The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s request to renew a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62- 08383 on or about July 8, 2011, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561- 568, Florida Statutes, including recordation of liens against alcoholic beverage licenses and provision of notice to lienholders pursuant to section 561.65. Petitioner is the holder of a recorded lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62-08383, a 4COP spirituous alcoholic beverage license, commonly referred to as a quota license, which was issued pursuant to sections 561.20(1) and 565.02(1)(a)-(f) for use in Pinellas County. Liens and Security Interests in Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Section 561.65 governs mortgages, liens, and security interests against spirituous alcoholic beverage licenses. DABT has a lien section within its Bureau of Licensing that is responsible for the oversight of lien recordings and lien searches. To perfect a lien or security interest in a spirituous alcoholic beverage license that may be enforceable against the license, the entity holding the security interest or lien must record it with DABT within 90 days of the date of creation of the lien or security interest, using forms authorized by DABT. The forms adopted by DABT require the names of the parties and the terms of the obligation being recorded. § 561.65(4), Fla. Stat. Form DBPR ABT-6022, Application for Mortgagee’s Interest in Spirituous Alcoholic Beverage License, is used to record a new lien, a lien assignment or assumption, or a lien renewal or extension. The form is adopted by rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-5.0012. Upon receipt of a request to record a lien or the renewal of an existing lien, DABT will review the provided documentation and, if the documentation is in order on approved forms and accompanied by the security agreement and statutorily- required payment, will record the lien or lien renewal. If there is a deficiency noted during review of the lien documentation submitted, DABT will issue a 14-day deficiency notice to the requesting entity to provide any missing information. If timely corrected, DABT will record the lien or lien renewal. Section 561.65(4) provides that any lien or security interest filed with DABT on or after July 1, 1995, expires five years after recordation by DABT unless renewed by the lienholder within six months prior to its expiration date. Statutory Notice Requirements to Lienholders Recording a lien not only makes it enforceable, but provides assurance to the lienholder that it will receive notice of pending actions by DABT against the license that may compromise the lien’s vitality. Section 561.65 also sets forth requirements for DABT to provide notice to lienholders of both pending actions against encumbered licenses and any suspension or revocation of a license subject to a lien. Specifically, section 561.65(3) provides that “such lienholder shall be notified in writing of the filing of an order to show cause as to why the license should not be suspended or revoked; and also the lienholder shall be furnished a copy of any order of suspension or revocation.” (Emphasis added). In other words, two separate notices are required: one when the agency institutes proceedings against the licensee and a second if the agency action against the licensee results in a suspension or revocation of the license. Respondent does not assert and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that Petitioner had knowledge of or participated in the cause for revocation of the license at issue in this proceeding, or that Petitioner would not otherwise be entitled to notice of the revocation proceeding. The holder of a recorded lien is entitled to notice because the lienholder has the right to enforce the lien against the licensee within 180 days after the entry of any order of revocation or suspension of the license. Section 561.65(3) specifies that “the 180 days within which to file for enforcement of the lien by the lienholder shall commence running from the date of the mailing of the copy of the order of revocation or suspension.” Thus, the 180-day period runs from when notice is sent to the lienholder, not from the entry of the final order of suspension or revocation. Once notice is provided to the lienholder, any enforcement of the lien is through foreclosure proceedings in circuit court. The process for foreclosure proceedings is outlined in section 561.65(5). Most importantly, both section 561.19(2) and section 561.65(1) provide that no revoked quota beverage license encumbered by a lien or security interest perfected in accordance with section 561.65 shall be issued until the 180-day period (from mailing of the suspension or revocation order) has elapsed or until such enforcement proceeding is final. Re-issuance Through Double Random Drawings Quota licenses may become available three ways: 1) when a dry county goes wet (i.e., a county that previously prohibited the sale of alcohol decides to allow it), three initial quota licenses are issued for the county; 2) when there are population increases in a county, an additional quota license is issued for every population increase of 7,500; and 3) when a quota license in a county has been revoked. When any of those instances occur, pursuant to the directive in section 561.19(2), quota licenses are issued through the use of a double random public drawing. While a revoked quota license may be reissued in a double random quota drawing, if a revoked quota license is encumbered by a perfected and recorded lien or security interest, as discussed previously, it may not be reissued until the 180-day period has elapsed or until enforcement/foreclosure proceedings are final. Damon Larry is currently the assistant bureau chief of licensing, and oversees the annual quota drawing. Each year, he runs a report of all revoked quota licenses and, if the revocation is final, determines whether the 180-day period has elapsed. Before a revoked quota license is placed in the double random drawing, there is communication between staff in different sections within the Department to determine if a license is eligible for inclusion in the quota drawing. The communications involve the quota drawing section, the licensing section, the administrative case unit, the Office of the General Counsel, and the lien section. During this process, DABT staff will determine whether there is a lien attached to the license and, if so, whether there was notice to the lienholder, and whether the 180 days has elapsed or foreclosure proceedings no longer remain pending. If all of these conditions have been met, the revoked license is placed in the quota drawing for reissuance under a new license number. The revoked license number is then deleted from the Department’s database. Petitioner’s Lien Against Alcoholic Beverage License No. 62-08383 Turning to the facts of this case, Daniel A. King, as debtor, executed and delivered a Demand Promissory Note in favor of Rebco on or about April 18, 1997, in the principal amount of $61,000, and simultaneously executed a security agreement in favor of Rebco, as the secured party, pledging license number 62-08383 (the License) as collateral for repayment of the sums due and owing under the Promissory Note. Rebco submitted the promissory note and security agreement to DABT for initial recordation as a lien against the License on or about May 1, 1997, within 90 days of the date of the creation of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien against the License effective May 8, 1997. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on May 8, 2002. Rebco submitted a request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about November 7, 2001, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement, and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective November 7, 2001. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on November 7, 2006. Rebco submitted a second request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about July 26, 2006, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective August 1, 2006. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on August 1, 2011. The License Revocation Proceedings On or about November 16, 2006, at a time when the lien was recorded in the records of DABT, DABT filed administrative charges against Daniel J. King, holder of the License, in Case number 2006-049240, alleging that the licensee failed to operate the License in accordance with section 561.29(1)(f). DABT was unable to achieve personal service on Mr. King, so it published notice of the administrative action in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. The published notice did not identify Petitioner, and no evidence was presented to indicate that DABT sent a copy of the notice to Rebco. Rebco clearly had a recorded lien against the License when the disciplinary action was filed against the License. DABT did not notify Petitioner of the pending action. On or about June 22, 2007, after receiving no written defense in the disciplinary proceeding, DABT issued a Final Order revoking the License effective July 31, 2007. The Final Order of Revocation was not served on Rebco, the owner of the security interest in the License. Petitioner had a recorded lien against the License on file with DABT both when proceedings were instituted against the License and on the date of the entry of the Final Order of Revocation. Stephanie Coxwell works in the administrative case unit of DABT and has done so for at least the last 14 years. The administrative case unit is responsible for determining whether an alcoholic beverage license that is pending revocation or suspension is encumbered by a lien and for notifying any lienholder of the revocation or suspension of an encumbered license. DABT’s practice was to mail any lienholder notice of the license suspension or revocation, along with a copy of the final order, soon after entry of the final order. It is this mailing of the notice and final order that commences the 180 days referenced in section 561.65. For at least the last 14 years, DABT has used a form “notice to lienholder” to notify lienholders of the revocation or suspension of an alcoholic beverage license, accompanied by a copy of the final order revoking or suspending the license. The notification form is a public record maintained by DABT. It is this notification, and not the publication of the pending action, that provides notice to the lienholder. Internal correspondence from Ms. Coxwell within the licensure file for the License indicates that in December 2006, she requested a lien search with respect to the License. Ms. Coxwell was advised by return e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the license. On or about March 21, 2007, Ms. Coxwell requested research for any bankruptcy proceedings affecting the License. She was again informed by intra-agency e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the License. Ms. Coxwell replied by e-mail that she was aware that there was a lien, but that they would notify the lienholder of the administrative action “in the usual way.” However, Ms. Coxwell’s March 27 e-mail was sent three months before the final order revoking the license, not simultaneous to the Order. There is no record that notification was sent to Rebco, either at the time of the administrative action, or after issuance of the final order. Beverly Peebles works in Rebco’s corporate office located at 701 Tennessee River Drive, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35661, and has done so since 1990. She is responsible for receiving, retaining, and disbursing any mail received by Rebco. Ms. Peebles testified regarding the process used to copy, scan into the company’s electronic database, and distribute any mail received by Rebco. Rebco did not receive any notice concerning the administrative action or the revocation of the License until Rebco received the letter denying the recordation of its lien renewal against the license in 2011. Rebco’s address was at all times on file with the DABT since the inception of the lien against the license in 1997. It is found that the DABT did not notify Rebco that there was an administrative action filed against the License, and did not notify Rebco of the Final Order of Revocation against the License. The licensure file contains all other expected documents from the first recordation of the lien in 1997 to the present. It does not include a copy of notice to Rebco of either the pending action or the Final Order of revocation. Moreover, both a letter dated August 19, 2011, to counsel for Rebco, as well as an e-mail dated March 21, 2007, from Ms. Coxwell, contain handwritten notes regarding the failure to send proper notification. The notes, which are clearly hearsay, are part of public records maintained in the normal course of business, and corroborate Ms. Peebles’ testimony that no notification was received. They also corroborate evidence of the absence of any record of notification to Rebco in DABT’s records of regularly-conducted activity. The August 19, 2011, letter contains a handwritten note at the top stating, “$61K lien no lien ltr sent,” and the e-mail dated March 21, 2007, referenced in paragraph 32, contains the following note: “are we the only group/people who check for current liens recorded before deleting the license? It was deleted on 5/4/2011. Lien was still recorded at that time.”2/ Respondent has presented no credible evidence to indicate that the notice was somehow sent despite the lack of any documentation to that effect contained in the DABT’s records. While the handwritten notes standing alone do not establish that no notice was sent, they do indicate that a question was raised internally regarding whether adequate notice was provided. Despite the failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the License was placed in the 2010 double random drawing held on March 10, 2011, at a time when a valid lien against the License was duly recorded. Only one license for Pinellas County was included in the drawing for that year, and no licenses for Pinellas County have been issued in a double random quota drawing since then. Shortly after the random drawing, the license number assigned to the License was removed from the Department’s system and a new number assigned to the license issued as a result of the drawing. While there is no direct testimony on the issue, it can be inferred that the purchaser of the new license received the license with no notice that there was any outstanding lien on the right to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages in Pinellas County under the new license. While it is DABT’s practice to delete a revoked license number from its database, no evidence or statutory reference was presented to support the premise that there is a legal impediment to renewing an existing lien for a revoked license when no notice of the revocation was provided. Given the Department’s failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the 180-day period identified in section 560.65 never began to run. On or about July 6, 2011, Rebco timely submitted a third request to DABT to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division, which request was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement. DABT notified Rebco by letter dated July 19, 2011, that it was unable to record the lien renewal because it was not submitted for recordation within 90 days of its creation. The July 19, 2011, notice of denial was issued based upon a review of the lien renewal request submitted to DABT, because the executed ABT6022 lien-recording form submitted with Rebco’s third renewal request mistakenly identified the effective date of the lien renewal as April 18, 1997, the date of the creation of the original lien. On or about July 25, 2011, Rebco submitted an amended form ABT6022 correcting the effective date for renewal of the lien as August 1, 2011. On August 3, 2011, DABT notified Rebco that it was unable to record the renewal of the lien against the License because “the alcoholic beverage license being pledged as collateral was revoked by the Division on July 31, 2007,” following service of a Notice of Action through publication in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. No action taken by Rebco compromised the vitality of its recorded lien against the License. To the contrary, Rebco faithfully adhered to the recording requirements outlined by statute to record and renew its lien. DABT, however, failed to take the action required by section 561.65 to provide notice to Rebco of the pending action and subsequent revocation of the License. As a result, the 180- day period required by section 561.65 did not run before the License was placed in the quota drawing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order approving the renewal of Rebco’s lien in the License at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked or suspended on grounds that its corporate officer was convicted of a federal crime--Conspiracy to Import Marijuana.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: In 1977, the Division issued an alcoholic beverage license No. 23-276, series 4-COP, to licensee. (Joint Exhibit Nos. 1, 8.) At all times material to this proceeding, Eugene Willner has been an owner and officer of the licensee corporation. On August 27, 1980, Eugene Willner was convicted of violating federal law; the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana found him guilty of Conspiracy to Import Marijuana, a violation of Title 21 U.S.C. 963. (Joint Exhibit Nos. 1, 4, 8.) By application dated March 10, 1981, the licensee sought Division approval to transfer the beverage license in question to a new owner. The Division notified licensee that it intended to deny the application because of the pending administrative charge against the licensee, the charge which is the subject of this proceeding. (Joint Exhibit Nos. 5, 6, 8.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That licensee's alcoholic beverage license No. 23-276, series 4-COP, be REVOKED. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1982.
The Issue The issue is whether, pursuant to section 561.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, Respondent is required to approve the transfer of alcoholic beverage license to Petitioner after its purported purchase of the license at a sheriff's sale.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the events set forth below, La Cidra Corporation (La Cidra) owned the License. As issued by Respondent, the License authorized La Cidra to sell alcoholic beverages at a bar known as L'Boulevard Café Supper Club,2 which was located in leased premises at 3632-34 Northwest 25th Avenue in Miami (Premises). On October 28, 2013, Steven Beltre (Beltre) obtained a final judgment in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in the amount of about $3.4 million against La Cidra, doing business as L'Boulevard Cafe Supperclub. Respondent has adopted a form, DBPR ABT-6022, for persons to record liens against alcoholic beverage licenses. However, at no material time did anyone record with Respondent a lien against the License in connection with the Beltre judgment. The record does not disclose when La Cidra ceased operating the bar. However, on January 21, 2014, Intervenor registered "L'Boulevard Café Supperclub" as a fictitious name, and Intervenor and La Cidra signed an "Application for Transfer of Ownership of an Alcoholic Beverage License" concerning the License. On February 13, 2014, Intervenor purchased from La Cidra all of its assets, including the License. At closing, La Cidra assigned the Premises lease by an assignment that was signed by La Cidra, Intervenor, and the lessor. The assignment acknowledges that Intervenor has paid the lessor a security deposit of $10,000. A closing statement reflects a purchase price of $100,000, which is represented by a $15,000 deposit and $85,000 promissory note. On February 20, Intervenor filed with Respondent the application described in the preceding paragraph, and Respondent, on the same date, issued to Intervenor a temporary license based on the License. Five days after the closing described in the preceding paragraph, on February 18, 2014, the Clerk of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court issued a Writ of Execution directing all sheriffs in the state of Florida "to levy upon property subject to execution of . . . La Cidra . . . to satisfy the sum of [approximately $3.4 million]." The Miami-Dade County Sheriff's Office levied upon property on March 8, 2014--23 days after the closing of the conveyance of the License from La Cidra to Intervenor. The seized property included alcoholic beverages, bar equipment, computers, televisions, phones, stage lights, radios, smoke machines, and shop equipment, as well as the following intangible personal property: a certificate evidencing La Cidra as the licensee under the License, an $85,000 "secured" promissory note that is not further identified, and currency totaling $17,206 in denominations as large as $100 bills. After the seizure, the sheriff advertised the sale of the property by auction on April 30. The list of property to be sold included the License, but not the promissory note or cash, whose disposition is undisclosed in the record. On April 30, 2014--over two months after the La Cidra/Intervenor conveyance--the sheriff executed a Sheriff's Bill of Sale transferring all "right, title and interest" of La Cidra to all of the advertised property to Respondent for the sum of $2000 plus $140 sales tax, which represented the highest bid at the sheriff's sale. Immediately after the sheriff's levy, in March, Respondent was contacted by various parties, including the sheriff's office, which provided Respondent with a copy of the writ of execution and list of seized property.3 On April 7, 2014, Respondent received a letter from Daniel W. Courtney, an attorney whose cover letter states that he represents Intervenor. The letter recites that Respondent properly had issued a temporary license to Intervenor, but later had withheld the issuance of the permanent License to Intervenor due to its receipt of information from the sheriff concerning the purported seizure of the License. The letter asserts that this was an improper seizure because the License was not the property of La Cidra at the time of the seizure and requests that Respondent issue the permanent License to Intervenor without delay. Unmoved by Mr. Courtney's letter, on June 4, 2014, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Deny License to Intervenor. The notice cites the writ of execution issued on February 18 and reasons that "neither the putative transferor nor putative transferee possess[es] title for the transfer of the [License]." This reasoning does not account for the simple chronology of events in which the La Cidra/Intervenor conveyance preceded the sheriff's levy and sale. On June 14, 2014, Intervenor requested an administrative hearing on the proposed denial. By Order of Dismissal entered April 30, 2015, Respondent acknowledged that its failure for more than 90 days to issue a decision on Intervenor's transfer application for a permanent License required Respondent to deem that the application had been approved, pursuant to section 120.60(1).4 The Order of Dismissal rescinds, without prejudice, the Notice of Intent to Deny License issued on June 4, 2014, and notes that Respondent approved the transfer of the permanent License to Intervenor on January 30, 2015.5 At about the time that it requested an administrative hearing on Respondent's earlier denial of its transfer application for a permanent License, Intervenor commenced judicial proceedings to obtain relief from Petitioner's claims arising out of the sheriff's sale. Intervenor sought to intervene in supplemental proceedings pertaining to the underlying tort action between Beltre and La Cidra. Intervenor also commenced a legal action against Beltre. The trial court denied the motion to intervene without prejudice, pending resolution of the separate action against Beltre. Intervenor appealed this order, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court on June 3, 2015. On October 6, 2015, the trial court dismissed Intervenor's action against Beltre for lack of prosecution. At the same time that Intervenor was pursuing judicial and administrative relief, on June 6, 2014, Petitioner filed a transfer application for Respondent's approval of the transfer of the License to Petitioner. The page for the signature of the transferor is blank, but Petitioner attached to the application a copy of the above-described Sheriff's Bill of Sale. On July 9, 2014, Respondent issued the above-described Notice of Intent to Deny License to Petitioner that cites Intervenor's documentation of the La Cidra/Intervenor conveyance as the ground for the denial. The evidentiary record omits any evidence of the fair market value of the License and, more importantly, as noted by Respondent in its proposed recommended order, the fact that, on November 13, 2013, Beltre filed with the Department of State a judgment lien certificate.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny the application of Petitioner for a statutory transfer of the License. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Beverage Laws as alleged in Notice to Show cause dated January 3, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Dorsa Inc., trading as The Establishment, held 2-COP license No. 61-00066 to sell alcoholic beverages at 311 Pennsylvania Avenue, San Antonio, Florida. On October 31, 1990 several Beverage agents entered The Establishment where a Halloween party was in progress among the St. Leo College students. Upon entering the bar an employee at the door checked identification and stamped the back of the entering patron's hand. An underage operator with DABT entered with another agent and the stamp placed on the back of the minor's hand could not be distinguished from the stamp on the hand of the adult agent. The minor went to the bar and purchased beer on two occasions without further questioning or identification by the bartender. Bartenders had been directed to sell beer to those with stamps or wrist bands as they had been cleared by the bouncer at the door as age-qualified to purchase alcoholic beverages. During the evening of October 31-November 1, 1990 several minors were arrested for possessing alcoholic beverages (beer) in bottles with Annheuser- Busch labels and several others had purchased beer from the bartender. The ages of these minors were verified by driver's licenses possessed by these patrons. One of the DABT agents, Sgt. Timothy Allen, had a discussion with James John Redman III who appeared to be in charge of The Establishment. Allen was told by Redman that Redman was the new owner of The Establishment and the papers verifying this ownership were in an attorney's office in Miami. No application to change ownership has been presented at the district office of the Petitioner.
Recommendation It is recommended that the 2-COP alcoholic beverage license No. 61-00066 issued to Dorsa Inc., trading as The Establishment, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1991, 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 7th day of June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Lance Joseph, Esquire 9990 S.W. 77 Avenue, Suite 210 Miami, FL 33156 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Don D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether the Respondents, ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY, d/b/a SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER, should have their alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY hold Beverage License No. 36-00019, Series No. 2-APS for the premises known as SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER located at 635 and 637 Alabama Avenue, Clewiston, Florida. On July 14, 1987, the Respondent ORLANDO MULKEY was adjudicated guilty of the offense "Sale of a Controlled Substance, Cocaine" in Circuit Court Case No. 87-59 in Hendry County, Florida. Although the specific statute number was not set forth in the judgment and sentence as suggested in the uniform judgment and sentence found in Rule 3.986, Rules of Criminal Procedure, it appears that ORLANDO MULKEY was found guilty of a felony under Section 893.13(1)(a) and Section 893.03(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes. This finding is based upon the length of the probation term (5 years) and the written description of the offense in the judgment. The judgment and sentence were a result of a criminal offense which took place on November 13, 1986. During the hearing, after receiving instruction from the Hearing Officer concerning his Constitutional right against self-incrimination, which he appeared to understand, ORLANDO MULKEY admitted to possessing crack cocaine on the premises of SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER on November 13, 1986, during his management shift. ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY conducted business in SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER on different shifts. LORETTA MULKEY was not aware that ORLANDO MULKEY, her co-licensee, was using crack cocaine. She was not aware that he had crack cocaine in his possession on the licensed premises during his shift. As the managerial and supervisory responsibilities were divided between the co- licensees on the basis of their respective shifts, LORETTA MULKEY, had no connection with any drug related activities. On June 18, 1987, ORLANDO MULKEY quitclaimed his interest in the real property where SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER is located to LORETTA MULKEY. Although ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY are co- licensees, there is no evidence in the record to establish that a legal entity relationship exists between the MULKEYS in the conduct of business as SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER.
The Issue This matter arises out of the denial or rejection of a filing by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien against a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. Mr. Charles L. Hoffman, attorney for Liberty Bank of Cantonment, testified on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner offered two exhibits into evidence and both were accepted without objection. The Respondent presented no evidence on its behalf. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Law in support of its legal argument as to why it should be granted a lien against Beverage License No. 27- 426. To the extent that the legal conclusions presented in that memorandum of law and the facts stated are not adopted in this order, they are considered to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the facts or the law.
Findings Of Fact On July 10, 1981, The Rafters, Inc. executed a security agreement in favor of the Liberty Bank of Cantonment. That security agreement is a part of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and included a security interest in State Liquor License No. 27-426 issued in the name of The Rafters, Inc. On July 24, 1981, the necessary U.C.C. documents were filed in order to permit the Liberty Bank of Cantonment to file the proper documents with the Secretary of State. No documents were filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On September 20, 1982, the Petitioner first filed the necessary documentation with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco rejected the filing on the grounds that it was filed beyond the 90-day period provided in Section 561.65(4), Florida Statutes. On October 19, 1982, The Rafters, Inc. filed its answer to an amended complaint in foreclosure which had been filed by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment against the property set forth in the aforementioned security agreement. In its answer, The Rafters, Inc. admitted all allegations of the amended complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order rejecting the application for a lien filed by the Petitioner to perfect a security interest in Beverage License No. 27-426. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles L. Hoffman, Jr., Esquire Seventh Floor, Seville Tower 226 South Palafox Street Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire William A. Hatch, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Dept. of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Gary Rutledge, Secretary Division of Alcoholic Beverages Dept. of Business Regulation and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact 10. The Division hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Finding of Fact in foto, as set forth in the Recommended Order.
Conclusions The Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter’Division’), after consideration of the complete record of this case on file with the Division, hereby enters this Final Order.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a Florida business man who operated initially a business called the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, located at 1342 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, and subsequently a business called Tony Cafeteria, located at 340 1/2 Northwest 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida. Petitioner was the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-8402, Series 1 APS, for the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market on Miami Beach. Respondent, on May 3, 1988, served on Petitioner an emergency order of suspension of license number 23-8402, series 1 APS, "in order to protect the public safety and welfare from immediate and continuing danger of drug trafficking and illegal delivery of controlled substances in and about the licensed premises." Concurrently with the emergency order of suspension, Respondent served a notice to show cause on Petitioner alleging eight counts of narcotics transactions on the licensed premises and one count of maintaining a nuisance of the licensed premises. Petitioner did not request a hearing on the charges that resulted in the emergency order of suspension and the notice to show cause. On June 27, 1988, Respondent published its Final Order revoking Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license number 23-8402, Series 1 APS. The Final Order was served on Petitioner on July 5, 1988. That Final Order included the following conclusion: The facts set forth hereinabove demonstrate that the licensee has fostered, condoned, and/or negligently overlooked trafficking in and use of illegal narcotics and controlled substances on or about the licensed premises and has failed to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees and managing its licensed premises so as to prevent the illegal trafficking and use of narcotics on the licensed premises. In addition to the narcotics violations described in the notice to show cause regarding the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, alcoholic beverages were being sold for consumption on Petitioner's licensed premises, and patrons on the licensed premises were gambling on pool games. The International Coffee Shop and Minit Market was located near a large elementary school. The cocaine transactions negotiated and consummated on the licensed premises during April 1988 were open and in plain view. No effort was made to conceal these activities. Children were frequently on the licensed premises during April 1988 when cocaine transactions were being openly negotiated and consummated. The first cocaine transaction at the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market during Officer Santana's undercover investigation was between Officer Santana and a patron named Clara Rodriguez. The transaction took place just inside the entrance of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, lighting conditions were good, and no effort was made to conceal the transaction. Petitioner was standing immediately next to Officer Santana when the cocaine transaction took place. Petitioner made no effort to stop the transaction, or to summon law enforcement, or to evict Ms. Rodriguez or Officer Santana. Petitioner commented, in Spanish, that "if you're not going to eat or drink anything, you're going to have to leave," or words to that effect. During the 13 days following the cocaine transaction described immediately above, seven additional cocaine transactions were openly conducted on the premises of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market:. Four of these transactions were permitted by Petitioner's employee Estella; three were permitted by Petitioner's employee Angel. Five patrons, Nuri, Pipo, Maria, Clara, and Betty, were involved in these cocaine transactions. Petitioner attributes the activity on his licensed premises that resulted in the license revocation to the undesirable neighborhood of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market and the undesirable persons who frequented the International Coffee Shop. The neighborhood of Tony Cafeteria is no better than the International Coffee Shop neighborhood. In response to a complaint, Sergeant Herrera and other members of the Miami office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to Tony Cafeteria on December 2, 1989. Petitioner's employee, Ms. Baez, sold a beer to an undercover Law Enforcement Investigator on the premises of Tony Cafeteria. Ms. Baez was cited for selling an alcoholic beverage without a license. Twenty cans and bottles of beer were seized on the premises by the officers. Petitioner works full time, 40 hours a week, at the Fountainbleau Hilton and is considered by the Head Houseman to be "a fine, dedicated worker." Three friends of Petitioner opined that Petitioner is a trustworthy, moral person. The Petitioner has never been arrested or convicted of any criminal offense. The Petitioner did not have actual knowledge of the narcotics transactions that resulted in the revocation of the alcoholic beverage license at the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, nor was he aware that any gambling was taking place on the pool tables. In January 1990, Petitioner was issued a temporary beverage license for Tony Cafeteria, with which he operated until his license application was disapproved by Respondent. During the three-month period he operated with the temporary license he was not cited for violation of the beverage law.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a final order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a alcoholic beverage license. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Vidal Marino Velis, Esquire 2100 Coral Way, Suite #300 Miami, Florida 33145 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Suamy Corporation, held license number 23-21872, series 2APS, authorizing it to operate a beer and wine package store (the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption) at the premises of a business known as Bristol Sundries, located at 2127 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida (hereinafter "the licensed premises").2 Milagros Suarez was the sole shareholder, as well as the sole corporate officer, of the Respondent corporation. On February 11, 1997, Leonard DelMonte, a special agent with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, undertook an inspection of the licensed premises. Upon entry into the premises, the agent observed shelves on his left that contained bottles of liquor on display, and behind the counter he observed more shelving, which contained more bottles of liquor on display, together with bottles of wine. A cash register was observed on the counter, and an employee was present to attend the needs of customers. The agent inspected, inventoried, and seized 19 bottles of distilled spirits (Petitioner's Exhibits 2-1 through 2-19) on the licensed premises. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The bottles were all sealed; labeled as distilled spirits, such as rum, scotch, gin, and vodka; and carried the name, trademark, or insignia of commonly known manufacturers of distilled spirits, such as Johnny Walker, Cuervo, Pinch, and Bombay. The bottles also had affixed to them price stickers, of the same type affixed to the wine that was offered for sale, and contained prices that were consistent with the retail price of the product. Given the facts, it is apparent that Respondent was offering the distilled spirits for sale on the licensed premises.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charge set forth in the Administrative Action and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000 for such violation, subject to Respondent's option to substitute a period of suspension in lieu of all or a portion of the civil penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1998.
