Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Denver Sammons, was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered air conditioning contractor, Class B, and Respondent qualified Denny's Air Conditioning Service under his license. At the January 8, 1985 meeting of the Broward County Central Examining Board of Mechanical Technicians, (Board), the Board heard a complaint by Port Distributors, a local air conditioning supplier, to the effect that Mr. Sammons had submitted two checks to that company in August, 1982, both of which were returned for insufficient funds and that neither had been redeemed. The Board decided to notify the Respondent of the complaint against him and give him an opportunity to respond at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board which was held on March 12,1985. At that Board meeting, at which Respondent was present, Mr. Julius M. Farinhouse, Jr., representative of Port Distributors, outlined its complaint against the Respondent detailing the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the bad checks and the need by the recipient to secure a judgment against the Respondent for the amount represented by the checks. There was evidence presented to the Board that these checks issued to Port Distributors were not the only checks written by Respondent that were not properly and promptly honored. Respondent testified before the Board regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the checks and contested the seriousness of the offense alleging that when notified of the bad checks, he had reimbursed Port Distributors for the majority of the sum covered by the two dishonored checks, but this repayment was applied toward current accounts rather than in satisfaction of the bad checks, contra to the intention of the Respondent. Having considered both the testimony presented by the complainants and the Respondent, the Board, that same date, March 12, 1985, nevertheless entered a Final Order finding that the passing of bad checks to Port Distributors by the Respondent constituted an act involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or lack of integrity in the operation of Respondent's contracting business; that he failed to make any effort to pay the outstanding bill owed to Port Distributors; and that this misconduct constituted a failure to comply with the standards of Section 9-7, Broward County Code. As a result, the Board ordered the Respondent's Broward County Certificate of Competency revoked that date. The Order of the Board made provision for Respondent to apply for reinstatement of his Certificate of Competency but no such application has ever been made. For several years prior to the issuing of the Certificate of Competency by Broward County, Respondent had, under the old procedure, held a Certificate of Competency issued by the City of Hollywood, Florida and had, each year, renewed that Certificate upon the payment of a $30.00 fee. The Certificate issued by the city was renewed effective January 1, 1985 and reflected on its face, that it was good until December 31, 1985. However, when the Broward County Board of Mechanical Technicians began to issue its county-wide Certificate of Competency, all prior city-issued certificates were declared to be null and void. As a result, though Respondent continued to hold his Hollywood certificate, it was ineffective and he should not have been allowed to renew it by the city, since he was, at that time, covered by a county Certificate of Competency. By action of the Board on March 12, 1985, Respondent's Board (County- wide) Certificate of Competency, which was the only valid certificate he held at the time, was revoked. Because of this revocation, Respondent was, thereafter, allowed to work as a journeyman for another Master Technician but could not contract in his own name or for his own business nor could he pull building permits from any county or city building office. Notwithstanding this, on or about August 12, 1985, Respondent entered into a contract acting as Denny's Air Conditioning, with Isabel Parra. This contract was to remove her old heating and cooling system in her residence at 2207 North 46th Avenue in Hollywood and to install a new unit to consist of a three ton gas furnace with air conditioning coil and condenser. Pursuant to the contract, Respondent did, in fact, remove the old unit and install a new one. However, he did not pull a building permit with the county or city building office and on August 26, 1985, officials of the City of Hollywood issued a Notice of Violation to Mrs. Parra reflecting that Denny's Air Conditioning installed a central air conditioning unit without permit and without possessing a valid contractor's license. Mrs. Parra further contended that when she turned on the unit, the noise it made was extremely loud and not to her satisfaction. Evidence introduced by both Petitioner and Respondent, however, indicates that the Respondent installed the new unit exactly as the old unit had been installed. Mrs. Parra testified that she had not heard the old unit in its heating mode and therefore had no idea whether it made as much noise as the new unit did. In any event, she withheld some of the funds that were due Respondent until such time as he agreed to have someone come out and correct the problem. It has been several months since the parties agreed to this and Respondent still has not corrected the problem. He contends that the contractor with whom he arranged to correct Ms. Parra's problem has been unable to get with her since she works during the days and is home only in the evenings. In any event, though not charged as a violation, it would appear that Respondent has failed to follow through on his work and on his commitment to complete an acceptable installation for Mrs. Parra. Petitioner also alleges that on or about June 25, 1985, the Broward County Consumer Protection Board issued a cease and desist order to Respondent for representing that he was qualified to perform contracting work in Broward County without possessing local competency. No evidence was introduced, however, to satisfy or establish this allegation. Because of the dispute between Mrs. Parra and the Respondent, and her dissatisfaction with the quality of his installation, she filed a complaint with the Board and on December 10, 1985, the Board again met and heard her testimony and that of Mr. Sammons. As a result, on December 20, 1985, the Board found that Respondent's contract with Mrs. Parra was based on a representation to her that he was a contractor when in fact the prior action of the Board had denied him this status. The Board further found that he failed to pull a permit for the installation of the unit in Ms. Parra's home and thereafter failed to comply with the warranty given to her under the contract executed by him on August 12, 1985, nor did he provide her with the rebate promised. Based on these Findings of Fact, the Board concluded that the Respondent willfully, deliberately, or negligently disregarded or violated the provisions of the South Florida Building Code; that he contracted to act as a qualifying agent for his business when he was not certified to do so; that he contracted and did work which was not within the description of the class (journeyman) for which he had been certified by the Board; and that he abandoned without legal excuse a construction project in which he was engaged and under contract to complete. As a result, the Board ordered that his journeyman's Certificate of Competency be revoked effective that day. Once the journeyman's certificate was taken away, Respondent was not authorized to act as an air conditioning installer or contractor under any circumstances. Notwithstanding this, on February 20, 1986, Respondent again, acting as Denny's Air Conditioning, entered into a contract with Dr. Eisenstein to install a new two-ton split system in the doctor's home in Hollywood for a total price of $2,530.00. Since Dr. Eisenstein had previously dealt with Respondent on several occasions and found him to be reliable, the doctor responded to Respondent's request for an advance by giving him a $2,000.00 deposit. The contract was not actually finalized until late in March, 1986 and work was to begin in early April. However, on April 1, 1986, Respondent called Dr. Eisenstein and advised him that his truck, in which was stored the equipment for installation into the doctor's home and the money bag which contained the balance of the doctor's downpayment had been illegally repossessed by Respondent's bank the night before. As a result, Mr. Sammons indicated he would not be able to begin the project but assured the doctor that someone else would do so starting at the end of the week. In fact, no work was ever started by the Respondent or anyone else on his behalf. After several days, when Dr. Eisenstein attempted to call Respondent, he found that Respondent's phone had been disconnected and when on April 5, 1986, the date promised by Respondent, no one came to begin work on the project, the doctor began undertook an investigation which led to the ultimate contact of the doctor by the Respondent. To reach Respondent, Dr. Eisenstein had checked with Respondent's business landlord and when Respondent finally called the doctor back, he was irate that the doctor had done so. During that conversation Dr. Eisenstein advised Respondent that he should either repay the money advanced or do the work. In fact, neither was done. During the month of April, 1986, Dr. Eisenstein sent Respondent two letters by certified mail requesting that he either refund the advance payment or do the work promised under the contract. One letter was returned undelivered. The other was apparently delivered. When neither letter resulted in any satisfaction, the doctor, in early June, 1986, sent a letter of complaint to DPR outlining the situation. Respondent tells an incredible tale regarding the facts and circumstances which led up to the dispute with Dr. Eisenstein. Admitting that he was somewhat in debt to his bank, he claims that certain payments that he made to the bank with part of the money advanced by the doctor was used improperly by the bank and applied toward other obligations rather than the debt on his truck. He claims the repossession of the truck was illegal and improper because, by the payment mentioned above, if properly applied, the truck would have been paid off. This story is almost a duplicate of that regarding the excuse for the bad checks to Port Distributors. Respondent further contends that that bank thereafter engaged in a conspiracy against him to bring about his financial ruin; that the bank hired several individuals to assault him and his wife outside their church; that he has received several threats of bodily harm from the bank; and that all of this has resulted in his filing suit against the bank in local court. This story was told by the Respondent under oath. However, Respondent failed to provide any names or documentation to support this with the exception of the name of the bank allegedly involved. When asked where copies of the documentation were that would support his allegations, he responded with, "Oh, they're at home in a file." In short, it would appear that Respondent's story is a gossamer of fantasy which, while possibly believed at this point by Respondent, has very little basis in fact. Respondent also contends, for example, that Dr. Eisenstein requested that he not pull a permit for the work to be done at his house because he did not want city officials for one reason or another to know that the work was being done. This information was not brought out through Dr. Eisenstein, but rather through the testimony of the Respondent. None of these stories were backed up by any document or supporting evidence. Consequently, it is found that while Respondent may well believe what he is saying, his are in fact, incredible. Respondent was disciplined on two separate occasions by the Broward County Central Examining Board of Mechanical Technicians and Respondent has not shown that these actions were procedurally violative of due process. Consequently, they are found to have occurred and to be valid. Respondent was not permitted to attack the circumstances leading up to the action by the board and the Hearing Officer declined to relitigate the factual propriety of the Board's two actions. Once having lost his Master Technician's license, Respondent was no longer authorized to pull building permits in Broward County and notwithstanding that, nonetheless did commence work for Mrs. Parra on a job which, under the ordinances of the county, required a permit be pulled. He also failed to live up to the terms of a warranty inherent in his contract with her. The evidence also established that subsequent to the withdrawal of his Journeyman's certificate, he nonetheless entered into a contract for the installation of a system in Dr. Eisenstein's house and accepted a substantial advance payment which he neither returned nor earned when he failed to begin any work on the project. In the opinion of the Petitioner's expert, Respondent's conduct in this instance was totally unprofessional and unethical. In fact, as a professional, if the circumstances occurred as alleged by Respondent, he should have made immediate arrangements to in some way make restitution of the funds to his client or have the work done by someone else. The evidence here shows that Respondent made no effort to make some accommodation to the client. He entered no promissory note (Respondent claims that as a gentleman, he has no need of notes as his word is sufficient); he made no attempt to let the client know what had happened; and in short, it appears that Respondent was out to make a quick buck (the expert's phrase) without attempting to in any way satisfy his client.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a registered air conditioning contractor be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Denver Sammons Post Office Box 7437 4614 Madison Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues are (1) whether engaging in air conditioning contracting regulated by the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board pursuant to Section 489.500 et seq. Part II, Florida Statutes, constitutes exceeding the scope of one's license as an electrical contractor, (2) whether performing air conditioning contracting in the name of "Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning" constitutes operating in a name other than the name his electrical contracting license is issued in, contrary to Subsection 489.533(1)(l), and (3) whether Respondent willfully violated the building codes by venting the heater improperly, failing to get a permit and get work inspected.
Findings Of Fact Notice of hearing was given to Respondent at Route 2, Box 595, Yulee, Florida 32097. Arnold Dixon is and has been at all times material to this case a registered electrical contractor, license number ER0004417. (Pet. Ex. 1 & 2) He has maintained his address of record as Route 2, Box 595, Yulee, Florida 32097. (T-Pg. 6) He has held such license since 1976. (Pet. Ex. 1 & 2) Arnold Dixon does not hold a license, a state registration or certification to engage in contracting as a heating or air conditioning contractor. (Pet. Ex. 4 & 6) Arnold Dixon does hold a Nassau County Occupational License as an electrical contractor and as a heating and air conditioning contractor. No check of local records was conducted to see if he had a local license as an air conditioning contractor. (T-Pg. 22) On or about June 1985, the Respondent's company, Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning, contracted to install an air conditioning and heating unit at the home of John Williams for a contract price of $1985. (Pet. Ex. 5 and T-Pgs. 10 & 11) The work on this contract was done by David Everett, who negotiated the contract. The Respondent's company, Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning, did not obtain a permit to perform the work at the Williams' residence. Inspections on the Williams' job were not called for by Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning. Permits and inspections were required by the applicable building code. (T-Pgs. 25 & 26) Entering into a contract to perform air conditioning and heating work and performing such work is air conditioning contracting, which is regulated under Part I, Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. After installation by Dixon's Hearing and Air Conditioning, the Williams' heating system generated carbon monoxide when operating because there was insufficient fresh air being provided to the unit. Because the air intake was in a closet which restricted the air supply to the hot air handling system, the air handling unit sucked fumes from the exhaust side of the unit back through the unit's combustion chamber and circulated it through the house. The longer the unit ran, the more debris was trapped in the louvered door of the closet and the more combustion gases were pulled through the combustion chamber and distributed through the house by the air handling unit. (T-Pg. 34) According to the manufacturer's representative, the hot air return is required to be ducted into the unit. In this case, the return air was pulled from inside a closet which had louvered doors. No duct was used and this installation was not in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Although the unit as installed was unsafe and had the potential to kill, no evidence was received that failure to install the unit in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions was a violation of local building code. (T-Pgs. 34- 38) Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning did not hold itself out to be and was not engaged in electrical contracting in fulfilling the Williams' contract. Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning did hold itself out to be an air conditioning contractor and the work performed in fulfilling the Williams' contract was air conditioning contracting.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Steven Ary, was a licensed air conditioning contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CA CO36888. On October 20, 1987, a company named Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., entered into a contract with Lauderhill Mall, Lauderhill, Florida, to install three 3 1/2 ton air conditioning units for the sum of $7,875. Jenni Temp was to provide the three separate permits required by the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the installation. Joseph Roturra, the owner of Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., and Respondent had, prior to October 20, 1987, entered into negotiations whereby Respondent would become employed by Jenni Temp as its qualifying agent so that Jenni Temp could engage in air conditioning contracting. Those negotiations ended before any formal efforts were made to have Jenni Temp licensed with Respondent as the qualifying agent. In late 1987, before his negotiations with Jenni Temp broke down, Respondent signed three blank application forms for electrical and air conditioning permits. Respondent then gave the three signed application forms to Joseph Roturra. Respondent knew that neither Joseph Roturra nor his company was licensed for air conditioning work. Joseph Roturra completed the signed blank application forms he received from Respondent and made application with the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the three permits required for the job at Lauderhill Mall. The name of the applicant on the applications as completed by Joseph Roturra was All Star Service, Inc. Respondent served as the qualifying agent for All Star Service, Inc. The City of Lauderhill did not issue the permits for which Roturra applied using the forms signed by Respondent because permits had been previously issued to another company for the same job. Jenni Temp completed the Lauderhill Mall job without the permits required by local law and without further assistance from Respondent. Respondent did not supervise the job at Lauderhill Mall. There was no final inspection of the work as required by local law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(e) and (m), Florida Statutes and which imposes an administrative fine on Respondent in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that there not be a separate fine for the violation of Section 489.129(1) (m), Florida Statutes, because the conduct that establishes that violation is the same conduct which constitutes the violation for which the administrative fine is recommended. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, l0, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Steven Ary 1217 N. E 4th Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33306
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents committed an act of discrimination against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act. Based upon the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, no act of discrimination occurred in this matter.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resided in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in April 2012, when he responded to an advertisement on ApartmentsOnline.com. He found an apartment that interested him, a one-bedroom furnished unit in Milton, Florida, that was offering a move-in special of three weeks off the first month's rent. The property qualified as Section 8 HUD housing, the classification of housing in which he currently resided, so he sought a transfer of his status from Pennsylvania to Florida. Respondent, Hubert Dawley, told Petitioner that the apartment would be available May 15, 2012. Petitioner was determined to be disabled by the Social Security Administration as of March 13, 1996, and has been receiving benefits since April 28, 1998 (retroactive to March 13, 1996), the date of his determination of disability by a federal administrative law judge entered on that date. Petitioner has a service animal, which helps with his depression. His physician in Milton believes the animal will help him better function in his daily life. Petitioner claims he told Mr. Dawley about his service animal and that he would be bringing the dog with him when he moved to Milton. Respondents have a firm "no pets" policy for their apartments, and Mr. Dawley denied ever knowing about the dog prior to Petitioner's move to Milton. On May 5, 2012, prior to his move to Milton, Petitioner signed an "Application to Rent" Respondents' available apartment in which he answered "NO" (in capital letters) to the question "Do you have any dogs, cats, or other pets?" Petitioner acknowledged signing the application and writing "NO" in response to the question about pets. Petitioner signed a residential lease agreement along with Mr. Dawley on May 5, 2012. The lease contained the following paragraph: (J.) Pets shall not be permitted. Initial here, to indicate your agreement that no pets will be allowed on the premises. Failure to adhere to this agreement shall cause forfeiture of deposits and a $200.00 non-refundable pet damage fee to be immediately due to cover damage/flea infestation. Additionally it shall be at Managements [sic] discretion to immediately terminate this lease and demand possession of residence. Additionally pet shall be immediately removed from the premises. Initial here to indicate your agreement to this provision. (Bold type in original) Petitioner signed the lease and initialed it in the two places indicated in the "no pets" provision. Petitioner gave Mr. Dawley a check for $500 at the time he signed the lease. The amount represents $225 for two weeks' rent (May 15-31) and a $250 security deposit for a total of $475. Respondents did not give Petitioner his $25 change. After Petitioner moved in, Mr. Dawley learned about Petitioner's dog when he went over one night to fix a plumbing issue and saw the pet on the couch. He informed Petitioner that the lease specifically did not allow pets. Petitioner testified that the apartment was filthy and in disrepair when he moved in. Mr. Robert Youngblood, the HUD inspector failed the apartment on a Housing Quality Services inspection due to a broken bathroom fan and requested that the fan be repaired by May 22, 2012. Mr. Dawley told Petitioner the dog would have to go. Petitioner said he would move out, but wanted a return of all his rent and deposit money. Petitioner called the Milton Police Department on May 27, 2012, to have an officer present when he moved out "to avoid any trouble." An officer and Mr. Dawley were present on May 28 when Petitioner moved out, which occurred without incident. Mr. Dawley returned $58 to Petitioner, keeping $14.51 per each day of Petitioner's tenancy (the prorated amount of $500 per month rent) and $200 to have the apartment cleaned due to the pet having been present. Petitioner claims that Respondents never had the apartment cleaned after he moved out to which Mr. Dawley produced a receipt for a carpet cleaning machine rental on June 6, 2012. Petitioner disputes the rental as having been made, if at all, for cleaning other apartments. He has no direct evidence that Mr. Dawley did not clean the apartment upon his moving out. Petitioner is seeking the return of the entire $500 he gave Respondents as the first two weeks' rent and security deposit. Petitioner acknowledges he received a $58 refund. Petitioner produced no evidence of discrimination by Respondents on the basis of his disability. His entire claim is based upon the fact that he needs the service animal to help with his depression and that Respondents were aware of the presence of the dog prior to Petitioner moving into the apartment and accepted him as a tenant with a pet.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the claim for relief brought by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2012, 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 26th day of October, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Anthony Sager 6665 Magnolia Street Milton, Florida 32570 Hubert and Martha Dawley 4661 Keyser Lane Pace, Florida 32571 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Spanish-speaking native of Cuba with little or no understanding of the English language. He has resided in Miami-Dade County since coming to this country 18 or 19 years ago. In or around 2006, Respondent decided he wanted to start an air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County, and he went to the downtown Miami location of the Miami- Dade County Code Compliance Office (Compliance Office) to inquire about the licensing requirements with which he would have to comply to legally operate such a business in the county. The Compliance Office is responsible for licensing construction contractors (in various trades) operating in Miami- Dade County. The contractors whom the Compliance Office licenses include mechanical contractors doing air conditioning work. Individuals who desire to go into the air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County must complete and submit to the Compliance Office an eight-page "initial application," accompanied by "letters of experience" and a $315.00 application fee. The application is reviewed by the Miami-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB). If the CTQB determines that the applicant is qualified to take the licensure examination, the applicant is allowed to sit for the examination. Passing the examination is a prerequisite to licensure. If a passing score is attained, the applicant is notified by the Compliance Office and given the opportunity to submit a "business application" and supporting material (including proof of liability insurance and workers' compensation coverage), accompanied by another $315.00 application fee. If the CTQB approves the "business application," the "applicant is issued a contractor's license number" and given a "competency card" (reflecting such licensure) by the Compliance Office. The applicant then must register with the Department before being able to engage in any contracting work in the county. When Respondent went to the Compliance Office's location in downtown Miami, he was approached by a man carrying a clipboard who spoke Spanish. Respondent was led to believe by the man that he worked for the county (although the man did not present any identification verifying his employment status). The man offered to help Respondent apply for a license, an offer Respondent accepted. After obtaining information from Respondent, the man filled out an application form (which was in English) for Respondent and "kept" the completed form. He then collected from Respondent $350.00. The man told Respondent that Respondent would be receiving his license "by mail." Respondent did nothing further (including taking the licensure examination) to obtain a Compliance Office-issued license for his air conditioning contracting business. Given what he was told by the man (whom he trusted) at the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location, Respondent did not think anything else was required of him, and he acted accordingly. Approximately a month after his visit to the Compliance Office, Respondent received what, on its face, appeared to be a Compliance Office-issued "competency card" indicating that his business, G & G Air Conditioning, Inc., had been issued an "A/C UNLTD" license, License No. 05M000987, with an expiration date of September 30, 2007, and that he was the "qualifying agent" for the business. Although Respondent did not realize it at the time, the "competency card" was a "fraudulent document." The Compliance Office had never in fact issued any license to Respondent or his air conditioning contracting business. Indeed, the Compliance Office had not even received a licensure application, or, for that matter, anything else, from Respondent (including the $350.00 he had paid for what he thought was an application fee). Reasonably, but erroneously, believing that the "competency card" was authentic, Respondent, with the assistance of a friend able to read and write English, completed and submitted the paperwork necessary to register with the Department so that he would be able to engage in the business of air conditioning contracting in Miami-Dade County. Respondent had picked up the application packet (the contents of which were in English) when he had visited the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location. Respondent's friend translated the contents of the application materials for Respondent. For each item requiring a response, Respondent told his friend what entry to make. The final page of the application materials contained the following "Attest Statement," which Respondent signed (after it was translated for him by his friend): I have read the questions in this application and have answered them completely and truthfully to the best of my knowledge. I have successfully completed the education, if any, required for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought. I have the amount of experience required, if any, for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought.[1] I pledge to comply with the applicable standards of practice upon licensure, registration, or certification. I understand the types of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings may be initiated. Among the representations Respondent made in his completed application was that he possessed a valid "local competency card" issued by the Compliance Office. He believed, in good faith, but again, incorrectly, that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was such a card. In accordance with the instructions in the application materials, Respondent attached a copy of this card to his application. The Department received Respondent's completed application for registration on April 20, 2006. On May 23, 2006, the Department issued the registration for which Respondent had applied. Had the Department known that the "competency card" Respondent had attached to his application and had falsely, but not fraudulently, claimed to be valid was in fact a counterfeit that did not accurately represent the local licensure status of Respondent and his business, the Department would have denied Respondent's application for registration. Following a police investigation, two Compliance Office employees, along with a former Compliance Office employee, were arrested for selling "fraudulent licenses." The police alerted the Compliance Office of the results of its investigation in or around July 2006 (after the Department had already granted Respondent's application for registration). The Compliance Office thereupon conducted an audit, which revealed that Respondent was among those who had received a "fraudulent competency card" from the arrestees. Respondent was so notified by letter (sent by the Compliance Office). Prior to his receipt of the letter, Respondent had no idea that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was not what it purported to be. Had he known it was a "fraudulent document" he would have never applied for registration with the Department. The total investigative and prosecutorial costs incurred by the Department in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time) was $32.66.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order revoking Respondent's registration and requiring him to pay the Department $32.66 (representing the Department's investigative and prosecutorial costs, excluding costs associated with attorney time) for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, described above that the Department alleged in its Administrative Complaint and subsequently proved by clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations and the Division of Administrative Hearings have jurisdiction pursuant to Section 760.34, Florida Statutes, to consider Petitioner's Petition for Relief; and Whether Petitioner timely filed his Petition for Relief with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Facts are made: Petitioner contracted to purchase a condominium, "unit 206 in Building 425 at Serravella at Spring Valley" from Respondent. For reasons not relevant to the issues presented for determination, closing was deferred; and on December 22, 2006, Petitioner signed and submitted an "Addendum to Contract" to Respondent that sought "to revise contract closing date to 2/28/2007." Sometime in late December 2006, a telephone conversation took place among Steve Myers, a realtor for Serra Villa, Petitioner, and Barefield. Barefield was in Alabama, and Myers and Petitioner were in Florida on a speakerphone. Barefield advised Petitioner that the addendum would not be accepted by Respondent. Barefield and Petitioner did not speak to each other after this December telephone conversation. All communication was accomplished through third parties. Subsequent to Respondent's refusal to accept Petitioner's addendum, there is lengthy correspondence and litigation involving the parties. For some time after Respondent rejected Petitioner's addendum, Petitioner desired to purchase the condominium and, apparently, indicated so in various offers communicated by his attorneys to Respondent. If an unlawful discriminatory act occurred, the determination of which is not an issue presented for determination, the act occurred in December 2006. Petitioner's Housing Discrimination Complaint dated September 17, 2008, and signed by Petitioner on September 22, 2008, was filed with United States Department of Housing and Urban Development more than one year after the alleged act of discrimination. On November 6, 2008, Petitioner sent a four-page fax transmission to Lisa Sutherland, a FCHR employee, which included a Petition for Relief. On November 13, 2008, Petitioner sent a second fax transmission of seven pages to Lisa Sutherland. Apparently, this second transmission included a Petition for Relief. On December 4, 2008, Petitioner sent a third fax transmission addressed to "Mrs. Crawford/Lisa Sutherland." While the fax transmission cover sheet is dated "11-13-08," the report of transmission shows that this 11-page transmission was sent on "12/04 15:24." The Petition for Relief forwarded by FCHR to DOAH was date-stamped "2008 DEC-4 PM 3:25."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR dismiss the Petition for Relief as being time-barred as a result of the late filing of Petitioner, Ricardo Vega's, Housing Discrimination Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Richard S. Taylor, Jr., Esquire 531 Dog Track Road Longwood, Florida 32750-6547 Barbara Billiot-Stage, Esquire Law Offices of Barbara Billiot-Stage, PA 5401 South Kirkman Road, Suite 310 Orlando, Florida 32819
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
