The Issue The issues are whether Respondent properly conducted a sales and use tax audit of Petitioner's books and records; and, if so, whether Petitioner is liable for tax and interest on its purchases of materials used for improvements to real property.
Findings Of Fact During the audit period, Petitioner was a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 7820 Professional Place, Suite 2, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's Florida sales tax number was 39-00-154675-58, and Petitioner's federal employer identification number was 59-3089046. After the audit period, the Florida Department of State administratively dissolved Petitioner for failure to file statutorily required annual reports and filing fees. Petitioner engaged in the business of providing engineering services and fabricating control panels. Petitioner fabricated control panels in a shop Petitioner maintained on its business premises. Petitioner sold some of the control panels in over-the- counter sales. Petitioner properly collected and remitted sales tax on the control panels that Petitioner sold over-the-counter. Petitioner used other control panels in the performance of real property contracts by installing the panels as improvements to real property (contested panels). Petitioner was the ultimate consumer of the materials that Petitioner purchased and used to fabricate the contested panels. At the time that Petitioner installed the contested panels into real property, the contested panels became improvements to the real property. Petitioner failed to pay sales tax at the time Petitioner purchased materials used to fabricate the contested panels. Petitioner provided vendors with Petitioner's resale certificate, in lieu of paying sales tax, when Petitioner purchased the materials used to fabricate the contested panels. None of the purchase transactions for materials used to fabricate the contested panels were tax exempt. The audit is procedurally correct. The amount of the assessment is accurate. On October 23, 2000, Respondent issued a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records (form DR-840), for audit number A0027213470, for the period of October 1, 1995, through September 30, 2000. During an opening interview, the parties discussed the audit procedures and sampling method to be employed and the records to be examined. Based upon the opening interview, Respondent prepared an Audit Agreement and presented it to an officer and owner of the taxpayer. Respondent began the audit of Petitioner's books and records on January 22, 2001. On March 9, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (original Notice of Intent). At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted an audit conference with Petitioner. At the audit conference, Petitioner provided documentation that the assessed transactions involved improvements to real property. At Petitioner's request, Respondent conducted a second audit conference with Petitioner's former legal counsel. Petitioner authorized its former legal counsel to act on its behalf during the audit. At the second audit conference, the parties discussed audit procedures and sampling methods, Florida use tax, fabricated items, and fabrication costs. Respondent revised the audit findings based upon additional information from Petitioner that the assessed transactions involved fabricated items of tangible personal property that became improvements to real property. Respondent assessed use tax on the materials used to fabricate control panels in those instances where Petitioner failed to document that Petitioner paid sales tax at the time of the purchase. Respondent also assessed use tax on fabrication costs including the direct labor and the overhead costs associated with the fabrication process, for the period of October 1, 1995, through June 30, 1999. Respondent eliminated use tax assessed on cleaning services in the original Notice of Intent because the amount of tax was de minimis. On August 29, 2001, Respondent issued a Revised Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (Revised Notice of Intent). On September 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until January 25, 2002. On October 18, 2001, Petitioner executed a second Consent to Extend the Time to Issue an Assessment to File a Claim for Refund until April 25, 2002. On February 6, 2002, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment for additional sales and use tax, in the amount of $21,822.27; interest through February 6, 2002, in the amount of $10,774.64; penalty in the amount of $10,831.12; and additional interest that accrues at $6.97 per diem. Petitioner exhausted the informal remedies available from Respondent. On April 29, 2002, Petitioner filed a formal written protest that, in substantial part, objected to the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit. Respondent issued a Notice of Decision sustaining the assessment of tax, penalty, and interest. Respondent correctly determined that the audit procedures and sampling method employed in the audit were appropriate and consistent with Respondent's statutes and regulations. Respondent concluded that the assessment was correct based upon the best available information and that Petitioner failed to provide any documentation to refute the audit findings. Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration that did not provide any additional facts, arguments, or records to support its position. On May 16, 2003, Respondent issued a Notice of Reconsideration sustaining the assessment of tax and interest in full, but compromising all penalties based upon reasonable cause.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for relief and sustaining Respondent's assessment of taxes and interest in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litigation Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Michael E. Ferguson Control Design Engineering, Inc. 809 East Bloomingdale Avenue, PMB 433 Brandon, Florida 33511 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount of reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc. ("CMT") in Robert A. Schweickert, Jr. v. Department of Community Affairs and Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc., Case. No. 1D10-3882 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Findings Of Fact Appellate Attorney's Fees Sarah Lahlou-Amine of the law firm of Fowler White Boggs, P.A. ("Fowler") was the attorney with primary responsibility for research and drafting documents for the appeal on behalf of CMT. She prepared and filed a notice of appearance, a motion to dismiss, a motion for attorney's fees, an amended motion for attorney's fees, the answer brief, a notice of supplemental authority, a second motion for attorney's fees, and a motion for clarification. Ms. Lahlou-Amine was assisted and supervised by more senior lawyers at Fowler. The total number of hours charged by Fowler was 134.8. The total attorney's fees charged by Fowler was $39,010. Lawyers from two other law firms were employed by CMT and charged attorney's fees and costs for the appeal. The Law Office of Clark Stillwell, P.A., charged 18 hours for a total attorney's fees of $6,030. Edward de la Parte and other lawyers of the law firm of de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., charged 24.9 hours for total attorney's fees of $5,382.50. The grand total of all the attorney hours expended for the appeal is 177.7 hours and the grand total of all fees charged to CMT for the appeal is $50,422.50. It was the opinion of CMT's expert witness, Daniel Stengle, that all of these hours and fees are reasonable. Schweickert's expert witness, Howard Heims, believes that 25 or 30 hours was all the effort that was reasonable for this appeal. The hourly rates of $225.00 to $435.00 an hour that were used by CMT's attorneys are not contested by Schweickert. The evidence established that the rates are reasonable. The dispute focused on the number of hours expended for the appeal. Heims contends that it was unreasonable for CMT to file a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, because appellate courts rarely grant such a motion and the standing issue could have been saved for CMT's answer brief. The court did not summarily deny CMT's motion to dismiss but, instead, ordered Schweickert to show cause why the motion should not be granted. The issuance of the order to show cause indicates that it is not the court's practice to deny all motions to dismiss that are filed before the briefs. Following Schweickert's response, the court still did not deny the motion to dismiss, but deferred ruling to the panel of judges that would determine the merits of the appeal. It was not unreasonable to file a motion to dismiss in this case because Schweickert's lack of standing was unusually clear. The controlling factual issue was simple--whether Schweickert made timely comments to Citrus County about the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Furthermore, the argument made in the motion eventually prevailed. Heims also believes that it was unreasonable for CMT to file three motions for attorney's fees and costs. The motions were not identical, but filing three such motions is unusual and was not shown to be necessary or important. It was not persuasively shown that 177.7 attorney hours was reasonable for this appeal. The evidence does not establish that the attorney's fees charged by the law firms of Clark Stillwell and de la Parte & Gilbert should be included as part of the reasonable fees for the appeal. These fees were not shown to be necessary or to contribute materially to the appeal. Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, Code of Professional Conduct, sets forth factors to be considered in determining a reasonable attorney's fee. The factors listed in rule 4-1.5(b)(1) are addressed below, in sequence: the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; The time and labor expended on the appeal was not shown to be reasonable. The questions involved were not difficult. The case was not complex. No unusual skills and expertise were required to perform the legal services. the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment would preclude other employment by the lawyer; CMT did not contend that this factor was applicable. the fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of a comparable or similar nature; Reasonable hourly rates were charged, but persuasive evidence was not presented to show that the total amount of the fees charged to CMT are customary for the services that were performed. the significance of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, the responsibility involved in the representation, and the results obtained; Although a reversal of the Department's Final Order would have had adverse consequences for CMT, it was not shown that the situation was of an unusual nature. Furthermore, a reversal on the merits (to find the comprehensive plan amendment not in compliance) was almost impossible because no factual findings were made that supported Schweickert's claims. CMT points to the unusual result--attorney's fees awarded against a pro se litigant--as justifying the attorney's fee, but this unusual result is due to Schweickert's unusually weak case. The issues and the law applied were not unusual. the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between attorney and client, any additional or special time demands or requests of the attorney by the client; CMT's argument that time limitations of an usual nature existed in this matter was not persuasive. the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; The applicability of this factor was not argued by CMT and was not demonstrated by the evidence. the experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected in the actual providing of such services; and The lawyers involved have good reputations and experience, but those attributes were not likely to have materially affected the outcome. Performing the legal services did not require unusual skills. The services were not efficiently provided. whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and if fixed as to amount and rate, then whether the client's ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation. This factor was not shown to be a basis to support a larger fee. It was Heims' opinion that 25 to 30 hours was a reasonable number of attorney hours to prepare the answer brief and one motion for attorney's fees. Thirty hours was a sufficient number of hours for the research and drafting work done by Ms. Lahlou-Anime. However, because it has been determined that the filing of the motion to dismiss was reasonable, some additional time should be added. CMT Exhibit 1 indicates that Ms. Lahlou-Anime charged about 23 hours for her work on the motion to dismiss. However, in determining a reasonable number of hours for the work on the motion to dismiss, consideration must be given to the fact that the standing arguments made in the motion were repeated in CMT's answer brief, which has already been accounted for in the 30 hours. The parties did not address this specific issue. However, the evidence supports the addition of 10 hours for Ms. Lahlou-Anime, for a total of 40 hours. Forty hours for Ms. Lahlou-Anime at her rate of $260 per hour equals $10,400. Heims also failed to fairly account for the reasonableness of the attorney hours expended by Karen Brodeen, a senior attorney at Fowler who represented CMT in the lower administrative proceedings and who assisted Ms. Lahlou-Anime in the preparation of the motion to dismiss and answer brief. CMT Exhibit 1 shows that Ms. Brodeen charged 0.9 hours at $375 per hour and 16.9 hours at $385 per hour, for a total fee of $6,844. The grand total of reasonable attorney time is 57.8 hours and the total reasonable attorney's fee is $17,244. Appellate Costs CMT is seeking $3,250.95 in costs for the appellate proceeding, comprised of $3,156.41 in costs charged by Fowler and $94.54 charged by de la Parte & Gilbert. However, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the costs which CMT seeks to recover --routine office expenses--are not recoverable legal costs under the applicable statutes. Prejudgment Interest CMT seeks daily prejudgment interest at the rate of 0.01644 percent. Requested Sanctions in the DOAH Remand Proceeding CMT also seeks to recover its attorney's fees and costs incurred following the remand from the Court of Appeal to DOAH to determine the amount of appellate attorney's fees and costs, as a sanction for alleged misconduct by Schweickert. CMT seeks a sanction against Schweickert for his failure to appear at a scheduled deposition for which Schweickert had been subpoenaed. Schweickert was not represented by an attorney at the time. Schweickert told CMT's attorneys that he was not going to appear at the deposition, but CMT's attorneys went forward as planned. Schweickert did not appear for his deposition. CMT seeks to recover its attorney's fees charged by de la Parte & Gilbert that are related to Schweickert's failure to appear for his deposition, which are $17,975.00, and costs of $818.63. CMT also sought a sanction against Schweickert for having to respond to Schweickert's Motion for Cause of Contempt for Citrus Mining and Timber’s Violation of Court Order, which demanded sanctions against CMT for CMT's scheduling of Schweickert's deposition without attempting to contact him to arrange a mutually agreeable date and time. The motion was denied. Schweickert was not represented by an attorney at the time. CMT seeks to recover its attorney's fees charged by de la Parte & Gilbert to respond to the motion, which are $2,357.50, and costs of $21.52. The day before the final hearing, CMT filed a motion for sanctions for Schweickert's failure to provide complete answers to some of CMT's discovery requests. At the time of the final hearing on September 7, 2011, CMT showed a total of $35,570 in attorney's fees associated with the DOAH remand proceeding, and costs of $1,693.73. CMT seeks recovery of those fees and costs as well as subsequent fees and costs through issuance of the Final Order in this remand proceeding, which are estimated to be $22,000 and $10,870, respectively. In summary, CMT seeks to recover $70,133.73 in fees and costs that it was charged by its attorneys for their effort to show that CMT's appellate fees and costs of $53,673.45 were reasonable.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1992, there were several Democratic candidates for the office of Tax Collector for Walton County. Among the Democratic candidates was Sue Carter who had been employed in the Walton County Tax Collector's Office prior to resigning to run for tax collector. The first Democratic primary was held in September, 1992, resulting in a runoff primary between Sue Carter and Sue Rushing in October, 1992. Ms. Carter defeated Ms. Rushing. In November, 1992, Sue Carter won the general election. Respondent, Teresa Gomillion (Gomillion), was employed in the Walton County Tax Collector's Office in 1992. Pat Pollard, Tammy Day, Patty Lynch, and Sylvia Rushing were also employed in the tax collector's office during the 1992 election campaign. Ms. Lynch and Gomillion supported Ms. Carter. Ms. Day did not support Ms. Carter. Ms. Rushing was related to Sue Rushing, Ms. Carter's opponent. Ms. Pollard did not support any candidate for the office of tax collector. Pat Pollard's work station was located about three feet away from Gomillion's work station. She overheard Gomillion ask a customer of the tax collector's office for whom he was going to vote. This was the only time that Ms. Pollard heard Gomillion talk to a customer concerning the race for tax collector. Gomillion and other employees in the tax collector's office did discuss the race for tax collector during office hours. Pam Dyess has been employed at a car dealership in DeFuniak Springs for 16 years. During 1992, her job responsibilities required her to go to the tax collector's office to handle the tag and title work for the dealership. After the first primary, Ms. Dyess went to the tax collector's office during working hours and while she was there the subject of the first primary was discussed. Ms. Dyess stated that she had voted for Harley Henderson. Ms. Gomillion joined the conversation and asked Ms. Dyess why she had voted for Harley Henderson and made some disparaging remarks about Mr. Henderson's qualifications. Rodney Ryals is now and was an employee of the City of DeFuniak Springs during the fall of 1992. During the election, Mr. Ryals spent a great deal of time at the tax collector's office taking care of city business and visiting with his friend Ms. Pollard. While Ryals was at the tax collector's office Gomillion told him, "You better vote for Sue Carter, she's the only qualified candidate." Ryals had told Gomillion and Ms. Lynch that they should not campaign on the job because it was illegal. Both women told him that if they did not politick that they might lose their jobs. Both Jack Little, the tax collector, and Ms. Carter had advised Gomillion not to politick in the tax collector's office. Having judged the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, I find that Gomillion did not hand out campaign literature while she was on the job at the tax collector's office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a final order finding that Teresa Gomillion violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, and recommending a civil penalty of $500 and a public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 19th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2067EC To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Accepted to the extent that Ms. Gomillion had solicited Mr. Ryals' vote but rejected as far as Mr. Ryals observing Ms. Gomillion soliciting other customers. Paragraph 12: Having judged the credibility of the witnesses, I find that Mr. Ryals testimony that Ms. Gomillion handed out campaign literature not to be credible. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 15-16: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 4: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as constituting both recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraph 5: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected to the extent that it implies that Ms. Gomillion properly performed her duties. The greater weight of the evidence shows that Ms. Gomillion's actions were prohibited by the tax collector and were not part of her duties. Paragraphs 6-8: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 9: The first sentence is accepted in substance except as it relates to Ms. Gomillion's solicitation of Mr. Ryals. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 10: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 11-12: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 14: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 15-16: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 17: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 18-19: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 20: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 21-22: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 23: The first sentence is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 24: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 25: The first sentence is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Michael E. Ingram Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs, PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 E. Allan Ramey, Esquire 13 Circle Drive Post Office Box 369 Defuniak Springs, Florida 32433-0369 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission On Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, Esquire General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been licensed as a real estate broker, Florida license number 0388729. Respondent was licensed with United Farm Agency of Florida, Inc. United Farm Agency of Florida operated two offices relevant to this proceeding, one office in Live Oak, the other in Lake City. Both offices were headed by William Goff, another licensed broker. During the summer of 1985, Goff, desiring to retire, made arrangements with United Farm Agency, through his supervisor, Steve Goddard, to withdraw from the operations of the offices. Goff left the Lake City office in July, 1985, and left the Live Oak office in October, 1985. Respondent was employed by United Farm Agency, through supervisor Steve Goddard, in July, 1985, when he took over operation of the Lake City office, which Goff had already vacated. Prior to Goff's retirement, Goff and Goddard verbally agreed that Goff would receive a portion of the commission paid to the seller of existing property listings Goff had obtained. This agreement was relayed by Goddard to Respondent, who verbally agreed to pay the fee on listings which were given to Hofmann. The agreed sum, referred to as a "listing fee," was to be 30% of the Respondent's 60% share of the total commission. The fee was to be paid to Goff, if and when Respondent sold property which remained under a valid Goff-executed listing contract. Goff and the Respondent did not directly discuss the arrangement, but relied on Goddard to act as the mediator. On or about June 26, 1985, Goff listed for sale, property owned by the Lewandowski family. The listing contract stated that the listing contract was to remain effective for a period of one year; however the expiration date was mistakenly entered on the contract as June 26, 1985. The contract expiration date should have been stated as June 26, 1986. The evidence did not indicate that the contract was intended to have been effective for only one day. While the Goff listing remained effective, the Lewandowskis allegedly entered into a second listing contract, this time with the Respondent. Respondent stated that he did not believe the Goff listing contract to be valid due to the mistaken expiration date. The Lewandowskis did not sign a cancellation of the Goff listing contract. Goff, not yet fully retired, continued to show the property to prospective purchasers, but did not inform Respondent that he continued to show the property. During the time the original Goff listing was effective, the Respondent found a buyer for the Lewandowski property. The agreed sales price was $240,000. The Respondent's share of the commission was about $8,640. The Respondent retained the full commission, and refused to pay the "listing fee" to Goff. Goff contacted Goddard, who reminded the Respondent of the agreement to pay the fee. Respondent refused to pay the listing fee, claiming that he had not been given the listing when he became employed by United Farm Agency. Goff proceeded to file suit to collect the fee. In May 1987, a Final Judgement was entered in Columbia County Court, Case No 86-845-CC, finding Respondent liable for payment of the listing fee and directing Respondent to pay to Goat the sum of $4,320.00, plus $604.92 interest, and $50.00 costs. Respondent has failed and refuses to pay the judgement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order suspending the licensure of Peter K. Hofmann for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 22nd day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5541 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1-5. Accepted. 6-7. Accepted, as modified in the Findings of Fact. Rejected, irrelevant. Accepted. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1-3. Accepted. 4. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5-6. Rejected insofar as mere restatement of testimony, otherwise accepted, as modified in the Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Peter K. Hofmann 73 Quinlan Drive, #1 Greenville, South Carolina 29611 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The factual issue to be determined is the amount of attorney fees and costs due and owing to the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner incurred the following costs related to the proceedings in Case No. 87-0605: Copying Charges for Office Copies of Pleadings and Papers $173.25 Court Reporter Fees for Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing held 9/9/90 510.30 Miscellaneous Postage 26.75 Copying Charges 9.80 Typing Charges 100.00 TOTAL COSTS: $820.10 The parties stipulated that a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Traynham's services was $150.00 per hour. At the time of the final hearing in Case No. 90- 5301F, Mr. Traynham had expended 25 hours in Case No. 90-5301F. A reasonable fee for counsel for Petitioner's services in the aforementioned case is $3,750.00. The parties also stipulated that work in presentation of this case to the Commission must be considered separately. The parties did not agree to an hourly rate or number of hours for the services provided by Mr. Stafman. Based upon the records presented and the testimony of Mr. Stafman, the reasonable number of hours required to review the file and for testimony at the hearing is seven hours. The reasonable rate for Mr. Stafman's professional services based upon the value of his services in relationship to the value of the services provided by Mr. Traynham is $150.00 per hour. A reasonable total fee for Mr. Stafman's professional services was $1,050.00. Curley Doltie, Esq. was retained by the Petitioner to represent him in this proceeding on a contingency fee basis. A contingency fee basis means that Mr. Doltie would be compensated for representing the Petitioner only if the Petitioner prevailed in the litigation. The amount of the contingency fee was to be determined and awarded by the Commission. The rule regulating the Bar requires contingency fee contracts to be reduced to writing. The Petitioner was a casual client of Mr. Doltie, and their contingency fee contract was not reduced to writing and executed. Mr. Doltie is a 1979 graduate of the Law School at Florida State University and was admitted to the Bar in that year. Between May 1980 and May 1982, Mr. Doltie served as an armored officer in the United States Army. Mr. Doltie's legal experience includes working as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Orange County from October 1979 until May 1980; assistant public defender in Sanford, Florida, from May 1982 until April 1983; private practice from April 1983 until October 1984; associate general counsel with the Public Service Commission from October 1984 until January 1987; Legal Services of North Florida from January 1987 until opening a private practice in Tallahassee in September 1987. The Petitioner was one of Mr. Doltie's first clients after he opened his private practice in 1987. Mr. Doltie currently handles both contingency fee cases and cases for which he regularly bills his clients. Mr. Doltie's current billing rate is $150.00 per hour. Mr. Doltie's practice involves, primarily, administrative litigation. Mr. Doltie regularly keeps time records, which reflect the activities in which he is engaged on behalf of his client, and the time expended in pursuit of these activities. Mr. Doltie maintained time records for the activities which he performed in providing professional services to the Petitioner. In addition, Mr. Doltie expended 4.5 hours preparing for the attorney fee hearing, 1.0 hour for a prehearing conference, and 8.0 hours testifying or being available to testify at the final hearing on the matter of attorneys fees and costs. The total number of hours expended by Mr. Doltie in the fee case was 13.5 hours. Mr. Doltie's summary of professional services rendered by date, description, and time expended on the administrative proceedings before the Commission, the Division of Administrative Hearings, and the appeal of the original case to the District Court of Appeals and the Florida Supreme Court is presented in the Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Mr. Doltie withdrew his claim for the appeal. Mr. Doltie recorded his time carefully and conservatively and claimed only that time which contributed significantly to the work product. The Respondent would reduce the time allowed for the services rendered on the following dates because the explanation is insufficient or the amount of time is excessive or the activity was unnecessary: 1/5/88 C/Weaver 3/23/88 C/Weaver 5/11/88 C/Weaver; R/Case 6/7/88 C/Weaver 9/27/88 L/Carothers 4/17/90 R/Case; P/Motion for Evidentiary Hearing 4/17/90 L/Carothers 5/1/90 P/Motion To Strike Respondent's Motion To Tax Costs; R/Case; C/Weaver 5/4/90 P/Petitioner's Reply To Respondent's Response To Petitioner's Motion For Evidentiary Hearing 5/23/90 R/Case 5/24/90 R/Case; P/Notice Of Failure To Settle; Motion For Rehearing And Motion For Clarification; Memorandum of Law; Motion To Strike 6/13/90 P/Petitioner's Motion Requesting FCHR To Become A Deferral Agency For The Federal Government; R/Case; P/Motion For Seniority Pay Steps; P/Motion Requesting An Expedited Hearing On Damages 6/14/90 R/Case; P/Motion Requesting FCHR To Appeal DCA Order 6/22/90 RV/FCHR Order; C/Weaver Based upon review of the time records and consideration of the services performed, the following adjustments are made with regard to the times recorded by Mr. Doltie: 1/5/88 C/Weaver .5 2/23/88 C/Weaver .2 6/3/88 1/ R/Case; RV/DOAH Order 1.2 6/7/88 C/Weaver 1.0 The total number of hours accepted from Mr. Doltie for his services rendered before the Division of Administrative Hearings and the Commission is 121.9 hours through the initiation of the appeal to the District Court of Appeals. The total number of hours of professional services rendered provided by Mr. Doltie after this case was returned to the Commission is also itemized in the Petitioner's Exhibit 2, commencing with the services provided on 4/17/90. Of those items to which the Respondent takes exception, only the services provided on 6/13/90 and 6/14/90 were adjusted. In both instances, it was determined that the motions were unnecessary, without precedent, and the time expended thereon should be disallowed. The total number of hours of professional services rendered from 4/17/90 through 8/16/90 were 32.2 hours. The total number of hours expended by Mr. Doltie and allowed to be charged after review is 154.1 hours. Based upon a consideration of Mr. Doltie's background and experience, in comparison with the fees for professional services charged by other attorneys in the Tallahassee, a reasonable rate for his services at the time would have been $110.00 per hour. Having originally heard the case presented by Mr. Doltie and being familiar with the litigation, Mr. Doltie's professional services undoubtedly resulted in the Petitioner vindicating his civil rights and the Respondent being directed to employ the Petitioner. Although the Petitioner's initial claim was for broader relief, the Petitioner did not present evidence on many of these issues and thereby abandoned them at hearing. Based upon the results achieved, a contingency fee of one-half again the billed rate would have been reasonable; however, as stated above, the contingency fee agreement between the Petitioner and Mr. Doltie was not reduced to writing. Recovery on a contingency fee in the absence of a written contract would be precluded by the Rules Regulating the Bar. Therefore, the recovery in this matter is on a quantum meruit basis. The value of the job and benefits of employment to the Petitioner were equal to the actual dollar value of the allowable hours times $110.00 per hour for 154.1 hours and $150.00 per hour for 13.5 hours.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner be awarded the following attorney's fees and costs: Costs: $ 820.10 Mr. Stafman: 1,050.00 Mr. Doltie: 18,976.00 Mr. Traynham: 3,750.00 Further, Mr. Traynham should receive an added fee for his presentation before the Commission to be determined by the Commission in its Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was represented by in this case by Michael Linsky, Esquire, beginning in April 1988. Two complaints of discrimination had been brought against the Department of Corrections by Petitioner. Linsky is an experienced trial lawyer having been admitted to the Florida Bar in 1970. However, he had no experience with discrimination cases prior to these proceedings. The Florida Commission on Human Relations found the Department had committed an unlawful employment practice when it assigned Petitioner to perimeter post duty and transferred him to Polk Correctional Institution in retaliation for having filed a discrimination complaint. Linsky originally took Petitioner's case on a contingency fee basis, but later it was decided between Linsky and Petitioner that the fee would be whatever was awarded by the Commission. Petitioner was only to be responsible for costs. Linsky submitted into evidence as Exhibit 1 a list of dates and hours expended on this case. However, this exhibit was prepared by Linsky's secretary some months after the events depicted and appear grossly exaggerated in some instances. Linsky claims a total of 159.35 hours expended. Linsky testified that his billing rate from April 1988 to December 1988 was $175 per hour, and thereafter it was raised to $190 per hour. Petitioner's expert witnesses contend the average billing rate in the Tampa area for this type of case ranges from $125 to $175 per hour. Respondent's expert witnesses contend the fees awarded run from $100 to $150 per hour. I find the appropriate fee in this case to be $135 per hour. Although Linsky claims to have spent 159.35 hour on this case, including the attorney's fees portion, 1 find that only 100 hours are reasonable. Costs of $423.60 is not disputed.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Corrections be directed to pay Sefsick's attorney $13,500 attorney's fees and $423.60 costs in these proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted, except: 3. This proposed finding is accepted as a recital of the testimony presented, but rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #8. 5. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #7. 6 and 7. Accepted as legal argument, but rejected as a finding of fact. Respondent's proposed findings are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Linsky, Esquire 600 North Florida Avenue Suite 1610 Tampa, FL 33602 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 1313 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Richard L. Dugger Secretary Department of Corrections 1313 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners James I. McKee and James Cone are registered physical therapists licensed in Florida under Chapter 486, Florida Statutes. Petitioners McKee and Cone are engaged in the private practice of providing physical therapy services. Physical therapy is the treatment of injured or crippled individuals through physical agents such as heat, ultrasound and electrical stimulation treatments, and therapeutic exercise. Physical therapy patients are referred to private practitioners such as Petitioners by prescription from physicians. Petitioners, as a substantial part of their practices, treat workers who have been injured in job-related accidents and receive payment for their services from workers' compensation insurance carriers. Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the workers' compensation program in Florida. Respondent has proposed Rules 38F- 7.01 through 38F-7.03 and 38F-7.10 through 38F-7.13 for adoption. These proposed rules constitute the proposed fee schedule for the workers' compensation program, and include a proposed fee schedule for physical therapy services. The proposed fee schedule was presented to the Respondent by a three- member panel consisting of the Secretary of Labor and Employment Security, the State Insurance Commissioner, and the State Medical Consultant of the Division of Workers' Compensation. Respondent's rules have not in the past included a fee schedule for physical therapy services provided by practitioners such as Petitioners McKee and Cone. Rather, such services have been compensated on the basis of a case- by-case determination of the charges that prevail in the same community for similar treatment of injured persons of like standard of living. The proposed fee schedule would set maximum limits for such fees. The proposed fee schedule would have applicability statewide. Different fee schedules for different geographic locations have not been proposed. Petitioners McKee and Cone presently charge higher fees for injured workers and receive more compensation than they would receive under the fee schedule set out in the proposed rules. Furthermore, prevailing fees charged by physical therapists are generally higher than the maximum fees set out in the proposed rules. There is a statistically significant difference in fees for physical therapy services that are charged in different areas of the state. Fees for services in Southeast Florida are uniformly higher than fees for the same services in other areas of the state. The three-member panel which proposed the fee schedule for physical therapy services considered the present fee schedule, which does not set maximum charges for physical therapy services; a schedule utilized under the medicare program for physical therapy services; and a schedule set out in a document prepared by the Florida Medical Association, Inc., entitled "1975 Florida Relative Value Studies." No consideration was given to setting different fees in different areas of the state. The medicare schedule considered by the panel sets different rates for different areas of the state. The panel utilized a schedule in the mid-range from the medicare schedule in arriving at its proposed schedule. Respondent promulgated an economic impact statement in support of the proposed rules. The economic impact statement does not contain any estimate of the economic impact of the proposed fee schedules upon physical therapists such as Petitioners . The panel which proposed the schedules did hear objections from various physical therapists, but did not change its proposed schedule in response. The proposed schedule has a significant economic impact upon physical therapists because there has not been a maximum fee schedule applied to physical therapists in the past. Furthermore, the schedule would allow less compensation to such therapists than has typically been allowed in the past.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether attorneys' fees and costs should be awarded to Respondent, Palm Beach County, and Intervenor, Richard Siemens, pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact A. The Parties. 1. Petitioners are all individuals residing in Palm Beach County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "County"). 2. Respondent, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and the governing body of the County. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1997)(hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Intervenor, Richard Siemens, resides in the County. The Subject Amendment. On September 22, 1997, the Board adopted an amendment to the its comprehensive plan by Ordinance Number 97-28 (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Amendment"). The Subject Amendment modified the Traffic Circulation Element of the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan. Following a review of the Subject Amendment, the Department issued a Notice of Intent finding the Subject Amendment to be "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Initiation of the Challenge to the Subject Amendment. On December 24, 1997, Mort Hillman, Rosa Durando, and Barry Silver, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department requesting a formal hearing pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes (1997). The petition was filed by Richard Grosso, Esquire, and Mr. Silver, who is a member of The Florida Bar, as co-counsel on behalf of all Petitioners. On January 12, 1998, the petition was filed by the Department with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department requested that the petition be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes (1997). The petition was designated Case No. 98-0202GM and was assigned to the undersigned. On January 12, 1998, a Petition to Intervene in this case was filed on behalf of Richard Siemens. Scheduling of the Final Hearing. On January 15, 1998, before the Petition to Intervene was ruled on, Mr. Siemens filed a Notice Demanding Expeditious Resolution of Proceeding pursuant to Section 163.3189(3), Florida Statutes (1997). Section 163.3189(3), Florida Statutes (1997), requires that proceedings initiated pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (1997), be scheduled for final hearing "no more than 30 days after receipt" of a demand for expeditious resolution from any party to the proceeding. At the time Mr. Siemens filed the demand for expeditious resolution, he had not yet been granted leave to intervene in this matter. On January 21, 1998, a motion hearing was conducted by telephone. Immediately before the commencement of the motion hearing, Petitioners filed a Response to Petition to Intervene and Motion for Expedited Hearing. Petitioners objected to conducting an expedited hearing but expressed no opposition in their response or during the motion hearing to Mr. Siemens' intervention in this proceeding. Therefore, Mr. Siemens was granted leave to intervene. In light of the fact that Mr. Siemens did not become party to this proceeding until January 21, 1998, the demand for expedited hearing was treated as having been received on January 21, 1998. Pursuant to Section 163.3189(3), Florida Statutes (1997), the formal hearing of this case was, therefore, required to be scheduled on or before February 20, 1998. In Petitioners' response to the notice of demand, Mr. Silver objected to the demand for expedited hearing of this matter and asserted that the case should be continued pursuant to Section 11.111, Florida Statutes (1997). Section 11.111, Florida Statutes (1997), provides for a continuance of any administrative hearing in which a member of the Florida Legislature is either an attorney representing the litigants, a party, or a witness. The continuance applies to any period of time during which committee work is required, plus one day prior and one day subsequent to the committee work, and during the fifteen days prior and subsequent to any session of the Legislature. It was pointed out in Petitioners' response to the demand for expedited hearing that Mr. Silver, who appeared as counsel for his co-Petitioners and as a Petitioner, was a member of the Florida House of Representatives. It was represented during the motion hearing that Mr. Silver was required to attend to committee work during the weeks of February 2, 1998, and February 15, 1998. It was also represented that the 1998 Legislative Session was scheduled to commence March 3, 1998. Therefore, pursuant to Section 11.111, Florida Statutes (1997), it was argued that no hearing should be scheduled during the weeks of February 2, 1998, and February 15, 1998, during the fifteen days prior to March 3, 1998, and for fifteen days after the end of the Legislative Session. Although the amount of time available to schedule an expedited hearing of this case was severely limited by Mr. Silver's schedule, it was determined that Section 11.111, Florida Statutes (1997), did not require a continuance of the hearing during the week of February 9, 1998. Therefore, in an effort to accommodate the provisions of Sections 11.111 and Section 163.3189(3), Florida Statutes (1997), the final hearing was scheduled for the week of February 9, 1998. The afternoon of February 9, 1998, was reserved to hear argument on several motions. The final hearing was scheduled to commence the morning of February 10, 1998, only a little more than a month after the petition initiating this matter was filed with the Department. The final hearing was scheduled for the week of February 9, 1998, over objections of Petitioners and counsel for Petitioners, Mr. Grosso, who was scheduled to appear at another administrative hearing also scheduled for the week of February 10, 1998. Preparation of the Petitioner and for the Final Hearing. Petitioners have no training in land use planning. Mr. Hillman is a retired musician. Ms. Durando is also retired, having formally managed race horses. Mr. Silver is a sole practitioner and State legislator. None of Petitioners are particularly knowledgeable about the Act or the terms "in compliance." While Petitioners did not conduct an extensive investigation prior to filing their petition in this case, they retained legal counsel and relied upon counsel to prepare their petition. After the petition was filed, there was little time for investigation by Petitioners or counsel. In light of the fact that the parties were not put on notice until January 21, 1998, that the final hearing was to commence on February 10, 1998, the parties had only 12 working days to prepare for the final hearing. Mr. Silver was involved with legislative committee meetings for 5 of those days. Mr. Grosso was involved in preparation for other litigation before the Division of Administrative Hearings schedule for the same week. During the time prior to the commencement of the final hearing, there were numerous discovery requests which had to be responded to on an expedited basis, several motions had to be responded to, and a prehearing stipulation had to be prepared. Based upon the lack of time between the scheduling of the final hearing and the commencement of the final hearing, Petitioners did not have an adequate amount of time to prepare their case for final hearing. Because of the short period of preparation time, little discovery was conducted by the parties. To the extent that limited discovery was inadequate to prepare the parties for the final resolution of this matter, there simply was insufficient time for further discovery. On February 2 and 3, 1998, only a week before the commencement of the final hearing, the depositions of Petitioners and Lance deHaven-Smith were taken by Intervenors. Mr. deHaven-Smith was designated by Petitioners as an expert witness on planning issues. Mr. deHaven-Smith's deposition consists of almost 160 pages of testimony. Among other things, Mr. deHaven-Smith was asked the following question by counsel for Mr. Siemens and gave the following response: Q . . . . Is it your opinion that this issue of whether the County should or should not apply the CRALLS with respect to this 2.3 mile section of Clint Moore Road, in consideration of these issues that you and I have talked about relating to schools, and traffic and those kinds of things, is it your position that it is not even fairly debatable as to whether that decision is consistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan of Palm Beach County relating to the agricultural reserve area? A I don't think it is fairly debatable. I can understand if you are looking at the trade-off between the developments, and the 900, versus 500. And you could see how somebody could easily get sucked in to wanting to make those trade- offs. But you have got a plan that is committing you to not only the agriculture reserve area, but the effort to keep traffic down off of that particular road. And I have not understood it. Now, maybe there is a reason that you could apply this sort of temporary concurrency exception beyond three years, but my understanding of the law is that you are limited to three years. Page 65, lines 19 to 25 and page 66, lines 1-22. Despite the foregoing opinion, Mr. deHaven-Smith also testified extensively about his concerns about the Subject Amendment. The Final Hearing. On the afternoon of February 9, 1998, a hearing was conducted on outstanding motions. The formal hearing commenced on February 10, 1998, and continued through February 11, 1999. During the final hearing Petitioners presented the testimony of Frank Duke, Terry Hess, and George T. Webb. Petitioners offered eight exhibits. Mr. Duke and Mr. Webb are employees of the County. Mr. Duke and Mr. Webb offered testimony concerning the impact of the Subject Amendment. Mr. Hess is an employee of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Mr. Hess had previously recommended to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council that the Subject Amendment be found consistent with the regional plan. While Mr. Hess attempted to testify about concerns he had with the Subject Amendment during the Final Hearing, he ultimately testified that the Subject Amendment was, indeed, consistent with the regional plan. Petitioners did not call Mr. deHaven-Smith or any other expert planner who specifically testified that the Subject Amendment is not "fairly debatable." There were, however, only 7 days following the taking of Mr. deHaven-Smith's deposition and the commencement of the final hearing, giving Petitioners little time to explore the possibility of finding another expert planner. Ultimately there was no direct testimony that it was not fairly debatable that the Subject Amendment is "in compliance." While that issue was the ultimate issue to be decided in this case, nothing about this case required that such an opinion be given at the final hearing in order for Petitioners to have succeeded. Ultimately the resolution of this case turned less on the testimony at final hearing and more on a comparison of the language of the Subject Amendment with the relevant local, regional, and state plans and the Act. Had Petitioners' view of this case been correct, it could have been concluded that it was not fairly debatable that the Subject Amendment was in compliance without any witnesses rendering such an opinion. When all the evidence in this case was weighed, it was apparent that Petitioners' arguments were without merit. It might even be concluded that Petitioners' arguments were frivolous but for two things: (a) the lack of time afforded by the Act to Petitioners to prepare for the final hearing; and (b) the somewhat unique factual circumstances of this case. The unique factual circumstances of this case were that the success of Mr. Siemens' proposed development, which was the catalyst for the Subject Amendment, depended on a provision of the County's plan authorizing CRALLS designations, a designation that would likely not be found "in compliance" with the Act if subject to review today, and the fact that the proposed development was vested and, therefore, not subject to all of the clear prohibition of the County's plan against such developments in the agricultural area Mr. Siemens' property is located in. The Recommended and Final Orders. On April 17, 1998, a Recommended Order was entered in this case after consideration of proposed orders filed by the parties. It was determined that Petitioners had failed to meet their burden of proving that the determination that the Subject Amendment was "in compliance" was not "fairly debatable." It was, therefore, recommended that the Subject Amendment be found "in compliance" under the Act. Petitioners filed "exceptions" to the Recommended Order with the Department. On May 20, 1998, a Final Order was entered in this case. The Department accepted the recommendation of the Recommended Order to find the Subject Amendment to be "in compliance." The Final Order of the Department was subsequently appealed. As a result of the Final Order, the County and Mr. Siemens both are "prevailing parties" and Petitioners are "nonprevailing adverse parties" in this matter. The County/Siemens' Motion for Fees. The County and Mr. Siemens filed the County/Siemens' Motion for Fees on March 16, 1998. The County and Mr. Siemens requested an award of attorneys' fees and costs from Petitioners pursuant to Sections 120.569(2), 120.595(1)(b) and (c), and 163.3184(12), Florida Statutes (1997). The County/Siemens' Motion for Fees was filed after the final hearing in this case but before the Recommended Order was filed. Subsequent to the taking of Mr. deHaven-Smith's deposition and prior to the commencement of the final hearing in this case, Mr. Siemens put Petitioners on notice that he intended to seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs from Petitioners. An award pursuant to Section 120.595(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), may be made in a final order entered by the Department only after an administrative law judge finds that the nonprevailing party in a case "participated" in the case for an "improper purpose." I. Petitioners did not Participate in this Proceeding for an Improper Purpose. Pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, Petitioners had the burden of proving that it was not "fairly debatable" that the Subject Amendment was "in compliance." This burden of proof was a substantial one. Looking at the proceeding as a whole, from the filing of the petition to the final hearing of this case, and taking into account the lack of time allowed Petitioners to prepare for the final hearing and the unique factual circumstances of this case, the evidence failed to prove that Petitioners participated in this matter for an "improper purpose."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a supplemental Final Order denying Palm Beach County and Siemens' Joint Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (1997). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Grosso, Esquire Post Office Box 19630 Plantation, Florida 33318 Barry M. Silver, Esquire Corporate Centre, Suite 308 7777 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33434-4194 Barbara Alterman, Esquire Robert Banks, Esquire Assistant County Attorneys Post Office Box 1989 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Shaw Stiller, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Stephen C. Emmanuel, Esquire Ausley and McMullen Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jim Robinson, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by manipulating fiscal practices of the City of Hialeah Gardens in an effort to afford himself a tax benefit; (2) whether the Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by removing from the Mayor's Office furniture that had been donated to the City of Hialeah Gardens; (3) whether the Respondent violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, by having a contractual or employment relationship with a company doing business with the City of Hialeah Gardens; and (4) if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact George Hameeton (Respondent) was elected Mayor of the City of Hialeah Gardens (City or Hialeah Gardens) in March 1993 and served through March 9, 1995. As Mayor of Hialeah Gardens, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees (Code of Ethics). Gilda Oliveros, formerly known as Gilda Cabrera de Corzo, was Respondent's immediate predecessor as Mayor. Oliveros served as mayor of Hialeah Gardens from 1989 until 1993, when she was defeated by Respondent. In 1995, Oliveros ran against Respondent again and was elected Mayor on March 7, 1995. Oliveros was sworn into office on March 9, 1995. The City Charter of the City of Hialeah Gardens, Florida, provides for a strong mayor form of government. According to the City Charter, "The Mayor is the executive head of the city, with all the necessary powers and authority to enforce all laws, ordinances, and resolutions of the City Council." Consistent with his role as "executive head," the mayor supervises, hires and fires, and has total supervisory powers over all departments. In addition, the Mayor has a fiduciary duty to the City. Transactions Involving Mayor's Expense Reimbursement Respondent's salary in 1994 and 1995 was $20,000 per year. In Hialeah Gardens, salary increases for the mayor must be voted on in a referendum. On November 1, 1994, the Hialeah Gardens City Council (City Council) took up the matter of an expense allowance for Respondent. Respondent was in attendance, but neither August Torres, the City's accountant; Lourdes Diez, the City's bookkeeper; nor James Warmus, the City's auditor, were in attendance. During City Council's discussion, the Acting City Attorney stated that the expense allowance would be a discretionary, nonreporting expense account. With this type of expense account, the amount paid would be static, no matter what expenses were incurred. Moreover, with this type of account, no receipts or other proof of expenses would have to be submitted. On November 1, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1453 which authorized Respondent to receive a monthly expense allowance of $1,000 and a monthly automobile allowance of $800.00 retroactive to the date of his taking office in March 1993. No supporting documentation was required to substantiate these expense allowances. Resolution No. 1453 also provided that the City Council members and Respondent had the option to either participate in the City's health plan or to receive a sum equivalent to the City's contribution to the health plan on their behalf. Resolution No. 1453 provided that the $1,000 expense reimbursement was a nonreporting reimbursement. However, the resolution did not indicate how the automobile allowance should be categorized. Resolution No. 1453 provided in relevant part the following: Section 1. The Mayor shall receive the sum of one thousand dollars a month as reimbursement for expenses such as late meals, dry cleaning, cellular telephone, and other related expenses resulting from his fulltime employment with the City in an administrative position. Said reimbursement shall be nonreporting. Section 2. The Mayor shall receive the sum of eight hundred dollars a month for an automobile allowance which includes reimbursement for insurance, maintenance, and gasoline. The expense allowances authorized by Resolution No. 1453 totaled $1,800 per month, an amount which exceeded the Respondent's salary by $1,600 per year. "Nonreporting" or "nonaccountable" expense reimbursements as described above are treated as wages by the Internal Revenue Service. As such, the employer is responsible for withholding social security and Medicare taxes, and also for making a matching contribution. Failure of an employer to do so can result in the employer's having to pay a penalty of up to 100 percent of the amount which should have been withheld. After Resolution No. 1453 was adopted, Respondent told Diez to calculate the amount he and City Council members should receive pursuant to the terms of the Resolution No. 1453. Diez was not aware the insurance contributions and expense reimbursements were subject to taxation; neither was she familiar with the distinction between accountable or reporting expense and nonaccountable or nonreporting expenses. Therefore, she calculated the gross amount to which Respondent and City Council members were entitled. She did not withhold taxes or social security or make the employer's contribution as to any of the payments including those made to the City Council members. Respondent was Diez' immediate supervisor and usually checked her work. Consistent with this practice, Respondent, too, calculated the amounts owed to him and the City Council members and double-checked Diez' figures. Once the calculations were completed, Respondent instructed Diez to cut his expense reimbursement check and the health plan contribution checks for him and eligible City council members. In response to Diez' inquiry about where the money should come from, Respondent told her that the payments should come out of the City's general fund. Diez then called Torres to request the appropriate account number for the "expense" reimbursement. Because Diez did not mention that the expense reimbursement or any part thereof was nonreporting, Torres gave Diez the account number that allowed the funds to be paid as an operating expense. At the time Diez contacted Torres to get the account number, Torres had not seen a copy of Resolution No. 1453 and was unaware of its contents. The nonaccountable expense reimbursement check should have been issued from the City's payroll account. The payroll account or fund is set up with CompuPay, an outside third-party administrator, which is the City's payroll servicing company. Checks cut from the City's payroll fund or account, unlike those cut from the City's general operating fund, have payroll taxes and the employee's contribution automatically calculated and withheld by CompuPay. On the other hand, payments coming from the City's general fund are not normally subject to withholding. While it is possible to manually do the calculations on payments made from the City's general fund, because Diez was not aware the money was subject to taxes, it never occurred to her to do so. The transaction involving Respondent's expense reimbursement was a non-routine transaction and one that Diez had not previously seen or processed. On December 23, 1994, Respondent was issued a check for $43,685.93, which represented the total retroactive payment for the car allowance, the expense allowance, and the health plan contribution. No social security or Medicare taxes were withheld from this check and no employer's contribution was made. Respondent deposited the $43,685.93 check into his bank account on December 23, 1994, the day it was issued. Respondent's personal bank account was at the same bank as the City's account and the $43,685.93 was posted to Respondent's account the day the check was deposited. Shortly after the $43,685.93 check was issued to Respondent, Torres became aware that the check was for a nonaccountable or nonreporting expense reimbursement and that no social security or Medicare taxes had been withheld. While it is unclear who initiated the call, within one week after Respondent's $43,685.93 check was deposited into his bank account, Respondent and Torres had a telephone conversation regarding the check. Torres explained to Respondent that the expense reimbursement check "was of a nonreporting nature" and, therefore, payroll taxes had to be withheld. Respondent then told Torres that the check had already been deposited into Respondent's bank account. During the aforementioned telephone conversation, Respondent expressed concern about the tax consequences of receiving such a large sum at the end of 1994. Because Respondent believed the lump sum payment of $43,685.93 would adversely affect his income tax obligation for 1994, he asked Torres if he could defer taking the check until 1995. In response to Respondent's inquiry concerning whether he could defer taking the check until 1995, Torres told Respondent that taxes must be paid for the year in which the money is received. Nevertheless, Torres advised Respondent that if he redeposited funds to correct an error and if the reissued check did not get to him until 1995, he arguably would not have "received" the money until 1995. Based on his familiarity with the City's payroll processing schedule, Torres knew that the subject expense reimbursement check would not be reissued until 1995. Respondent and Torres never discussed whether it was permissible to make a deferred compensation contribution from the expense reimbursement funds. On December 30, 1994, Respondent contacted the bank and had the December 23, 1994, deposit of the $43,685.93 reversed. As a result of this action, the funds were deducted from Respondent's account and redeposited in the City's account. Respondent notified Diez that the $43,685.93 had been returned to the City's account and asked that a new expense reimbursement check be issued, minus a $9,624.00 contribution to Respondent's deferred compensation plan. However, Respondent did not tell Diez to withhold any social security or Medicare taxes or to make any employer's contributions. Diez took the funds from the City's general fund as she had done for the check issued December 23, 1994. It did not occur to Diez to withhold taxes from Respondent's reissued expense reimbursement check and she did not. When Respondent directed Diez to cut and reissue the expense reimbursement check, he knew that social security and Medicare taxes were to be withheld from the check. Nevertheless, he deliberately did not tell Diez to withhold these taxes. During the aforementioned telephone conversation, Torres explained to Respondent that the only way the expense reimbursement could be attributable to Respondent as income to Respondent in 1995 instead of 1994 was if the December 23, 1994, deposit were reversed to correct a "mistake" and the check was then reissued in 1995. The "mistake" to which Torres referred was the error in not withholding payroll taxes from the $43,685.93 reimbursement check. As a result of Torres' explanation, Respondent clearly understood that social security and Medicare taxes should have been withheld from the check. Moreover, Respondent understood that reversal of the December 23, 1994, deposit could be done only to correct the mistake involving withholding of social security and Medicare taxes. A new check was issued to Respondent on January 10, 1995. The original $43.685.93 had been reduced by $9,624.00, the deferred compensation contribution, and the check issued to Respondent was for $34,061.93. No social security or Medicare taxes were withheld and no employer's contribution was made. When Mayor Oliveros was elected and took office in March 1995, she asked the City auditor to conduct a complete audit. Ultimately, the auditor instead conducted an "agreed-upon procedure" which addressed Mayor's Oliveros' concerns without the scope and expense of a complete audit. The procedure covered the period October 1, 1994, to March 9, 1995, and the auditor's findings were summarized in a report dated May 1995. The agreed-upon procedure identified the handling of Respondent's reimbursement check as problematic. Specifically, the auditor discovered that no social security, or Medicare, or other taxes had been withheld from either of Respondent's expense reimbursement checks. Furthermore, the auditor found that the employer's contribution was never made by the City with regard to Respondent's expense reimbursement. In an effort to protect the City from exposure to IRS penalties, Torres suggested that the City pay Respondent's share of the taxes, as well as its own employer's contribution. To calculate the amount of taxes due and for purposes of calculating Respondent's salary for his 1995 W-2, Torres engaged in a calculation known as "grossing up." "Grossing up" is used when an employee mistakenly or otherwise improperly receives as net an amount he should have received as gross. Respondent should have received $43,685.93 gross, had taxes withheld, and then taken home some lesser "net" amount. Instead he took home $43,685.93. To "gross up," one would have to calculate what gross income would have resulted in a net income of $43,685.93. Respondent's "grossed up" income was $47,304.74. The City paid the Respondent's share and employer's matching contribution. In fact, due to an error in calculating the amounts, it overpaid taxes that should have been deducted from Respondent's check. Based on Respondent's "grossed up" income, the correct amount of social security and Medicare taxes was $3,618.81. As of the date of the hearing, Respondent had not reimbursed the City for his share of the social security and Medicare taxes. Removal and Replacement of Furniture in Mayor's Office In April 1994, during Respondent's term as Mayor, a sofa and loveseat were donated to the City. Respondent accepted the donated sofa and loveseat to replace the old stain-covered furniture in the Mayor's office. Respondent directed City workers to move the old furniture from the Mayor's office to the City's storage warehouse. Between March 7, 1995, the day Mayor Oliveros was elected, and March 9, 1995, the day she took the oath of office, Respondent had City employees remove the donated sofa and loveseat from the Mayor's Office and take it to the City's storage warehouse. Respondent then had the City workers to retrieve the old furniture from the City's storage warehouse and put it in the Mayor's office. Respondent returned the old furniture to the Mayor's office in retaliation against Mayor Oliveros. Respondent admitted that his action was "childish" and was done because he wanted to "gig" Mayor Oliveros, that is to get back at her, for leaving the old stain-covered furniture in the Mayor's office when he defeated her in 1993. Respondent never took personal possession of the "donated" furniture. Since taking office, Mayor Oliveros has been unsuccessful in her efforts to locate the "donated" furniture. Mayor's Relationship With Company Doing Business work for City In August 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida. As a result of this hurricane, Hialeah Gardens sustained some damage. However, the damage was not extensive and consisted primarily of fallen trees and debris from damage to some smaller structures. Oliveros was Mayor of Hialeah Gardens during Hurricane Andrew. During the period after Hurricane Andrew, at Mayor Oliveros' direction, City maintenance personnel removed debris that may have created a dangerous situation caused by the storm. Immediately after Hurricane Andrew, Mayor Oliveros had fallen debris removed from various sites in Hialeah Gardens. Among the sites where debris had fallen was Bernie Wilson Park. A gazebo in the park had been damaged by the hurricane and debris from that structure was picked up by a City maintenance crew. After the storm, a portion of the gazebo including its roof remained standing. However, the remaining portion of the gazebo was not structurally sound. Mayor Oliveros applied for funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) before leaving office. FEMA funds were requested to cover overtime payments for the trash removal and a significant amount of the funds were specifically earmarked for removal of debris. Mayor Oliveros' understanding of the expenditures of FEMA funds was that bids were not necessary in emergency cleanup situations. According to Mayor Oliveros, because of the emergency situation, the County authorized the City to use contractors who had been approved by the County. However, once the debris was cleaned up and the emergency situation no longer existed, any further services were to be purchased in accordance with the City's purchasing procedures. A few weeks after Respondent was elected, he received complaints that Bernie Wilson Park was in disrepair. In response to these complaints, Respondent went out to the park to inspect the damage. Based on his assessment, in March 1993, Respondent had a fence built around the park and had the gate padlocked. Respondent also had signs posted indicating that the park was closed. In September 1993, Respondent hired Perfect Building, Inc., to repair the gazebo in Bernie Wilson Park that had been damaged as a result of Hurricane Andrew. Respondent took this action more than one year after Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida and approximately six months after he first inspected and assessed the damage at Bernie Wilson Park. The City paid Perfect Builders $13,000 for this work. Respondent's justification for using Perfect Builders was that repair or reconstruction of the gazebo was necessary because the damaged gazebo constituted an emergency situation. According to Respondent the cost of the project could be covered by FEMA only if the project were completed by a certain date. In an effort to meet this deadline, Respondent used Perfect Builders only after other contractors he telephoned indicated they were too busy to work on the project. The gazebo at Bernie Wilson Park did not constitute an emergency situation that would preclude Respondent's adhering to the City's prescribed purchasing procedures. In December 1993, Respondent again hired Perfect Builders to renovate the dispatch office in the Police Department at a cost of $1,900. Because the cost of this project did not exceed $4,000.00, Respondent was not required to follow bid requirements specified in the City's purchasing procedures. At the times Respondent hired Perfect Builders to perform work for the City, he had a contractual relationship with the company to serve as its qualifier. As qualifier for Perfect Builders, Respondent contractor's license was used to pull permits for the firm. For serving as its qualifier, Respondent was paid a monthly fee of $350 by Perfect Builders. Respondent had a contractual relationship with Perfect Builders which violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED that a final order and public report be entered finding that Respondent, George Hameetman, violated Sections 112.313(6) and 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes; imposing a civil penalty of $3,000.00 and restitution of $3,618.81; and issuing a public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 20th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Charles Toledo, Esquire 8201 Peters Road, Suite 400 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Sheri L. Gerety, Complaint Coordinator Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact High-Tech Yacht & Ship, Inc. (Petitioner) is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of retail sales of marine vessels. Also, Petitioner is a registered retail dealer in the State of Florida. The President of Petitioner is its only corporate officer. On or about September 2, 1993, Petitioner, in the capacity of a broker, sold a motor yacht at retail to Regency Group, Inc. (purchaser), through its representative, for $78,000. The motor yacht is described as a 1988, 41' Amerosport Chris Craft, hull Number CCHEU075E788, and called the "Motivator". At the closing of the sale, on or about September 2, 1993, the purchaser refused to pay the sales tax on the purchase, which was $4,680. However, the purchaser agreed to pay the sales tax after being informed by Petitioner that, without the payment of the sales tax, there could be no closing. The purchaser's representative submitted, at closing, a personal check in the amount of $4,680 for the sales tax. All of the necessary documents were completed for ownership and registration to be transferred to the purchaser. Subsequently, Petitioner received notice from its bank that the check for the sales tax had been dishonored by the purchaser's bank. The purchaser's representative had stopped payment on the check. In October 1993, Petitioner submitted its sales and use tax return for the month of September 1993 to Respondent in which the sale of the yacht was reported. Respondent automatically reviews sales and use tax returns. Respondent's review of Petitioner's return revealed a shortage of sales tax collected in the amount of $4,680.. In January 1994, Respondent issued a notice of tax action for assessment of additional tax in the amount of $4,710, plus interest and penalty, to Petitioner. The $4,710 included the loss of Petitioner's collection allowance of $30, which loss resulted from Petitioner's failure to timely remit all taxes due. Having received the notice of tax action, by letter dated January 20, 1994, Petitioner generally informed Respondent of the circumstances regarding the sales tax shortage, including the dishonored check. Petitioner pointed out, among other things, that Respondent had the authority and the means to collect the tax, while it (Petitioner) had limited means, and suggested, among other things, that Respondent cancel the purchaser's Florida registration of the yacht. On or about January 31, 1994, approximately three months after the check for sales tax was dishonored, Petitioner issued a notice of dishonored check to the purchaser, in which Petitioner requested payment of the sales tax. The notice provided, among other things, that Petitioner could seek criminal prosecution and civil action if the monies were not paid to Petitioner. Having not received the $4,680, Petitioner contacted the local law enforcement agency. After investigation, the law enforcement agency informed Petitioner that a civil action would have to be instituted because the purchaser, through its representative, had indicated that it was not satisfied with the yacht. Although Petitioner engaged the services of an attorney for civil action, no civil action was commenced. Additionally, Petitioner did not engage the services of a collection agency for assistance in collecting the sales tax. Subsequent to its notice of tax action, on or about March 12, 1994, Respondent issued a notice of assessment to Petitioner. The notice of assessment provided, among other things, that Petitioner was being assessed taxes in the amount of $4,710, plus penalty and interest in the amount of $2,342.61, totalling $7,052.61. Petitioner protested the assessment. On February 8, 1995, Respondent issued its notice of reconsideration in which Respondent determined, among other things, that the assessment was appropriate and affirmed the assessment of $7,052.61, plus interest and penalty. The interest accrues at the rate of $1.55 per day. Petitioner has not remitted any of the assessed tax, including interest and penalty, to Respondent. Petitioner has not identified on its federal tax return the noncollection of the sales tax from the purchaser as a bad debt. Sales tax is part of the total sale price for an item. Respondent considers the sales tax as collectable by a seller in the same manner as any other debt owed by a purchaser to a seller. A retail dealer, who is also a seller, is considered to be an agent for the State in the collection of sales tax. The burden of collecting the sales tax is placed upon the retail dealer by Respondent. Some of Respondent's employees have been sympathetic to Petitioner's tax assessment matter. However, none of the employees indicated to or advised Petitioner that Respondent was or is in error.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order affirming the assessment of sales tax against High-Tech Yacht & Ship, Inc. in the amount of $7,052.61, plus interest and penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August 1996.
