The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner by evicting him from his apartment as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a Cuban. Prior to his eviction on or about June 29, 2005, Petitioner occupied an apartment located at 1332 20th Street, Orlando, Florida 32805. Respondent is owner-operator of the dwelling house located at 1332 20th Street, Orlando, Florida 32805, and had rented to Petitioner for six or seven years. Respondent instituted an eviction proceeding in Orange County, Florida, County Court for Petitioner's failure to pay weekly rent. Petitioner was evicted by Court Order. At the time of his eviction, Petitioner owed Respondent $780.00 on an apartment that rented for between $70.00 and $110.00 per week. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner was evicted for any reason other than the fact that he had not paid his rent. Other than Petitioner's rambling allegation that Respondent had told him, "[Y]ou are a no good Cuban, go back to Cuba," or words to that effect, there was no evidence that Petitioner was evicted because of his national origin. In fact, Petitioner's witness, Fausto Alavarado, a Puerto Rican gentleman, who had rented from Respondent a similarly long time, had not heard such comments and testified that Respondent "never treated him inappropriately." Respondent and other witnesses denied discriminatory statements and indicated that Respondent had evicted others for non-payment of rent. Respondent and these witnesses are credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tom Peters 138 North Hart Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32835 Alejo Fernandez 2000 South Orange Blossom Trail Orlando, Florida 32805 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner has been the victim of an unlawful Housing Practice, as addressed in Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes, by being subjected to discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges in the rental of a dwelling, and in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The hearing in this matter was convened at the duly- noticed time and location at the Visiting Judge's Chambers at the Okaloosa County Courthouse Annex, at 10:00 a.m., Central Standard Time. The Petitioner failed to appear. The Respondent, the court reporter and the undersigned waited at the hearing room for 45 minutes and the Petitioner never appeared. The Petitioner was appropriately served with the Notice of Hearing, at her last-known address of record. Counsel for the Respondent represented, on the record, that neither he, nor any person present who was acquainted with the Petitioner, had observed the Petitioner in the vicinity of the hearing site. In light of this circumstance, no evidence was taken, because the Petitioner, as the party with the burden of proof, had not appeared to advance her claim. The hearing was therefore adjourned and the above-referenced Order to Show Cause was issued, requiring a showing of good cause for the failure to appear, on pain of dismissal for a failure to timely respond. The response was due on August 23, 2009. No response was filed.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating provisions governing resident migrant farmworker housing and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At no material time has Respondent ever had a Residential Migrant Housing Permit for any residential rental property that he owns on Marion St. or Hand Ave. in LaBelle. At all material times, Respondent spoke and corresponded directly with Petitioner's representatives concerning their claims of violations. Based on a preliminary investigation, Petitioner's environmental health specialist, Saul Gonzalez, determined that more than five unrelated migrant farmworkers were living in property owned by Respondent on Marion St. in LaBelle. Mr. Gonzalez telephoned Respondent and offered him an opportunity to obtain the required permit to rent residential housing to migrant farmworkers. By letter dated October 22, 1993, Mr. Gonzalez confirmed that he would give Respondent until October 27 within which to file an application for a Residential Migrant Housing Permit. Following the receipt of an application for a Residential Migrant Housing Permit for a "rental unit" located at "521 Marion," Petitioner's representatives conducted prelicense inspections of the property. They inspected four separate inhabitable structures, which were all owned by Respondent. The structures were located at 495, 497, 519, and 521 Marion St. The only structure at which Petitioner's representatives ever found at least five unrelated migrant farmworkers residing was 497 Marion St. At no time did Petitioner's representatives determine that five or more unrelated migrant farmworkers were residing at the three other Marion St. addresses. The violations cited by Petitioner's representatives in Citation C-8 actually were intended for 497 Marion St., not 521 Marion St., as set forth in the citation. Additionally, one of Petitioner's representatives gave Respondent until January 1, 1994, within which to correct the deficiencies and obtain a permit, but Petitioner filed Citation C-8 on December 28, 1993. On December 28, 1993, Mr. Gonzalez and another employee of Petitioner visited three inhabitable structures located at 204, 212, and 234 Hand Ave. These structures are three separate mobile homes owned by Respondent. Petitioner's representatives found over five unrelated migrant farmworkers residing in the westernmost trailer. In defense of both citations, Respondent, based on advice of counsel, argued that state regulation of migrant farmworker housing is preempted by federal regulation. He reasoned that federal law meant that he was not required to obtain a Residential Migrant Housing Permit in order to rent to migrant farmworkers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of operating residential migrant housing at one of his properties on Hand Ave. and imposing an administrative fine of $500. ENTERED on August 17, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on August 17, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance. 2: rejected as irrelevant. 3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: adopted as to the nine migrant farmworkers, whom Petitioner proved were unrelated. However, Petitioner failed to prove that the requisite number of unrelated migrant farmworkers resided in the other trailer. 5-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1: rejected as irrelevant. 2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3-4: rejected as irrelevant. 5-9: rejected as irrelevant. 10: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, although, as to the easternmost trailer, Petitioner proved that the residents were migrant farmworkers, but not that at least five of the residents were unrelated. 11 and 13: rejected as irrelevant. 12: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Eugenie G. Rehak District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 60085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906 Wayne E. Rowlee 30 Hardee St. LaBelle, FL 33935
The Issue Whether Respondent, Whitehall Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Villas Des Chenes, discriminated against Matthew Les Foris, deceased, on the basis of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 3604(a) and/or (b), and Sections 70-77 and 70-176, Pinellas County Code, by not renewing Les Foris’ lease when it expired.
Findings Of Fact Matthew Les Foris, the complainant in this case, was an African-American male and a member of a protected class. Following initiation of the proceedings before the Commission, he passed away on August 23, 2003. Les Foris' granddaughter, Crisella Winder, was appointed as personal representative of his estate, and she was substituted as Petitioner in this matter. Respondent, Whitehall Enterprises, Inc. ("Whitehall or Respondent"), rents dwelling units to the public at various apartment communities in the Clearwater, Florida, area. Among others, Whitehall operates a 38-unit apartment community commonly known by the name Villas Des Chenes Apartments ("Villas Des Chenes"). These units are rented to adults over the age of 55 on a yearly lease basis. Maxine Chartier is general manager and vice-president of Whitehall. She has held this position since 1998, and prior to this position, worked as an assistant to Whitehall’s general manager. James Yopp is the property manager at Villas Des Chenes, as well as at four of the other Whitehall properties in the Clearwater area. He has held this position for about six years, and prior to this position, worked as a maintenance man for the Whitehall properties. He has attended fair housing training. Whitehall does not have a written policy regarding renewals or non-renewal of leases. It does not keep records of incidents at its properties. However, there were regular practices regarding renewals. At Villas Des Chenes, there are fair housing posters in the office and the laundry room describing fair housing practices. They were present when Les Foris lived there and are presently still on display. It was Yopp’s practice to visit Villas Des Chenes on an almost daily basis. He would talk with Chartier nearly every day, reporting events and problems, as needed. The two would discuss what problems there were and, where possible, reach resolutions. Chartier had a process she used in determining when to non-renew a tenancy. She would consider whether there had been problems in the previous year and consider what would work best for the property. Factors considered by Chartier included whether the tenant was unhappy and "bad-mouthing" the company, mistreating staff, getting along with others, doing damage, paying rent late, or an accumulation of those factors. She would rely on what was reported to her by the property manager and her own observations, if any. The ultimate decision to non- renew a tenancy rested with her. On November 13, 2000, Les Foris applied for an apartment at Villas Des Chenes. Yopp accepted the application, along with Les Foris’ advance payment of $200.00. The application was approved, and Les Foris and Respondent entered into a lease for a one-year term commencing December 1, 2000, and ending November 30, 2001. The leasing procedure for Les Foris was the same as that used for other tenants. Approximately 30 days prior to the end of the initial lease’s term, Yopp offered to renew the lease for another one- year term. Yopp and Les Foris signed a renewal on November 30, 2001. Under the terms of the renewal, the lease term was to end on November 30, 2002. Neither the lease nor the renewal provides for an automatic renewal of its terms. Beginning sometime in May 2002, management noticed problems involving Les Foris’ tenancy. In May 2002, Yopp received a call from a tenant who reported that Les Foris was upset with another resident. Yopp subsequently talked with Les Foris, and he complained about an upstairs neighbor on two occasions. Yopp could see no evidence of the causes for the complaints by Les Foris. A couple of days later, Les Foris complained again about the same neighbor. This time, Les Foris threatened to harm the neighbor. Yopp told Les Foris that such conduct by Les Foris would be inappropriate. Although Yopp had handled numerous tenant squabbles during his career as property manager, in none of them had a tenant threatened to harm someone. However, after this incident, Les Foris and the neighbor had no further problems. Subsequently, the neighbor moved out of the complex for unrelated reasons. In addition, Les Foris repeatedly parked his car in spaces not reserved for him. On an almost daily basis when he was not working, Les Foris would park his car in spaces reserved for other tenants. The tenants would call Yopp, who would then ask Les Foris to move the car. Les Foris would then return his car to his proper parking space. The next day, the scenario would repeat itself. Les Foris would explain that he was moving his car so that it could be in the shade. Yopp told Les Foris that such conduct was inappropriate. Yopp testified that he received complaints from two residents about Les Foris. The complaints were from Ruth Poetter and Carmella Eichen. Each of the women complained that Les Foris made them feel uncomfortable, without offering greater explanation. It was a customary practice for many of the residents at Villas Des Chenes to sit outside their units at tables and chairs. Poetter followed this custom. About the time of her complaint to Yopp, Yopp observed that Poetter ceased sitting outside. When Yopp visited the property, Les Foris would complain about Whitehall. Ralph Agliano, a former tenant of Villas Des Chenes, testified that Les Foris would routinely complain about things, and Agliano would attempt to explain them. Yopp reported all problems, including those involving Les Foris, to Chartier. On or about September 15, 2002, Yopp delivered a notice to all tenants, including Les Foris, regarding proposed rent increases that management intended to implement beginning in December 2002. The delivery of that notice was not triggered by the end date of any tenant’s lease and was not an offer to renew. As of September 15, 2002, when the notice about proposed rent increases was delivered to all tenants, no decision had yet been made to renew or not renew Les Foris’ lease. Yopp and Chartier subsequently discussed whether to renew Les Foris’ lease. Chartier decided that, based on the complaints relayed to her about Les Foris in the preceding months, Les Foris' lease would not be renewed when it expired at the end of November 2002. Chartier felt that it was not in the best interest of Whitehall to continue with a tenant who was unhappy with the company, made a threat to harm another tenant, and who made other residents uncomfortable. She did not want the residents of Villas Des Chenes to be afraid. It was an accumulation of things that formed her decision. This process by Chartier, as applied to Les Foris, was the same as that which she used for others. Yopp prepared and issued a notice of non-renewal to the tenant. The notice did not set forth a reason for the non- renewal. Yopp admitted that other tenants also parked in parking spaces other than those assigned to the tenant. In addition, it is anticipated that other tenants have disputes with their neighbors. In the six years Yopp had been property manager at the complex, no residents were non-renewed specifically for either reason. When Les Foris received the notice, he became upset. He asked Yopp to explain the reason for the decision. Yopp declined to give an explanation. In the year that Les Foris received his notice of non-renewal, Yopp delivered notices of non-renewal to three other tenants. In none of them did Yopp give a reason for the non-renewal. The notice of non-renewal given to Les Foris did not differ in form or substance from that used for other tenants. Les Foris spoke with Chartier by phone about the non-renewal. Les Foris asked Chartier the reason for the non-renewal. Chartier also declined to give one stating that she was not required to give a reason. At the hearing, Chartier explained that it was her practice not to explain the reasons for non-renewals. Because the lease did not require a reason, she did not offer one. Discussions about the reasons for non- renewal often lead to arguments and to Chartier, they serve no purpose. During the phone conversation, Les Foris requested reconsideration and, if that failed, then additional time to find a new place to live. He explained to Chartier that he lacked funds and had no one to help him move. Chartier offered to allow some extra time to remain on the premises and to make an early refund of the security deposit. Chartier returned the security deposit to Les Foris by way of a letter dated November 15, 2002. Les Foris filed his complaint of housing discrimination on November 7, 2002. Chartier learned of it after sending him the November 15, 2002, letter. Les Foris moved out of Villas Des Chenes in November 2002. Winder had lost touch with her grandfather for sometime and had "found" him only about two years prior to his death. At the time she formed a bond with Les Foris, he was a tenant at Villas Des Chenes. Les Foris was happy there because he resided close to Winder and her children and was within walking distance of the grocery store where he worked part-time. Winder testified that when Les Foris was informed of the non-renewal, he became upset. He expressed to her his distress at being made to move. However, she helped him find a new apartment and helped him move. Winder found movers and paid them on Les Foris' behalf. She also arranged for storing his property in a commercial facility. The move cost less than $400.00. The rent was higher at the new complex, where Les Foris lived for just a few months before becoming ill. Winder saw her grandfather regularly after he received the non-renewal notice. He frequently called her after having anxiety problems at his new apartment. Les Foris was disoriented about the location of items in his new apartment. He was definitely inconvenienced by the move. He was also humiliated and ashamed in front of his neighbors for being forced to move out. His daily routine was disrupted, and he was unable to make friends at the new complex.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Law Judge will enter a final order dismissing Petitioner, Crisella Winder, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Matthew Les Foris’ Petition for Relief for failure to prove a case of housing discrimination against Respondent, Whitehall Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Villas Des Chenes, after the period for submission of exceptions has expired. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon W. Russell, Human Rights/EEO Officer Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue Fifth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 W. Oliver Melvin, Compliance Officer Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue Fifth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Matthew P. Farmer, Esquire Farmer & Fitzgerald, P.A. 708 East Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Lynn Hanshaw, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services 314 South Missouri Avenue, Suite 109 Clearwater, Florida 32756 Cathy L. Lucrezi, Esquire Law Offices of Heist, Weisse & Lucrezi, P.A. 1661 Estero Boulevard, Suite 20 Post Office Box 2514 Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33932
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondents, individually and jointly, on March 24, 1999, established, maintained, or operated migrant housing on their properties located on Rosebud Lane in Arcadia, Florida, without first obtaining permits from the Department of Health.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the State of Florida's Department of Health, and the DeSoto County Public Health Unit were the agencies in DeSoto County, Florida, responsible for the management and permitting of migrant labor camps and residential migrant housing within that county. Jack L. Sikes has been an environmental specialist II with the DeSoto County Health Unit for 18 years. His duties comprise the management of the migrant housing program within the county, including permitting and inspection of migrant residential housing units and camps. Migrant housing is defined within the Health Department as any structure housing five or more workers engaged in seasonal work, and who have changed their residence during the preceding year. Inspection standards applied to migrant housing relate to health and safety issues, such as cleanliness, refrigeration, hot and cold water, lights, bedding, and structural problems of the facility which impact safety. For the 1998-1999 growing year, permits were issued for 108 migrant worker camps in the county. In the 1997-1998 year there were only 16-17 permits issued for camps. The increase is due to state emphasis on increased safety for migrant housing. By far the greatest percentage of migrant workers are of Hispanic origin. The migrant population increases significantly in DeSoto County during the citrus harvest period which extends from November through June. On March 23, 1999, Mr. Sikes and a co-worker, as a part of a continuing search for un-permitted migrant housing, conducted a drive-through inspection of several mobile homes situated on Southwest Rosebud Lane in Arcadia, Florida. Eight of the lots on Rosebud Lane have mobile homes on them while the other lots are vacant. On this visit, Mr. Sikes did not see any of the indications normally present when a structure is used for a family home such as toys in the yard, laundry drying, etc. As a result, he suspected the homes, some of which were obviously occupied, were being used as migrant housing. The next day, March 24, 1999, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Mr. Sikes and a Spanish-speaking inspector, Robert Schultz, returned to the area and went to the structure located at 1408 Southwest Rosebud Lane, where in response to the inspectors' knock, the door was opened by an Hispanic individual who identified himself as Mario Hernandez. Through the interpretation services of Mr. Schultz, Mr. Hernandez indicated that he lived at that house with his five cousins, all of whose names were recorded on the "Documentation of Hand Laborer" form on which the answers to the interview questions were written. As recounted by Mr. Sikes, Mr. Hernandez spoke for the group as his cousins were not present when the interview began. Mr. Hernandez indicated that he and his cousins arrived in DeSoto County from another location to pick oranges during the first week of November 1998 and took up residence at 1408 Southwest Rosebud Lane. The mobile home they were occupying was large enough to be permitted for six residents. Mr. Hernandez also indicated he and his cousins were renting the mobile home but did not know from whom. Though this statement is hearsay, it is corroborated by an examination of the electricity billing records and other independent evidence of record. A four-fold November increase in electric usage over the mid-October 1998 electric bill indicates the structure was most likely unoccupied before November 1998 but was occupied for several months thereafter. In fact, just after the inspectors left the home, a bus discharged several other men who appeared to be migrant workers and four of them went in the direction of 1408. When Mr. Sikes and Mr. Schultz went to 1375 Southwest Rosebud Lane they found several Hispanic men getting out of a utility van and going into the mobile home. The inspectors went to the house and were invited in. Mr. Schultz translated. During the course of the conversation, the men indicated they had just returned from the fields where they worked picking oranges. They said they all lived in the mobile home with a sixth man who was not present at the time. They also indicated they had come to DeSoto County from Mexico around the first of the year to pick oranges, and had rented the mobile home from someone whose name they did not know. When the picking season was completed in DeSoto County, they intended to move on to other farm work elsewhere. The inspectors spoke with the driver of the bus who identified himself as a crew leader for Turner Foods for whom the migrant laborers also worked. The driver attempted to interfere with the inspectors' questioning of the workers who got off the bus, and as a result, the inspectors requested that he leave the area. Within five minutes of the driver's departure, Respondent Gary L. Frierson drove up and asked Mr. Sikes what was going on. Mr. Sikes advised Mr. Frierson that he and Mr. Schultz were conducting a housing investigation and that based on what information they had gathered, Mr. Frierson needed to obtain a residential migrant housing permit for the properties. Mr. Frierson did not deny he owned the property, but, by the same token, did not admit to owning it either. Mr. Frierson said he was trying to sell the property, but, due to tax considerations, was restricted to selling a limited number of parcels per year. Taken together, the evidence of record is abundantly clear that the occupants of both 1375 and 1408 Southwest Rosebud Lane on March 24, 1999, were migrant farm workers, and the properties were being used as residential migrant housing without being permitted as such. The question remains, however, as to who owned the property and was utilizing it in the fashion described. The public records of DeSoto County reflect that Alice H. Frierson is the owner of record of the property located at 1408 Southwest Rosebud Lane, and Gary L. and Alice H. Frierson, jointly, are the owners of record of the property located at 1375 Southwest Rosebud Lane. Respondents presented several documents in an effort to establish they did not own the properties in question. As to Lot 14 and Lot 22, Bokara Acres, unrecorded Agreements for Deed dated December 31, 1998, between both Mr. and Mrs. Frierson and Wayne Radloff as to Lot 14, and Ricardo Sanchez as to Lot 22, provide for a future transfer of title to each buyer, providing the buyer pays all amounts due on the purchase price. Identical Agreements for Deed were also issued the same date to Mr. Radloff for four other properties in the subdivision. As to Lot 14, a second Agreement for Deed, dated January 1, 1999, purports to transfer a future interest in the same property to Fernando Gomez, and on that same date, Mr. Radloff executed an Assignment of Agreement for Deed to Fernando Gomez. On January 9, 1999, Mr. Radloff also executed a Quit-Claim Deed for Lots 13 and 14 to Gary L. and Alice H. Frierson. As to Lot 22, on March 28, 1999, Mr. Gomez executed a Rescission of Agreement for Deed and Mutual Release to the Friersons in which the December 31, 1998, transfer of the property to Gomez was rescinded, thereby restoring title to Mr. and Mrs. Frierson. This is four days after the visit on March 24, 1999 by the inspectors, Mr. Sikes and Mr. Schultz. By none of the documents, however, did legal title transfer from Mr. and Mrs. Frierson to Mr. Radloff, Mr. Gomez, or Mr. Sanchez. In fact, Mr. Frierson admitted that he collected the rent from the occupants of both parcels weekly from January through March 24, 1999, though he indicated he had no idea which individuals occupied which property. All Mr. Frierson could recall was that a Hispanic man would come out to the truck each time Mr. Frierson went there and beeped his horn, and would give him the money due. He could not identify the man or even say if it was the same man each time. While the Department contends that the unrecorded Agreements for Deed are a sham designed to isolate Respondents from their legal responsibility to obtain permits for the property which they operate as residential migrant housing, Respondent vehemently denied this and produced a series of witnesses who, over several years past, have purchased real estate from them through the same process. None of these individuals experienced any difficulty in obtaining title to the property when they completed payment in full. It should be noted, however, that while these individuals have had no difficulty with the transactions, they are permanent residents of the area, and the situation regarding the parcels in question differs considerably. On none of the transfer documents in issue are the name and address of the person who prepared the document legible, and other technical deficiencies make the agreements un-recordable. When those factors are considered in conjunction with the coincidental concurrence of the documents with the arrival of the migrant workers, and the fact that all interest in the property reverted to Mr. and Mrs. Frierson immediately after the date of the Department inspection, the inescapable conclusion is that the transfers to Mr. Radloff/Mr. Gomez and Mr. Sanchez were not bona fide transfers of an interest in property, but were an effort to obscure the actual ownership of the property to avoid the responsibilities which go with the ownership of residential migrant housing. Other evidence of record supports that conclusion. For example, Respondents presented no documentary evidence to indicate they had ever received any of the weekly payments called for under the Agreements for Deed as to either property but claim that they received a down payment, and that Mr. Frierson collected "rent" each week. For the five properties sold to Mr. Radloff/Mr. Gomez for a total consideration of $63,000, the total down payment was $300. For the property sold to Sanchez for $20,000, the down payment was $100. Respondent admits he has no records to show the down payment or the monthly rental payments he received on either property. Respondents paid the electricity for both properties during the entire time the properties were under the Agreements for Deed through their account with the utility company and were not reimbursed. They provided water to 1375 Southwest Rosebud Lane free of charge from a well on adjacent property they owned. They paid property, casualty, flood, and hurricane insurance for both properties throughout the entire period and were not reimbursed. They did not advise the county property tax office that they had transferred interest in the property to someone else. Though Respondent gave a key to each property to the respective "purchaser," he never saw either at the property. All but one of the properties in which an interest was transferred to Mr. Radloff, Mr. Gomez, or Mr. Sanchez, are vacant and the location of the "buyers" is unknown. Mr. Frierson indicated that he frequently sells property by unrecorded Agreement for Deed. This is standard procedure for him. He claims he paid the electric bills on the properties when they were previously used as rental properties, and he did not cancel the service -- a thing he has done in the past when the buyer is short of cash or cannot pay the power company deposit. In one case under consideration here, he claims, the tenant paid more than was called for, so he used the accrued overpayment to pay the electric bill. As for insurance, he continued his coverage because he wasn't sure the buyer could get coverage. Respondent asserts he does not want to operate migrant housing and has told this to Mr. Sams of the Health Department. He wants single families, and the family which occupied one of the properties in issue on June 7, 1999, went in after the rescission of the Agreement for Deed. Mr. Frierson claims the family's rental business is far less formal than a normal rental operation. Many renters who terminate usually do so by leaving without notice. Many of the renters are Hispanics, whom he describes as quite naïve about paper work. When Mr. Sanchez advised him he wanted out of their agreement, Respondent prepared a Rescission and Release and a Quit-Claim Deed, though he admits the use of both is probably overkill. As to the transactions with Mr. Radloff, Respondent claims he entered into it on the basis of advice from his tax accountant to avoid a higher tax obligation. When he found that he didn’t have the tax problem after all, he bought the lots back and transferred them to Mr. Gomez, which, he contends was his original intention. Mr. Frierson contends that the money paid to him by Mr. Radloff actually came from Mr. Gomez, which, to Respondent, explains the concurrent transfers. He also contends that shortly after the transfer, Mr. Gomez came to him and wanted out of the deal, as had Mr. Sanchez, and he, Mr. Frierson, agreed. Respondent claims, however, that he had no idea of how the properties were used when Mr. Gomez and Mr. Sanchez had control of them. He overlooks the fact that he collected the rents weekly during that period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health enter a final order in this matter imposing administrative fines of $500.00 on Gary L. and Alice H. Frierson for the proven violation at 1375 Southwest Rosebud Lane, and an additional $500 fine on Alice H. Frierson for the proven violation at 1408 Southwest Rosebud Lane, both in Arcadia, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott, Esquire Department of Health Post Office Box 9309 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902-0309 James M. Beesting, Esquire 207 East Magnolia Street Suite B Arcadia, Florida 34266 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should pay a $500 fine to the Polk County Health Unit for operating residential migrant housing without a permit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for issuing permits for residential migrant housing in accordance with Section 381.0081(2), Florida Statutes. 1/ Respondent is also responsible for inspecting residential migrant housing through Respondent's local county health units. Roger Burgere, an environmental specialist for the Polk County Public Health Unit, responded to a nuisance complaint on January 18, 1996. The complaint alleged that residential migrant housing was being operated on Petitioner's property at 2550 Smith Road in Haines City, Florida. There are four dwelling units on Petitioner's property. One dwelling unit is a house. The other three dwelling units are mobile homes located between the house and the roadway. Raw sewage from the mobile home nearest the road was on the ground within 15 feet of the mobile home. The sewage covered an area of approximately 20 square feet. At the third mobile home from the roadway, a pipe leading to the septic tank had broken. Raw sewage covered an area approximately five feet by four feet. Approximately two- thirds of this area was under the mobile home. The house had washing machine waste, or "gray water," on the ground in the vicinity of the house. Windows were broken. There were multiple holes in the ceilings and walls. Four or five bags commonly used by migrant workers in picking citrus fruit from trees were located outside the dwelling units. The bags were made of tough plastic or fabric and made so that they can be worn from the neck like an apron. Each bag holds about 80 pounds of fruit. Fruit groves are located within one mile of Petitioner's property. Many other groves are located within a 20 mile radius of Petitioner's property. Approximately three cars were parked in the driveways of the dwelling units. All of the vehicles were licensed in states other than Florida. A family occupied the house. Approximately 12 men occupied the mobile homes. The 12 men are migrant farmworkers within the meaning of Section 381.008(4). Each man is employed to harvest fruit by hand labor, and each man changes his residence to do so. Within the last 12 months, each man has been employed to harvest fruit by hand labor and has changed his residence for such purposes. Petitioner operated residential migrant housing within the meaning of Section 381.008(8). Petitioner rented dwelling units on her property for occupancy by five or more migrant workers. Petitioner does not have a permit to operate residential migrant housing. Petitioner rents to single women who take in migrant workers as borders. Petitioner has engaged in this method of operation for many years. Petitioner knew or should have known upon reasonable inquiry that her property was being used for residential migrant housing. Evidence that Petitioner's property was used for residential migrant housing was obvious to anyone on the property. Petitioner resides on the property. Mr. Burgere issued a citation to Petitioner that imposed a $500 fine. Mr. Burgere also advised Petitioner that the fine would be waived if Petitioner applied for a permit within 48 hours of the citation and agreed to correct the inadequacies in her residential migrant housing. Petitioner never applied for a permit and evicted the migrant farmworkers from her property. Over the next 14 days, Petitioner made the repairs necessary to correct leaking sewage and to repair the holes in the ceiling and walls of the house. Petitioner is no longer operating residential migrant housing on her property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding Petitioner guilty of operating migrant residential housing without a permit and requiring Petitioner to pay a fine of $500 in the manner and place prescribed by Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 31st day of May, 1996.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents violated section 70-176, Pinellas County Code of Ordinances (Code), as alleged in Petitioner's Housing Discrimination Complaint (Complaint).
Findings Of Fact This case concerns an allegation that Petitioner, an African-American female, was the victim of housing discrimination in two respects. First, after complaining that her bathroom was not timely repaired by her landlord, Petitioner reported the problem to the City of St. Petersburg (City). When the manager came to repair the bathroom, Petitioner alleges he told her he "would throw her black ass out of here for calling the city on them." Second, Petitioner alleges she was told by the manager to move her car that was parked "for a few days" on the property, yet white tenants were allowed to keep a truck with "no tags and flat tires" on the premises for more than a year. Because no evidence was presented on the second issue, only the first allegation will be addressed. By way of background, from August 2012 until she was evicted in October 2015, Petitioner resided in an apartment complex at 3865 9th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The complex is owned by Holly Berry Gifts, Inc., whose president is Holly Bonk. The complex is managed by Mike Prusinski. Bonk and Prusinski are employed full-time in other jobs, but devote attention to apartment matters when required. Bonk has a practice of leasing units to whoever is qualified, regardless of their race. She was drawn into this affair because of the alleged comments of her manager. It is fair to assume that Bonk has delegated responsibility to Prusinski to deal with maintenance issues and to evict tenants. Pursuant to a one-year Residential Lease executed by Petitioner in July 2012, she was required to pay $500.00 rent each month, due no later than the fifth day of the month. If rent was paid after the fifth day, a $60.00 late charge was imposed. After the lease expired on July 31, 2013, Petitioner continued renting her apartment on a month-to-month basis, but all terms and conditions in the original lease still applied, including the same monthly rent and late payment provisions. Prior to 2015, Petitioner was periodically late in paying her rent. For the months of February, March, July, and August 2015, she was either late paying her rent, or she did not pay the full amount. No rent was paid for September 2015. Despite Petitioner being in arrears throughout her tenancy, Prusinski "worked with" her because of her financial constraints, and according to Petitioner, he never demanded she pay the late charge. On June 2, 2015, Petitioner sent a text message to Bonk complaining that her upstairs neighbor (a female) was playing loud music and was noisy, which interfered with Petitioner's enjoyment of her apartment. When the neighbor came to Petitioner's apartment to discuss the complaint, Petitioner opened the door and "maced" the neighbor in the face. The neighbor filed a complaint with the police. Petitioner was arrested and charged with battery. In 2016, a jury convicted her of battery, and she was sentenced to 15 days in jail and placed on probation for 11 months. According to Prusinski, the macing incident was the final straw that led him to begin the eviction process. Besides the macing incident, Prusinski explained that Petitioner "harassed" the air-conditioning crew that serviced the complex to the point they refused to provide further service unless they received a $45.00 surcharge for each visit. He described Petitioner as being "hostile" towards him throughout her tenancy, and he noted it reached the point where she would not answer the door half of the time when he knocked. On August 14, 2015, a Fifteen Day Notice to Vacate the premises was personally served on Petitioner informing her that she must vacate the premises by August 31, 2015. An Eviction Notice was then obtained from the court. Before it was served on Petitioner, she changed the door locks, padlocked the circuit breaker box to her apartment, and moved out without notice to Respondents. Each of these actions violated the terms of her lease. Petitioner says she did this because she was "scared" that "Mike was coming over to throw her out," and a friend told her it was okay to change the locks. Prusinski was forced to call a locksmith to access the empty apartment and use bolt cutters on the padlock to restore electricity. In all, Petitioner still owes $1,933.00 for past due rent, late charges, court costs, locksmith charges, and the cost of a bolt cutter. There is no evidence that the eviction process was motivated by racial bias. The record shows that Prusinski has evicted four black tenants and eight white tenants for failing to pay their rent. Although Petitioner was upset that she had to relocate to new housing, she agrees there was justification for her eviction. A month after her eviction, Petitioner filed her Complaint. Petitioner says the Complaint was filed only to address issues other than her eviction. Against this backdrop, the only allegation that requires resolution is an assertion by Petitioner that Prusinski directed a racial slur towards her when he was repairing her bathroom.2/ Due to a leak in the upstairs bathroom, Petitioner's bathroom developed multiple problems, which required repairs to the walls and ceiling and professional mold remediation. Although these problems were eventually resolved, they were not resolved as quickly as Petitioner desired. Therefore, she reported the problem to the City. The City inspected her unit in early April 2015, determined that repairs were needed, and relayed its findings to Prusinski. After receiving the City's report, Prusinski came to the apartment to repair the bathroom. Petitioner says an argument over the repairs ensued, and he told her he would "throw her black ass out of here for calling the city on them." Except for Petitioner's testimony, there is no other credible evidence to corroborate this statement. Notably, even though the incident occurred in early April 2015, Petitioner never reported it to Bonk (Prusinski's boss), she did not mention the incident at the eviction hearing, and she waited until after she was evicted to raise the issue with the County. Prusinski denies making any racial comments to Petitioner and attributes her allegation to the hostile relationship between the two and her eviction in September 2015. Having considered the record as a whole, Prusinski's testimony is accepted as being the most credible on this issue. Ironically, Petitioner sometimes used the term "black ass" when referring to herself in text messages sent to Bonk, and during the hearing, she sometimes referred to herself as a "black ass."
The Issue The issue is whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioner's failure to make an appearance at hearing.
Findings Of Fact On January 7, 2011, the undersigned issued the Initial Order in this case. Petitioner and Respondent responded to the Initial Order. On February 10, 2011, the undersigned issued a Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing for March 28, 2011. The Notice of Hearing was not returned as undeliverable to Petitioner. Indeed, Petitioner wrote and filed several letters regarding her upcoming hearing and case in general. On March 18, 2011, the hearing was convened as scheduled. After waiting 15 minutes, Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and did not contact the undersigned’s office regarding any problem with commencing the hearing as scheduled. Accordingly, no evidence to support Petitioner’s allegations was introduced at the hearing. Given this lack of evidence, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGR 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 15th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Gayle Wilburn 1006 East Johnson Avenue, #4 Pensacola, Florida 32514 Robert E. Larkin, Esquire Allen Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
