Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of a Recommended Order of Dismissal by Lawrence P. Stevenson, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department hereby adopts the Recommended Order of Dismissal as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and a license may be issued to Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC to sell motorcycles manufactured by Kaitong Motorcycle Manufacture Co. Ltd. (KAIT) at 3311 West Lake Mary Boulevard, Lake Mary (Seminole County), Florida 32746, upon compliance with all applicable requirements of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. Filed September 30, 2009 3:29 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ORDERED this of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles ""-.r.• u this 9Pfh day of September, 2009. Naiini .Dulllr71cenie Admlnlltrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: Leo Su Galaxy Powersports, LLC d/b/a JCL International, LLC 2667 Northhaven Road Dallas, Texas 75229 2 Jason Rupp Wild Hogs Scooters and Motorsports, LLC 8181 Via Bonita Street Sanford, Florida 32771 David Cattafi David Cattafi d/b/a Direct Capital Motors 4107 South Orlando Drive, Suite C Sanford, Florida 32773 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lawrence P. Stevenson Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602 3
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a Final Order and therein: Dismiss Counts III-XIX of the Administrative Complaint. Suspend the license of Keith Allen Miller for 90 days and impose a fine of $2,000 based upon Counts I and XX of the Administrative Complaint. Suspend the license of Keith Miller Realty Company for 90 days and impose a fine of $2,000 based upon Counts II and XXI of the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 18th day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Hadley, Esquire 827 Deltona Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material hereto, Pinnacle Port Community Association (hereinafter referred to as PPCA) has been a not- for-profit corporation created under Chapter 617 Florida Statutes, and was the association, as defined in Section 718.103(2), Florida Statutes, which operated the four separate condominiums which together constitute the Pinnacle Port Resort. The Pinnacle Port Resort is located in Bay County, Florida and consists of four separate residential condominiums, identified as Phases I-A, I-B, I-C, I-D, and together these condominiums have a combined total of 408 units. Although each of the above condominiums was created by a separate recorded declaration of condominium, the declarations are, in all respects material to this proceeding and for all time periods relevant hereto, identical to the declaration for Phase I-B received into evidence as Joint Exhibit I. The Pinnacle Port Condominiums are located on a pie- shaped parcel of property which is bordered by the Gulf of Mexico on the south and there is a large lake, known as Lake Powell, located a short distance to the north of the condominium property. Immediately to the west of the condominium property, on land owned by a third party, Avondale Mills Corporation, there is a narrow channel, known as Phillips Inlet, that connects the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Powell. Because of fluctuating water levels in the channel and tidal action which regularly causes some shifting of sand around the channel, the current inlet does not provide trustworthy year round navigation for use by recreational boats between Lake Powell and the Gulf of Mexico. During 1983, several individuals owning land adjacent to Lake Powell, including Avondale Mills Corporation and certain unit owners at Pinnacle Port, decided to work together to investigate the possibility of stabilizing the inlet in order to provide a year round navigable channel between Lake Powell and the Gulf of Mexico. In March of 1984, the above land owners formed a not- for-profit corporation, known as Lake Powell Improvement Corporation, and through individual financial contributions by the members of this corporation began developing plans and conducting studies on the feasibility of stabilizing the Phillips Inlet. In May of 1984, the board of directors of Respondent adopted a resolution supporting the efforts of the Lake Powell Improvement Corporation and a non-binding straw vote of Pinnacle Port unit owners was conducted by the board of directors. The results of this vote were 232 votes in favor, 32 votes opposed, 6 votes requesting additional information and 138 unit owners did not respond. A true and correct copy of the correspondence which was sent to unit owners and representative samples of ballots returned from unit owners was received into evidence as Joint Exhibit 3. On or about August 11, 1984, at a meeting of the Respondent association, a majority of the voting interests present at the meeting for each of the four Pinnacle Port Condominiums approved a resolution "to participate in the stabilization of Phillips Inlet at the cost of no more than an average of $700.00 per unit." The resolution, which would authorize assessments in a total amount of $285,600.00, was passed by a vote of 179 votes in favor, of which 108 votes were by proxy; 81 votes against, of which 36 votes were by proxy; and 2 abstentions. The association is comprised of 408 members entitled to vote, in person or by proxy, and at least 205 members must be present, in person or by proxy, at a meeting of the association to satisfy quorum requirements. As part of the above resolution, the unit owners were advised that up to 50% of the proposed assessment would be used to obtain governmental permits required prior to beginning construction activities to stabilize the inlet and 50% of the assessments collected, plus any remaining funds collected previously for permitting purposes, would be used later for construction of the stabilized inlet if the governmental permits were granted. Based on the August 1984 resolution, the association has assessed as a common expense approximately $142,000.00 from unit owners and has contributed approximately $110,792.00 of these funds to the Lake Powell Improvement Corporation. In addition, the association is currently holding approximately $14,823.00 as interest on the funds collected for the Phillips Inlet projects. The Respondent has no written or formal agreement with Lake Powell Improvement Corporation. The funds were contributed to that corporation with the understanding that they would be used to conduct environmental and engineering studies and take other similar steps to obtain governmental permits which are necessary as a prerequisite to constructing the stabilized inlet. Respondent alleges that all of the funds spent have either been paid to Lake Powell Improvement Corporation or to third parties performing professional services for that corporation and that these funds have in fact been used to conduct environmental studies and to take other steps to obtain the necessary governmental permits. The Petitioner and the Intervenors do not dispute this statement in this proceeding. If the necessary governmental permits can be obtained, Lake Powell Improvement Corporation intends to dredge a new channel adjacent to the existing channel at Phillips Inlet and located on property owned exclusively by Avondale Mills Inc. The exact location of the proposed channel on the Avondale Mills property has not yet been determined. The Respondent expects the channel to be located approximately as shown on the maps included in the joint-application filed with the various agencies which have jurisdiction to issue the necessary permits. A true and correct copy of this joint application was received into evidence as Joint Exhibit 2. In order to complete the proposed channel, it will be essential that permits be obtained from the Florida, Department of Natural Resources and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Although Lake Powell Improvement Corporation filed a joint application with both the above agencies in October of 1985, the permits have neither been granted nor denied. At the time of the August 1984 resolution, and continuing to the present, the property upon which the stabilized --inlet is proposed to be constructed was not a common element for -any of the Pinnacle Port Condominiums and the Respondent-Association does not have any contractual or property interest, existing or contingent, in this property. Although no agreement has previously been entered into between the members of Lake Powell Improvement Corporation concerning the future maintenance of the proposed channel, it is contemplated that an agreement will be entered into prior to the actual construction of the channel. The Respondent further contemplates contributing up to one third of the cost of maintenance, contingent upon unit owner approval, through further assessments against the unit owners. If the governmental permits applied for are granted and the inlet is constructed and maintained to a depth and width as proposed in the permit applications, the Pinnacle Port unit owners and their guests with boats, either docked at the Respondent's pier or launched at the boat ramp in Lake Powell, will have convenient access to the Gulf of Mexico. There are no existing boat ramps, piers, or docks located along the Gulf of Mexico or Pinnacle Port property. The Pinnacle Port condominiums have a rental program which advertises and rents owner's units on both a short and long term basis for owners who so desire. At the present time, 240 units participate in this rental program and an unknown number of additional owners occasionally rent their units independently. Based on the evidence produced at the hearing and the testimony of Randall Clark Chandler, the following finding of fact is made: Although it is reasonable to expect that the planned stabilization of Phillips Inlet would provide recreational benefit to some unit owners and might help to make the units at the resort more marketable, factors affecting the relative costs and benefits of the project (such as, whether necessary governmental permits are granted; the amount of future assessments which will be imposed against units to pay for construction and maintenance costs of the inlet; the possible imposition of restrictions or restrictive convenants on the use of the inlet or the adjoining lands; the effect of the inlet on water quality; and future market conditions are speculative at this time and make it impossible to quantify the value of the stabilization project or even to conclude that the project will clearly or substantially benefit unit owners.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: (1) Respondent immediately cease and desist any further collection of assessments based on the August, 1984 resolution at issue herein and immediately obtain and refund to unit owners, on a pro rata basis, any monies in its possession which were previously collected under this assessment; (2) Respondent refund, on a pro rata basis, all interest on the funds previously collected for the Phillips Inlet project and; (3) Respondent, in the future, strictly comply with the provisions of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes and any future violations of the statutes at issue here shall be considered as a basis for aggravating civil penalties should administrative action be necessary in the future. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Coats, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 James Rearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John C. Courtney, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927 Michael Reichman, Esq. Post Office Box 4 Monticello, FL 32344 Marshall Conrad, Esq. Post Office Box 39 Tallahassee, FL 32302 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-3. 4. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 5.-21. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4-19. 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-19. 20. Rejected as not comporting to the substantial competent evidence in the record. The Intervenors submitted a "Recommended Order" which adopted the Findings of Fact submitted by the Respondent in its Proposed Findings of Fact.
The Issue The issue in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2018-112 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to provide and promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in the State of Florida. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida Housing is considered an agency of the State of Florida. Hawthorne Park, Amelia Court, and Durham Place are all properly registered business entities in Florida and engage in the business of providing affordable housing. The low-income housing tax credit program (commonly referred to as “tax credits” or “housing credits”) was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. The affordable housing industry relies heavily on public funding, subsidies, and tax credits to develop projects that are financially sustainable in light of the sub-market rents they charge. Because tax credits allow developers to reduce the amount necessary to fund a housing project, they can (and must) offer the tax credit property at lower, more affordable rents. Developers also agree to maintain rental prices at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years. Florida Housing has been designated as the housing credit agency for the state of Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is authorized to establish procedures to distribute low-income housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of those credits. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. Florida Housing uses a competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits. Florida Housing initiates the solicitation process by issuing a request for applications (“RFA”). §§ 420.507(48) and 420.5087(1), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(4). The RFA at issue in this matter is RFA 2018-112, entitled “Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties.” The purpose of RFA 2018-112 is to distribute funding to create affordable housing developments in the State of Florida. Through RFA 2018-112, Florida Housing intends to provide an estimated $17,314,387.00 of housing tax credits. This bid protest concerns Florida Housing’s intended award of tax credits to Hawthorne Park for its proposed housing development in Orange County, Florida. Amelia Court, the second ranked developer, challenges Florida Housing’s determination of eligibility and award to Hawthorne Park. Durham Place, the third-place developer, challenges Florida Housing’s ranking of Amelia Court. Florida Housing issued RFA 2018-112 on September 6, 2018.6/ Applications were due to Florida Housing by November 13, 2018. Florida Housing received 23 applications for housing credits under RFA 2018-112. Hawthorne Park, Amelia Court, and Durham Place all timely applied for funding to assist in the development of multi-family housing in Orange County, Florida. RFA 2018-112 set forth certain information which each applicant was required to submit with the application. RFA 2018-112, Section Five, A.1, expressly stated that “[o]nly Applications that meet all of the following Eligibility Items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection.” Thereafter, Section Five, A.1, listed 45 separate Eligibility Items. Pertinent to these bid protests, one Eligibility Item required each applicant to demonstrate that its housing project “[q]ualifies for Local Government Support.” An applicant satisfied this requirement by submitting a Florida Housing Local Government Verification of Contribution Form (a “Contribution Form”) as referenced in RFA 2018-112, Sections Four, A.11.a.(3), and A.11.b. Failure to show evidence of Local Government Support would render an application ineligible for funding. In addition, RFA 2018-112, Section Four, A.3.c.(1), required each applicant to “state the name of each Developer, including all co-Developers” of the planned housing project. The application was also to include a “Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-48.002(93). A total of six applicants applied for funding for Orange County. Upon receipt of the applications, Florida Housing assigned each applicant a lottery number. Hawthorne Park was given a lottery number of 1. Amelia Court was assigned a lottery number of 24. Durham Place received a lottery number of 3. Thereafter, Florida Housing selected a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score each application. The Review Committee reviewed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2018-112, as well as Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. The Review Committee met on January 22, 2019, to discuss their scores. The Review Committee found that Hawthorne Park’s application satisfied all mandatory eligibility requirements for funding and awarded it 10 out of 10 Total Points. Amelia Court was also found to have satisfied all eligibility requirements for funding, and also received a score of 10 out of 10 Total Points. Finally, the Review Committee concluded that Durham Place satisfied the eligibility requirements for funding, and it too was given a score of 10 out of 10 Total Points. On February 1, 2019, the Review Committee presented its recommendation of preliminary rankings and allocations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors. The Board of Directors also found that Hawthorne Park, Amelia Court, and Durham Place all satisfied the mandatory and eligibility requirements for funding in Orange County. Thereafter, per RFA 2018-112, Section Five, B.2., and Section Six, the Board of Directors selected Hawthorne Park to receive tax credits for its affordable housing development in Orange County. The Board of Directors chose Hawthorne Park based on the Review Committee’s recommendation, RFA 2018-112’s funding selection criteria, as well as the fact that Hawthorne Park held the lowest lottery number of 1. The Board of Directors ranked Amelia Court’s application the next highest based on the selection criteria. Durham Place’s application placed third. Durham Place held a lower lottery number than Amelia Court. However, as addressed below, Amelia Court’s application included Local Government Support in the form of Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding (“Areas of Opportunity Funding”), as opposed to Local Government Contribution funding. Under the provisions of RFA 2018-112, applicants who obtained Areas of Opportunity Funding were given a ranking preference. Of the six applications for Orange County, only Hawthorne Park and Amelia Court claimed Areas of Opportunity Funding. The Board of Directors approved $2,300,000 in annual federal tax credits to help finance Hawthorne Park’s 120-unit, Garden Apartment complex in Orange County. AMELIA COURT’S CHALLENGE OF HAWTHORNE PARK: Amelia Court protests Florida Housing’s selection of Hawthorne Park instead of its own development. Amelia Court specifically challenges Florida Housing’s determination that Hawthorne Park submitted a valid Contribution Form.7/ Amelia Court seeks an allocation of $2,375,000 in tax credits to help finance its affordable housing project in the City of Orlando. If Amelia Court successfully demonstrates that Florida Housing erred in accepting, then scoring, Hawthorne Park’s application, Amelia Court, by virtue of qualifying for Areas of Opportunity Funding, as well as holding the next lowest lottery number, stands in line to be selected for funding instead of Hawthorne Park. As indicated above, RFA 2018-112, section Four, A.11, required applicants to provide evidence of Local Government Support for their proposed housing development. This support could come in the form of a grant, loan, fee waiver and/or a fee deferral from the local government entity. Florida Housing did not intend for this local funding to serve as the primary financial support for the housing project. Instead, Florida Housing established a contribution threshold amount which could be used to gauge the local government’s interest in the proposed development. An applicant could satisfy the Local Government Support requirement in two ways. An applicant could obtain either 1) a Local Government Contribution (Section Four, A.11.a.); or 2) Areas of Opportunity Funding (Section Four, A.11.b.). RFA 2018-112 established the minimum financial commitment for the Local Government Contribution at $75,000. Areas of Opportunity Funding contemplated much larger support from the local government. RFA 2018-112, Section Four, A.11.b., called for a cash loan and/or a cash grant in a minimum qualifying amount ranging from $472,000 to $747,000 depending on the building and construction type. Consequently, as set forth in RFA 2018-112, Section Five, B.3.e., and Section Six, Areas of Opportunity Funding enabled an application to receive a preference in the selection process. To substantiate the receipt of Local Government Support, applicants were instructed to include with their applications a properly executed Contribution Form. With respect to Areas of Opportunity Funding, RFA 2018-112, Section Four, A.11.b., stated: In order to be eligible to be considered Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding, the cash loans and/or cash grants must be demonstrated via one or both of the Florida Housing Local Government Verification of Contribution forms (Form Rev. 08-16), called “Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan” form and/or the “Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant” form. Both the Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan form (the “Contribution Form – Loan”) and the Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant form (the “Contribution Form – Grant”) directed an applicant to include certain information. First, the loan or grant must be dedicated to the specific RFA at issue (RFA 2018-112 in this matter). Next, the Contribution Form must explicitly record the face amount or value of the Local Government Contribution, as well as the source of the local government loan or grant. In addition, the funds could not come from a prohibited source. Finally, the Contribution Form had to be signed by a representative of the local government who certified the correctness of the loan amount and source. The Contribution Form expressed: This certification must be signed by the chief appointed official (staff) responsible for such approvals, Mayor, City Manager, County Manager/Administrator/Coordinator, Chairperson of the City Council/Commission or Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners. . . . The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed. RFA 2018-112, Section Four, A.11.b., also required that “funding . . . shall be paid in full by the local jurisdiction no later than 90 days following the date the proposed Development is placed in-service. Hawthorne Park, to establish its Areas of Opportunity Funding, included both a Contribution Form - Loan, as well as a Contribution Form – Grant, for a combined Local Government Support amount of $567,500. Hawthorne Park’s Contribution Form - Loan represented that Orange County had agreed to provide Hawthorne Park a reduced interest rate loan in the amount of $317,500. This loan, by itself, was not large enough to meet the Areas of Opportunity Funding threshold. However, Hawthorne Park’s Contribution Form - Grant identified an additional $250,000 from Orange County in the form of a State Housing Initiative Partnership (“SHIP”)8/ grant. The combined loan and grant (if both are valid) established sufficient Local Government Support to qualify Hawthorne Park for the Areas of Opportunity Funding ranking preference. Amelia Court alleges that the SHIP grant Hawthorne Park identified on its Contribution Form – Grant is illegal or invalid.9/ To formally contest Orange County’s SHIP grant, Atlantic Housing Partners, LLLP (“Atlantic Housing”), the developer of the Amelia Court housing project, sued Orange County and Wendover Housing Partners, LLC (“Wendover”), in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Orange County, Florida, in a case entitled Atlantic Housing Partners, LLLP v. Orange County, Florida, and Wendover Housing Partners, LLC, Case No. 2018-CA-12227-O. (The suit identifies Wendover as the developer of the Hawthorne Park housing project.) In the circuit court action, Amelia Court specifically alleges that Orange County failed to follow its local housing assistance plan (“Assistance Plan”) prior to offering the SHIP grant to Hawthorne Park. Amelia Court claims that the Assistance Plan required Orange County to initiate a competitive solicitation process (request for proposals) before awarding SHIP funds.10/ Orange County undisputedly did not do so prior to issuing the SHIP grant to Hawthorne Park. Based on Orange County’s failure to comply with its Assistance Plan, Amelia Court charges that Hawthorne Park’s Contribution Form – Grant is invalid. On January 21, 2019, the circuit court issued a Temporary Injunction. Agreeing with Atlantic Housing/Amelia Court, the circuit court held that “Orange County deviated from the requirements of its [Assistance Plan].” The circuit court found that, “[b]y the plain terms of its own [Assistance Plan], Orange County was required to conduct an [request for proposals] to award SHIP funds to Wendover.” Through the Temporary Injunction, the circuit court enjoined Orange County from conveying the SHIP funds to Wendover for the Hawthorne Park development. The circuit court specifically ruled that Orange County and Wendover: are temporarily enjoined, pending a final adjudication and the granting or [sic] permanent relief, from awarding SHIP funds to Wendover as [Areas of Opportunity Funding] for Orange County related to Hawthorne Park and the 2018 RFA. The circuit court concluded that, “Wendover should not be permitted to compete given its illegal award of SHIP funds as an [Areas of Opportunity Funding] from Orange County in the first place.” Florida Housing, however, was not joined as a party to the circuit court action. Commenting on this fact, the circuit court inserted a footnote stating: Inasmuch as [Florida Housing] is not a party to these proceedings, necessarily, this injunction does not enjoin any activity of [Florida Housing]. On January 22, 2019, Orange County and Wendover appealed the Temporary Injunction to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The appeal is pending as of the date of this Recommended Order. In the meantime, on January 31, 2019, the circuit court entered an Order Granting Motion to Vacate Stay. Consequently, the terms of the Temporary Injunction remain in effect pending the outcome of the appeal. Based on the Temporary Injunction, at this time, Orange County is not authorized to distribute the $250,000 SHIP grant to Hawthorne Park to help fund its housing project. Without the SHIP grant, Hawthorne Park does not qualify for the Areas of Opportunity Funding selection preference. As a result, Amelia Court contends that Florida Housing should invalidate Hawthorne Park’s Areas of Opportunity Funding, and select Amelia Court as the top ranked applicant for tax credits for Orange County. In response to Amelia Court’s challenge, Florida Housing takes the position that the Temporary Injunction is a preliminary determination, not a final adjudication. Consequently, the Temporary Injunction does not conclusively establish that the SHIP grant from Orange County is tainted by fraud or illegality, or is in some manner invalid. Therefore, the Contribution Form - Grant that Hawthorne Park provided with its application complied with the express terms of RFA 2018-112, and Hawthorne Park’s application remains eligible for tax credit funding. In support of its position, Florida Housing presented the testimony of Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multi-family Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button oversees Florida Housing’s RFA process. Ms. Button disagreed with Amelia Court’s argument that Florida Housing should reject the Contribution Form - Grant based on the circuit court’s Temporary Injunction. Ms. Button testified that, as a rule, Florida Housing assumes the correctness of a properly executed Contribution Form. Because Hawthorne Park’s Contribution Form – Grant included the required information and signatory, Florida Housing did not question its underlying validity when scoring the applications. Ms. Button further explained that Florida Housing does not have the authority to independently determine whether a local government followed the appropriate procedures to award a grant or loan. Therefore, Florida Housing defers to the local government’s exercise of its own ordinances and processes. Similarly, Ms. Button maintained that the circuit court is the proper venue to determine the validity of the Orange County SHIP grant. Ms. Button declared that Florida Housing will be bound by the circuit court’s ultimate ruling on the issue, whenever that decision becomes final.11/ However, until the $250,000 SHIP grant is found invalid or otherwise prohibited, Florida Housing considers its initial decision to award tax credits to Hawthorne Park to be appropriate and correct. On the other hand, Ms. Button conveyed that if a court does rule that Orange County’s SHIP grant is invalid or illegal, Florida Housing will deem Hawthorne Park’s Contribution Form – Grant as though it contained a material error. In other words, Florida Housing would treat the Contribution Form – Grant as nonresponsive, or as if it was left blank. Consequently, if Hawthorne Park’s remaining Local Government Support (the $317,500 loan from Orange County) did not reach the financial threshold to qualify for Areas of Opportunity Funding, Hawthorne Park would not receive a scoring preference. Regarding the question of how Florida Housing will treat Hawthorne Park’s application while the $250,000 SHIP grant is temporarily enjoined, Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing would reevaluate the situation in its credit underwriting process. Ms. Button explained that after its Board of Directors selects an application, Florida Housing invites the applicant (Hawthorne Park) into credit underwriting. During that stage, the application is reexamined to ensure that it complies with all RFA eligibility requirements, including the obligation to secure sufficient Local Government Support.12/ If Hawthorne Park has the necessary Areas of Opportunity Funding to ultimately finance its housing development, the award of tax credits proceeds. If an award is determined inappropriate based on the circumstances, then Florida Housing would likely not advance its efforts to fund Hawthorne Park’s development.13/ That being said, Ms. Button stressed that, at this time, no court has conclusively invalidated the $250,000 SHIP grant to Hawthorne Park. Furthermore, the circuit court expressly stated that the Temporary Injunction “does not enjoin any activity” of Florida Housing. Therefore, Florida Housing takes the position that Hawthorne Park has not been formally disqualified from consideration under RFA 2018-112. Neither is Florida Housing prohibited from proceeding with an award of tax credits to Hawthorne Park. In response to Amelia Court’s challenge, Hawthorne Park concurs with Florida Housing that the Temporary Injunction is not a final judgment. Therefore, the Temporary Injunction does not preclude Florida Housing from awarding tax credits under RFA 2018-112 for Hawthorne Park’s development. Hawthorne Park points out that the Temporary Injunction is a provisional decision by the circuit court. The purpose of the Temporary Injunction is to maintain the status quo by temporarily enjoining Orange County from releasing SHIP funds for the Hawthorne Park housing project. However, the Temporary Injunction, without more, does not automatically void Orange County’s selection of Wendover/Hawthorne Park for the SHIP grant. Therefore, the Contribution Form – Grant that Hawthorne Park submitted with its application remains in effect unless and until the circuit court issues a final ruling. Furthermore, Hawthorne Park insists that Orange County’s allocation of SHIP funds does not violate any law or local ordinance. Hawthorne Park declares that the circuit court issued the Temporary Injunction based on a misunderstanding of the Orange County Assistance Plan. Hawthorne Park fully intends to fight Atlantic Housing/Amelia Court’s allegations in circuit court where it will have a full opportunity to present its case. DURHAM PLACE’S CHALLENGE OF AMELIA COURT: Durham Place responded to RFA 2018-112 seeking an allocation of $2,375,000 in tax credits to help finance its housing development in Orange County. Durham Place received the same score as Hawthorne Park and Amelia Court (10 out of 10 Total Points). For its application, Durham Place secured Local Government Support in the amount of $75,000. This funding was sufficient to satisfy the Local Government Contribution eligibility requirements under RFA 2018-112, Section Four, A.11.a. However, this funding amount was not large enough to receive a selection preference as Areas of Opportunity Funding. Therefore, Durham Place’s application fell behind Hawthorne Park and Amelia Court in RFA 2018-112’s sorting methodology under RFA 2018-112, Section Five, B.2. Nevertheless, if the evidence shows that Florida Housing should disqualify Hawthorne Park’s Areas of Opportunity Funding, and the evidence further demonstrates that Amelia Court’s application was nonresponsive or ineligible, then Durham Place would be entitled to an award of tax credits as the third ranked qualified applicant.14/ Durham Place contests two aspects of Amelia Court’s application. First, Durham Place claims that (similar to Hawthorne Park) Amelia Court did not qualify for the Areas of Opportunity Funding selection preference under RFA 2018-112, Section Four, A.11.b. With its application, Amelia Court provided a Contribution Form - Grant from the City of Orlando purporting to commit $625,750 to its housing project. The Contribution Form - Grant identifies the source of the grant as the “City of Orlando Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).” The Contribution Form Grant was signed by Byron Brooks as the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Orlando. Durham Place questions whether Mr. Brooks is the proper signatory to certify a grant from the CRA. Durham Place implies that the CRA does not employ Mr. Brooks. Therefore, he is not “the chief appointed official (staff) responsible for such approvals” who could certify the legitimacy of CRA’s grant to the Amelia Court housing project. Second, RFA 2018-112, Section Four, A.3.c.(1), required each applicant to “state the name of each Developer, including all co-Developers” of the housing project. Durham Place alleges that Amelia Court failed to list all the developers or co-developers of its housing project. In support of its argument, Durham Place points to a Condominium Purchase Agreement that Amelia Court included with its Site Control Certification Form to demonstrate its site control under RFA 2018-112, Section Four, A.7. The Condominium Purchase Agreement identified “Amelia Court Developers, LLC” (“Amelia Court Developers”) as a “Developer” of its proposed housing site. Durham Place argues that Amelia Court did not list Amelia Court Developers in its application as either a developer, co-developer, or principal. By failing to disclose either Amelia Court Developers as a co-developer of the project or list the names of the officers of Amelia Court Developers as principals, Durham Place asserts that Amelia Court failed to include a mandatory Eligibility Item. Amelia Court refutes Durham Place’s allegations. Regarding its Local Government Support, Amelia Court claims that the CRA is a valid source for its Areas of Opportunity Funding. Amelia Court’s retort was essentially unrebutted. At the final hearing, Durham Place did not present any evidence showing that Mr. Brooks was not authorized to represent the CRA on the Contribution Form – Grant. No party called Mr. Brooks to testify. Regarding Amelia Court’s developers or co-developers, Amelia Court introduced the testimony of Scott Culp. Mr. Culp asserted that Atlantic Housing is the sole developer of the Amelia Court tax credit project. As the developer, Atlantic Housing will manage the work on the condominium building, the professionals who will design it, as well as the contractor who will construct the affordable housing units. Mr. Culp declared that no other entity or individual will participate in the project as either a developer or co-developer. Regarding the role of Amelia Court Developers, Mr. Cole explained that Amelia Court Developers is the leasehold owner pursuant to a ground lease, as well as created the legal structure of the condominium in which the Amelia Court project will be located. Amelia Court Developers hired Atlantic Housing to develop the Amelia Court housing community. However, Amelia Court Developers does not have the same roster of principals as Atlantic Housing. Neither will Amelia Court Developers play any other role in Amelia Court’s application for tax credits under RFA 2018-112. Ms. Button testified that, to date, Florida Housing is not aware of any evidence supporting Durham Place’s claim that Mr. Brooks is not authorized to sign Amelia Court’s Contribution Form on behalf of the CRA. Furthermore, as with Hawthorne Park’s Contribution Form - Grant, Ms. Button did not believe that Florida Housing has the authority to make an independent determination whether the CRA failed to comply with the appropriate procedures to award $625,750 to the Amelia Court housing project. Therefore (as with Hawthorne Park’s application), after Florida Housing determined that Amelia Court’s Contribution Form – Grant was properly executed, Florida Housing accepted it as valid on its face, and scored it accordingly. At the final hearing, Ms. Button maintained that, until Florida Housing receives some evidence that the Contribution Form - Grant is invalid, or tainted by fraud, illegality, or corruption, Amelia Court’s second place ranking is appropriate. Florida Housing reached a similar conclusion regarding Durham Place’s allegation that Amelia Court did not identify all of its housing project’s developers or co-developers. Ms. Button testified that, while Florida Housing did observe that Amelia Court Developers was connected to the proposed development through the Condominium Purchase Agreement, Florida Housing is not aware of any evidence indicating that Amelia Court Developers will serve as a developer or co-developer for Amelia Court’s housing project. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, Amelia Court did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Florida Housing’s decision to consider, then rank, Hawthorne Park’s application was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, Amelia Court did not meet its burden of proving that Florida Housing’s proposed action to award tax credit funding to Hawthorne Park under RFA 2018-112 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of RFA 2018-112. Similarly, Durham Place failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s consideration of Amelia Court’s application was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the protests of both Amelia Court and Durham Place. It is further recommended that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation select Hawthorne Park as the recipient of tax credit funding for Orange County under RFA 2018-112. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 7th day of June, 2019.
The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, in which the only disputed issues concern whether the Petitioner is a small business party and whether the Respondent was substantially justified in bringing the underlying proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The findings of fact which follow are based on “the pleadings and supporting documents, and the files and records of the Division of Administrative Hearings.” See Rule 60Q-2.035(7), Florida Administrative Code.1 In DOAH Case No. 96-4290, the Commissioner of Education filed an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Brown. By means of that Administrative Complaint, the Commissioner sought to take disciplinary action against Mr. Brown on the basis of allegations of misconduct by Mr. Brown in connection with his employment as a coach with the Dade County School System. An investigation was conducted prior to filing the Administrative Complaint and at the time the Administrative Complaint was filed, the agency had in its possession affidavits and other evidence which, if believed, were sufficient to establish the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Prior to filing the Administrative Complaint, the evidence collected during the investigation was reviewed by agency legal counsel for the purpose of determining whether there was probable cause to file an Administrative Complaint. Upon review, the evidence appeared to be sufficient to warrant the issuance of an Administrative Complaint. Following discovery in the underlying case, the agency re-evaluated its position and, on the advice of counsel, decided to file a voluntary dismissal of the Administrative Complaint. The decision to dismiss the Administrative Complaint was based on the fact that, following discovery, the agency had serious doubts that it could prove its case by the required “clear and convincing” standard. At the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Brown was the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business. His principal office was in this state. He was domiciled in this state. He had fewer than twenty-five employees and a new worth of less than two million dollars. At the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Brown was not an employee of the Dade County Public School System. Rather, he was performing part-time coaching services essentially as an independent contractor.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a registered real estate salesman in the State of Florida having been issued license no. 0390547. In March of 1985, the Respondent's real estate salesman's license was placed with Raymond Joseph Deangelis Investments (RDI) in Naples, Florida. Since March of 1985, Respondent has had a couple of transactions that have actually closed with Mr. Deangelis. Prior to being placed with RDI, the Respondent's registration certificate was placed with EVI Properties, Inc., in Naples, Florida. EVI was a registered corporation. On March 31, 1984, the corporate registration of EVI Properties, Inc was canceled due to non-renewal. Some confusion exists in the Florida Real Estate Commission's records as to when the licenses of the associates of EVI were cancelled. By letter dated January 4, 1985, to EVI Properties, Inc., the Records Section stated: "In reviewing the Division's Records, I find that registration held by your corporation/ partnership expired on 3/31/84 and no renewal has been processed as of the above date. For your convenience, I am enclosing proper form 400.3 on which to request renewal of your corporation/partnership. I suggest that same be filed within 20 days from the date of this letter, otherwise we have no alternative than to cancel the licenses of all associates with your corporation/ partnership. . ." (Emphasis Added) Further, the Respondent was issued a salesman's license effective November 17, 1984, expiration date 3/31/86, registered with EVI Properties, Inc. Although that license was apparently issued in error, the Respondent received no further communication regarding it from the Record's Section. Nevertheless, the Respondent was aware that he did not possess a valid current registration certificate as a salesman during the times material to this complaint. The Respondent enrolled in and completed a 12 hour Bert Rodgers Schools of Real Estate course and re-applied for a current registration certificate. The new registration certificate was issued effective March 18, 1985. During the time that Respondent's registration certificate with EVI Properties was cancelled, he was also employed as vice-president of American Home Funding, a large New York based mortgage firm. As vice-president with American Home Funding, the Respondent was in charge of their Florida organization as a mortgage broker. The Respondent has been licensed as a mortgage broker in Florida since 1981. While the Respondent was associated with EVI Properties no transactions transpired and he inadvertently failed to maintain a valid and current registration certificate as a real estate salesman. From April 1, 1984 through March 17, 1985, Respondent did not possess a valid and current registration as a real estate salesman. In June 1984, the Respondent met Mr. James D. Peterson. Mr. Peterson is the owner of several nursing home facilities located in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, Florida, and Illinois. The Respondent attempted to arrange permanent financing for Mr. Peterson for Some property known as Buena Vida, in Naples. However, the transaction was never consummated. The Respondent, in reviewing Mr. Peterson's financial statements while attempting to arrange financing for him, became aware of a nursing home facility owned by Peterson in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. At the time, the Rhinelander nursing facility was not for sale. In October 1984, the Respondent met Deborah M. Maclean, a real estate sales person at a cocktail party. The party was attended by the Respondent, Mr. Corcelli an attorney and CPA, Mr. Corcelli's partner, Joseph Moore, an, attorney and the owner of Naples Title Company and Ms. Debra Maclean. The Respondent had arranged a S1.8 million dollar construction loan for Mr. Corcelli and Mr. Moore to build a facility on Vanderbilt Beach. As a result of obtaining that mortgage loan commitment, and following the closing, the Respondent invited Mr. Corcelli and Mr. Moore and his wife to his home for cocktails. As his guest, Mr. Corcelli brought Deborah Maclean. During the course of the evening at the dinner party, Respondent and Mr. Corcelli were discussing the real estate industry and Respondent mentioned Mr. Peterson. The following day, Ms. Maclean called Respondent and informed him that she was aware of a company which had a strong interest in purchasing nursing home facilities anywhere in the United States. The firm was called Canadian International Health Services' Inc. Ms. Maclean related to the Respondent that she had all cash buyers". Ms. Maclean contacted the Respondent several times requesting that she be introduced to Mr. Peterson, but Respondent refused. Apparently, Respondent was concerned that he might lose an anticipated mortgage brokerage commission because Ms. Maclean had "all cash" buyers. At some point, Ms. Maclean went to the Rhinelander facility and told one of Mr. Peterson's key employees that she had a buyer for any, end all of their facilities, and in particular the Rhinelander facility. Mr. Peterson decided to sell the Rhinelander nursing home facility, but preferred to deal with Respondent rather than Ms. Maclean. Mr. Peterson, therefore, employed Respondent to serve as a shield between he, Mr. Peterson, and Ms. Maclean during negotiations for the sale of the nursing home facility. If a sale had resulted, Respondent expected to be compensated by the sellers at the rate of 4% of the selling price of $13,000,000 less the value of the inventory. The Respondent agreed to share his commission 50/50 with Deborah Maclean. In December of 1984 and May of 1985, a meeting was held between Ms. Maclean, her attorney George P. Langford, and Respondent to further discuss the sale of the facility and any fee arrangements. Respondent informed Mr. Langford that he did not have a current license, but Respondent stated that he felt that the transaction primarily involved a business and not real property. Respondent did not state to any of the persons involved that he had the "listing" for the Rhinelander property. However, Mr. Peterson informed Ms. Maclean that there was a detailed listing for the property. Respondent's employing broker, Raymond J. Deangelis, did not discover that Respondent was attempting to obtain a purchaser for the Wisconsin property through sales negotiations with Deborah Maclean until May, 1985. None of the negotiations or documents involved in the attempted sale of the Rhinelander property were routed through Respondent's broker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Florida Real Estate Commission suspend the real estate salesman's license of Respondent Ronald Gilbert Rice for a period of 6 months and that an administrative fine of $500 be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate/Legal 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 J. Stephen Crawford, Esquire 12751 Cleveland Avenue Suite 207 Ft. Myers, Florida 33907 Fred Roche Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in a discriminatory housing practice, within the meaning of and in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2005), by requiring Petitioners to submit a second application for the approval of a condominium purchase.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that Petitioner, Allan Kangas, has no handicap and is not a disabled person. At the conclusion of Petitioners' case-in-chief, Mr. Kangas testified that he has no handicap. The undersigned, sua sponte, entered an ore tenus order on the record dismissing the case brought by Mr. Kangas. Petitioner, Anna Kangas, is an elderly female and the mother of Mr. Allan Kangas and Mr. Sheldon Kangas, the latter being the representative in this proceeding for the named Petitioners. It is undisputed that Mr. Sheldon Kangas is not handicapped, but that Mrs. Kangas is handicapped, within the meaning of Section 760.22(7), Florida Statutes (2005), because of Alzheimer's disease. Respondent is a condominium association lawfully incorporated as a Florida corporation (Association). Respondent must operate in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, and Declaration of Condominium (condominium documents). The condominium documents require the Association to approve each purchase of a condominium. On December 8, 2005, Mr. Sheldon Kangas and Mrs. Anna Kangas contracted with Ms. Mary Cox to purchase condominium unit 15, located at 23 Hatchett Creek Road. Ms. Cox is a real estate agent and a co-owner of unit 15. Ms. Cox notified Ms. Pat Williamson, Association Secretary, of the prospective purchase. For the reasons stated herein, Respondent did not discriminate against the prospective purchasers, but approved the purchase of condominium unit 18 in a timely manner after the purchasers changed their purchase contract from unit 15 to unit 18. The prospective purchasers completed an application for approval of the purchase of unit 15 sometime between December 8 and 10, 2005. The Association conducted a meeting to approve the proposed purchase on December 10, 2005. During the meeting on December 10, 2005, the purchasers informed the Association that they wished to purchase unit 18, located at 29 Hatchett Creek Road, rather than unit 15. Unit 18 was owned by Mr. Brian Isaac. Ms. Cox did not object to releasing the purchasers from the contract for the purchase of unit 15. The Association informed the purchasers that a new application for unit 18 would be required. The purchasers completed a new application under protest. At a meeting conducted on January 3, 2006, the Association approved the application for the purchase of unit 18. The purchase of unit 18 closed on January 25, 2006. The purchasers seek reimbursement of living expenses incurred for hotel rooms and meals during the delay caused by the requirement for a second application. The purchasers are not entitled to reimbursement. The purchase of unit 18 was the first time the Association had required a second application. However, it was also the first time a purchaser had changed his or her choice of units after submitting an application. The Association did not discriminate against Mrs. Kangas because of her handicap. The record evidence contains no justifiable issue of law or fact to support the alleged discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David G. Muller, Esquire Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. 630 South Orange Avenue, Third Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 Shelden Kangas Allan Kangas 4578 Manor Drive Sarasota, Florida 34233
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents unlawfully discriminated against Petitioners on the basis of race, or retaliated against them for exercising a protected right, or both, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Because no evidence was admitted into the record at the final hearing, the undersigned cannot make any findings of fact. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (“Findings of fact shall be based … exclusively on the evidence of record and on matters officially recognized.”).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondents not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Petitioners no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Antonio Carraway Whang Carraway 1406 Southwest Osprey Cove Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 (eServed) Jillian Sidisky, Esquire Stefanie S. Copelow, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
