The Issue The issue for determination in this matter is whether Respondents engaged in acts of housing discrimination against Petitioners on the basis of race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Donald Travis and Lisa Harrell, are a bi-racial couple (Mr. Travis is African-American and, therefore, belongs to a class of persons subject to protection under Florida's Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes, and Ms. Harrell is white). They have two sons who are bi-racial (one is African-American and white, the other is white and Asian). Petitioners lived in Apartment 163 at 10075 West Highway 98, Pensacola, Florida 32506. Respondents, John and Anne Cutler, are the owners of two four-plex apartments at 10075 West Highway 98, Pensacola, Florida 32506, including the unit occupied by Petitioners that gave rise to this matter. They are both retired educators who own and operate their apartment rental business in their retirement. In their teaching and professional careers, both have instructed students of various races and national origins. Petitioner, Donald Travis, is a veteran of Desert Storm and has been treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He regularly takes medications to treat anxiety and depression. On April 4, 2008, Petitioners moved into Apartment 163, which had been recently painted, carpeted, and had a new ceiling fan and light installed in the living room. Everything went smoothly between Petitioners and Respondents for several months. Mr. Cutler had to unplug the downstairs toilet with a plunger a few times, but everything else seemed to be in working order. Both Mr. and Ms. Cutler considered Petitioners to be good tenants. As summer approached, Mr. Travis asked Mr. Cutler about installing a screen door for the sliding glass doors. This could not be done without replacing the entire sliding glass doors. When Apartment 131 became vacant, its screen door was moved to Petitioners' apartment. The screen door had a slit in it, which Ms. Cutler repaired with tape. When Apartment 132 became vacant, the good screen door from that apartment was used to replace the taped one in Petitioners' apartment. Respondents tried to keep everything in working order in Petitioners' apartment. When Petitioners' refrigerator door would not close, Respondents replaced the refrigerator. Respondents thought Petitioners were happy with their apartment. Petitioners called Respondents about a plumbing leak and said feces was running down the wall. The leak and pipe were fixed by B & G Plumbing. Petitioners were shown the water shut-off valve in case of future leaks. Petitioners believe that Respondents treated them differently from other tenants in the apartment buildings. Petitioners believe that other tenants were allowed to keep pets in their apartments while they were not. Respondents allowed tenants who had pets when they purchased the apartments to keep them, but banned pets on all future rentals. The rent for Petitioners' apartment, including water, sewer, and garbage, was $650.00. Petitioners always paid their rent on time. Petitioners asked to be moved into a better unit since they believed their unit was inferior to others in the complex. Petitioners wanted to move into Apartment 162 which, in their opinion, was in much better shape than their unit. Respondents offered to put new carpet into Apartment 162 before Petitioners moved in, but they refused. Petitioners decided to leave the apartment because they believed the maintenance was not properly performed. On December 5, 2008, the day Petitioners made known their desire to leave the apartment, Mr. Travis confronted Mr. Cutler. Mr. Cutler offered Apartment 132 to Petitioners because it was ready for occupancy after its occupants had moved out. Apartment 133 would soon be ready, and was also offered to Petitioners. Mr. Travis angrily refused to move into any apartments in the two four-plexes. He yelled at Mr. Cutler and told him he hated him. This exchange was witnessed by a neighbor, Gary Denton. Mr. Cutler offered to let Petitioners move out without penalty, and agreed to return their $650.00 deposit. Petitioners accepted the offer and received the deposit in full as well as a waiver of the first five days' rent for December and an additional four days of rent to allow them time to pack and move. Petitioners accused Respondents of renting one four-plex to whites only and the other to minorities. At the time Petitioners moved out, both four-plexes had tenants of different races. As of the date of the hearing, five of the six total units rented were to non-white tenants. Only one was rented to a white couple.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 25th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: John Cutler Anne Cutler 5970 Limestone Road Pensacola, Florida 32504 Donald Travis Lisa Harrell 1008 West Young Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner on the basis of a handicap.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner formerly resided in Montrose Apartments at 563 West Montrose Street, Apartment 18, Clermont, Florida. Petitioner alleges that he is a handicapped/disabled person by virtue of a mental disability, who was "illegally" evicted from Montrose Apartments because of his handicap/disability. At all times relevant to this proceeding Francisco Guzman, Jr., owned and managed Montrose Apartments. Mr. Guzman was unaware of Petitioner's alleged handicap/disability. At no time during Petitioner's tenancy at Montrose Apartments did Petitioner notify management of the apartment complex that he had a handicap/disability. Furthermore, Petitioner never provided management with documentation verifying that he had a handicap/disability. Petitioner alleged that in early 2009, he requested that Respondent make plumbing repairs in his apartment unit and that Respondent refused to comply with those requests. He further alleged that Respondent did not take his maintenance requests seriously and treated other tenants at Montrose Apartments more favorably than he was treated. Petitioner admitted that he did not pay rent for his Montrose Apartment unit in March and April 2009. According to Petitioner, he withheld the rent because Respondent failed to make the requested plumbing repairs. In correspondence from him to a "Ms. Smith," Mr. Guzman indicated that on "Sunday [March] 22, 2009," he had posted a three-day notice on Petitioner's apartment, because he had not paid his March 2009 rent. Also, Mr. Guzman acknowledged that he had not been able to repair Petitioner's bathroom sink because he had been unable to gain access to Petitioner's apartment. Finally, Mr. Guzman indicated that he believed Petitioner was "avoiding [him] since he is unable to pay the rent." Petitioner did not pay rent for his Montrose Apartment unit in March and April 2009, even after Respondent notified him several times that the rent was past due and should be paid. Respondent began eviction proceedings against Petitioner in or about late April or early May 2009, by filing a Complaint for Eviction ("Eviction Complaint") with the County Court of Lake County, Florida. The Eviction Complaint was assigned Case No. 2009-CC001534. Respondent filed the Eviction Complaint against Petitioner after, and because, he did not pay the March and April 2009 rent for his Montrose Apartment unit. On May 5, 2009, a Final Judgment for Possession and Writ of Possession were entered against Petitioner. The Writ of Possession was served on Petitioner and enforced. On or about May 8, 2009, the apartment unit previously rented to Petitioner was turned over to Mr. Guzman. Petitioner alleges and asserts that: (1) he is disabled/handicapped due to a mental disability; (2) he was evicted because of his handicap/disability; and (3) Respondent knew Petitioner was handicapped/disabled. Nevertheless, Petitioner presented no competent evidence to support his claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Luis Bermudez' Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 26th day of February, 2010.
Findings Of Fact For purposes of the Motions to Dismiss filed by Agrico and the Department, the following findings of fact are based upon the pleadings in this case, matters to which the parties have stipulated, and DOAH Case Number 86-3618, as well as final agency action resulting therefrom: On or about August 26, 1986, Petitioners filed with the Department a petition for formal administrative proceeding which challenged the dredge and fill permit that the Department intended to issue to Agrico. The Department transmitted this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing, and it was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer as DOAH Case Number 86- 3618. Petitioners relied upon Sections 120.57(1) and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, to "initiate" DOAH Case Number 86-3618 as is clearly set forth in paragraph 20 of their Petition filed in that case. In their Motion for Fees and Costs at paragraph 3, Petitioners further allege, and thereby concede, that they "initiated the above styled proceeding (DOAH Case Number 86-3618)." A final hearing was scheduled to begin on April 28, 1987 in DOAH Case Number 86-3618. However by letter to the Department dated March 2, 1987, Agrico voluntarily withdrew its application for a dredge and fill permit which was the subject of that case. Thereafter, a telephone conference call was held on March 17, 1987, following which an Order Closing File was filed in DOAH Case Number 86-3618 on that same date, and jurisdiction was relinquished to the Department. The Final Order in Case Number 86-3618 was entered by the Department on May 18, 1987 which states: Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that the withdrawal of permit application number 53-1093999 is GRANTED with prejudice to further Department consideration of the application, but without prejudice to the future submission of another dredge and fill application covering the same tract of land covered by application number 53-1093999. The withdrawal of permit application number 53-1093999 divests the Department of jurisdiction to proceed with consideration of (Booker Creek and Manasota's) petition. Humana of Florida, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 500 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, the above-captioned case (DOAH Case Number 86-3618) is DISMISSED as moot. On July 16, 1987, Petitioners timely filed their Motion for Fees and Costs which was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer and given DOAH Case Number 87-3007F. Petitioners are each incorporated as not-for-profit corporations within the State of Florida, with principal off ices in Florida, and each having less than twenty-five full time employees, as well as a net worth of not more than two million dollars.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Cordell John, (Landlord) discriminated against Petitioner, Denise Johnson- Acosta (Johnson) on the basis of her or her daughter’s alleged handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Johnson is a Hispanic woman. She has asthma and other medical conditions. Johnson has a teenage daughter, Ashley Denise Rivera. Ashley has a seizure disorder and has bipolar disorder. Johnson is engaged to Alexis Pons. The Landlord is an African-American male. He owns the property located at 13847 Beauregard Place in Orlando, Florida (the Property). The Property is a single-family residential townhouse. At some unspecified time during calendar year 2012, Johnson approached the Landlord expressing an interest in leasing the Property. At that time, another tenant was living in the Property but was in the process of moving out. The Landlord showed Johnson the Property. Johnson expressed her complete satisfaction with the Property and that she would like to lease it (and possibly buy it in the future). At first sight, Johnson liked everything about the Property except for the back yard. On September 10, 2012, the Landlord emailed a Rental Application to Johnson. The email advised Johnson that there would be a $50 application fee which must be paid when the application was delivered. In response to the email, Johnson confirmed that she wanted to view the Property on the upcoming Thursday. On September 11, 2012, Johnson filled out the Rental Application and provided it to the Landlord for review. The application listed Johnson as the primary tenant and Ashley and Pons as additional residents. The application also noted that Johnson had a pet, a petite Chihuahua, which would be living in the unit. After reviewing the application, the Landlord notified Johnson via email that he would need pictures of the Chihuahua. He also asked how much the dog weighed. The Landlord also told Johnson that the rent would be $1,250 per month and that a $200 nonrefundable pet fee must be paid. Johnson replied that the dog weighed four pounds. She was concerned that the Landlord was now quoting $1,250 per month when earlier discussions had indicated the rent would be $1,200 per month. Johnson thanked the Landlord and agreed to provide a picture of the dog. The Landlord replied to Johnson that when pets are involved, the rent is increased slightly. Johnson and the Landlord had a conversation on September 17, 2012. By email dated September 18, 2012, Johnson told the Landlord that she had decided to withdraw her application because of “multiple misunderstandings” between the parties. At some point thereafter, Johnson decided to go through with the lease after all. On October 20, 2012, Johnson did a walk-through inspection of the Property. By way of her signature on the walk-through check list, Johnson agreed that the living room, kitchen, dining room, both bathrooms, both bedrooms, and all other portions of the Property were satisfactory. The only caveat was that there was stain on a counter in the kitchen area. Johnson said she would “advise at time of move” as to her feelings about the parking areas and the patio/terrace/deck area. On November 2, 2012, Johnson and the Landlord entered into a binding Residential Tenancy Agreement. Johnson initialed each page and signed the agreement. The agreement was witnessed by two individuals. On or about that same date, Johnson gave the Landlord several money orders: A $250 money order for the pet deposit; $50 for Pons’ application fee, and $880 for prorated rent for November. Johnson did not complain about the pet deposit at that time. Johnson moved into the Property on or about November 2, 2012. About two months later, on January 1, 2013, Johnson mailed a letter to the Landlord via certified mail, return receipt requested. The letter advised the Landlord that Johnson would be moving out of the Property on or before January 14, 2013. The letter cited several bases for the decision to move out, including: Air condition vents were “visibly covered with dust and dark surroundings”; Johnson and her daughter have severe allergies; Johnson has acute asthma and bronchitis; and The dwelling is unlivable. Johnson also claimed many violations of Florida law by the Landlord concerning the lease, including: Taking a deposit for a pet when that pet was in fact a companion dog. (Johnson submitted a letter into evidence from a behavioral health care employee. The letter, dated some five months after Johnson vacated the unit, said that Ashley would benefit from having a companion dog as she did not have many friends. There was no evidence that the Chihuahua was ever registered or approved as a companion dog.); Smoke alarms which were not in working order; Electrical breakers tripping throughout Property; Unreimbursed expenses, e.g., for changing locks; Failure to put Pons on the lease agreement despite doing a background financial check on him; and Harassment from Bank of America employees trying to collect the Landlord’s mortgage payment for the Property. In the letter stating she would be moving, Johnson expressed her sorrow that the housing situation did not work out. She then set forth the amount of deposit money she believed should be returned to her. In response, she received a letter from the Landlord’s counsel advising that her security and pet deposits had been forfeited. On January 4, 2013, the Landlord posted a notice on the Property door demanding payment of outstanding rent within three days. In lieu of payment, Johnson could vacate the premises within three days. Johnson vacated the premises. On January 14, 2013, Johnson did an exit walk-through of the Property, along with the Landlord, his mother, and Pons. At the completion of the walk- through, Johnson turned over the keys for the Property to the Landlord. Johnson claims discrimination on the part of the Landlord because he failed to recognize or accept the companion dog, failed to put Pons on the lease agreement, and failed to make accommodations for Johnson’s claimed health conditions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Denise Johnson-Acosta in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cordell John 2921 Swoops Circle Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Denise Johnson-Acosta Post Office Box 453347 Kissimmee, Florida 34745 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Rule 61B-23.003(9), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Michael Gertinisan, is a unit owner and member of the Bay Hills Village Condominium Association, Inc. (Association). The Association is responsible for the operation of the Bay Hills Village Condominium. Petitioner purchased his unit in December, 1992. Prior to December, 1992, the Petitioner had leased the unit for a number of years. The Bay Hills Village Condominium is a mobile home park condominium where each unit is comprised of a parcel of vacant land upon which is placed a mobile home. Transfer of control of the Association from the developer to the unit owners, other than the developer, pursuant to Section 718.301, Florida Statutes, has not occurred. However, unit owners, other than the developer, are entitled to elect a representative to the board of administration of the Association in an upcoming election. The declaration of condominium for Bay Hills Village Condominium was recorded in the public records in 1985. A number of units were sold to purchasers in 1985. At the time Bay Hill Village Condominium was created and the declaration of condominium recorded in the public records in 1985, the controlling statute, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, contained no maximum period of time during which the developer was entitled to control the operation of the Association through its ability to elect a majority of the board of administration. The developer of a condominium is statutorily entitled to control the affairs of the condominium association for a period set forth in the statutes. This right to control the affairs of the condominium association for the period set forth in the statutes is a substantive vested right. With the right to control the condominium association, comes the attendant rights, including but not limited to, the right to: (a) adopt a budget meeting the marketing needs of the developer; (b) enter in to contracts with related entities providing for maintenance and management of the condominiums; (c) control ingress and egress on and over the condominium property to move construction equipment; (d) adopt board policies relating to the renting of units in the condominium; (e) adopt board policies regarding placement of "For Sale" signs on the condominium property and to model its units; (f) maintain the property in accordance with the developer's need to conduct an ongoing sales program; and (g) change the size and configuration of units in the condominium to meet the needs of the developer's marketing campaign. In those situations where the developer still exercises control over the condominium association, the aforestated rights of the developer would be substantively impaired by a retroactive application of Section 718.301(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as created by Chapter 91-103, Section 12, Laws of Florida, to condominiums in existence prior to the affective date of the Chapter 91-103, Section 12, Laws of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, ORDERED that the Petitioner failed to establish that Rule 61B-23.003(9), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and the relief sought by the Petitioner is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6214RX The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The Petitioner elected to not file any proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, respectively. Proposed finding of fact is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Gertinisan 10506 Bay Hills Circle Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Henry M. Solares, Director Division of Florida Land Sales Condominiums and Mobile Homes 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful discrimination in the provision of services or facilities in connection with her dwelling based on her race or handicap, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 51-year-old black female who relocated to Leesburg, Florida, from Port Chester, New York, in February 2012. Respondent, Richman Property Services, Inc., is the corporate owner/manager of Laurel Oaks Apartments (Laurel Oaks) located at 131 Bayou Circle in Leesburg, Florida. Amy Lewis is the Community Manager of Laurel Oaks. Petitioner rented a two-bedroom apartment unit from Respondent from February 24, 2012, until she moved to Orlando, Florida, on December 3, 2012. Petitioner?s daughter, Sushon Dillard, occupied the apartment with Petitioner during her tenancy at Laurel Oaks. Petitioner spoke with Ms. Lewis via telephone to inquire regarding the availability of a unit at Laurel Oaks while Petitioner was still residing out of state. Petitioner applied for tenancy at Laurel Oaks by faxing her application to Ms. Lewis. Petitioner?s application was accompanied by a copy of her award letter documenting Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments as proof of income. On February 24, 2012, Petitioner signed a lease for Laurel Oaks unit #103, paid a security deposit, and moved into the unit. Petitioner has a current clinical diagnosis of “schizophrenia, paranoid.” She also claims to be diagnosed bi- polar with Tourrete?s Syndrome. While Petitioner presented no documentation of the additional diagnosis, her testimony on this issue is credible and is accepted by the undersigned. Petitioner was first hospitalized for treatment of an unspecified mental illness at Bellevue Hospital in New York in 1982. She apparently lived without significant incident for the next 26 years. Petitioner had a “breakdown” in 2008, while living in Arizona, and another “breakdown” that same year in New York, for which she was hospitalized at Greenwich Hospital in Connecticut, and later transferred to Stamford Hospital in Connecticut. Petitioner reports that since April 2008, she has “spent time in numerous mental institutions in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland and New York.” Petitioner?s most recent incident occurred in August 2012, while she was living at Laurel Oaks. She was taken by police to a local facility named “Life Stream” where she was treated for a number of days, then returned home to her apartment at Laurel Oaks with her daughter. Petitioner appeared calm and controlled at the final hearing. She testified that she is taking her medications and doing very well. Petitioner claims that when she moved into the unit at Laurel Oaks, it was not cleaned, was “infested with dead roaches,” and the washing machine was filthy. Petitioner?s daughter testified there were dead roaches even in the dishwasher. Petitioner also bases her allegation of discrimination on Respondent?s accusation in April 2012, that Petitioner had not paid a $300 security deposit prior to occupying her apartment. When Petitioner paid her April rent, Trifonia Bradley, an employee in the office at Laurel Oaks, informed Petitioner she still owed a $300 security deposit. Petitioner responded that she had paid the deposit on February 24, 2012. Although the evidence was not clear as to the specific date, Petitioner later met with Ms. Bradley and brought in her receipt showing the $300 had been paid in February. After that meeting, Petitioner received a phone call from Ms. Lewis apologizing for the error and stating something to the effect of “we are all good.” Petitioner believes Respondent was attempting to take advantage of her disability and trick her into paying the deposit again. At final hearing, Petitioner and her daughter presented evidence and testimony regarding additional alleged discriminatory acts by Respondent. Petitioner alleged that someone employed by, or otherwise acting on behalf of Respondent, sabotaged her automobile; harassed her by requesting her daughter fill out a separate rental application in order to live with her; harassed Petitioner about her request for accommodation based on her disability and claimed she had not demonstrated that she was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act; threatened to tow away her car because it was inoperable; and stole money from her apartment. Each of these additional alleged acts occurred after September 21, 2012, the date on which FCHR issued its determination of no cause, and was not investigated by FCHR. Petitioner is intelligent and articulate. Her exhibits were well-organized and contained copious documentation of the alleged discriminatory acts occurring after September 21, 2012. Her documentation included correspondence with Laurel Oaks? management, notices which were posted on the apartment door, copies of numerous forms and applications, and a police report. In contrast, Petitioner offered no tangible evidence regarding the condition of the property upon occupancy other than her testimony, which was not persuasive. She introduced no photographs, no written complaint, and no correspondence with the manager or other employees of Laurel Oaks regarding the condition of the apartment. In fact, she offered no evidence that she brought the condition of the unit to the attention of Laurel Oaks? management. Given the totality of the evidence, including the demeanor of the Petitioner and Ms. Dillard, the undersigned finds that either the unit was not unclean or Petitioner did not bring the condition of the unit to the attention of Laurel Oaks upon occupying the unit. Further, the undersigned finds that Laurel Oaks erroneously requested the security deposit in April 2012, and corrected the error after reviewing Petitioner?s documentation. The mistake was not an act of discrimination based either on race or disability.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2012H0289. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Suzanne Van Wyk 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 December, 2012.
Findings Of Fact M. G., Incorporated, a real estate developer in Brevard County, Florida, caused to be constructed The Bello Rio Condominium complex at 255 South Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, Florida. On January 25, 1979, the Chief, Bureau of Condominiums, Department of Business Regulation, State of Florida, advised the attorney for the Developer that, pursuant to Rule 7D-17.05, Florida Administrative Code, the condominium documents submitted for approval for the project in question here had been reviewed and were considered proper for filing, and that the Developer could lawfully close sales contracts on units within the project. Units were sold; and on September 1, 1981, the project was "turned over" by the Developer to the association. At the meeting held for this purpose, several documents were delivered by the Developer to the association's Board of Administration (Board) in the person of Faye Shaffer, a resident of the development. These documents consisted of: Three (3) checks totaling $1,800; The association seal; The original recorded copy of the Declaration; The original copy of the Articles of Incorporation; A condominium insurance policy; A flood insurance renewal declaration; and Certificates of Occupancy for twelve (12) units. All plans and specifications in the hands of the Developer were released to the association's attorney sometime in that general time frame. Further, because there were no common areas covered by warranties, none were available to turn over. Either at the time of turnover or shortly thereafter, during the month of September, 1981, Mrs. Shaffer also received from the Developer five sheets of check ledger paper reflecting the following categories of entries: Date of check; Payee; Check number; Amount of check; Lawn maintenance; Utilities; Insurance; Garbage pickup; Bank service charge; Miscellaneous; and Management fee (10 percent). These ledger sheets were not certified as reviewed by a certified public accountant and constituted the only financial records turned over to the association by the Developer at any time. The accounting and bookkeeping functions for this project were accomplished initially in the offices of the Developer. Thereafter, the Developer retained Guest Realty, Inc., to manage the facility, including the collection of maintenance fees and making payments as required for utilities, etc. During the period of that company's stewardship, all accounting for funds and bank statement reconciliations were handled by Guest Realty, Inc. Any deficiencies resulting between fees collected and expenses paid during that period were made up by the Developer, and Guest Realty, Inc., received a fee of 10 percent of the maintenance fees received for its services. Any bills, receipts, cancelled checks, or other records kept during the period are now in storage; and Mr. Guest, on behalf of Respondent, M. G., Incorporated, will not make the effort to retrieve them unless required to do so by some competent authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be assessed a penalty of $500 under the provisions of Section 718.501(1)(d)4, Florida Statutes (1981) RECOMMENDED this 13th of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 13th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Helen C. Ellis, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William C. Irvin, Esquire Post Office Box 606 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. E. James Kearney Director Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Whether La Vita Condominium Association, acting through its Board of Directors, refused to allow Linda C. Andzulis, a member of the association, to fill a vacancy on the board because of her gender, and thereby committed a discriminatory housing practice in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Linda C. Andzulis is a resident of the La Vita Condominium. As the owner of the condominium unit in which she resides with her husband, Ms. Andzulis is also a member of the La Vita Condominium Association. She has never served on the Association’s Board of Directors, but she has a keen interest in the business of the association. She frequently attends board meetings. Ms. Joan Di Gregorio, past President of the Board sums up Ms. Andzulis’ participation at board meetings: Ms. Andzulis is a “strong individual . . . who has her agenda and she will bring it forward.” Described by some who live at the condominium as an “aggressive woman of integrity,” energetic, very intelligent, even “brilliant,” Ms. Andzulis' views and methods of expressing her views finds opposition among other association members. The La Vita Condominium Association is a Florida not- for-profit corporation. Organized pursuant to Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, the Association operates and administers the condominium officially known as “La Vita, a Condominium.” The condominium is located in Altamonte Springs, Florida. The Board and its HistoryComposition There are five seats on the Association’s board. In January of 1995, (the time at which the main act of discrimination on the basis of gender is claimed by Ms. Andzulis to have been committed by the board,) four of the five seats were filled, all by men: H. C. Roddenberry, then the president, Robert Shorthouse, Tom Anderson and a fourth man who had filled a vacancy on the board the month before but who did not attend the January, 1995 board meeting. At least six women have served on the board over the years, four prior to January, 1995, and two since January of 1995: Rosemary Anderson, Sue Bridwell, Joan di Gregorio, Brenda Herndon, Shirley Turner, and Patricia Schmidt. Several women have served as president of the board, including the board’s current president, Rosemary Anderson. These women have been encouraged to serve on the board by both Mr. Roddenberry and Mr. Shorthouse. In some cases they were not only nominated as candidates for the board by Mr. Roddenberry or Mr. Shorthouse, but were actually recruited to run for the board by either Mr. Roddenberry or Mr. Shorthouse, or both. Of these six female board members, Ms. Schmidt found it necessary to end her service on the board at one point because she was being bothered by a member of the association. There is nothing to indicate that the harassment was on the basis of gender. Furthermore, the harassment was from an individual and not in any way the result of any action by the association or the board, itself. Ms. Schmidt’s experience is all too typical for condominium association board members in this state, particularly when the association is plagued with the intra-association conflict, internal dissension, and turmoil that afflicts La Vita. None of the six women who have served as members of the board, including Ms. Schmidt, recount any trouble with any board member on account of their gender. In fact, all state that they have never been treated by male members of the board in any way other than with courtesy. They have been comfortable serving on the board with the board’s male members and relate that they have been treated “just the same as any other board member.” In short, they report that during their tenures on the board they have been accorded the respect due each and every member willing to be subjected to the rigor of running for the board and, if elected, to assume the demanding, often thankless, task of serving on the association’s board of directors. b. Issues Confronting the Board As is typical of condominium associations in Florida, particularly those with retired residents on fixed incomes, the Board of Directors of the La Condominium Association has faced many tough issues over its lifetime. One of the most difficult issues for the board has been the roofing system at the condominium. Not long after Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida, Central Florida was hit with a number of serious storms. During this time, La Vita Condominium suffered numerous roof leaks. It was difficult to obtain bids from licensed roofing contractors, let alone find a qualified roofing contractor to actually provide necessary repairs and roof replacements, because so many local roofing contractors were in South Florida in response to the tremendous demand for roofing services in the aftermath of Andrew. Roofers who remained in Central Florida were tied up with local business created by the demand for roofing services in the wake of the serious storms of 1992-93. The board of directors did the best it could, including frequently seeking the consult of legal counsel, with a difficult roofing situation. Ms. Andzulis, however, among others, felt the board had not handled the situation properly. She was not shy about bringing her opinion on the matter to the attention of the board at its regularly scheduled meetings. Another difficult problem with which the board has been and continues to be beset is the association’s relationship to the developer of La Vita and the developer’s refusal to pay assessments for “phantom” units, unbuilt units in phases of the condominium not yet constructed. The Board has struggled with the issue for many years. Again, it has sought the advice of counsel and gone to the length of bringing suit against the developer. None of the attempts to resolve the developer’s refusal to pay assessments have borne fruit. As one board member stated, the developer has more attorneys, threatens or commences bankruptcy proceedings and always seems to be “one step ahead” of the board. Just as Ms. Andzulis has not been satisfied with the board’s attempts to address the association’s roofing problems, she has not been satisfied with the association’s attempts to deal effectively with the developer. Again, she has not been shy to make her feelings known at the board meetings. While there are certain members of the Association who support Ms. Andzulis’ views on these matters, her participation at board meetings has reached the point where a number of observers feel that she has monopolized time at the board meetings to the detriment of the board being able to accomplish the business of the association. Achieving Board Membership There are three ways to become a member of a board of directors of a condominium association in Florida. The first and most obvious is by election. The latter two are without election: (a) when time for nomination for candidates in an election closes and the number of nominated candidates do not exceed the number of seats up for election; and, (b) by filling a vacancy on the board that occurs before the expiration of the vacant seat’s term. There is a critical difference between the two ways of taking a seat without election. As explained by Mr. Peter McGrath, who has served as legal counsel to the Board in the past, if there are only as many candidates for election to the board as there are seats, by operation of law, those candidates automatically become members of the board. In other words, the election is dispensed with as unnecessary. The reason for dispensing with an election and seating the candidates automatically is the difficulty many condominium associations have experienced, particularly the longer they have existed and the more intractable the problems they have faced, in finding association members willing to serve on the association’s board. In such a case, any qualified and duly-nominated party willing to serve takes a seat on the board. No one has any power to refuse to seat the candidate. In contrast, Mr. McGrath, as an expert in condominium law, explained that when there is a vacancy on the board mid- term, a person who offers his or her services does not automatically assume the position. The board may legitimately refuse to seat a qualified person who seeks the seat. The reason for the difference in approach when an entirely new board is seated as opposed to when a vacancy mid- term occurs is timing. A board that has been in existence when a vacancy occurs may have embarked on a certain course of action. Or an individual member of the board may have hopes of convincing other members that a certain direction should be pursued. Members of the board are allowed to consider whether a volunteer for board service will support that course or direction. In undertaking consideration of the volunteer’s offer it is legitimate to examine the volunteer’s statements and opinions as to the board’s direction. It is completely legitimate for a board member to vote against a volunteer on the basis that he or she would be an impediment to the board’s adopted course or to the direction the director chooses to pursue and hopes the board will pursue. Ms. Andzulis Expresses Interest in Membership on the Board On July 12, 1994, Ms. Andzulis had a conversation with Mr. Shorthouse, then a member of the board of directors. Ms. Andzulis told Mr. Shorthouse that she hoped to serve on the board since the board had asked for volunteers the previous June 7, following the occurrence of one or more vacancies. Ms. Andzulis left the discussion thinking that Mr. Shorthouse would place her name in nomination at the next board meeting on August 9, 1994. Neither Mr. Shorthouse nor anyone else nominated Ms. Andzulis to fill a vacancy on the board at the August 9, 1994 meeting. Ms. Andzulis did not step up at the meeting to volunteer. The next morning, August 10, 1994, Ms. Andzulis confronted Mr. Shorthouse. At hearing, Ms. Andzulis attempted to prove that Mr. Shorthouse said to her on the morning of August 10, 1994, that the board did not want women on the board. Other than the association’s presentation of Mr. Shorthouse’s testimony, neither party presented any witnesses to this conversation. Ms. Andzulis attempted to prove her version of the conversation through witnesses to a second conversation she had with Mr. Shorthouse following a board meeting months later. She asked these witnesses whether she had stated to Mr. Shorthouse that he had told her during the August 10, 1994 meeting that the board did not want women on the board and Mr. Shorthouse, in the presence of these witnesses, did not deny the accusation. Each of the three witnesses answered in the affirmative. In his testimony, however, Mr. Shorthouse, adamantly denied that he ever made any such statement. Ms. Andzulis, the only person other than Mr. Shorthouse who heard the August 10, 1994 conversation, did not testify at the hearing. This second conversation in the presence of witnesses took place following a board meeting on January 10, 1997. At this meeting, Ms. Andzulis again had hopes that she would be accepted to fill a vacant seat on the board. Prior to the January 10, 1997 board meeting, Ms. Andzulis asked Mr. Roddenberry, then president of the board, if he would meet with her. He agreed. Their meeting took place on January 5, 1996. They discussed Ms. Andzulis’ interest in filling a vacancy on the board. During the discussion Mr. Roddenberry pointed out the many difficulties of serving on the board. He asked Ms. Andzulis, in light of those difficulties, if she was sure she wanted to be on the board. Mr. Roddenberry left the meeting with the expectation that if Ms. Andzulis continued to be interested in being on the board, she would raise her hand during the meeting to indicate her interest. Mr. Roddenberry was hoping against hope that Ms. Andzulis would not volunteer at the meeting. He could not support her candidacy and he did not want her to know that he would vote against her. He did not want her to know because he feared repercussions both to himself and any other board member, repercussions that he believed would be brought by Ms. Andzulis. Ultimately, Mr. Roddenberry was concerned about what might happen to the association and the business of the condominium should Ms. Andzulis’ offer be turned down by the board. Normally at La Vita, when an association member offers to fill a vacancy on the board, the wish is made known at the opening of the meeting and a vote is immediately taken so that if the volunteer is approved by vote of the board then the new director will be able to participate in the business conducted at the meeting. At the January 10, 1995, board meeting this procedure was not followed. It was not followed because Ms. Andzulis did not make her wish to be on the board known at the opening of the meeting and because Mr. Roddenberry was not then certain whether Ms. Andzulis wanted to fill the vacancy or not. As the meeting came to a close, however, Ms. Andzulis raised her hand. For the first time in the meeting, Mr. Roddenberry realized Ms. Andzulis had made up her mind; she wanted to fill the vacancy. Mr. Roddenberry, as president of the board, called for a secret ballot on whether the Board should seat Ms. Andzulis. Unbeknown to Mr. Roddenberry at the time, and apparently to everyone else present (including Ms. Andzulis since she did not make an issue of it at the meeting,) secret votes by a condominium association are in violation of the Condominium Act. Mr. Roddenberry called for the secret ballot, not because he had any intention of violating the condominium law, but because Mr. Roddenberry, for the reasons stated earlier, did not want Ms. Andzulis to know how he would vote. As it turned out, all three board members present voted against seating Ms. Andzulis on the board. The secret nature of the ballot was short-lived. Soon after the result of the vote was announced, it was also announced that all three members of the board present had voted against seating Ms. Andzulis. The March 6, 1996 Emergency Meeting On March 6, 1996, a duly-noticed emergency meeting of the board was convened. Mr. Roddenberry read a statement to all assembled. The statement reviewed Mr. Roddenberry’s tenure as President of the association and his accomplishments. After relating that he had enjoyed the challenges confronting the association and did not regret the time spent participating in the business of the condominium, the statement concluded as follows: Since the January board meeting, the association has had to deal with a homeowner’s onslaught of insurance claims, a complaint filed with the State of Florida, a complaint filed with the board of directors, all of which has significantly increased the amount of time that I must devote to association business . . . The final act of this homeowner was to file a housing discrimination complaint based on sex discrimination against the three board members who voted against her being on the board. I feel that this claim is a malicious attack on my integrity. If this is what a board member must be subjected to, then I respectfully submit my resignation to the Board of Directors effective immediately and I also am withdrawing my name from nomination at the annual meeting. Petitioner’s Ex. No. 8, page 1 of 3. The homeowner to whom Mr. Roddenberry referred in this statement is Ms. Andzulis. Mr. Roddenberry’s resignation was greeted generally by the members of the association with dismay. As a person of considerable business, financial and accounting experience, he had been instrumental while serving on the board in setting up a new accounting system and had been invaluable in many ways to the association in the conduct of its business. He was well- respected and his resignation was a great loss to La Vita. In her Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice, which serves as the foundation of this proceeding, Ms. Andzulis refers to the March 6 emergency meeting as “retaliatory.” The meeting was not retaliatory. It was for Mr. Roddenberry to resign effective immediately, nothing more, nothing less. His resignation, as is evident from the statement read at the meeting, was because of the numerous issues he had had to deal with subsequent to the board’s vote to turn down Ms. Andzulis' offer to fill a vacancy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order concluding that the La Vita Condominium Association, through the action of its board or otherwise, did not commit a discriminatory housing practice by refusing to allow Linda C. Andzulis to fill a vacancy on the association’s board of directors. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda M. Skipper, Esquire Paul L. Wean, P.A. 1305 East Robinson Street, Suite C Orlando, Florida 32801 Linda C. Anzulis, pro se 546-202 Via Fontana Drive Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is this case is whether the Respondent, Beacon Hill, Ltd., discriminated against Yvonne Malone (Petitioner) based on her religion in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (the Act).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a resident at an apartment complex owned and operated by the Respondent. At the hearing, the Petitioner recited a litany of complaints related to her apartment unit and to the services she has received from the Respondent's staff. Although the Petitioner has previously asserted that the Respondent has discriminated against her based on her religion, the Petitioner testified at the hearing that she had been "harassed" and "abused" by the Respondent's employees and that she did not know the basis for her treatment. The evidence failed to establish that the Respondent, or any person employed by the Respondent, has discriminated against the Petitioner based on her religion. The evidence failed to establish that the Respondent, or any person employed by the Respondent, has treated the Petitioner any differently than any other resident of the apartment complex has been treated. The evidence failed to establish that the Respondent, or any person employed by the Respondent, has "harassed" or "abused" the Petitioner in any manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Yvonne Malone. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 January, 2014.
