Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this proceeding, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Sailfish Club of Florida, Inc. is a nonprofit Florida corporation which operates a 550-member private club in Palm Beach County, Florida. Its facilities include a swimming pool, large dining room, cocktail lounge, private dining rooms, card rooms and a marina with three docks and 62 slips. Petitioner's annual membership dues are $925 per member. The marina docks are constructed over 94,815 square feet of submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The wet slip space comprises 2,531 linear feet. Marina slips are available to members only and are rented at $39.69 per linear foot per year. Prior to March 10, 1970, it was the policy of the Board of Trustees to permit the use of sovereignty submerged lands without charging annual fees. At present, all docks, piers and other structures on sovereignty lands in existence prior to March 10, 1970, are "grandfathered" and are not subject to the current lease requirements until January 1, 1998. On March 10, 1970, the Board of Trustees adopted a new policy providing for the licensing of private interests desiring to occupy sovereignty lands in conjunction with the operation of marines, charter boat docks and other commercial mooring facilities. The licenses were to be issued upon payment of no less than two cents per square foot annually for sovereignty land severed from public use, and each license was to be renewable annually after receipt of the appropriate fee. On August 25, 1970, petitioner and the Board of Trustees entered into a license agreement whereby petitioner was permitted to construct, install and operate a marina and commercial dock facility upon sovereignty lands. Petitioner agreed to pay the Board two cents per square foot of the sovereignty lands occupied. Section 5 of the license agreement provided as follows: "This License shall be renewable annually if the Licensee has complied with all the terms and conditions of this License, including payment of the annual license fee. The license fee for renewal shall be no less than the original fee. The Board shall not increase the license fee by more than 10 percent in any one renewal term." Section 6 allows the licensee a 90-day grace period after expiration to renew the license. Most, if not all, license agreements entered into between 1970 and 1975 contain this language. In reliance upon that license agreement, petitioner expended some $205,000.00 for construction of docks and other facilities solely related to the marina function of the Club. Each year thereafter, beginning in August of 1971, petitioner renewed its license for a period of one year by tendering the license fee of two cents per square foot for the 94,815 square feet of submerged land occupied by the marina. From 1970 until 1980, petitioner paid annual license fees of $1,896.00. Beginning in 1980, the Department started increasing its annual marina license fee by ten percent, as permitted under the license agreement, and petitioner paid the increased annual fee. Around 1975, the Board of Trustees and DNR discontinued issuing licenses and shifted to leases for the use of sovereignty submerged lands. The form sovereignty submerged land lease agreement provided that "renewal of this lease is at the sole option of the Board of Trustees or its legally designated agent." Nevertheless, the Department continued to renew existing licenses upon the tender of the annual fees. By letter dated June 30, 1982, the DNR informed petitioner that its marina license fee would increase each year at the rate of ten percent, and suggested that petitioner may wish to convert its license into a five-year lease. Petitioner declined the suggestion and remitted its annual renewal fee for its license. In August of 1983, the petitioner paid to the DNR fees in the amount of $2,776.37 for its 1983-94 annual marina license. On August 1, 1983, the DNR adopted amendments to Chapter 16Q-21, Florida Administrative Code, which governs sovereignty submerged lands management. The amendment included in the list of activities for which a lease would be required "Existing licenses upon the date of expiration or renewal." Rule 16Q-21.05(1)(b)4, Florida Administrative Code. Marina leases were to be handled under the standard lease provisions, which include a term of up to 25 years "renewable at the option of the Board." Rule 16Q-21.08. The annual standard lease fee, as amended in August 1983, was to be computed at a statewide base rate of $0.065 per square foot, with an additional 20 percent of the lease fee to be charged for the first annual fee, and the per square foot base rate to be revised each year. Marinas open to the public on a first come, first serve basis were permitted a 30 percent discount per square foot per year. Rule 16Q-21.11(1), Florida Administrative Code (1983 Annual Supplement). By letter dated November 14, 1983 petitioner was informed by the DNR that due to the new rule amendments, specifically section 16Q-21.05(1)(b)4 which requires a lease for existing licenses upon the date of expiration or renewal, petitioner would need to obtain a sovereignty submerged land lease in order to continue to legally operate its facility. Petitioner was further informed that its license fee was current until August 25, 1984, and that it would be billed for the difference between the license fee and the new rate required under the lease. The DNR warned petitioner that if it did not receive petitioner's lease application within 90 days, it would assume petitioner no longer desired to maintain the legal use of the facility and would proceed under the removal of structures provisions of petitioner's license. Petitioner did not submit a lease application to the DNR. Had petitioner converted to a lease, the annual lease fee would have been $6,162.98, plus the 20 percent surcharge of $1,232.59 for the first year of the lease. A $200.00 processing fee would also have been required. In the February 24, 1984 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly (Vol. 10, No.8), the DNR gave notice of its intent to amend Rule 16Q-21.11 relating to standard annual lease fees. The purpose of the amendment is "to establish a framework for more equitable compensation to the Board of Trustees. . for exclusionary uses of state-owned submerged lands." While the prior rule provided for an annual lease fee computed at a statewide base rate of $0.065 per square foot, the amendment establishes a new formula of seven percent of the "total potential annual revenues from the wet slip rental area or the base fee, whichever is greater." The total potential revenues are to be calculated "by multiplying the total number of linear feet for rent in the wet slip rental area times the weighted average monthly per linear foot rental times 12. The weighted average per linear foot rental will be derived from the monthly rates (seasonal rates included). Any ancillary charges, such as membership fees, dues, or miscellaneous fees which are required to rent a wet slip, shall also be proportionately factored into the average monthly rate." Rule 16Q-21.11(1)(a)1. The proposed rule provides that the monthly rental rates used to determine the weighted average will be derived for posted price sheets or other information from the previous year certified as true and correct by the lessee. The calculated rate is to be reviewed and adjusted annually on the anniversary date of the lease. A full copy of the challenged proposed rule is attached to this Order. In early 1982, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, appointed a "Blue Ribbon Marina Committee" to review Florida's marina policies and to develop a policy to establish a new formula for submerged land lease fees. The 14-member Committee included representatives of county government, a regional planning agency, environmental interests, marine industries, marina owners, general citizenry, boating interests and developmental interests. The Director of the Florida Sea Grant College Program, Dr. James Cato, served as the Committee's Chairman, and designated DNR personnel served as its staff. After meeting monthly from May through October and holding seven public workshops, the Blue Ribbon Marina Committee issued its final report in January of 1983. It was the final recommendation of the Committee that while there should be some differential charges (i.e., for activities in aquatic preserves, between revenue generating, income related uses and non-revenue generating, non-income related uses), the differential should not be geographic and the method for determining lease fees should be a simple statewide base rate. The committee recommended a base rate of 5 cents per square foot per year, with capped increases tied to the Consumer Price Index. The Blue Ribbon Marina Committee's recommendations were not accepted by the Board of Trustees. Instead, an interagency task force comprised of the Executive Directors of the DNR, the Department of Revenue and the Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting, plus staff, was formed to report back to the Board of Trustees with recommendations on fee structures. Without holding any public meetings or listening to witnesses, this task force originated the lease fee formula found in the proposed rule. The task force elected to utilize the "total potential annual revenues from the wet slip rental area" as the basis for its 7 percent formula, in lieu of a percentage of pure gross revenue approach, primarily to avoid auditing problems. It was believed that it would be too difficult to separate out revenues received from grandfathered structures or other facilities not related strictly to wet slip rentals. In effect, total potential annual revenues were assumed to be identical to actual gross revenues. The Economic Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the proposed amendments to Rule 16Q-21.11 estimates in detail the cost to the DNR to implement the new lease fee formula. In estimating the costs to those persons directly affected by the proposed rule, the EIS generally notes that there will be an increase in fees for certain existing and new lessees, makes a broad generalized estimate of an average increase of $378.00 per lease and recognizes that the exact individual lease fee increase will vary greatly among lessees. The EIS notes that increased costs to the boating public utilizing marina facilities could be anticipated. Finding that lease fees based on five to twelve percent of gross revenues are economically viable, the EIS concludes that the proposed rates are economically feasible. The EIS contains no estimate of the effect of the proposed rule upon competition within the marina industry. It is noted in the EIS that submerged land leasing practices utilized in other states were reviewed and a comparison of those practices is attached to the EIS. Of the eleven states reviewed, none utilized a percentage of potential revenue approach. Other practices included lease fee structures based upon appraised market value of the adjacent upland, percentages of actual gross revenues, uniform base rates per square foot and flat permit charges. In Florida, there are considerable variations among commercial marines as to rental fees charged for wet slips, the level of services provided, utilization or occupancy rates, services and amenities located on the upland property and costs of operation, taxes, insurance and utilities. Wet slip rental rates are generally based not only upon the value of the submerged land in terms of its location, convenience and access to recreational waterbodies. Rental rates also take into consideration the value of the upland property in terms of its geographic advantages, the value of the improvements to the upland property and amenities available thereon, and the value of the improvements to the submerged land in terms of the structures and services offered, as well as the costs of operation of the docking facility. The slip rental fees are also dependent upon whether the particular marina is financially supported entirely by wet slip rentals or whether other services, such as repair and maintenance fees, fuel charges, charges for dry storage, or even upland facilities and activities comprise the bulk of its revenues. It is thus possible for two adjacent marinas or docking facilities which occupy the exact same amount of sovereignty submerged land to have a wide variance in the fees charged for wet slip rentals. Under the proposed total potential revenue formula lease fees per linear foot may vary from marina to marina in the same geographic location, depending upon the weighted average per linear foot of slip rental charged by each marina in the preceding year.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent, Private Money Mortgage Company (PMMC), was a mortgage brokerage business in the State of Florida holding License Number HB592732699 that had been issued by Petitioner. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Frank Donahue was a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida holding License Number HA267474770 that had been issued by Petitioner. The Department of Banking and Finance, the Petitioner in these proceedings, is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. In 1985, Mr. and Mrs. A. Charles Cinelli bought a house in Palm Beach County, Florida, and moved from upstate New York to Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent, Frank Donahue, assisted Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli in obtaining financing for the home the Cinellis purchased in Palm Beach, County. In connection with this 1985 transaction, Mr. Donahue forwarded to the Cinellis an "Exclusive Broker Agreement", which they executed and returned to him. Because this 1985 transaction involved a purchase, Mr. Donahue ordered an appraisal for this property and charged its cost as a part of the Cinelli's closing costs. Subsequent to that transaction, Mr. Donahue and his wife, Brenda, saw Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli at occasional social events. Franklin T. Smith is a certified public accountant who performed professional services for Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli and for Mr. and Mrs. Donahue. Mr. Smith referred the Cinellis to Mr. Donahue in 1985 and advised the Cinellis during the transaction that is the subject of this proceeding. Prior to December 2, 1988, Mr. Cinelli contacted several mortgage brokers in the Palm Beach County area to discuss the possibility of obtaining a mortgage on certain real property located in upstate New York. Mr. Cinelli contacted Mr. Donahue by telephone and discussed with him his desire to raise capital to begin a business in Florida. Mr. Cinelli estimated that he would require approximately $1,000,000 to start this business. Mr. Cinelli told Mr. Donahue that he and Mrs. Cinelli owned certain commercial real property in upstate New York and that State Farm Insurance Company held an option to purchase this property for the sum of $1,450,000. Mr. Cinelli did not want to wait to learn whether State Farm intended to exercise this option to purchase and he discussed with Mr. Donahue the possibility of obtaining the desired capital by securing a mortgage on this property. Mr. Donahue advised Mr. Cinelli that he could expect to secure a mortgage for approximately $700,000 (which was approximately 50% of the amount of the option contract) and that he would need a current appraisal. Mr. Donahue also informed Mr. Cinelli that he would require the sum of $2,500 as a non-refundable deposit to begin seeking such a commitment. On or about December 2, 1988, Mr. Cinelli provided Mr. Donahue with a copy of the option agreement with State Farm and with a copy of the agreement dated September 21, 1988, which extended the time within which State Farm could exercise its option for an additional six months. Mr. Cinelli reiterated to Mr. Donahue that the option price was for $1,450,000 and that he wanted to mortgage the property for $1,000,000. Mr. Cinelli also provided Mr. Donahue with the name, address, and telephone number of Mr. Wayne Lupe, who was represented by Mr. Cinelli to be his MAI appraiser in Schenectady, New York. On December 15, 1988, Mr. Donahue sent to Mr. Cinelli a letter which attached an "Exclusive Broker Agreement" that had been executed by Mr. Donahue on December 15, 1988. This was the same "Exclusive Broker Agreement" form that Mr. Donahue had used for the 1985 Cinelli transaction. The body of the letter provided as follows: Enclosed please find a copy of my exclusive brokers agreement detailing the probable terms of the loan which you are seeking. This agreement is the same agreement which you signed when you purchased your current resi- dence. The agreement calls for both you & Joan to sign and return along with a nonrefundable deposit in the amount of $2500.00 to Private Money Mortgage Corp. The above noted deposit shall be credited towards your closing costs at the time of closing, if a commitment is offered. I have spoken to several of my investors about your concerns and I am awaiting confirmation of their substantial interests prior to ordering the appraisal. I will contact you as soon as I have received the return of this agreement along with your deposit in order to fill you in on our efforts to secure you the most competitive loan on your desired terms. The Exclusive Broker Agreement reflected that the amount of the mortgage would be $700,000 and disclosed that the total estimated costs that would be incurred in securing the mortgage was $78,346, which included a broker's fee of $35,000 and an estimated appraisal fee of $3,500. The Exclusive Broker Agreement, signed by Mr. Donahue on December 15, 1988, contained the following provision: DEPOSIT: In consideration of the sum of $2,500, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, Broker accepts this application and agrees to exert his/her best effort to obtain a commitment for loan in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. This deposit shall be credited toward closing costs at the time of closing the permanent loan or commitment, less Broker's expenses. Among the "Standards" which were incorporated as terms and conditions of the Exclusive Broker Agreement was the following: Deposit. Client simultaneously with execution of this agreement has deposited with broker the amounts stated in this agreement in order to secure the obligations owed by client to broker in the event of default of client as provided in the agreement and to reimburse broker of any and all expenses, including telephone charges, lodging, and administrative fees for credit checks and processing appraisals and the like, including upon any cancellation by client, reimbursement for broker's time expended incurred by broker, whether or not a loan commitment is obtained by broker. Mr. Cinelli was concerned that he would be incurring substantial fees and costs if Mr. Donahue obtained a commitment and Mr. Cinelli decided not to accept it. Mr. Smith advised Mr. Cinelli that the estimated expenses were not abnormally high, but he suggested that his liability should be limited. In response to those concerns, Mr. Donahue prepared and delivered between December 15, 1988, and the end of the year an addendum to the Exclusive Broker Agreement that would have limited Mr. Cinelli's liability to the sum of $7,500. That addendum provided, in pertinent part, as follows: It is hereby understood and agreed by the parties that in the event a loan commitment is offered to the applicants & they decide to refuse this commitment, the applicants liability will be limited to the sum of Five Thousand Dollars plus the original deposit of $2,500.00 for a total amount of $7,500.00. It is further understood that said commitment must bear approximately the same terms and conditions as the attached agreement. Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli gave Mr. Smith the sum of $2,500 in cash to deliver to Mr. Donahue, but there is conflicting testimony as to when this money was delivered to Mr. Smith for delivery to Mr. Donahue. Mr. Cinelli testified that the money was delivered before the Exclusive Broker Agreement dated December 15, 1988, was prepared. Mr. Donahue testified that the money was delivered after both the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum thereto had been delivered to Mr. Cinelli. Mr. Donahue also testified that the statement contained in the Exclusive Broker Agreement that he signed on December 15, 1988, acknowledging his receipt of the $2,500 deposit was false. He did not explain why the addendum referred to the sum of $2,500 as "the original deposit". Mr. Smith did not recall when he delivered this money to Mr. Donahue, but he did recall having delivered the cash the same day he received it from the Cinellis. While his testimony is that he received the $2,500 during his initial meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli (which would be before Mr. Cinelli received the Exclusive Broker Agreement) this testimony lacks credibility because of Mr. Smith's lack of certainty as to dates. In addition, this testimony conflicts with the letter Mr. Smith wrote to Mr. Donahue at Mr. Donahue's request on August 28, 1989, which clearly indicates that the $2,500 was not paid until after the addendum to the Exclusive Broker Agreement had been prepared. This conflict is resolved by finding that the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the sum of $2,500 was delivered by Mr. Smith to Mr. Donahue after Mr. Cinelli had received both the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum thereto. Mr. Donahue did not provide the Cinellis with any type of written agreement, other than his letter of December 15, 1998, the Exclusive Broker Agreement, and the addendum when he received the cash from Mr. Smith. There was no written receipt for these funds, nor was there any written memorandum of understanding between Mr. Donahue and the Cinellis as to whether payment for the appraisal that Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli had discussed would be made from the $2,500. Mr. Cinelli was of the belief that $2,000 of the $2,500 deposit would be earmarked for the payment of the appraisal. Mr. Donahue was of the belief that the $2,500 was a non-refundable retainer and he treated that sum as an earned fee. There was no meeting of the minds between Mr. Cinelli and Mr. Donahue as to the nature of the $2,500 deposit, other than it was non-refundable. Specifically, there was no agreement as to what costs, if any, would be paid from that deposit. Mr. Donahue's normal business practice in transactions involving a refinance of property is different than his practice in transactions involving a purchase of property. In purchase transactions (such as the 1985 Cinelli transaction), Mr. Donahue arranges for the appraisals and treats the costs of the appraisal as an expense to be paid by the purchaser at closing. In refinance transactions (such as the 1988 Cinelli transaction), it is his practice to require his customer to deal directly with the appraiser in ordering and paying the costs of the appraisal. Respondents failed to establish that in the subject transaction, Mr. Donahue made it clear that Mr. Cinelli would be responsible for ordering and paying the cost of the appraisal. Mr. Cinelli believed that $2,000 of the $2,500 he later gave Mr. Donahue would be earmarked for the payment of the appraisal. Neither Mr. Donahue's letter of December 15, 1998, the Exclusive Broker Agreement, nor the addendum clearly resolved the dispute. There was a dispute between Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli as to who ordered the appraisal. Mr. Cinelli denied that he ordered the appraisal and that his calls to his appraiser, Mr. Lupe, was only to advise him of Mr. Donahue's forthcoming call. Mr. Donahue denied that he ordered the appraisal and that his contacts with Mr. Lupe were after Mr. Cinelli had ordered the appraisal. Mr. Donahue contends that his contacts with the appraiser were merely to give the appraiser instructions as to the information that should be reflected by the appraisal. This dispute is resolved by finding that Mr. Cinelli ordered the appraisal through Mr. Lupe and that Mr. Donahue advised Mr. Lupe as to the information that should be reflected by the appraisal. It was determined from conversations between Mr. Donahue and Mr. Lupe that Mr. Lupe was not qualified to perform the appraisal and that Mr. Lupe would engage Albert L. Friedman, MAI and William J. McEvoy of Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company of Schenectady, New York, on Mr. Cinelli's behalf to perform the work. Messrs. Friedman and McEvoy prepared the appraisal and certified the same to Mr. Cinelli on March 13, 1989. The appraised value of the property was $2,100,000. As of the date of the formal hearing, the appraiser's bill of $2,000 had not been paid. Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company had billed both Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli and an attorney representing Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company had written Mr. Cinelli a demand letter. It was the dispute over the payment of the appraiser's fee that prompted the complaint the Cinellis filed against Respondents. The Cinellis did not execute the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum because they wanted to wait on the appraisal to see if the appraised value would permit them to borrow more than $700,000 and because they were not satisfied with the amount of the projected costs of consummating the transaction. Mr. Cinelli misled Mr. Donahue as to his intentions to execute these agreements. Mr. Donahue made several requests to the Cinellis that they execute the Exclusive Broker Agreement and addendum and return them to him. Despite the absence of an executed brokerage agreement, Mr. Donahue exerted considerable effort to seek a commitment consistent with the Exclusive Broker's Agreement and succeeded in securing such a commitment in April 1989. No part of the $2,500 Mr. Donahue received from Mr. Smith on behalf of the Cinellis was placed in escrow by Mr. Donahue. Respondents have made no accounting of the $2,500 and have paid no part of the appraisal bill. Mr. Donahue claims the deposit as a non-refundable earned fee, despite the absence of a written agreement to that effect. The Cinellis sold the subject property to State Farm in June 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by Petitioner which finds: that Respondents violated the provisions of Rule 3D-40.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, by accepting the $2,500 deposit from the Cinellis without a written agreement as to the disposition of those funds; that Respondents violated the provisions of Section 494.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3D-40.006(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to place said deposit in escrow; and that Respondents violated the provisions of by Section 494.055(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing to account for said deposit. It is further recommended that an administrative fine be levied against Respondents in the total amount of $1,000.00 for said violations. It is further recommended that the final order place the licenses of Respondents on probation for a period of one year with three special conditions of probation. The first special condition of probation would require Respondents to pay Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company the sum of $2,000 within sixty days of the Final Order. The second special condition of probation would terminate Respondents' probation upon timely compliance with the first special condition of probation. The third special condition of probation would prohibit Respondents from conducting any business as mortgage brokers within the State of Florida for a period of six months should Respondents fail to timely comply with the first condition of probation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of January, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4708 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 3-10, and 13 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2 and 11 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being argument. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-3 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 4-6, 14, and 17 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The characterization of the Cinellis having a "long standing relationship" with Mr. Donahue is rejected as being ambiguous and unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9-11 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent that they are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 13 are rejected as being recitation of testimony or as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or as being contrary to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah Guller, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 Marie A. Mattox, Esquire Douglass, Cooper, Coppins & Powell Post Office Box 1674 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1674 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact In June, 1975 Randall J. Conley, attempting to set his son and daughter-in-law up in business, arranged for them, with his help, to purchase Roger Sparks' business known as Sparky's Pizza. By Exhibit 6 dated June 17, 1975 the owner and lessor of the premises executed, with Randall M. Conley and his wife Sandra, a Consent to Assignment whereby the lease between the lessor and Mr. Spaghetti and Roger Sparks was assigned to the younger Conley and his wife and the previous lessees were released from further liability under the five year lease they had executed on April 30, 1974. (Exhibit 10) By Collateral Assignment Note dated 6-2-75 Randall J. Conley, Randall M. Conley and Sandra Conley obligated themselves to pay the Florida Center Bank $9750 over a five-year period and pledged the equipment and fixtures in the pizza business as security therefor. In October, 1975 Sandra, who had been operating the business, left for another job preparatory to separating from her husband. The business closed on November 1, 1975 and Defendant learned that the lessees were delinquent in the rent and payments on the chattel mortgage. Thereafter he attempted to sell the business. In November, 1975 Charles Hicks, the owner of a small fast-food chain, while looking for a site for a franchisee, saw the empty Sparky's Pizza and ascertained that information on occupying the property could be obtained from Defendant. He called Defendant's office and was told the rent was $260 per month. Arrangements were made for Defendant to show him the property the same afternoon. On November 25, 1975 Defendant showed Hicks and his putative franchisee, Ronald Beasley, the property. After being assured that the rental included the equipment and fixtures they agreed to accept an assignment of the lease if the lessor agreed and to bind the transaction Hicks gave Defendant a check for $200 made payable, at the request of Defendant, to Randall J. Conley. No written agreement was executed by the parties at this time. The check stated on its face that it was a deposit on lease of building here involved. The following day Defendant called Hicks and told him that the lessor had agreed with the assignment and that he should bring a check for $7,000 to pay for the equipment, plus a check for the rent. Hicks objected to the purchase of the equipment and demanded return of his $200 deposit. Defendant refused to return the money and Hicks immediately tried to stop payment on the check. When he did so he learned that his check had been cashed by Defendant as soon as the bank opened that morning, November 26. After Hicks was unsuccessful in getting his deposit returned he reported the incident to the FREC and the complaint here under consideration was filed. Defendant contends that he was operating as the owner of the lease and not in his capacity as a broker; that the consent to assignment of the lease did not result in an assignment; that by executing the collateral installment note he was part owner of the business; that when his daughter-in-law left and the business folded he acquired the leasehold by abandonment; and that he was entitled to retain Hicks' deposit of $200 as liquidated damages. One witness called by Defendant testified that the bank's policy on chattel mortgage loans was that they would only make such loans to the owners of the business. However, he acknowledged that he did not handle the loan here involved and never saw any documents showing Randall J. Conley having an interest in the leased premises, the equipment and fixtures for which was the subject of the loan represented by Exhibit 9. Defendant had advertised the sale of the lease in the newspaper and therein indicated the assignee of the lease would be required to assume payments on the equipment. Neither Hicks nor Beasley ever saw any such advertisement.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether state use tax is due and payable on transactions wherein the taxpayer rented mobile homes to persons for use as private residences (which the lessees were required to maintain, repair, and insure), pursuant to leases under which the lessee would acquire title to his home upon payment in full of the total rent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order withdrawing the tax assessment against Park Place. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 25th day of June, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT) should charge Respondent with lease payments and fine him for unauthorized use of sovereignty submerged lands under the Halifax River in Daytona Beach.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns residential property on the Halifax River in Daytona Beach. In 2004, he entered into a Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease with BOT to allow him to construct a single-family dock structure into the Halifax River from his property. In 2007, he entered into a Modification to Increase Square Footage (Modified Lease). The Modified Lease covered 2,714 square feet, required an annual lease fee of $423.89, and expired on November 16, 2008. The Modified Lease provided for a late charge equal to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the due date until paid on any lease fees not paid within 30 days from their due dates. There was no evidence that any lease fee under the Modified Lease was not paid or paid late. In August 2008, BOT attempted to have Respondent enter into a Lease Renewal. He did not renew his lease, and the Modified Lease expired on November 16, 2008. Respondent paid no lease fees for 2008/2009. In September 2009, BOT again attempted to have Respondent enter into an updated Lease Renewal at an annual lease fee of $436.78 and pay current and past due lease fees. BOT placed Respondent on notice that his failure to do so could be considered a willful violation of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, which could subject Respondent to administrative fines of up to $10,000 a day. Respondent did not renew his lease or pay any lease fees. Instead, he complained (as he claims to have since 2005) that a stormwater outfall structure installed by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1998 approximately 100 feet to the north (upriver) of his dock structure, at the end of Ora Street, was not functioning properly and was allowing silt to enter the river, shoaling the water in the area of Respondent’s dock structure (and elsewhere in the vicinity) and eventually making it impossible for Respondent to moor his boat at his dock structure and navigate to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). The DOT outfall structure at Ora Street has been in existence since the 1950’s. In 1998, DOT added a silt box, which is not functioning properly and is allowing silt to enter the river. The evidence is not clear whether silt from the DOT outfall structure was entering the river before 1998. In 2010, BOT informed Respondent by certified mail that it had contacted the DOT at Respondent’s request and determined that DOT was planning to clean and monitor the outfall structure after August 2010 but had no plans to dredge sediment from the river. BOT also placed Respondent on notice that he was in violation for not renewing his lease and paying all current and past due fees, and that he would be fined and required to remove his dock structure if he did not come into compliance. This certified letter was designated an NOV. The evidence was not clear when the letter was sent to Respondent, but it is clear that Respondent has continued to refuse to renew the lease, or pay any fees, and has not removed his dock structure. BOT takes the position in this case that Respondent must pay: the Lease Renewal annual lease fee of $436.78 for 2008/2009, plus the Lease Renewal late charge equal to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from November 30, 2010; and an annual lease fee of $448.49 for 2009/2010, plus a late charge equal to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the $448.49 from November 29, 2009. The evidence did not explain how the annual lease fees for the years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 were determined. (But see Florida Administrative Code Rule2 18- 21.011(1)(b)10.b., set out in Conclusion of Law 24, which may explain how the annual lease fees were determined.) Invoices in evidence charge Respondent a total of $1,283.22 through July 30, 2010: $436.78, plus tax, for a total of $465.17 for the year 2008/2009; $448.49, plus tax for a total of $477.64 for the year 2009/2010; and $36.18 of interest on the $448.49. BOT also takes the position that Respondent must either: enter into a lease for the year 2010/2011 and beyond; remove part of his dock structure so that he will preempt only 1,150 square feet of sovereignty submerged land (so as not to require a lease, but only a cost-free consent of use); or remove the entire dock structure. BOT also seeks the imposition of an administrative fine under Rules 18-14.002 and 18-14.005(5). In its First Amended NOV, BOT sought a fine in the amount of $2,500; in its PRO, BOT seeks a fine in the amount of $2,500 for the first offense and $10,000 per day from the issuance of the NOV for repeat offenses. Respondent believes he should not be required to pay any lease fees or fines because of his inability to use his dock structure due to the shoaling of the river caused by the malfunctioning DOT outfall structure. Respondent believes it is DEP’s responsibility to require DOT to remove the silt from the river and make the outfall structure work properly. He believes this is required by the state and federal constitutions, statutes, and rules, and by an unspecified “federal bond issue” or “federal bond agency.” DEP takes the position that the silting from the outfall structure and its adverse impact on Respondent’s ability to use his dock structure is irrelevant because the requirement of a lease is based on preemption of sovereignty submerged land, not on the lessee’s use of the land. DEP also believes that, under an operating agreement among governmental agencies, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), not DEP, is the agency responsible for enforcing the applicable environmental laws and permit conditions against DOT. DOT has indicated to the parties that it is in the process of modifying the outfall structure so that it functions properly but that it does not have the money to remove silt from the river. DEP personnel visited the site at approximately 11:00 a.m. on July 16, 2010, and measured the water in the vicinity of the terminal platform and slips of Respondent’s dock structure to be approximately 36 inches deep, which is deep enough for navigation. DEP did not take measurements in the slips of the dock structure, between the terminal platform and Respondent’s property, or between the vicinity of the terminal platform and the ICW. The evidence was not clear what the tide stage was at the Respondent’s dock structure when DEP measured the water depth. DEP called the tide stage low, or near low, based in part on tidal charts for Ormond Beach and the Halifax River indicating that the tide was low at 11:21 a.m. and high at 4:10 p.m. on July 16, 2010. However, the persuasive evidence was that the tidal chart applied to locations at the beach, and there is a difference in the tides at Respondent’s dock structure and at the beach. It does not appear that the tide was dead low or near dead low at Respondent’s dock structure at 11:00 a.m. on July 16, 2010; it probably was between low and slack, possibly a half foot higher than dead low. Regardless of the measurements taken by DEP on July 16, 2010, Respondent testified that he is not able to operate his boat from his dock structure consistently due to shoaling from the silt. He testified that, as a result, he kept his boat at a marina for a year at a cost of $7,000 but cannot afford to continue to do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that BOT enter a final order: (1) that, within 10 days, Respondent sign the appropriate lease renewal and send it, along with $1,283.22 in past due lease fees and interest owed BOT, plus the lease payment for 2010/2011, by cashier’s check or money order made payable to the “Internal Improvement Trust Fund,” with a notation of OGC Case No. 10-1948, sent to 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232, Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program; or (2) that, within 20 days, Respondent remove his dock structure or at least enough of it to preempt no more than 1,150 square feet of sovereignty submerged; and (3) that, within 30 days, Respondent pay BOT a fine in the amount of $2,000, by cashier’s check or money order made payable to the “Internal Improvement Trust Fund,” with a notation of OGC Case No. 10-1948, sent to 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232, Attention David Herbster, Program Administrator, Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of November, 2010.
Findings Of Fact By Outdoor Advertising Space Lease Agreement dated February 19, 1985 (Exhibit 1), Harry Moody Outdoor Advertising, Inc. leased property along SR 52 520 feet west of Hicks Road to be used for an outdoor advertising sign, applied for and was issued sign permit tags for a structure at this location. That lease agreement provided that in the event of a bona fide sale of the property the lessee agrees to remove the billboards upon 30 days written notice. By letter dated July 10, 1986 (Exhibit 2) the current owner of the property rescinded the prior lease agreement with Harry Moody Outdoor Advertising, Inc. and requested removal of the sign. A building permit for a sign to be erected by Greater Outdoor Advertising at this location was issued July 24, 1986 (Exhibit 3), subject to removal of the Moody sign.
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation's intended action to reject all quotes and re-advertise Lease No. 550:0318 was illegal, arbitrary, fraudulent, or dishonest.
Findings Of Fact In October of 1999, the Department advertised for office space for use as the Toll Data Center - Audit Section, Office of Toll Operations (Toll Office) located in Broward County. The lease was clearly advertised as a negotiated lease. It was not advertised as a competitive bid lease. Under the negotiated lease process before letting any lease, the Department must submit to the Department of Management Services (DMS) a Request for Space Need (RSN) and Letter of Agency Staffing (LAS). From DMS the Department receives the authority to directly negotiate a lease for space under 5,000 square feet with prospective lessors. 1/ Consistent with procedure, the Department received approval of the RSN on October 18, 1999. Pursuant to statute, DMS has strongly suggested that prior to selection of the apparent successful lessor, the Department should obtain a minimum of three documented quotes for a lease that has not been competitively bid. The Department has consistently followed that suggestion in negotiated leases. Under special circumstances, where it is clear it is improbable that three quotes cannot be obtained, the Department may waive its requirement that three documented quotes be received. However, the agency must certify to DMS that attempts to receive the required number of documented quotes were unsuccessful and/or special circumstances exist to negotiate the lease with less than three quotes. In this case, no special circumstances exist. In an effort to obtain more than the minimum three documented quotes, the Department opted to advertise for lease space on the Internet. The Internet is utilized by the DMS, among other state agencies, to disseminate information provided in the RSN to the private sector. Additionally, the Internet site may also be used by the private sector to provide notice of space they have available for review by the agency seeking space. A total of three submittal packages were distributed for Lease No. 550:0318. Despite the Department's advertisement over the Internet, only two requests for quote submittal packages were received. Of the three quote submittal packages distributed, the Department received only one documented quote in response to the advertisement for the Toll Office. Atlantic Investment submitted a Quote Submittal Form to the Department in late October for office space in North Fort Lauderdale. Atlantic Investment became aware of the Department's advertisement for lease space from Sheldon M. Schermer, employed by Atlantic Investment as its real estate agent. Mr. Schermer learned of the Department's need for lease space from an advertisement placed on the Internet. On November 8, 1999, the Department informed Atlantic Investment via Sheldon M. Schermer, Real Estate Agent for Atlantic Investment, of the Department's intent to reject all quotes and re-advertise for Lease No. 550:0318. This decision was not arbitrary, capricious, fraudulent, or dishonest and well within the Department's discretion and procedures for negotiated leases. The basis for the decision was the Department's modification of the lease specifications pursuant to a recommendation by DMS to modify the lease space terms to hopefully generate more interest and more quotes. In a competitive negotiation, DMS was aware of agencies who modified leases and advertised as many as five times before three documented quotes were received. Moreover, the evidence showed that the Broward County commercial real estate market could easily generate three quotes for the space required by the Toll Office.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Petitioner's protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 14th day of April, 2000.
The Issue In relation to DOAH Case No. 05-0515, does the case involve the sale of securities as described in Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (2002), that would confer jurisdiction upon OFR to proceed to a hearing on the merits of the Administrative Complaint that forms the basis for DOAH Case No. 05-0515, and to what extent, if any, the named Respondents have been involved with the sale of securities sufficient to declare jurisdiction over their activities? Preliminary to that determination is the related issue concerning the possible pre-emption of OFR's regulatory authority by virtue of the regulatory action previously taken by the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (DBPR) under authority set forth in Chapter 721, Florida Statutes (2002)? Argument has also been set forth concerning the significance of court cases as they might influence OFR's ability to declare their regulatory authority in this instance.
Findings Of Fact * * * 2. RESPONDENT is the 'creating developer' of the Universal Luxury Lease Plan, a personal property 'timeshare plan' as those terms are defined in sections 721.05(9)(a) and 721.05(37), Florida Statutes, located in the city of Sanford, Florida. * * * On or about July 10, 2003, DIVISION was made aware of a newspaper advertisement for Universal Luxury Lease Plan. This advertisement, promoted the purchase of a timeshare interest in the Universal Luxury Lease Plan as an investment that offered purchasers a 10 percent per year return on their investment. On July 25, 2003, DIVISION'S investigators were given an application package containing the Universal Luxury Lease Plan Enrollment Forms, CD-ROM, Public Offering Statement, Contracts and Motor Coach Brochures. The application package stated that it was advertising material being used for the purposes of soliciting timeshare interests. It described a component of the timeshare plan called the 'Affinity Rental Program' and stated that the program will typically produce a monthly income of 10 percent of the lease-hold ownership interest.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That an order be entered by OFR finding jurisdiction to proceed with the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 05- 0515 on its merits. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 6th day of January, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.
Conclusions This cause came on before me for the purpose of issuing a final agency order. The Hearing Officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) in the above-styled case submitted a Recommended Order to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). A copy of that Recommended Order is attached hereto. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY PROCACCI In this proceeding the parties stipulated that the issues to be decided were: one, whether the department's decision to reject all bids was improper and; two, if rejection was improper, which bidder should be awarded the lease contract. (See Recommended Order, page 3 and 28.) In his exceptions, Procacci now seeks to disregard the second prong of the stipulation and asserts that only a review of the record - basis of the initial rejection decision is appropriate. This view is inconsistent with the nature of a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, proceeding, a de novo, evidentiary hearing, which gives all substantially affected persons the opportunity to change the agency's mind.1 Capeletti brothers vs. State, 432 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). This bid protest proceeding commenced in June 1990, and by law the solicitation process was stopped. Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. Competent, substantial evidence supports the Hearing Officer's recommendation that the Lima proposal be accepted. The exceptions are rejected.
