. Fernand by telephone in the presence of Auditor Flores, with the telephone on speaker-phone. Special Agent Davis inquired as to the whereabouts of Café's food and non-alcoholic beverage records. Ms. Fernand responded that she was not aware that Special Agent Davis wanted the food and non-alcoholic records but that she (Ms. Fernand) would provide them by August 13, 2004, which was the original compliance date of DABT's notice to produce records. However, Special Agent Davis did not receive any records from Ms. Fernand until August 16, 2004, three days beyond the compliance date to produce the records. The package received from Ms. Fernand contained three computer-generated documents for Café: an income statement, representing "6 Months Ended June 30, 2004"; a 2004 balance sheet, as of June 30, 2004 and 2003, and a balance sheet of liabilities and stockholders' equity, as of June 30, 2004 and 2003. Reflected at the bottom of each document was the following: "See Accountants' Compilation Report." The income statement reflected for January 1 through June 30, 2004, among other things, the following: food sales in the amount of $8,417.34 and alcohol sales in the amount of $3,039.66, totaling $11,457.00; gross profit in the amount of $5,942.51; total operating expenses in the amount of $23,901.19; and a net loss of income in the amount of $17,958.68. The income statement did not reflect monthly schedules of sales or any source of documents to verify the figures in the statement of income. No document in the package received on August 16, 2004, reflected its source or its creator, and none were signed. However, at hearing, Ms. Fernand admitted that she had prepared the income statement. Moreover, in the package received on August 16, 2004, no food sales and purchase records and no alcohol sales and purchase records were included. Again, based on the records presented by Ms. Fernand on August 16, 2004, as well as August 6, 2004, Auditor Flores was unable to perform an audit required by Café's SRX license and unable to make a determination as to whether Café met the 51 percent requirement of its license. On August 18, 2004, Auditor Flores forwarded to Special Agent Davis a memorandum advising her, among other things, that the records submitted by Café were incomplete to make a determination as to whether Café complied with the "SRX" requirements, that Café needed to provide the register tapes in order to verify sales, and that Café needed to provide monthly sales schedules with a breakdown of food and alcoholic beverage sales. Further, on August 18, 2004, Special Agent Davis issued a notice to Café that DABT intended to file an administrative complaint against it for failure to maintain records, citing the statutory provision, and SRX violations, citing the statutory provisions. The notice was mailed, certified to Café. Ms. Fernand admits that, between December 2003 and March 2004, Café sold food, as it was a "full restaurant," and alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages; however, no alcoholic beverages were sold in December 2003. Further, she admits that, in December 2003, she had a "get together for a few friends" and a few patrons at Café; and that, in January 2004, a party was held at Café at which alcoholic beverages were sold of which she kept records. Additionally, Ms. Fernand acknowledges that she was aware that she was required to keep records and admits that she kept records of the food sales and alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage sales. Although she obtained the license from DABT for Café in December 2003, Ms. Fernand did not open Café for business until April 17, 2004, as a grand opening. On June 26, 2004, Ms. Fernand lost access to Café as a result of being closed by the City of Fort Lauderdale. Also, in August 2004, she was evicted by the landlord of the building in which Café was located. Subsequently, she paid the landlord the back rent and was allowed to use the building again. She did not re-open Café until around November 20, 2004, even though the City of Fort Lauderdale notified her around September 7, 2004, that Café could be re-opened. Because of the eviction in August 2004, when Special Agent Davis requested the documents, Ms. Fernand had to request the landlord to go into Café and get the documents for her (Ms. Fernand). Ms. Fernand provided to Special Agent Davis the documents given to her by her landlord. Prior to losing access to the building in which Café was located, during the loss of access, and after re-gaining access, a box containing Café's records was located at Café. At no time, when she did not have access, did Ms. Fernand request the landlord to bring the box to her in order to provide food and beverage records to DABT. At no time, after gaining access to the building or prior to hearing, did Ms. Fernand review the records in the box and provide the requested food and beverage records to DABT.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order: Finding that Ran D Vou Café, d/b/a Ran D Vou Café violated Section 561.20(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). Finding that Ran D Vou Café, d/b/a Ran D Vou Café violated Section 561.55(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). Revoking the SRX license of Ran D Vou Café, d/b/a Ran D Vou Café, with prejudice for Ms. Mary Fernand not to obtain another SRX license for a five-year period, but without prejudice for her to apply for and obtain any other license for which she may be otherwise qualified to hold. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 24th day of April, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, C.S.G., Inc., d/b/a The Arena, holds alcoholic beverage license no. 62-427, Series 4-COP. The licensed premises is located at 4469 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. During the period relevant to this proceeding, Sam I. Ferrara, Jr. was the sole officer and stockholder of C.S.G, Inc. On November 19, 1980, prior to Ferrara's purchase of the C.S.G., Inc., Eugene O'Steen submitted a license application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 62-427, from Edward Mickler, Jr. to C.S.G., Inc., showing O'Steen as the sole corporate officer and stockholder of C.S.G., Inc., and Ferrara as the manager. O'Steen's license application was not accepted as the application end accompanying documentation were incomplete. The initial application included a lease for the licensed premises signed by O'Steen over the whited-out signature of Sam I. Ferrara, Jr., dated October 9, 1980. O'Steen had negotiated the purchase of beverage license no. 62-427 from Edward Mickler, Jr., for $78,500. O'Steen intended to fund the purchase with a $2,000 down payment from personal assets and a $76,500 loan from the Central Bank of Tampa. However, O'Steen voluntarily withdrew his application on November 26, 1980, due to the possible filing of criminal charges which could have resulted in denial of the application. On the same day that O'Steen withdrew his application, Ferrara initiated a new application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 62- 427. Ferrara's application was also in the name of C.S.G., Inc. showing Ferrara as the sole corporate officer and stockholder of this corporation. On December 2, 1980, Ferrara advised Petitioner's Beverage Officer Maggio that he, Ferrara, had negotiated the same contract to purchase beverage license no. 62-427, as had O'Steen. Said beverage license was to he purchased by Ferrara (C.S.G., Inc.) for a total of $78,500. A deposit of $2,000 had been made and a balance of $76,500 was due at closing on purchase of this license. Ferrara further advised that he (C.S.G., Inc.) was obtaining an $80,000 loan from the Central Dank of Tampa to finance the purchase of the beverage license and that he (C.S.G., Inc.) was obtaining a $20,000 loan from Attorney Matthews to reimburse O'Steen for remodeling expenses incurred on the licensed premises. On December 3, 1980, Ferrara submitted a personal questionnaire (PX-10) listing finances concerning the license application as follows: Central Bank of Tampa $80,000 Eugene O'Steen - [Crossed through] $20,000 John Matthews - $20,000 On December 3, 1980, Ferrara provided Beverage Officer Maggie with a completed license application (PX-9) together with a letter of commitment for a loan to C.S.G., Inc. in the amount of $80,000 signed by Orlando Garcia, President of the Central Bank of Tampa. This letter was dated December 3, 1980 (PX-1) On December 3, 1980, Ferrara was questioned by Beverage Officer Maggie as to the completeness and accuracy of his license application (PX-9) and his personal questionnaire (PX-10) Ferrara advised Maggie on that date that both referenced documents were complete and accurate. Additionally, on the same date, Maggie reviewed with Ferrara his answers to all questions and both of the referenced documents. Ferrara's answers contained in the referenced documents were sworn and made under oath. Section 7 of Ferrara's license application (PX-9) reads: List below the names of all those connected, directly or indirectly, in the business for which the license is sought: (This includes partner(s), spouse, director(s), stockholder(s), chief executive, limited and general partner(s), corporation(s), or any form of entity which is connected with the business. Name office (if corporation) or other title if any. Nature of interest including stock percentage. In response to this question, on his license application (PX-9), Ferrara identified himself as President, Secretary, Treasurer and 100 percent stockholder. No other person or entity was listed as interested directly or indirectly. Subsequent to December 3, 1980, Beverage Officer Maggio transmitted Ferrara's license application (Px-9) and related documentation to Petitioner's Tallahassee office with a recommendation that the application be approved. Thereafter, on December 5, 1980, C.S.G., Inc. was issued a temporary beverage license. The permanent beverage license, number 62-427, Series 4-COP, was issued on January 7, 1981. On December 1, 1980, prior to the letter of commitment from the Central Bank of Tampa (PX-1), and Ferrara's submission of his license application (PX-9) and personal questionnaire (PX-10), and also prior to Ferrara's oral statements to Beverage Officer Maggio, the Central Bank of Tampa issued a loan closing statement (PX-8) concerning C.S.G., Inc.'s (Ferrara) $80,000 loan. This loan closing statement (PX-8) reflected an $80,000 loan to C.S.G., Inc. and P & O, Inc. jointly, not solely to C.S.G., Inc. as indicated in the loan commitment letter (PX-1), Ferrara's oral statement, and Ferrara's license application (PX-9). Said loan closing statement reflected collateral for this loan which included beverage license no. 62-427, Series 4-COP (C.S.G., Inc. license) and an alcoholic beverage license held by P & O, Inc. On December 5, 1980, a bank note, number 55-25549 (PX-6) was executed in the amount of $80,000 with C.S.G., Inc. and P & O, Inc. as co-makers. This note was signed by Ferrara on behalf of C.S.G., Inc., and by Charles and Olga Pitisci on behalf of P & O, Inc. Said note (PX-6) corresponds to the loan closing statement dated December 1,1980 (PX-8). Pursuant and subsequent to the execution of the bank note discussed above (PX-6), a cashier's check, number 312768 (Px-3), was drawn on the Central Bank of Tampa and issued December 5, 1980 to C.S.G., Inc. and P & O, Inc. jointly, in the amount of $70,278.25. This cashier's check represented the proceeds from the loan generated on bank note 55-25549 (PX-6). These proceeds were deposited in the Central Bank of Tampa to the account of C.S.G., Inc. On December 5, 1980, a separate cashier's check (PX-2) number 312502 was issued by the Central Bank of Tampa payable to Edward Mickler, Jr in the amount of 576,500. Funds for this check came from C.S.G., Inc.'s account. The purpose of this check (PX-2) was to pay the balance of the purchase price due on beverage license no. 62-427. On December 5, 1980, another cashier's check (PX-4) number 312503 was issued by the Central Bank of Tampa in the amount of 52,775.25, to C.S.G., Inc. This check represented the balance of the loan proceeds from the Central Bank to P & O, Inc. and C.S.G., Inc. jointly (See PX-2 and PX-6). Collateral pledged as security for said loan (PX-6) includes real property of P & O, Inc., a beverage license of P & O, Inc., the beverage license of C.S.G, Inc., together with certain equipment of C.S.G., Inc. P & O, Inc. and C.S.G., Inc. executed a mortgage to the Central Bank of Tampa to secure said lean (PX-6) and the Central Bank of Tampa, effective December 5, 1980, insured said lean in the amount of 575,000 as evidenced by a fund mortgage form (Px-5) Neither C.S.G., Inc., the Central Bank of Tampa nor Ferrara in his oral statements to Petitioner's representative, disclosed the fact that P & O, Inc. was a co-maker of the $50,000 loan (PX-6) from the Central Bank of Tampa, or that P & O, Inc. had pledged real property and a beverage license as collateral for said loan. At all times pertinent to this procedure, P & O, Inc. was owned by Charles Pitisci, Olga Pitisci and Carlten O'Steen. At all times pertinent Charles Pitisci, Olga Pitisci and Eugene O'Steen were corporate officers of P & O, Inc. The testimony of Ferrara and Eugene O'Steen established that a close personal relationship existed between Ferrara and the owners of P & O, Inc. Ferrara's testimony established that the Central Hank of Tampa demanded additional security, and that P & O, Inc. principals cosigned the note as a personal favor to Ferrara and not to obtain an interest in the licensed business. This evidence was not rebutted by Petitioner. Ferrara did not believe he was under any duty to disclose the role of the Pitiscis and P & O, Inc. with respect to the Central Bank of Tampa loan since he did not believe they had acquired any direct or indirect interest in C.S.G., Inc. or beverage license no. 62-427.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 28th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Beggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Antineri, Jr., Esquire 601 E. Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 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 Whether Petitioners should remain eligible for entitlement to a new quota alcoholic beverage license in St. Lucie County, Florida under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On December 4, 1989 the Petitioners filed an application for inclusion in the drawing for a new quota alcoholic beverage license for St. Lucie County, Florida in accordance with Section 561.19(2), Florida Statutes. The application to participate in the drawing was properly and timely filed on DBR Form 747L, entitled, "Preliminary Application for New Quota Alcoholic Beverage License". Paragraph 4 of the General Instructions of DBR Form 747L, advised the applicants as follows: This is Part One of a two (2) part applica- tion. The Division will only accept final application (Part Two) and award licenses to those persons listed on the application, provided such persons are qualified under the beverage laws and are successful in the drawing. On March 29, 1990, the Respondent held a drawing in Tallahassee, Florida for 163 new quota liquor licenses. Petitioners were selected as a preliminary applicant for a new quota license in St. Lucie County. On April 6, 1990, the Petitioners were mailed a certified letter entitled "Notice of Selection" advising the Petitioners of their selection as preliminary applicants for a new quota liquor license in St. Lucie County. Petitioners received this letter on April 9, 1990. This letter clearly advises the Petitioners: that an application for either a "grant" or an "issuance" of a license must be filed; of the difference between "grant" and "issuance"; that a complete application for a "grant" or "issuance" must be filed within 45 days of the date of the letter which is calculated to be May 21 ,1990; that failure to timely file such applica- tion shall be deemed a waiver of the Peti- tioners' right to file for a new quota license and; of the immediacy of contacting the District 10 office in Ft. Pierce, Florida to obtain instructions and, if necessary, answer questions. On or about April 17, 1990 John Clark, Petitioners' employee went to the District 10 office in Fort Pierce and discussed with Irene Wahlenmeyer the suitability of a location of a former lounge. There was no evidence that Clark discussed the May 21, 1990 deadline for applying for the new quota liquor license with Wahlenmeyer at this time. On April 18, 1990 Petitioner, Owen Young contacted the District 10 office by phone and talked to Wahlenmeyer concerning the procedural aspects of applying for a new quota liquor license including the procedural aspects of applying for a "grant" of a license as opposed to applying for the "issuance" of a license. There is insufficient evidence to show that Wahlenmeyer suggested or implied that the Petitioners should apply for the "issuance" of a license as opposed to applying for a "grant" of a license. During the telephone conversation with Wahlenmeyer on April 28, 1990, Petitioner, Owen Young discussed with Wahlenmeyer the suitability of a location of a former lounge known as "Fanny's" and, the potential lease of this property. This was the same location discussed by Clark on April 17, 1990. There is no evidence that either of the Petitioners had any further contact with any of Respondent's employees subsequent to April 18, 1990 and prior to May 21, 1990, the final deadline to submit an application for a new quota liquor license. Although Petitioners' employee Clark visited the District 10 office sometime between May 10, 1990 and June 5, 1990, there is insufficient evidence to show that this visit was prior to May 21, 1990. Subsequent to April 18, 1990 Owen Young began work on the application process by publishing a fictitious name, applying for an occupational license and obtaining a distance waiver from the zoning board as to the Fanny's location. Additionally, Petitioners entered into a lease for the Fanny's location, expended considerable sums of money on remodeling and obligated themselves to a monthly expenditure of approximately $2,500.00 per month. There is no evidence that either of the Petitioners or Clark, on behalf of Petitioners, contacted the District 10 office or any of Respondent's other offices or any of Respondent's employees subsequent to April 6, 1990, the date of the notice of selection letter and prior to June 5, 1990, the date of the Notice of Intent to Disapprove letter inquiring as to the significance of the deadline date of May 21, 1990 or requesting an extension or waiver of the deadline date. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Wahlenmeyer or any of Respondent's other employees advised, suggested or implied that the May 21, 1990 deadline date could be or would be extended or waived. On June 5, 1990 a letter entitled, Notice of Intent to Disapprove was mailed to the Petitioners advising them that: (a) their application for a new quota liquor license had not been filed within the prescribed time period of 45 days from April 6, 1990 the date the Notice of Selection had been mailed; (b) it was Respondent's intent to deny the Petitioners' entitlement to apply for a new quota liquor license in St. Lucie County; (c) they were given until June 18, 1990 to respond as to why this entitlement should not be disapproved and; (d) this time period to respond should not be considered as an extension of the time originally granted to file the application. On June 8, 1990 Petitioners filed an Application for the Grant of a New Quota Liquor License with the District 10 office in Fort Pierce. This application was forwarded to Respondent's central office on an "Application Transmittal Form" which indicated a recommendation of approval by the District 10 office Investigator, Irene Wahlenmeyer on June 8, 1990 and her supervisor, Bob Young on January 11, 1990. Bob Young later withdrew his recommendation of approval. There is insufficient evidence to show why Young withdrew his initial recommendation of approval. On June 25, 1990, a letter entitled, "Notice of Disapproval" was sent to Petitioners from Respondent advising the Petitioners that their entitlement to apply for a new quota liquor license had been disapproved. The reasons stated for the disapproval was the failure of the Petitioners to timely file a complete application within the 45 days required by Section 561.19, Florida Statutes. On or about July 5, 1990 the Petitioner, Owen Young contacted Schoenfeld via telephone and followed up with a letter on July 6, 1990 concerning the "Notice of Intent to Disapprove" and the "grant" of a license application filed on June 8, 1990. Schoenfeld responded with an investigation of the matter with the assistance of Captain D. L. Gray of the West Palm Beach district office. Gray's investigation concluded with a memorandum dated July 16, 1990 wherein Gray advised Schoenfeld that while the Fort Pierce office should not have accepted the application for grant of license from Petitioners or recommended approval, the notice of disapproval of June 25, 1990 was justified. Respondent did not consider the application for grant of license filed on June 8, 1990 as being a completed application and as of December 6, 1990 the Petitioners have not filed any other application for a new quota alcoholic beverage license. Respondent has extended the deadline date or re-initiated the application process where it was shown that the Respondent had incorrectly advised an applicant or had lost an application resulting in the applicant's untimely filing of an application. The purpose of the "Notice of Intent To Disapprove" is to allow the applicant the opportunity to point out to the Respondent its error. There is insufficient evidence to show that Petitioners' failure to timely file their application was due to any incorrect advise given them by the Respondent notwithstanding Petitioners' contention that they were advised to apply for an issuance of a license as opposed to a grant of a license. In any event, the Petitioners neither requested nor were they advised by the Respondent that the deadline date could or would be waived or extended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order finding that the Petitioners have waived their entitlement to apply for a new quota liquor license. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1991, in 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 15th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4470 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Sections 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. - 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1 as modified. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3 except the date was March 29, 1990 instead of April 6, 1990. - 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. - 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 but clarified. 8. - 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6 but clarified. 10. - 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 but clarified. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. - 19. Restatement of testimony and not of Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 14. 20. - 21. Not material or relevant. Third sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 10 otherwise not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 as clarified otherwise not material or relevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Facts Submitted by Respondent 1. 7. - 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10, respectively. Not material or relevant. 8. - 10. Adopted in Findings of Facts 11, 12, and 13, respectively. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Joseph Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Eric S. Haug, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 James P. McCollum, Esquire 129 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, FL 33870
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the entitlement of the Petitioner to be granted a new Series 2-COP beverage license from the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Dorothy Risby, filed an application to be issued a new Series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license. The application was filed on January 28, 1980, and if the license were issued, it would allow for the sale of beer and wine to be consumed at the Petitioner's premises known as the V I P Night Club, located at 922 East Brownlee Street, Starke, Florida. After the Respondent, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, had received and reviewed the application, it was denied. The basis of the denial was, quoting from the license application denial, "undisclosed interest" and reference was made to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, as the authority for such denial. Specifically, the Respondent is persuaded that Albert Parrish has an "undisclosed interest" in the prospective licensed premises and that in view of this interest the Petitioner is not entitled to receive the beverage license. Albert Parrish was the former holder of an alcoholic beverage license issued by the Respondent, and the licensed premises to which the license pertained was the same premises as contemplated by the present Petitioner. Parrish did business at that location under the name Red Honey until his license was revoked on December 31, 1979. The current Petitioner has known Albert Parrish for a period of ten to twelve years and in the course of that time, Parrish has helped support the children of the Petitioner who presently live at home with her. This support spoken to is financial support. The Petitioner and Albert Parrish have also lived together in that period of time and as recently as February, 1980. The latter statement concerning the living arrangements between the Petitioner and Parrish was ascertained when Beverage Officer Robert W. Cunningham went to the licensed premises in making a pre-licensure inspection in February, 1980, and encountered Albert Parrish on the proposed licensed premises. Parrish indicated that he was just at the licensed premises sleeping following a break-in that had occurred at that location. At the same time he indicated that he was living at Apartment 51 on Brownlee Street, Starke, Florida, which is the residence address given by the Petitioner in her application for licensure. This also was the same residence address that Albert Parrish had put on his beverage license application when he had applied for the beverage license issued to him in the past. In the course of the meeting referred to above, Parrish stated that the utilities for the licensed premises were being paid for by him and that the phone in the licensed premises was primarily for the benefit of the ABC Junk Yard, a business operated by Parrish, which was located at that time behind the prospective licensed premises. The phone located at the licensed premises also rang at the Apartment 51 when calls were made in. At the time of Cunningham's conversation with Parrish, the rent for the licensed premises was being paid month to month and was paid at times by the Petitioner and at other times by Parrish. The most recent rent of August, 1980, was paid by the Petitioner. At the time of the hearing, the utilities for the licensed premises still remained in the name of Albert Parrish, although payment for those utilities was being made by the Petitioner. The telephone remained in the name of Albert Parrish because in the words of the Petitioner, it cost $200.00 to change over the phone from Parrish's name to the Petitioner's name and the Petitioner could not afford to make that change. In the interim, the Petitioner intends to pay for the telephone until such time as she cannot afford to pay and the service charges and at that time she would expect the telephone to be removed for nonpayment. At the time of the hearing, Albert Parrish was no longer in the junk yard business at the licensed premises and was not living with the Petitioner at the Apartment 51 due to the fact that the welfare officials had instructed the Petitioner that if Parrish lived there, the Petitioner could not receive help for her children. At present, the Petitioner does not know the exact residence address of Parrish nor of his future intentions regarding their relationship in which she had been his "girlfriend" in the past. Parrish still gives her $10.00 or $15.00 when he can afford it and when she asks him for the money. The Petitioner presently sells sandwiches and soft drinks at the licensed premises and has an occupational license from Bradford County, Florida, which allows her to do this. This license is in her sole name. Albert Parrish is not involved in the daily operation of this business. It is the intention of the Petitioner to expand the base of her operations to include the sales of alcoholic beverages. In taking over the licensed premises, she intends to continue to pay the month-to-month rent due at the licensed premises. In pursuit of the expansion of her business, Parrish gave the Petitioner certain tables and chairs in the licensed premises to use for her purposes. Parrish was not paid any amount of money for his good will or inventory and no inventory remained to be used by the current Petitioner. The Petitioner receives other income from the licensed premises in the form of a concessions for a "piccolo and pool tables". The average amount of income from those concessions being $65.00 for the piccolo and $80.00 for the pool table, on a weekly basis, of which one-half of the money is paid to the concessionaire of those items in lieu of rentals. Presently, the apartment rent of the Petitioner is paid primarily from funds received from the business, from money provided by the Petitioner's elder sons, and from welfare payments to the Petitioner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Dorothy Risby's application for a new Series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Risby 922 East Brownlee Street Starke, Florida 32091 William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Did the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department) act within its authority, pursuant to Sections 561.17 and 561.19(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-5.0105, Florida Administrative Code, in issuing the Notice of Intent to Deny Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license on the basis that Petitioner had failed to timely file a completed application?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of issuing new quota liquor licenses. In 1994, the Department held a lottery drawing for new quota liquor licenses in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner was an applicant for a new quota liquor license in Polk County, Florida in the 1994 lottery. Petitioner was not a successful applicant in the 1994 lottery but was an alternate in the event one or more of the successful applicants in the 1994 lottery failed to qualify for a new quota liquor license. The Department sent a Notice of Selection dated February 10, 2000, by Certified Mail through the U. S. Postal Service, to Petitioner at 3636 Dranefield Road, Lakeland, Florida 33811, the address Petitioner had on file with the Department. The Notice of Selection was returned to the Department undelivered with the notation "no such number." Petitioner's new address (not on file with the Department) was 3200 Flightline Drive, Lakeland, Florida 32811. Petitioner failed to advise the Department that he had moved to a new address The Notice of Selection advised Petitioner that one or more of the successful applicants of the 1994 lottery drawing had failed to qualify or to file the proper application for a new quota liquor license and, as a result, the Department was proceeding with the next eligible applicant in accordance with rankings based on the drawings. The Notice of Selection advised Petitioner that he was now eligible to apply for a new quota liquor license but that he must file a full and complete application for the issuance of the license within 45 days of the date of the Notice of Selection. The deadline stated in the Notice of Selection for filing the application for issuance of the license was March 28, 2000. On March 31, 2000, the Department mailed a Final Warning Notice to Petitioner advising him that the Department intended to deny Petitioner's entitlement to apply for a new quota liquor license in Polk County. Petitioner received the Final Warning Notice even though it was mailed to the same address as the Notice of Selection. The Final Warning Notice gave Petitioner until April 10, 2000, to furnished the Department additional information as to why he should not be disapproved due to his failure to timely file a full and complete application for the issuance of a new quota liquor license in Polk County. The Final Warning Notice also advised Petitioner that "[t]his time period" (April 10, 2000) "should not be considered as an extension of time originally granted to file an application for licensure." Petitioner's testimony was that he interpreted the Final Warning Notice as giving him until April 10, 2000, to file a full and complete application for licensure. As a result, Petitioner made a telephone call on April 4, 2000, to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) using the telephone number listed on the Final Warning Notice in an attempt to get an application for licensure. Petitioner does not remember the person's name at DABT that he spoke with on April 4, 2000. In essence, Petitioner testified that this person told him that it was too late to apply and that he would be getting a denial letter and he would have the opportunity to appeal at that time. It was the Department's position that the Final Warning Notice was to advise Petitioner that there was no record of the Department having received Petitioner's full and complete application for licensure. Also, it was to give Petitioner an opportunity to prove to the Department, no later that April 10, 2000, that he had in fact filed the application with the Department no later than March 28, 2000. By a Notice of Disapproval dated April 10, 2000, the Department advised Petitioner that it had disapproved his entitlement to apply for a new quota liquor license in Polk County due to Petitioner's failure to timely file a full and complete application for a new quota liquor license in Polk County. This notice also advised Petitioner of his right to a hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to contest this decision. Petitioner has never filed a full and complete application for a new quota liquor license with the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip A. Kuhn, Esquire 1533 Tomahawk Trail Lakeland, Florida 33813-3748 Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner, having been issued license number 60-01280, Series 1- APS. No dispute exists that such license permits Respondent to make packaged sales of beer and wine at its establishment. Respondent's last known address is 148 West Avenue A, Belle Glade, Florida. Respondent's establishment is a convenience store. On or about April 17, 2002, Jeremiah Alexander Maxie went to Respondent's establishment for the specific purpose of attempting to purchase beer. Mr. Maxie is employed as an investigative aide for Petitioner. At the time that he visited Respondent's establishment, Mr. Maxie was under 21 years of age; he was 17 years of age, having been born on August 10, 1984. Mr. Maxie did nothing to alter his appearance in an attempt to affect his age. Mr. Maxie attempted to purchase beer at twelve other locations on April 17, 2002. He was paid $35 by Petitioner for that day. Mr. Maxie entered Respondent's establishment at approximately 4:50 p.m. Shortly thereafter, approximately 20 seconds later, Petitioner's Special Agent Danny Stoops, who was undercover, entered Respondent's establishment. Agent Stoops observed the actions of Mr. Maxie. Agent Stoops is a 24-year veteran with Petitioner. He gave Mr. Maxie instructions as to what to do. Agent Stoops instructed Mr. Maxie to attempt to purchase a Budweiser product and, if the clerk requested identification, for Mr. Maxie to politely set the beer down and leave. Mr. Maxie proceeded to the rear of Respondent's establishment to the coolers. He removed a can of beer, a Budweiser product, and proceeded to the cash register. At the time of hearing, Mr. Maxie could not recall the particular type of Budweiser product. Agent Stoops observed Mr. Maxie proceed from the coolers to the cash register although he did not observe the product that Mr. Maxie had obtained. Mr. Maxie gave the cashier/clerk, Armando Rodriguez, who is Respondent's owner, U.S. Currency as payment for the beer. Mr. Rodriguez placed the Budweiser product in a paper bag and gave Mr. Maxie a receipt, but Mr. Maxie did not look at the receipt. Mr. Maxie departed Respondent's establishment. At the time of hearing, Mr. Maxie could not recall the denomination of currency that he gave to Mr. Rodriguez or the amount that he had paid for the beer. Agent Stoops observed Mr. Maxie give Mr. Rodriguez the currency but did not observe the denomination. Agent Stoops departed Respondent's establishment approximately 15 to 20 feet behind Mr. Maxie. When they were outside, the purchased Budweiser product was given to Agent Stoops by Mr. Maxie. Both Agent Stoops and Mr. Maxie initialed the paper bag into which Mr. Rodriguez had placed the Budweiser product. Agent Stoops placed the Budweiser product in an evidence bag, tagged it with an evidence receipt bearing a control number, and secured the bagged evidence in the trunk of his vehicle. Agent Stoops removed the bagged evidence from the trunk of his vehicle and placed it in Petitioner's evidence vault. For hearing, Agent Stoops retrieved the bagged evidence from the evidence vault. The Budweiser product presented at hearing was a can of Bud Light Beer, which was still in the paper bag in which the beer was placed at the time of purchase. No challenge to the chain of custody of the can of beer was made and no problem exists as to the chain of custody of the can of beer. No receipt for the purchase of the Budweiser product was included in the bagged evidence. Agent Stoops could not independently recall that a receipt was presented to him by Mr. Maxie. Respondent entered into evidence cash register receipts for April 17, 2002, which do not reflect the purchase of any alcoholic beverage. However, the cash register receipts reflect, among other things, "taxable" and "grocery" items, not the particular items themselves, and "meat"; thereby, the cash register receipts differentiate only between "grocery" and "taxable" and "meat" items. Further, the cash register receipts are numbered 058616 through 058619, with times of day reflecting 16:05 through 16:09, and 058624 through 058627, with times of day reflecting 16:46 through 16:52. Not included in the cash register receipts are receipts numbered 058620 through 058623, with times of day reflecting 16:10 through 16:45. With the missing numbered-cash register receipts included, a total of 12 transactions were completed, but only eight transactions were offered and admitted into evidence. No explanation was presented for the missing eight transactions. Taking into consideration the overwhelming evidence of the purchase of the Budweiser product by Mr. Maxie, not having a receipt is insufficient to show that the beer-purchase transaction did not occur. Moreover, the evidence is clear and convincing that the beer-purchase transaction did occur. The product purchased at Respondent's establishment by Mr. Maxie was a can of beer, a Budweiser product, a Bud Light. At the time of hearing, Mr. Rodriguez was 76 years of age and had owned Respondent's establishment for 36 years. He is Respondent's agent. Mr. Rodriguez speaks Spanish. At the time of hearing, an interpreter was provided for him. Mr. Rodriguez denies that he saw Mr. Maxie in Respondent's establishment and denies that he sold any beer to Mr. Maxie. Mr. Rodriguez failed to realize to whom he sold the can of beer. At the time Mr. Maxie purchased the can of beer from Respondent's establishment, Mr. Rodriguez was engaged in a conversation with another gentleman. Mr. Rodriguez did not ask Mr. Maxie any questions or ask for his identification. Mr. Maxie said nothing to suggest that he was 21 years of age or older. As a matter of fact, no evidence was presented that any conversation took place between Mr. Maxie and Mr. Rodriguez. The evidence further suggests that Mr. Rodriguez paid very little attention to Mr. Maxie even at the time of the purchase of the beer. Mr. Rodriguez did not knowingly and willfully sell the can of beer to a minor, i.e., Mr. Maxie. Mr. Rodriguez was negligent and failed to exercise reasonable diligence in preventing the sale of the can of beer to Mr. Maxie. No prior disciplinary action has been taken against Respondent by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order: Finding that Lake Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Lake Supermarket, violated Subsection 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes; Imposing a fine of $1,000.00 payable within a time deemed appropriate; and Suspending the license of Lake Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Lake Supermarket, for seven days. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 31st day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Chad D. Heckman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Valentin Rodriguez, Jr., Esquire Valentin Rodriguez, P.A. 318 Ninth Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Peter Williams, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Danny Stoops, Agent Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 North Congress Avenue, No. 150 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue The issue is whether, pursuant to section 561.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, Respondent is required to approve the transfer of alcoholic beverage license to Petitioner after its purported purchase of the license at a sheriff's sale.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the events set forth below, La Cidra Corporation (La Cidra) owned the License. As issued by Respondent, the License authorized La Cidra to sell alcoholic beverages at a bar known as L'Boulevard Café Supper Club,2 which was located in leased premises at 3632-34 Northwest 25th Avenue in Miami (Premises). On October 28, 2013, Steven Beltre (Beltre) obtained a final judgment in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in the amount of about $3.4 million against La Cidra, doing business as L'Boulevard Cafe Supperclub. Respondent has adopted a form, DBPR ABT-6022, for persons to record liens against alcoholic beverage licenses. However, at no material time did anyone record with Respondent a lien against the License in connection with the Beltre judgment. The record does not disclose when La Cidra ceased operating the bar. However, on January 21, 2014, Intervenor registered "L'Boulevard Café Supperclub" as a fictitious name, and Intervenor and La Cidra signed an "Application for Transfer of Ownership of an Alcoholic Beverage License" concerning the License. On February 13, 2014, Intervenor purchased from La Cidra all of its assets, including the License. At closing, La Cidra assigned the Premises lease by an assignment that was signed by La Cidra, Intervenor, and the lessor. The assignment acknowledges that Intervenor has paid the lessor a security deposit of $10,000. A closing statement reflects a purchase price of $100,000, which is represented by a $15,000 deposit and $85,000 promissory note. On February 20, Intervenor filed with Respondent the application described in the preceding paragraph, and Respondent, on the same date, issued to Intervenor a temporary license based on the License. Five days after the closing described in the preceding paragraph, on February 18, 2014, the Clerk of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court issued a Writ of Execution directing all sheriffs in the state of Florida "to levy upon property subject to execution of . . . La Cidra . . . to satisfy the sum of [approximately $3.4 million]." The Miami-Dade County Sheriff's Office levied upon property on March 8, 2014--23 days after the closing of the conveyance of the License from La Cidra to Intervenor. The seized property included alcoholic beverages, bar equipment, computers, televisions, phones, stage lights, radios, smoke machines, and shop equipment, as well as the following intangible personal property: a certificate evidencing La Cidra as the licensee under the License, an $85,000 "secured" promissory note that is not further identified, and currency totaling $17,206 in denominations as large as $100 bills. After the seizure, the sheriff advertised the sale of the property by auction on April 30. The list of property to be sold included the License, but not the promissory note or cash, whose disposition is undisclosed in the record. On April 30, 2014--over two months after the La Cidra/Intervenor conveyance--the sheriff executed a Sheriff's Bill of Sale transferring all "right, title and interest" of La Cidra to all of the advertised property to Respondent for the sum of $2000 plus $140 sales tax, which represented the highest bid at the sheriff's sale. Immediately after the sheriff's levy, in March, Respondent was contacted by various parties, including the sheriff's office, which provided Respondent with a copy of the writ of execution and list of seized property.3 On April 7, 2014, Respondent received a letter from Daniel W. Courtney, an attorney whose cover letter states that he represents Intervenor. The letter recites that Respondent properly had issued a temporary license to Intervenor, but later had withheld the issuance of the permanent License to Intervenor due to its receipt of information from the sheriff concerning the purported seizure of the License. The letter asserts that this was an improper seizure because the License was not the property of La Cidra at the time of the seizure and requests that Respondent issue the permanent License to Intervenor without delay. Unmoved by Mr. Courtney's letter, on June 4, 2014, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Deny License to Intervenor. The notice cites the writ of execution issued on February 18 and reasons that "neither the putative transferor nor putative transferee possess[es] title for the transfer of the [License]." This reasoning does not account for the simple chronology of events in which the La Cidra/Intervenor conveyance preceded the sheriff's levy and sale. On June 14, 2014, Intervenor requested an administrative hearing on the proposed denial. By Order of Dismissal entered April 30, 2015, Respondent acknowledged that its failure for more than 90 days to issue a decision on Intervenor's transfer application for a permanent License required Respondent to deem that the application had been approved, pursuant to section 120.60(1).4 The Order of Dismissal rescinds, without prejudice, the Notice of Intent to Deny License issued on June 4, 2014, and notes that Respondent approved the transfer of the permanent License to Intervenor on January 30, 2015.5 At about the time that it requested an administrative hearing on Respondent's earlier denial of its transfer application for a permanent License, Intervenor commenced judicial proceedings to obtain relief from Petitioner's claims arising out of the sheriff's sale. Intervenor sought to intervene in supplemental proceedings pertaining to the underlying tort action between Beltre and La Cidra. Intervenor also commenced a legal action against Beltre. The trial court denied the motion to intervene without prejudice, pending resolution of the separate action against Beltre. Intervenor appealed this order, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court on June 3, 2015. On October 6, 2015, the trial court dismissed Intervenor's action against Beltre for lack of prosecution. At the same time that Intervenor was pursuing judicial and administrative relief, on June 6, 2014, Petitioner filed a transfer application for Respondent's approval of the transfer of the License to Petitioner. The page for the signature of the transferor is blank, but Petitioner attached to the application a copy of the above-described Sheriff's Bill of Sale. On July 9, 2014, Respondent issued the above-described Notice of Intent to Deny License to Petitioner that cites Intervenor's documentation of the La Cidra/Intervenor conveyance as the ground for the denial. The evidentiary record omits any evidence of the fair market value of the License and, more importantly, as noted by Respondent in its proposed recommended order, the fact that, on November 13, 2013, Beltre filed with the Department of State a judgment lien certificate.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny the application of Petitioner for a statutory transfer of the License. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should revoke Respondent's alcohol beverage license, pursuant to Section 561.501, Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ and Florida Administrative Rule 61A-2.02 2/ because Respondent failed to pay tax, interest, and penalties of $179,146.56.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating alcohol beverage licenses. Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license number 69-00735, series 4-COP, for Lake Monroe Inn, 2485 North Highway 17-92, Sanford, Florida. Until sometime after December 1996, Respondent sold alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises. Respondent was required by Section 561.501 to pay a surcharge tax on such alcoholic beverages. In October, 1996, Petitioner audited Respondent's books and records to determine Respondent's compliance with the surcharge tax. The audit period was January 1, 1996, through August 31, 1996. Petitioner's auditors conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted audit procedures. Petitioner determined the following surcharge tax liability: Surcharge Tax $ 47,472.98 Interest $ 7,961.66 Penalty $123,711.92 Total Liability $179,146.56 On October 10, 1996, Petitioner presented an audit report to Respondent, and the auditors discussed the audit findings with Respondent. Respondent does not contest the audit report and concedes the total liability. Respondent admits that the failure to collect and remit the tax was willful. Subsequent to the filing of the Administrative Action, Respondent went out of business. A lienholder foreclosed on Respondent's license. Another business now operates at Respondent's location.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's alcohol and tobacco license. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1997.
