Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered residential contractor having been issued license number RR 0008633, and is the qualifier for Merkle Custom Homes Inc. Respondent's last known address is 877 SW 124th Street, Miami, Florida 33176. Sunshine Ready Mix Concrete Company ("Sunshine") provided Respondent with the materials to be used on construction jobs located at 9600 SW 103rd Street and 8715 SW 129th Terrace, both in Miami, Florida. Respondent did not pay in full for such materials. Sunshine sued Merkle Custom Homes and obtained a judgment against that Florida corporation in the amount of $4,379.24 for money owed by the corporation on various jobs, to include the two projects referred to in paragraph 2 of this order. Said judgment has not been satisfied. One of the subject construction projects was undertaken for Dr. Robert Boyett and-his wife. This project was at 8715 SW 129th Terrace, and was the Boyett home. The other project at 9600 SW 103rd Street was an investment for Henry Arman and Errol Eisinger, a general partnership known as Ski Investors. This project was known as the "Ski Job." The contract between Boyett and Respondent was a standard contract, and the contractor would be responsible to make disbursements to subcontractors and materialmen. After the commencement of construction on the Boyett job, a disagreement arose between Boyett and Respondent. Boyett had the checks from the lending institution cut to him and Respondent, and did not pass all of the draw to Respondent. Boyett assumed responsibility for paying the subcontractors and materialmen. Prior to the Boyett and Ski Job projects, the Respondent applied for and established an open account for Merkle Custom Homes with Sunshine. The concrete for the Boyett job was charged to the Merkle Custom Homes account. Respondent's uncontroverted testimony was that he phoned Mr. Iglesias of Sunshine and advised him that Boyett was responsible for the concrete. The situation between Boyett and the Respondent worsened, and they eventually severed their contract. Boyett owed Respondent substantial sums of money at that time from draws paid to Boyett by the lender. In settlement of their dispute, Respondent waived any claims on the money Boyett held in return for Boyett's promise to assume all financial responsibility to the subcontractors and materialmen. Boyett did pay some $1500 to Sunshine on this debt but refused to pay all of the Sunshine bills, even though Respondent urged Boyett to honor his commitment. As a result, the Respondent received a partial satisfaction of judgment. Boyett and the contractor who took over from Respondent and assumed responsibility for the project both executed documents indicating that all materialmen had been paid. Sunshine failed to file and perfect a materialman's lien on the Boyett job. On the Ski Job, Respondent never had any control over the distribution of funds. Although the first checks were made out to the partners and the Respondent, control over payments to subcontractors and materialmen was exercised by the financial institution and Arman and Eisinger, the two individuals in the partnership for whom the project was done. The money was controlled by the partnership, who paid subcontractors directly. Respondent told Mr. Iglesias by phone that the partners were responsible for payment of the materialmen. Sunshine delivered to the Ski Job and billed to Merkle Custom Homes 40 yards of concrete at $27.75 per yard, for a total (including tax) of $1,154.40. Sunshine was paid for this concrete, and Respondent obtained a release from Sunshine for this amount. Sunshine delivered an additional 39 yards of concrete to the Ski Job after the date of the release at $34 per yard for a total (including tax) of $1,409.04. There is no evidence that the partners ever received a bill for the remainder of the concrete from Sunshine or the Respondent. No request for payment was made to the savings and loan for money to pay Sunshine for concrete. Merkle Custom Homes was replaced as the contractor, on this project, and the new contractor and owners agreed to assume responsibility for money owed to any subcontractors or materialmen. Sunshine did not file or perfect a materialman's lien on the Ski Job.
Recommendation Having found Respondent not guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 24th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Kristin Building, Suite 101 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Robert C. Eber, Esquire 9595 North Kendall Drive, Suite 102 Miami, Florida 33176 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Whether respondent should refund sales tax petitioners paid on account of their purchase of a manufactured home?
Findings Of Fact On September 12, 1984, petitioners made a $160 down payment on a 75 x 150 foot lot in High Ridge Estates in Bay bounty by a check drawn in favor of Ed Franklin. They wanted the lot in order to put a manufactured home on it. After acquiescing to a request by personnel of the Bay County building department that they pay $21.00 for a mobile home permit, the Baileys improved the property in anticipation of placing a manufactured home on it. They put in a septic tank and poured a concrete pad. On November 21, 1984, the Baileys signed a form "FHMA SALES CONTRACT" as buyers. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2. Jack Lee signed as seller on behalf of "DD&L Joint Venture." Id. Petitioners gave Lee a down payment of $13,400; DD&L undertook to procure from Fleetwood Homes of Georgia, Inc., a manufactured home to be placed on the High Ridge Estates lot. The form contract, which purported to obligate the Baileys for $53,000, describes the lot, but makes no mention of the manufactured home. In December of 1984, the manufactured home arrived at High Ridge Estates, borne by temporary axles and wheels, which were unbolted after its arrival, and left with the truck that had brought it. Statewide of Florida, Inc., placed it on its new foundation. With an exterior of wood siding and an asphalt-shingled roof, the 25.7 by 54 foot structure met VA and FHA materials requirements for standard housing. Carpet was laid over plywood subflooring. Wall joists stand 24 inches apart. The Baileys added a carport, a driveway, three decks and a separate storage shed. On March 13, 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Bailey borrowed money from Peoples First Financial Savings and Loan Association of Panama City (Peoples) to pay the balances they owed for the lot and home. Of the loan proceeds, $6,100.00 went to "C. Ed Franklin and wife, Frances P. Franklin," Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1, to pay for the lot on which the manufactured home stood; and $23,328.80 went to "ITT Comm. Finance." Id. To secure repayment of its loan to the Baileys, Peoples took a mortgage from the Baileys encumbering the lot and the manufactured home affixed to it. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1. Apparently the payment to "ITT Comm. Finance" retired indebtedness the Baileys incurred in acquiring their 1985 Fleetwood Chadwick 3523D. Mrs. Bailey executed a retail buyer's order for their manufactured home in December of 1986, although the form, which showed Best Home Center, Inc., as the "DEALER," was dated March 22, 1985. Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2. The form reflects a total price for the manufactured home of $29,045.87, the sum on which sales tax was computed at $1,452.53. The Baileys paid tax in this amount to Best Home Center, Inc., "upon the sales (sic) of tangible personal property." Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2. Best Home Center, Inc., forwarded the taxes they collected from the Baileys, along with other taxes collected in March of 1985, to the Florida Department of Revenue. Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2. At the time the Baileys purchased the manufactured home it had no license tag. It never had a license tag and, at the time they purchased it, had never been assessed as real property. Best Home Center, Inc., made a written assignment to the Baileys of its rights, if any, to recover the sales tax the Baileys paid.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioners' application for refund. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX The second sentence of respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 1 and respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the first sentence of respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 1, it is not entirely clear who sold the Baileys the manufactured home. The documentation reflected a sale by Best Home Center, Inc., for $29,045. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 2, Ed Franklin and his wife conveyed the lot. The down payment was $160 and a $6,100 balance was paid in March. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 5, the Peoples Mortgage originated in March, with indebtedness secured by lot and home. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the Bay County Building Department required them to purchase a permit on September 20, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 Charles Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 Mr. and Mrs. Bailey 22012 High Ridge Drive Lot 24 Panama City Beach, Florida 32407 D. Alan Burns, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
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 Did Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 11, 2000, and if so, what discipline is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified residential contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CR CO13253 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as an individual. On or about November 20, 1993, Respondent entered into a written contractual agreement (contract) with Kevin Watkins (Watkins) to construct a single family residence at 126 Meadow Lark Boulevard, Lot 65, Indian Lake Estates, Florida. The contract price was $333,944.00. Between December 7, 1993, and February 1, 1996, Watkins and Respondent executed 102 addenda to the contract which increased the contract price by approximately $241,874.43, for a total amount of approximately $575.818.43. On or about December 9, 1993, Respondent obtained permit number 93-120l850 from the Polk County Building Department and commenced work on the project. The contract provided that the "project shall be substantially completed on or about 195 days from the date all building permits are issued." However, due to the 100-plus addenda to the contract, it was estimated that an additional 190 days would be needed to complete the project. Additionally, construction ceased on the home for approximately 60 days so that Watkins could explore the possibility of a construction loan. However, due to the extent of completion, the lending institutions decided not to make any construction loans. On or about May 27, 1996, Watkins moved to Florida with the expectations that his home would be completed within a short period of time. (Watkins' recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of weeks. Respondent's recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of months.) In any event, Respondent did not complete the Watkins home within a couple of weeks or a couple of months. After Watkins moved to Florida, Respondent paid for Watkins to live in a Best Western motel for a few weeks. Subsequently, Respondent moved Watkins into a rental home for which Respondent paid the rent through September 1996. Beginning October 1996 through July 1999, Watkins paid $600.00 per month for a total of $20,400.00 as rent on the rental home. In early 1998, Respondent and Watkins went through the home, identified those items which had not been completed and Respondent made a handwritten list of those items. Respondent failed to complete the items identified on the list. In fact, shortly thereafter, Respondent ceased working on the project and was unresponsive to attempts to contact him. At the time Respondent ceased working on Watkins' home, the home was approximately 75 percent complete. While this estimation of completion may not be totally accurate, it is the best that could be derived based on the evidence presented, including Respondent's testimony to which I gave some credence. Watkins paid Respondent $561,617.91, which represents approximately 97.534 percent of the total contract price plus addenda to the contract. Seventy-five percent of the contract price plus addenda to the contract equals $431,863.82 for an overpayment of $129,754.09. To date, Respondent has not returned any of the money he received from Watkins above the amount completed under the contract. From early 1998, until August 1998, when Watkins had Respondent removed as general contractor on the building permit, Respondent failed to perform any work on the home for a period in excess of 90 days. Respondent contracted with Jack Eggleston to install cabinets in Watkins home. Eggleston performed under the contract but Respondent failed to pay Eggleston in full, requiring Watkins to pay Eggleston $1,200.00. After Watkins' home was partially complete, Respondent advised Watkins that he had the home insured when in fact he did not have the home covered with insurance. While Respondent was building Watkins' home, Respondent and Watkins entered into a joint venture called Contractors of Central Florida to build modular homes sometime after January 1, 1995. Respondent contends that some of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home, were in fact reimbursement to Respondent for funds he had advanced for the joint venture. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that any of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home were in fact reimbursement for funds advanced by Respondent for the joint venture. Up until the time of the final hearing, the Department had incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of this matter, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and after careful review of the guidelines set forth in Rule 61G4-17.001(8) and (11), Florida Administrative Code, and the circumstances for purpose of mitigation or aggravation of penalty set forth in Rule 61G4-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Department: Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)2., Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00; Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00; Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28, plus any such further costs which have or may accrue through the taking of final agency action and; Requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Kevin Watkins in the amount of $129,754.09 which represents the amounts accepted by Respondent for work not performed. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Ronald J. Powell Post Office Box 7043 Indian Lake Estates, Florida 33855 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent has unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her disabilities in connection with her rental of an apartment, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, section 760.23(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner suffers from bipolar disorder, surgically repaired spinal injuries, and a cardiac condition requiring a pacemaker, as well as unspecified environmental allergies. Petitioner thus has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities and has a record of having, or is regarded as having, such physical or mental impairment. At all material times, Respondent has managed Cutler Meadows, which is a Section 8 housing community that is part of the Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Cutler Meadows is a complex of three three-story buildings comprising 225 apartments: 36 two-bedroom units and 189 one-bedroom units. A maintenance person resides in one of the two-bedroom apartments, so only 35 two-bedroom apartments are available for rent. These units are popular and infrequently become available for rent. By application dated September 5, 2000, Petitioner applied for a one-bedroom apartment at Cutler Meadows. Her application disclosed that Petitioner was disabled. Respondent approved the application, and, in November 2000, Petitioner moved into unit A-108, which is a ground-floor, one-bedroom unit. At the same time, Petitioner's disabled son moved into his own one-bedroom apartment on the third floor of the same building. In March 2010, Petitioner asked to be moved either to a one-bedroom apartment on the third floor or a two-bedroom apartment. Petitioner submitted a physician's note stating that she required a higher floor due to her allergies. A subsequent physician's note asserted that Petitioner's grandson needed to live with her to assist with her activities of daily living. Although her reported medical needs would seem to have required a two-bedroom unit on the third floor, by asking for a unit that satisfied either of these conditions, Petitioner appears to have been content with a higher one-bedroom unit or a lower two-bedroom unit. Prior to Respondent's reassigning Petitioner to another unit, on January 5, 2011, Petitioner's grandson, who had moved in with Petitioner, knifed his father, Petitioner's son, who, as noted above, resided at Cutler Meadows. Respondent commenced a short-lived eviction proceeding against Petitioner, but agreed to drop the matter if the grandson moved out and was not allowed to visit the complex. A couple of weeks after reaching the settlement with Respondent, Petitioner filed an application seeking, again, a two-bedroom unit or a one-bedroom unit on a higher floor. Shortly after filing this application, Petitioner learned that unit A-316, which was vacant, was about to be furnished with new appliances. Petitioner asked to be assigned this apartment, and, two days later, Respondent assigned this apartment to Petitioner. On October 21, 2013, Petitioner requested a two-bedroom apartment. Respondent has a written policy for the assignment of apartments. For the relatively scarce two-bedroom units, Respondent maintains two waiting lists: one for persons with medical needs justifying a two-bedroom unit and one for all other persons. As long as anyone is on the medical-needs waiting list, no one on the other list is assigned a two-bedroom unit. In this case, Respondent implemented its written policy. On receipt of Petitioner's application, Respondent placed her on the medical-needs waiting list, which had four persons ahead of her. Petitioner has failed to prove that any of these persons was not disabled. As each two-bedroom apartment became available, Respondent assigned it to the person at the top of the medical-needs waiting list. When Petitioner reached the top of the list, she received the next available two-bedroom unit, which, in fact, took place in March 2016 when Respondent assigned her a two-bedroom apartment, unit A-224, and Petitioner moved into the apartment. When asked, Petitioner could not say how Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of any of her disabilities. The crux of her case seems to turn on one or two misconceptions. Petitioner complained that a two-bedroom apartment was vacant because its tenant resided in southwest Florida, but she clearly lacked sufficient understanding of the facts of that transaction to establish any wrongdoing on Respondent's part. Petitioner seems to think that other persons, besides the four ahead of her on the medical-needs waiting list, obtained two-bedroom units before she did, but Petitioner has no evidence to support this opinion, which appears to be incorrect. Petitioner badly undermined her own judgment when she complained, at an earlier time, when Respondent assigned a higher one-bedroom apartment to someone whose home had burned, rather than to her. In sum, Petitioner has provided no direct evidence of discrimination, nor any basis whatsoever for an inference of discrimination. Petitioner has failed to provide any evidence even suggestive of unfair treatment of her by Respondent.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed on March 22, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2017, 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 21st day of April, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Ann Hervas Apartment A224 11280 Southwest 196th Street Miami, Florida 33157 Andrew L. Rodman, Esquire Jon K. Stage, Esquire Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff and Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33130 (eServed) Kara S. Nickel, Esquire Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff and Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33130 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
