The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Elliott H. Nachwalter was a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0451805 by Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission. The last license issued to Mr. Nachwalter was as a salesman, c/o Expo Realty, Inc., 9445 Bird Road, #101, Miami, Florida 33165. License number 0451805 remains in involuntary inactive status. A person by the name of Elliott Nachwalter served as an officer of a Florida corporation, Liberty Metals Corporation, which was involuntarily dissolved on November 16, 1987. At the hearing, Petitioner asserted that the Elliott Nachwalter of Liberty Metals Corporation was the same Elliott Nachwalter who is the Respondent is the instant case. Petitioner further asserted that in the summer of 1988, through Liberty Metals Corporation, Respondent agreed to sell to Mrs. J. D. Morrison platinum and solicited from Mrs. J. D. Morrison checks totaling $63,000 in payment for the platinum, that the platinum was never delivered to Mrs. Morrison and that Respondent induced Mrs. Morrison into returning a check in the amount of $168,202 which was offered to Mrs. Morrison by Respondent when her account with Liberty Metals was closed. Neither Mrs. Morrison nor Respondent were present or testified at the hearing. Instead, Mrs. Morrison's assertions were delivered through the testimony of her adult son, J. Davis Morrison, Jr. Mr. Morrison holds the durable family power of attorney over the property and assets both real and personal of his father, Kirk Morrison. It was under this authority that Mr. Morrison sought to propose the testimony about his mother's dealings with Liberty Mutual. Mr. Morrison stated that his mother was aged and incompetent to testify; however, no competent evidence of her condition was offered. Further, the relationship between the power of attorney which Mr. Morrison held over his father's property and assets, and any authority over his mother's property and assets which may have been involved with Liberty Mutual was not demonstrated. Mr. Morrison overheard his mother talking on the telephone to someone she identified as "Elliot." He was also aware, through his mother, that she was engaging in dealings for platinum with a Carlos Mas who she told him was in business with Mr. Nachwalter. Mr. Mas has since died. When Mr. Morrison discovered checks of his mother made out to Liberty Metals during the summer of 1988 and saw no confirmations for the purchases, he insisted that his mother close her account with Liberty Metals. On August 23, 1988, a check was delivered to Mrs. Morrison in the amount of $168,202 drawn on Pan American Bank, N.A., and made payable to Mrs. Kirk Morrison. According to Mr. Morrison, the check was returned to the sender by his mother at the insistence of either Mr. Nachwalter or Mr. Mas. Mr. Morrison appeared to be a truly concerned son with, no doubt, the interest of his mother in mind. However, without direct testimony and other forms of competent evidence, the proof has failed to demonstrate that Respondent was involved in the proposed scheme or committed any of the acts alleged by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed against Elliott Nachwalter, licensed real estate salesman holding license number 0451805. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of March, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 9th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4524 The following represent the rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by parties. The rulings are reflected by the paragraph number of each proposed finding of fact. PETITIONER Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Adopted, in part, in paragraph 6, rejected, in part, in part, as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. RESPONDENT Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as hearsay. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 John M. McDaniel, Esquire 777 Brickell Avenue, PH-2 Miami, Florida 33131 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Ralph B. Snyder, Jr. ("Respondent"), was a licensed real estate broker having been issued license No. 0082998. Respondent was the qualifying broker for Home Hunters V, Inc., a corporate real estate broker having been issued license No. 0221795, with a principal business address of 2829 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. In September, 1981, Respondent registered Home Hunters V, Inc., as a real estate brokerage corporation, with himself as qualifying broker. The office remained open until April, 1982. Respondent was not present in the West Palm Beach office of Home Hunters V on a full-time basis because, in addition to that business, he was involved in a construction business on Sanibel Island, Florida. In late September or early October, 1981, Respondent hired Greg Howle to manage the Home Hunters V office in West Palm Beach. At all times material hereto, Howle was not registered as either a broker or salesman. Respondent's business, insofar as here pertinent, consisted of maintaining card files of rental properties available in the West Palm Beach area, and advertising availability of those properties for the owners. When a prospective tenant came to Respondent's office in response to advertisements or otherwise, those tenants would sign an agreement with Home Hunters V, Inc., and, after payment of a $60 fee, would be furnished information concerning available properties in the area that generally conformed to the types of properties prospective tenants were seeking. The standard procedure in Respondent's office was that the prospective tenants would first meet with Greg Howle, the office manager, who would have them execute the agreement with Home Hunters V, Inc., collect the $60 fee from them, and then refer prospective tenants to other office employees. Among these other office employees were Ilana Frank, a licensed real estate salesperson who began employment with Respondent in late September or early October, 1981, and Sheryl Kimball, an unlicensed employee, who was employed by Respondent on or about October 16, 1981, and continued as an employee until about November 29, 1981. Respondent testified that Ms. Kimball was hired as a receptionist and, in addition, performed general clerical responsibilities in the office, including greeting potential customers and referring them to licensed salespersons. The record in this cause establishes that Ms. Kimball did, on at least two occasions, speak with persons on the telephone concerning sales, and on both of those occasions she was reprimanded by Respondent for acting outside the scope of her employment. Ms. Kimball was never directed by Respondent to negotiate the rental of any real property nor does this record establish that Respondent knew of Ms. Kimball's engaging in any such activity. Respondent testified that Ms. Kimball was paid $150 per week for her services, and, in addition, was compensated for any overtime work she might have performed. Ms. Kimball testified, however, that she was paid $150 per week together with $3.00 for each contract she negotiated. However, Ms. Kimball could identify only one such contract on which she worked. With regard to that contract, which involved a customer named Paul Palmero, Respondent never received any funds, and the record in this cause does not reflect that any services were ever performed for Mr. Palmero. Further, the entire Palmero transaction was conducted in the presence of another of Respondent's employees, Ilana Frank, who, as indicated above, was a licensed salesperson. Accordingly, there is insufficient credible evidence of record in this cause to establish that Sheryl Kimball ever negotiated the rental of real property or interest therein; procured lessees of the real property of others; or performed any of the acts of a broker or salesman as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Further, the record in this cause contains no evidence establishing the amounts actually paid to Ms. Kimball during the six-week period in which she was employed by Respondent. In reaching this conclusion, the Hearing Officer has taken into account the testimony and interests of both Ms. Kimball and Respondent in the outcome of this proceeding in attempting to reconcile the direct conflicts in their testimony. Ms. Kimball was discharged from Respondent's employ after having received two reprimands and having been accused of misappropriating funds. Thereafter, Ms. Kimball filed a complaint against Respondent with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Conversely, Respondent obviously has an interest in retaining his license as a broker. When viewed as a whole, it is concluded that facts of record in this cause with respect to Counts I and II are qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient to establish the factual allegations contained therein. Count III of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent ". . . inserted or caused to be inserted fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading advertisements in the Post and Evening Times newspaper of West Palm Beach, Florida." The same count further alleges that those advertisements were fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading ". . . in that the content thereof stated to the public that respondents had available for lease through their firm various rental units at stated prices when in fact rental units of the advertised type were not available through their firm at the stated price." There is no evidence of record in this proceeding that would in any way establish the facts alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. In fact, the only evidence of record on this issue is the testimony of Ms. Kimball that she observed Mr. Howle, the office manager, copying listings from Fort Myers newspapers for use in the West Palm Beach area. However, Ms. Kimball conceded that she did not know if any such ads were ever placed in the West Palm Beach newspaper. No such advertisements were introduced into evidence in this proceeding from which any comparison to any of the listings available through Respondents could be made to determine whether the ads were fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading. County IV of the Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with having solicited and accepted money as advance rental fees with knowledge that rental units of the type and price desired by potential tenants were not available through Respondent's firm, and with making false representations as to the availability of rental units. Again, there is no evidence of record in this cause to establish a single, identifiable instance in which Respondent either individually or through its employees represented that rental units were available of a type and price that were not in fact so available.
The Issue There are two issues presented in this case. The first issue is whether a statement by the Department of Banking and Finance (the "Department"), denying joinder of multiple unrelated abandoned property claims, in a Final Order directed to Petitioner is an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The second issue is whether the Department has a policy of delaying decisions on unclaimed property claims past the statutory 90th day, such that the policy constitutes an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State agency responsible for administering the Florida Unclaimed Property Act, Chapter 717, Florida Statutes. As such, the Department is responsible for collecting and maintaining unclaimed property and processing claims for the return of the unclaimed property to its missing owners. The Department accomplishes this task through a staff composed of 12 full-time employees and 14 OPS employees. Individuals as well as private investigative agencies file claims for property held by the Department. Private investigative agencies account for appropriately 12 percent to 14 percent of the claims filed and approximately 38 percent to 42 percent of the property value returned to owners. The Department's Claims Process The Department has established internal procedures so that claims are processed timely, efficiently, and accurately. Claimants must submit claims in writing on a form supplied by the Department. The Department logs-in each claim on the day it is received. If the Department determines a claim is in compliance with Rules 3D-20.0021 and 3D-20.0022, Florida Administrative Code, and the proof submitted with the claim is sufficient to establish the claimant's ownership and entitlement to the funds, it is paid. If the Department determines that the claim is incomplete, within 5 to 15 days of its receipt of the claim, the Department sends the claimant a pre-screen letter advising the claimant of the additional information required to prove the claim. Rule 3D-20.0021(1), Florida Administrative Code. When the claimant resubmits the claim with the additional material that has been requested, the claim is re-logged into the computer and a 90th day is set. Rule 3D-20.0021(2), Florida Administrative Code. Claims supervisors receive a daily computer report alerting them of the claims which are 61 days old and aging. They receive high priority. Complex claims which are submitted with initial insufficient proof are referred to the legal department for review and resolution. During fiscal year 1999/2000 the Department processed and approved approximately 107,000 claims having an aggregate value of approximately $67 million. Throughout the review process, the Department assists claimants in developing the proof necessary to prove the claim in lieu of summarily denying the claim. In mid-1999, the Department's Unclaimed Property Program went on-line, which significantly increased the number of claims filed. From around July 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000, the Department processed claims for approximately 132,900 unclaimed property accounts. The statutory 90-day period for determination was exceeded for an estimated 5000 of those accounts: 1,146 claims were denied and 3,991 claims were approved. However, of those 3991 approved accounts, 1,254 accounts were from an extended project with the FDIC which took about a year to complete. In sum, excluding the 1,254 FDIC accounts, the Department exceeded the 90th day on approximately 3 percent of the claims filed during this period. The Petitioner Petitioner is a licensed private investigator who specializes in the recovery of unclaimed property held by the Comptroller's office. Petitioner maintains both an individual and an agency license to engage in the business of locating missing owners of unclaimed property. He has been licensed by the Florida Department of State as a private investigator since 1993. In the course of Petitioner's business, his clients sign a form agreement which authorizes Petitioner to represent the client in recovering the abandoned property held by the Comptroller's Office. Petitioner represents the client through the entire claims process until the claim is either paid to his trust account or denied. If the claim is paid, Petitioner deducts his fractional share and costs and forwards the net value of the claim to the client. If the claim is denied, Petitioner's agreement with his client authorizes him to file a request for hearing on the client's behalf. Petitioner's Agreement Form Petitioner's agreement states that Petitioner has located property which may belong to the client, and pending the requisite proof of ownership, that Petitioner will recover the property for the client. The agreement provides that for his services, the "Agent is assigned a fee of 30 percent" and further provides that the agreement is an "irrevocable limited power of attorney." Lastly, the agreement recites that in any dispute between Petitioner and his client, "proper venue is in Volusia County, Florida." Petitioner's Business Since 1998, Petitioner has filed claims for approximately 3,000 unclaimed property accounts. Of those 3,000 accounts, 152, roughly 5 percent of Petitioner's claims, have exceeded the 90-day determination period. Petitioner files claims for all types of unclaimed property, but primarily involving dissolved corporations. Because of the nature of his business niche, Petitioner's claims are often more complex because they involve older accounts, lost or destroyed corporate documents, and archived banking information. Moreover, a decision by a bankruptcy trustee about whether or not to reopen a bankruptcy estate may also be needed to establish entitlement to the property, if the company was liquidated through a bankruptcy proceeding. Claimants, including Petitioner, routinely request the Department's assistance in obtaining additional information from the reporting company in order to establish ownership and entitlement on behalf of their client. Prior to August 2000, Petitioner had not requested the Department provide a denial letter of any of his claims in which the 90th day had exhausted while additional information was gathered. The Controversy In August 2000, Petitioner had six claims, representing four separate clients, pending with the Department, all of which were over the 90 days. In each case the Department determined the evidence provided was insufficient to establish the client's ownership of the property. Over the months during which these claims were pending, Petitioner met with the Department on several occasions to address the proof issues. On August 9, 2000, the Department sent Petitioner a letter outlining the deficiencies in each of the four files and advising Petitioner that unless he could provide the evidence needed by August 25, 2000, the Department would deny each claim. Petitioner faxed a letter dated September 7, 2000, to the Department stating he would be out of the country during the month of September and requested that the denials for the files listed in the August 9, 2000, letter be held until after he returned home on September 26, 2000. Petitioner's letter also requested that the "DOAH hearing be held in Daytona Beach, Florida, when each of the hearings takes place." To accommodate Petitioner's request, the Department delayed issuing the Individual Notices of Intent to Deny each of the four claims until October 3, 2000. Petitioner timely responded to the four denials with a single Petition for Hearing, attempting to consolidate the four unrelated cases. On November 27, 2000, the Department entered an Order denying his Petition for failure to comply with the Florida Administrative Code and granted Petitioner 20 days in which to re-file a conforming petition. The Order also advised Petitioner that consolidating these unrelated cases was inappropriate. On December 1, 2000, Petitioner signed and mailed the instant Rule Challenge, which specifically identified these four files. It was received by DOAH on December 6, 2000. On December 1, 2000, the same day the Rule Challenge was mailed to DOAH, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a standstill agreement, tolling all matters related to these four files as well as several other files. The agreement was reduced to writing and signed on December 7 and 8, 2000. On December 13, 2000, Petitioner and his attorney again met with the Department to discuss the evidence required to prove the claims in these four files. The Challenged Statement Petitioner challenges the "joinder" statement in the Department's Order which advised him that "it is inappropriate to consolidate four unrelated cases in a single Petition for Hearing." Petitioner contends this statement is a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. He further contends that the statement as applied is contrary to Rule 1.110(g), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The Challenged Policy As a separate but related matter, Petitioner also asserts that the Department has a tacit policy of delaying determinations on claims past the 90th day. Petitioner argues that the effect of this policy is to deny the claimant a point of entry into administrative proceedings. He contends that this policy has the force of a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Sanctions The Department requested that attorneys' fees be assessed against Petitioner. The Department incorrectly asserts this matter is completely without merit and was brought for an improper purpose, namely, to harass.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners' Motions for Attorney's Fees should be granted, and if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of counsel, the papers filed herein, and the underlying record made a part of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this attorney's fees dispute, Petitioners, Anderson Columbia Company, Inc. (Anderson Columbia) (Case No. 00-0754F), Panhandle Land & Timber Company, Inc. (Panhandle Land) (Case No. 00-0755F), Support Terminals Operating Partnership, L.P. (Support Terminals) (Case No. 00-0756F), Commodores Point Terminal Corporation (Commodores Point) (Case No. 00-0757F), and Olan B. Ward, Sr., Martha P. Ward, Anthony Taranto, Antoinette Taranto, J.V. Gander Distributors, Inc., J.V. Gander, Jr., and Three Rivers Properties, Inc. (the Ward group) (Case No. 00-0828F), have requested the award of attorney's fees and costs incurred in successfully challenging proposed Rule 18-21.019(1), Florida Administrative Code, a rule administered by Respondent, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board). In general terms, the proposed rule essentially authorized the Board, through the use of a qualified disclaimer, to reclaim sovereign submerged lands which had previously been conveyed to the upland owners by virtue of their having filled in, bulkheaded, or permanently improved the submerged lands. The underlying actions were assigned Case Nos. 98- 1764RP, 98-1866RP, 98-2045RP, and 98-2046RP, and an evidentiary hearing on the rule challenge was held on May 21, 1998. That proceeding culminated in the issuance of a Final Order in Support Terminals Operating Partnership, L.P. et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 21 F.A.L.R. 3844 (Div. Admin. Hrngs., Aug. 8, 1998), which determined that, except for one challenged provision, the proposed rule was valid. Thereafter, in the case of Anderson Columbia Company, Inc. et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 748 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), the court reversed the order below and determined that the rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners then filed their motions. Fees and Costs There are eleven Petitioners seeking reimbursement of fees and costs. In its motion, Anderson Columbia seeks reimbursement of attorney's fees "up to the $15,000 cap allowed by statute" while Panhandle Land seeks identical relief. In their similarly worded motions, Support Terminals and Commodores Point each seek fees "up to the $15,000 cap allowed by statute." Finally, the Ward group collectively seeks $9,117.00 in attorney's fees and $139.77 in costs. In the Joint Stipulations of Fact filed by the parties, the Board has agreed that the rate and hours for all Petitioners "were reasonable." As to all Petitioners except the Ward group, the Board has further agreed that each of their costs to challenge the rule exceeded $15,000.00. It has also agreed that even though they were not contained in the motions, requests for costs by Support Terminals, Commodores Point, Anderson Columbia, and Panhandle Land in the amounts of $1,143.22, $1,143.22, $1,933.07, and $1,933.07, respectively, were "reasonable." Finally, the Board has agreed that the request for costs by the Ward group in the amount of $139.77 is "reasonable." Despite the stipulation, and in the event it does not prevail on the merits of these cases, the Board contends that the four claimants in Case Nos. 00-754F, 00-755F, 00-0756F, and 00- 757F should be reimbursed only on a per case basis, and not per client, or $7,500.00 apiece, on the theory that they were sharing counsel, and the discrepancy between the amount of fees requested by the Ward group (made up of seven Petitioners) and the higher fees requested by the other Petitioners "is difficult to understand and justify." If this theory is accepted, it would mean that Support Terminals and Commodores Point would share a single $15,000.00 fee, while Anderson Columbia and Panhandle Land would do the same. Support Terminals and Commodores Point were unrelated clients who happened to choose the same counsel; they were not a "shared venture." Each brought a different perspective to the case since Commodores Point had already received a disclaimer with no reversionary interest while Support Terminals received one with a reversionary interest on June 26, 1997. The latter event ultimately precipitated this matter and led to the proposed rulemaking. Likewise, in the case of Anderson Columbia and Panhandle Land, one was a landowner while the other was a tenant, and they also happened to choose the same attorney to represent them. For the sake of convenience and economy, the underlying cases were consolidated and the matters joined for hearing. Substantial Justification From a factual basis, the Board contends several factors should be taken into account in determining whether it was substantially justified in proposing the challenged rule. First, the Board points out that its members are mainly lay persons, and they relied in good faith on the legal advice of the Board's staff and remarks made by the Attorney General during the course of the meeting at which the Board issued a disclaimer to Support Terminals. Therefore, the Board argues that it should be insulated from liability since it was relying on the advice of counsel. If this were true, though, an agency that relied on legal advice could never be held responsible for a decision which lacked substantial justification. The Board also relies upon the fact that it has a constitutional duty to protect the sovereign lands held in the public trust for the use and benefit of the public. Because lands may be disclaimed under the Butler Act only if they fully meet the requirements of the grant, and these questions involve complex policy considerations, the Board argues that the complexity and difficulty of this task militate against an award of fees. While its mission is indisputably important, however, the Board is no different than other state agencies who likewise are charged with the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. The Board further relies on the fact that the rule was never intended to affect title to Petitioners' lands, and all Petitioners had legal recourse to file a suit to quiet title in circuit court. As the appellate court noted, however, the effect of the rule was direct and immediate, and through the issuance of a disclaimer with the objectionable language, it created a reversionary interest in the State and made private lands subject to public use. During the final hearing in the underlying proceedings, the then Director of State Lands vigorously supported the proposed rule as being in the best interests of the State and consistent with the "inalienable" Public Trust. However, he was unaware of any Florida court decision which supported the Board's views, and he could cite no specific statutory guidance for the Board's actions. The Director also acknowledged that the statutory authority for the rule (Section 253.129, Florida Statutes) simply directed the Board to issue disclaimers, and it made no mention of the right of the Board to reclaim submerged lands through the issuance of a qualified disclaimer. In short, while the Board could articulate a theory for its rule, it had very little, if any, basis in Florida statutory or common law or judicial precedent to support that theory. Although Board counsel has ably argued that the law on the Butler Act was archaic, confusing, and conflicting in many respects, the rule challenge case ultimately turned on a single issue, that is, whether the Riparian Rights Act of 1856 and the Butler Act of 1921 granted to upland or riparian owners fee simple title to the adjacent submerged lands which were filled in, bulkheaded, or permanently improved. In other words, the ultimate issue was whether the Board's position was "inconsistent with the . . . the concept of fee simple title." Anderson Columbia at 1066. On this issue, the court held that the State could not through rulemaking "seek to reserve ownership interests by issuing less than an unqualified or unconditional disclaimer to riparian lands which meet the statutory requirements." Id. at 1067. Thus, with no supporting case law or precedent to support its view on that point, there was little room for confusion or doubt on the part of the Board. E. Special Circumstances In terms of special circumstances that would make an award of fees unjust, the Board first contends that the proposed rule was never intended to "harm anyone," and that none of Petitioners were actually harmed. But the substantial interests of each Petitioner were clearly affected by the proposed rules, and the appellate court concluded that the rule would result in an unconstitutional forfeiture of property. The Board also contends that because it must make proprietary decisions affecting the public trust, it should be given wide latitude in rulemaking. It further points out that the Board must engage in the difficult task of balancing the interests of the public with private rights, and that when it infringes on the private rights of others, as it did here, it should not be penalized for erring on the side of the public. As previously noted, however, all state agencies have worthy governmental responsibilities, but this in itself does not insulate an agency from sanctions. As an additional special circumstance, the Board points out that many of the provisions within the proposed rule were not challenged and were therefore valid. In this case, several subsections were admittedly unchallenged, but the offending provisions which form the crux of the rule were invalidated. Finally, the Board reasons that any moneys paid in fees and costs will diminish the amount of money to be spent on public lands. It is unlikely, however, that any state agency has funds set aside for the payment of attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes (1999).
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner, a 52 year-old male, on the basis of sex and age in its promotional practices.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Raymond Balaguer, is a 52 year-old male. He is a law enforcement officer with the title of Special Agent with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He has held that position in the Jacksonville District Office for approximately the last thirty (30) years. The Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Agency), is the governmental agency charged with the regulation and enforcement of Chapters 561, 562 and 563, Florida Statutes. At all times material, the Agency was the employer of the Petitioner and Special Agent Elizabeth Doyle. Elizabeth Doyle is a 39 year-old female. At all times pertinent, she was a law enforcement officer with the title of Special Agent with the Agency. In May of 1994, the Agency considered applications for promotion to the position of law enforcement sergeant for the Jacksonville District Office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Pursuant to Department of Management Services rules and the Police Benevolent Association contract, all candidates for promotion to the position of law enforcement sergeant were required to take and pass a law enforcement sergeant's written examination in order to be eligible for the class. The Agency's procedure was to select an interview panel to interview those candidates achieving the five highest numerical scores on the written law enforcement sergeant's examination who have applied for a vacant position in the specific county. Immediately after the interviews, the panel considered and discussed the applicants' test scores, interviews, and personnel files. The panel recommended to the Division's Director the most suitable candidate for promotion to the open position. The Petitioner, a male at age 52, applied for promotion to the position of law enforcement sergeant in the Jacksonville District Office. The Petitioner received a score of 74 percent on the written law enforcement sergeant's exam. The Petitioner had 26 1/2 years of experience with the Division, and significant formal education to include a Master's degree. Petitioner had additional administrative experience as a warrant officer in the active Marine Reserve. The Petitioner had served on a state wide Department Committee to study licensing policy and procedure. The Petitioner has completed all required in-service training. Special Agent Doyle, a female at age 39, applied for promotion to the same vacant position of law enforcement sergeant in the Jacksonville District Office. Special Agent Doyle received a score of 85 percent on the law enforcement sergeant's exam. She had six years of experience with the Department. She received the highest written examination score of the candidates who applied for and interviewed for the Jacksonville position. She did not have a baccalaureate degree. The Department has traditionally emphasized formal education as a basis for promotion. Special Agent Doyle and the Petitioner and three other candidates were interviewed by the same interview panel composed of the three Bureau Chiefs in the Division and two Captains. The panel asked all of the candidates the same questions relating to a law enforcement sergeant's duties. Special Agent Doyle filed a resume of her accomplishments with the panel. The Petitioner was not advised of the opportunity to file a resume with the panel and did not do so. Special Agent Doyle had a very strong interview, and answered the questions put to her in a manner that impressed the panel while the Petitioner's interview was unremarkable. The panel considered the applicants' test scores, interviews and personnel files. There was no consideration of the candidates' formal education. The panel discussed the five candidates for promotion to the Jacksonville District Office law enforcement sergeant position. The panel considered Special Agent Doyle's resume. The panel unanimously determined Special Agent Doyle was the most suitable candidate for the promotion. The panel forwarded its unanimous recommendation to the Division's Director to promote Special Agent Doyle. The Division Director promoted Special Agent Doyle to the position of sergeant for the Jacksonville District Office in the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Special Agent Doyle was considered "highly motivated" because of seeking a position as training officer. Licensing is an integral part of the duties of a law enforcement sergeant. Special Agent Doyle was considered skilled in licensing as a result of being a training officer and her scores on the examination and interview. The Petitioner's supervisor of 11 years, who interviewed both Special Agent Doyle and the Petitioner, found the Petitioner was not as skilled in licensing as Special Agent Doyle not because his answers were wrong, but because they reflected a management style or approach which was less compatible with his than was Special Agent Doyle's management style. No direct evidence was presented that anyone suggested the selection of Special Agent Doyle to the members of the interviewing panel or attempted to influence the panel's selection of Special Agent Doyle. Evidence was received that the Agency was not under any court or commission order to employee minorities. The supervisor testified that another member of the panel stated that promotion of Doyle would help the Department meet its equal opportunity goals regarding the promotion of minorities. In June of 1994 at the time of Special Agent Doyle's promotion, the Agency employed 19 sergeants. Of that number, 17 were males and two were female. Of those 17 sergeants, nine were age 40 or older when they were promoted, and four of the nine were age 50 or older when they were promoted. Sgt. Doyle was subsequently discharged for reasons relating to her conduct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter its Final Order directing that: The Agency cease and desist from gender discrimination; and The Agency promote the Petitioner to sergeant in the Jacksonville office. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Balaguer 4860 Brighton Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217-4712 William M. Woodyard, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 12th day of November, 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent acted as a real estate agent without being licensed in violation of section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the administrative hearing, the following findings of facts are made: COMPLAINT This complaint was instituted when Mr. Manning became aware of a $250.00 payment to a Keller Williams real estate agent (KW agent). Upon inquiring, Mr. Manning was told the fee was to pay the KW agent for securing the third tenant of his rental property located at 12522 Belcroft Drive, Riverview, Florida (property). Mr. Manning was not informed that this process would be engaged, and he was caught off guard when the payment came to light. Mr. Manning was also concerned that he was not receiving consistent payments for the rental of his property. PARTIES Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the real estate industry pursuant to chapters 455 and 475. Petitioner is authorized to prosecute cases against persons who operate as real estate agents or sales associates without a real estate license. At all times material, Respondent was not a licensed real estate broker, sales associate or agent. Respondent is a co-owner of J & D Associates, a property management company that he owns with his wife, Ms. Woltmann. Additionally, J & D Associates was not licensed as a real estate broker, sales associate or agent. PARTICULARS In 2012, Mr. Manning was serving in the U.S. Air Force, and was stationed in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. At some point, Mr. Manning received military orders to report to Texas for additional cross-training. Mr. Manning wanted to sell his property, and he was referred to Ms. Woltmann, a Florida licensed real estate agent. Mr. Manning and Ms. Woltmann met and discussed the possibility of selling Mr. Manning’s property. Ms. Woltmann performed a market analysis and determined that Mr. Manning would have to “bring money” to a closing in order to sell his property. Mr. Manning made the decision that he would rent his property. Thereafter, Ms. Woltmann introduced Mr. Manning to Respondent. Mr. Manning assumed that Respondent was a licensed real estate agent. If he had known that Respondent was not a licensed real estate agent, Mr. Manning would not have hired Respondent. On or about April 26, 2012, Respondent executed a “Management Agreement”5/ (Agreement) with Mr. Manning, regarding his property. The Agreement provided in pertinent part the following: EMPLOYMENT & AUTHORITY OF AGENT The OWNER [Mr. Manning] hereby appoints J & D Associates as its sole and exclusive AGENT to rent, manage and operate the PREMISES [12522 Belcroft Drive, Riverview, Florida]. The AGENT is empowered to institute legal action or other proceedings on the OWNER’S behalf to collect the rents and other sums due, and to dispossess tenants and other persons from the PREMISES for cause. * * * RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AGENT: In addition to the forgoing authorizations, the AGENT will perform the following functions on the OWNER’S behalf. Collect all rents due form [sic] the tenants. Deduct from said rent all funds needed for proper disbursements of expenses against the PROPERTY and payable by the OWNER, including the AGENT’S compensation. Collect a security deposit received from a tenant of the PROPERTY and place it into an escrow account as required by the laws of the State of Florida. COMPENSATION OF THE AGENT: In consideration of the services rendered by the AGENT, the OWNER agrees to pay the AGENT a fee equal to FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE FIRST MONTH’S RENT AND ten percent (10%) per month of the monthly rent thereafter during the term of the tenancy as management fees for the PROPERTY. In the case of holding over the lease beyond the terms of the lease by the same tenant, the Fifty (50%) up front [sic] fee shall also be waived and only the TEN PERCENT (10%) per month fee shall apply. The Fifty (50%) fee shall apply to new tenants only. In the case of a tenant moving out within the first three months of the tenancy, then the fee for obtaining a new tenant and new lease shall be only FIFTEEN PERCENT (15%) of the first month’s rent from the new tenant and TEN PERCENT (10%) of the monthly rent thereafter. (Emphasis added via underline.) At various times, Respondent provided Mr. Manning a list of eligible tenants. Also, Respondent would provide his opinion as to who would be the best candidate to rent the property. Mr. Manning would, “nine times out of ten,” go with Respondent’s recommendation for the rental tenant. In June 2012, “Richard L. Sovich J & D Associates, Agent For Elijah Manning,” executed a “Residential Lease for Single Family Home and Duplex” with a tenant. On the signatory page, the following printed form language is found on the upper half of the page: This Lease has been executed by the parties on the date indicated below: Respondent’s signature is over the “Landlord’s Signature line, “As” “Agent.” On the lower half of the signatory page, the following printed form language is found; the handwritten information is found in italics: This form was completed with the assistance of Name Richard Sovich Address 1925 Inverness Greens Drive Sun City Center, Fl 33573-7219 Telephone No. 813/784-8159 Ms. Woltmann testified that she had a listing agreement for each time she listed Mr. Manning’s property for rent. With each listing agreement, Ms. Woltmann was able to list the property in the multiple-listing system (MLS)6/ while she was associated with the Century 21, Shaw Realty Group. The three listings, as found in Respondent’s composite Exhibit E, included (along with other information) the list date, a picture of the property taken by Ms. Woltmann, and the dates the property would be available: May 5, 2012, for the rental beginning on June 1, 2012, at $1,550.00 per month; November 1, 2012, for the rental beginning on December 1, 2012, at $1,550.00 per month; and March 14, 2014, for rental beginning on May 1, 2014, at $1,600.00 per month. Each time the property was rented, Ms. Woltmann changed the MLS listing to reflect the actual lease dates: June 16, 2012; December 13, 2012; and May 19, 2014, and each was rented at the monthly rental price listed. Ms. Woltmann claimed that the rental price had to be lowered for the second rental. However, the documentation that she confirmed she inputted into the MLS at the time the property was rented, reflects the rental price was not lowered during the second rental period.7/ The rental price was actually raised for the third rental period. Ms. Woltmann also claimed she procured the first two tenants for Mr. Manning’s property and waived (with the consent of her broker agent) her lease fee each time. Three years ago (2014) during the Manning lease periods, Ms. Woltmann “left abruptly” the real estate company she was working for and that company “is now closed.” Yet, she testified that those listing agreements “should be there” if she went back to her broker and asked for them. Based on inconsistencies in her testimony, Ms. Woltmann’s testimony is not credible. Mr. Manning received payments from Respondent for approximately three years totaling “about $45,000.” Mr. Manning paid Respondent “maybe four or five thousand dollars. Maybe a little bit less” for his service. Respondent admitted he received compensation from the rental of Mr. Manning’s property for approximately three years, but denied that he procured any tenants for the property. It is determined that the testimony of Respondent and his wife Ms. Woltmann, is not credible and persuasive. Neither can be considered “disinterested.” The testimony of Mr. Manning is more credible. As the investigator supervisor, Mr. McAvoy is knowledgeable about the purpose of conducting unlicensed activity investigations. Its purpose is “to investigate matters surrounding unlicensed activity within the real estate profession . . . so to protect the public from possible harm surrounding those transactions.” Each investigator is required to record the amount of time spent in an investigation. An investigation was undertaken regarding Mr. Manning’s complaint. Petitioner incurred $49.50 in investigative costs during this case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding Richard Sovich in violation of section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and imposing an administrative fine of $500, and $49.50 as reasonable costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 5th day of May, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioners have standing to initiate formal proceedings under the City of Tallahassee Code of Ordinances. Whether the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the City's vested rights determination. Whether the Respondents Barnette W. Allen and Sally P. Allen's (Allens) proposed development, known as the Allenwoods Apartments project, is exempt from the consistency and concurrency requirements of the City of Tallahassee's (City) Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner Downtown Park Avenue Neighborhood Association (Neighborhood Association), Inc., is not-for-profit corporation organized on August 18, 1997, and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. The Neighborhood Association's principal office is located at 858 East Call Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The purpose of the Neighborhood Association is to preserve the residential nature and stability of the members' neighborhood. The members of the Neighborhood Association reside in close proximity to the property upon which the Allenwoods Apartments project is proposed to be constructed. Some members of the Neighborhood Association own property within 500 feet or less of the subject property. Petitioner Dana Plummer resides at 133-9 Oak Street, Tallahassee, Florida, which is in close proximity to the property upon which the Allenwoods Apartments project is proposed to be constructed. Mr. Plummer owns property less than 300 feet from the subject property. Plummer is the President of the Neighborhood Association. Respondent City of Tallahassee is a municipal corporation of the State of Florida. The City's DRC approved a Type B Site Plan application for the Allenwoods Apartments project. Respondents Allens are the owners of the property on which the proposed Allenwoods Apartments are to be located, and which property is designated as Blocks D and F in the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division. Allenwoods Apartments The Allenwoods Apartments is proposed to be constructed in approximately 8.64 acres, and is located on the north side of Call Street. The Allenwoods Apartments is proposed to consist of 88 apartment units. The apartments will be located within three three-story buildings and one two-story building, with a total of 202 parking spaces. The density of the proposed Allenwoods Apartments project is approximately ten units per acre. On October 24, 1996, the Planning Department issued Land Use Compliance Certificate No. CC960429 which stated that: This site is eligible for development of 110 multi-family dwelling units developed at the RM-1 standards in Hays Subdivision, an exempt subdivision. Type B review required in proximity with existing low density residential uses. Notice of the Planning Department's decision to issue Land Use Compliance Certificate No. CC960429 was not provided to any members of the Neighborhood Association nor to Plummer. In May 1997, the Allens submitted a Type B Site Plan application for the Allenwoods Apartments project. In mid-June 1997, during the City's review of the proposed project, the City determined that the Allens' two lots qualified as lots located within a subdivision recorded as of July 16, 1990, and all infrastructure required for the development of the property was completed prior to that date. Accordingly, the City staff determined that, pursuant to Section 18-103(1)(a)(1) of the City's Vested Rights Review Ordinance, the proposed Allenwoods Apartments project did not have to comply with the concurrency and consistency requirements of the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Consequently, the City staff did not review the Allenwoods Apartments project for consistency with the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan, nor did the City review the project for concurrency. On August 11, 1997, the City's Development Review Committee approved the Type B Site Plan application for the Allenwoods Apartments project. Single-family residences are the primary use of the properties immediately adjacent to the Allens property. All existing multi-family units that have been constructed in the neighborhood were constructed prior to the adoption of the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan. History of the Subject Property On May 1, 1910, J. L. Hays recorded a subdivision known as the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division. The plat for the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division is recorded at Deed Book "KK," page 600, of the Public Records of Leon County. The plat depicted a street running between Blocks F and G. The plat also depicted a street between Blocks D and F. These streets were never constructed. On January 15, 1946, H. H. Wells acquired certain Blocks of the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division, including all of Blocks D and F, and a portion of Block E. On March 11, 1946, H. H. Wells and Susye Bell Wells replated all of Block C and a portion of B, D, E, F, and G. The new subdivision was named "Magnolia Manor," and is recorded at Plat Book 3, page 6, of the Public records of Leon County. On January 6, 1948, H. H. Wells and Susye Bell Wells sold all of Blocks F and G, and Lots 9, 10, and 11 in Block D, of the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division to the Glover Construction Company. On July 22, 1948, the Glover Construction sold its portion of Blocks D and F of the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division to Willie Mae Hampton. On November 1, 1963, Glover Construction Company sold a portion of Blocks D and F of the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division to Harlem J. Allen, Clyde P. Allen, Barnette W. Allen, and Sally Procter Allen. On February 13, 1964, Willie Mae Hampton sold her portion of Blocks D and F of the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division to Canal Timber Corporation. On December 2, 1964, Barnette W. Allen and Sally Procter Allen entered into an agreement to purchase that portion of Blocks D and F of the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division owned by the Canal Timber Corporation. On November 20, 1972, Canal Timber Corporation sold its portion of Blocks D and F of the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division to Grace H. Gibson. On December 26, 1974, Grace H. Gibson transferred her portion of Blocks D and F of the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division to Barnette W. Allen and Sally Procter Allen. On December 15, 1976, Barnette W. Allen and Sally Procter Allen acquired whatever property interests that Harlem J. Allen and Clyde P. Allen possessed by virtue of the acquisition that occurred on November 1, 1963. The City's Vested Rights Review Ordinance The City adopted its 2010 Comprehensive Plan on July 16, 1990. Concurrently with the adoption of its 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the City adopted its Vested Rights Review Ordinance, Ordinance No. 90-O-0043AA. This ordinance was codified as Article VII of Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances. Article VII (Sections 18-101 through 18-106) of the Tallahassee Code of Ordinances establishes the standards by which a property owner may demonstrate that private property rights have vested against the provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Section 18-101 of the Code is a statement of intent in regard to the Vested Rights Ordinance, which reads: This article establishes the sole administrative procedures and standards by which a property owner may demonstrate that private property rights have vested against the provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Said administrative procedures shall provide determinations of consistency of development with the densities and intensities set forth in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and that development is not subject to the concurrency requirements of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The City established three categories for which property owners could apply to establish their vested rights to continue development of their property without complying with the consistency and concurrency requirements of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. These categories are contained in Sections 18-104(1) and (2), Code of Ordinances. The three categories were denominated as "common-law vesting," "statutory vesting," and developments of regional impact, which were approved pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 18-103(2), property owners who contended that they had vested rights pursuant to one of these three categories were required to request a determination of vested rights by filing an application with the Planning Department within 120 calendar days of July 16, 1990. The failure to timely file an application for a vested rights determination within the prescribed time limits constituted a waiver of any vested rights claims. The city's Vested Rights Review Ordinance also expressly states that a property owner cannot receive vested rights based upon a zoning classification. In addition to the three categories for which property owners could apply to establish vested property rights, the City's Vested Rights Review Ordinance included a provision by which certain property owners were presumptively vested and, therefore, were not required to file an application for a vested rights determination. Section 18-103(1) reads, as follows: The following categories shall be presumptively vested for the purposes of consistency with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and concurrency as specified in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and shall not be required to file an application to preserve their vested rights status: All lots within a subdivision recorded as of July 16, 1990, or lots in approved subdivisions for which streets, stormwater management facilities, utilities, and other infrastructure required for the development have been completed as of July 16, 1990. The Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department shall maintain a listing of such exempt subdivisions. All active and valid building permits issued prior to July 17, 1990. All technically complete building permit applications received by the building inspection department on or before July 2, 1990, and subsequently issued, shall be vested under the provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, regardless of date of issuance. Any structure on which construction has been completed and a certificate of occupancy issued if a certificate of occupancy was required at time of permitting. All lots of record as of July 1, 1984, not located within a subdivision, but only to the extent of one (1) single-family residence per lot. If a property qualifies as an exempt or vested property pursuant to the City's Vested Rights Review Ordinance, the property owner does not have to comply with the consistency and concurrency provisions of the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Such properties are allowed to be developed pursuant to the 1971 zoning code that was in effect until the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The City staff and DRC determined that the subject property was vested because it fulfilled the requirements of Section 18-103(1)(a)(1) as a lot "within a subdivision recorded as of July 16, 1990." The basis for this determination was that the property was located within the plat for the Magnolia Heights Addition of the Hays Division which was recorded in 1910. The plat does not contain any statements as to use or density, however. The subdivision, known as Magnolia Manor, plated in 1946, has its own separate subdivision number, and consists of a portion of property that was originally part of the Magnolia Heights Addition to the Hays Division. A small portion of the Allens' property is located within the Magnolia Manor subdivision. Although from 1948 to 1974, Blocks D and F were both divided and transferred in a manner differently than that depicted on the 1910 Plat, all conveyances of the property subject to the Site Plan have been by reference to the lot and block of Magnolia Heights Addition. Subsequent purchasers of the property conveyed the lots subject to the Site Plan to the Allens, and described the lots as part of the original subdivision rather than by any reference to "Magnolia Manor." The replatting of certain lots within the subdivision to create "Magnolia Manor" did not affect or otherwise change any of the property subject to the Site Plan. On August 20, 1990, the City determined that the Magnolia Heights Addition was an exempt subdivision pursuant to the provisions of Section 18-103(1)(a)(1) of City Code of Ordinances, and was placed on the Planning Department list of exempt subdivisions. As such, the subdivision was exempt from the consistency and concurrency requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The subdivision is one of more than 300-350 subdivisions determined to be exempt as recorded subdivisions. The exemption was based upon the fact the project was located in a subdivision recorded as of July 16, 1990, and all infrastructure required for the subdivision and for development of the property was in place and complete as of that date. The City staff has been guided in its interpretation and application of the City's Vested Rights Review Ordinance by a memorandum dated August 27, 1990, written by then Assistant City Attorney John Systma. The August 27 memorandum states, in pertinent part, that: This memo is in response to your questions about the proper procedure to follow in determining if a subdivision recorded in 1906 should be declared exempt under the provisions of the Vested Rights Review Ordinance. The critical element that must exist for the subdivision to be exempt is that the current subdivision must be identical to the plat that was created when the subdivision was initially recorded. Any resubdivision, replatting or other changes made to the original recorded plat invalidates that plat. An excellent example of an invalid plat is the original plat recorded for the Pecan Endowment, which has subsequently been changed many times, thereby invalidating it. The subdivision was recorded as of July 16, 1990. The resubdivision of a part of an exempt recorded subdivision, which does not affect the property under review and subject to development approval, has never been the basis of denial of the recorded subdivision exemption provisions of the Vested Rights Ordinance. City staff have never denied the exemption or vesting based upon a replatting of other lots in a subdivision which were not included in the proposed exempt development. Respondents clearly established that such replatting has not been a basis for denial of the exemption by City staff in applying the Vested Rights Ordinance since its adoption in 1990. The development approvals for the Allenwoods Apartments are valid if it is determined that the project is exempt or vested under the Vested Rights Ordinance. The property, at the time of adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, was zoned RM-1, and allowed development of a multifamily project at the density approved for the Allens. The current zoning of the property is MR1 and would permit the development of the property as a multifamily project at the density approved for the Allens.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of RECOMMENDED that the Planning Commission find that Respondents Allens' lots are vested for the purposes of consistency and concurrency with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, and, it is further RECOMMENDED that the Planning Commission approve the Site Plan for the Allenwoods Apartment Project, as consistent with the requirements of Chapter 27, Article XXI, Section 21.4.G.8. of the Code of Ordinances. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles A. Francis, Esquire Francis & Sweet, P.A. Post Office Box 10551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David A. Theriaque, Esquire 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda R. Hurst Assistant City Attorney City Hall 300 South Adams Street Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Gumula Director of Planning Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Gregory Clerk of the Planning Commission Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department 300 South Adams Street, City Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert B. Inzer City Treasurer-Clerk 300 South Adams Street, City Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Purchase of the Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding consists of approximately fifty-two acres (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property was acquired by Charles L. Parham in 1988 from Forest Hills, Inc. The Subject Property is located in a rural, undeveloped portion of southern Clay County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"). The Subject Property was part of a larger tract of undeveloped, real property known as "Forest Hills." The southwestern corner of Forest Hills is bounded by State Road 100. At the time the Subject Property was purchased it was zoned Agriculture. This classification allowed use of the Subject Property for single-family residential development at a density of one unit per acre. The Subject Property was purchased by the Applicants for development as single-family sites which they intended to sell or rent and to use for their own residential purposes. Access to the Subject Property was obtained through easements (Forest Hills Road and Lone Pine Trail) from State Road 100. It is approximately one and three-quarters of a mile from State Road 100 to the Subject Property. At the time of purchase of the Subject Property by Mr. Parham, Mr. Parham was provided with a certified Boundary Survey map by Forest Hills, Inc. The Boundary Survey was certified by a land surveyor and was dated November 2, 1978. The Boundary Survey provided to Mr. Parham represented the Subject Property as consisting of forty-four tracts of approximately one acre each and four lots of approximately two acres each. Neither the Subject Property nor Forest Hills has ever been platted. That is, there is no plat of record in the Official Records of Clay County, Florida. The Applicants made the erroneous assumption that the Subject Property was platted. They made this assumption because of the Boundary Survey they were provided by Forest Hills, Inc., which depicted the division of the Subject Property into lots. The Applicants also believed that the Subject Property was platted because no one at County offices where they showed the Boundary Map told them differently. The evidence failed to prove, however, that any employee of the County told them that the Subject Property was in fact platted. The evidence also failed to prove that the County was responsible for the assumption of the Parhams that the Subject Property was platted. Development Activities on the Subject Property. The Applicants cleared and graded roads through the easements to the Subject Property. Applicants also maintained two other roads located in Forest Hills: Cactus Hill Road and Lone Pine Trail. The Applicants also cleared and graded two interior roads which dissect Forest Hills. Applicants named the interior roads "Viking Street" and "Valhalla Street". The clearing and grading of roads was performed by Applicants in order to gain access to the Subject Property for themselves and potential renters. The Applicants also cleared part of the Subject Property for their own use. Mr. Parham purchased a bulldozer prior to the purchase of the Subject Property. The bulldozer was purchased for use in developing the Subject Property for use by the Applicants as a residence, for use in developing the Subject Property for rental and for use in Mr. Parham's business. All labor in developing the roads to and on the Subject Property has been provided by Applicants. Expenses for maintenance, repair and use of the bulldozer were incurred by Applicants. Applicants purchased fill dirt and clay which was used in clearing and grading access and interior roads. Prior to the enactment of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), Applicants sold two two-acre tracts to Inger Robertson and to Julian Wood. Although the deeds on the sale of these lots mentioned the tract numbers, they also described the property sold by metes and bounds. The property would not have been described in this manner if the property were part of a platted subdivision. Applicants were left with forty- eight tracts. Inger Robertson applied for and received a mobile home permit for her two-acre parcel in 1990. Applicants also applied for and received mobile home permits for two one-acre tracts. One mobile home was used as their residence. The three mobile home permits issued for part of the Subject Property were issued prior to enactment of the Plan. They were also issued consistent with then existing law allowing single family units on one acre parcels. Petitioners' Alleged Detrimental Reliance. At the time the Applicants obtained their two permits, the Boundary Survey showing the lot division of the Subject Property was shown to County staff and the Applicants' plans with regard to development of the Subject Property were disclosed. At the time of the acquisition of the permits from the County, the Applicants' intended use of, and development plans for, the Subject Property were consistent with County laws. No approval or other permits were required by County law in order for the Applicants to utilize and develope the Subject Property in the manner they intended. They were only required to comply with existing zoning requirements, which restricted residential use of property to one residence per acre. This the Applicants did with regard to their residence and two other tracts. They failed to obtain permits, however, for the other tracts on the Subject Property. The evidence failed to prove that the Applicants' were informed by the County that their proposed use and development of the Subject Property was "approved" or otherwise "authorized." The Applicants have not asserted that the County took any affirmative action which led them to believe that their planned development of the Subject Property was "approved". Instead, the Applicants have asserted that the County was under an obligation to tell them that the Subject Property was not, in fact, platted, and they were required to take certain actions to insure that they could develop the Subject Property as planned. The evidence failed to prove that the County was under any such obligation. The evidence also failed to prove that the Applicants asked County staff what steps they were required to take in order to insure the immediate development of the Subject Property. In 1988, the Applicants informed the County of the naming of the two roads created on the Subject Property and were given street addresses for each of the tracts identified on the Boundary Survey. The Boundary Survey was left with County staff to make a copy of for the County's records. Each of the tracts was identified for the County's 911 emergency telephone service. The assignment of names to the interior streets and street numbers to the lots was consistent with then existing law. These County actions are not the type of actions which would justify a conclusion that density limitations with regard to the Subject Property would not change. Rights That Allegedly Will Be Destroyed. On January 23, 1992, the County's Board of County Commissioners adopted the Plan. Included in the Plan is a Future Land Use Element, including Future Land Use Maps (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"). The Subject Property (and all of Forest Hills) is located in an area classified on the FLUM for "Agriculture/Residential Land Use". This designation allows the use of the Subject Property for single-family residential development. Density, however, is limited to one unit per ten acres. As a result of the Plan and the designated land use classification of the Subject Property, the Subject Property may not be developed as one-acre single-family residences. The result of this restricted land use, the number of individual, developable lots on the Subject Property has been reduced. This reduction in developable lots adversely impacts financing of the Subject Property. The Applicants learned of the adoption of the Plan and its impact on the Subject Property in November of 1992 when they attempted to obtain additional permits for the Subject Property.
