The Issue Whether or not Respondent's real estate license should be disciplined, because, as alleged, Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises and pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction; failed to place a trust deposit with her employing broker and operated as a broker while licensed as a salesman in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(b), and (k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During times material hereto, Respondent, Barbara B. Wise, was a licensed real estate salesman in Florida, having been issued license number 0484022. The last license issued Respondent was as a salesman, c/o Grover Goheen Realty, Inc., at 414 Twelfth Avenue, North, St. Petersburg, Florida. During October 1988, Respondent, while licensed and operating as a salesman in the employ of her broker, Goheen Realty, Inc., solicited and obtained a lease listing agreement from Michael Riggins. As a result of that listing, Marsha Tenny contacted Respondent and requested assistance in obtaining a seasonal lease for the period January 1989 through April 30, 1989. Ms. Tenny made Respondent aware of her needs respecting a lease property to include wheelchair access as her husband was wheelchair bound. As a result of visiting approximately three available units, Respondent secured a seasonal lease from Michael Riggins for Marsha Tenny. The lease agreement for the Tenny's was the first rental listing that Respondent had obtained and it suffices to say that she was a novice in the area of securing lease agreements. Likewise, her employing broker did very little volume in rentals as her broker was of the opinion that the net commissions were not sufficient to defray the time and effort involved for several reasons including the limited availability of rental properties. As a result, her broker was unable to provide guidance. Pursuant to the aforementioned lease agreement, Respondent named several options by which Marsha Tenny could secure the apartment to include sending a personal check to her and after negotiating it she would in turn pay the rental fees directly to the landlord. Other options included Ms. Tenny sending separate checks to the landlord for the apartment and a check for the commission fees to her employing broker or she could deal directly with the landlord and remit a separate check to her employing broker for fees. Ms. Tenny elected to send a money order in the amount of $1,500.00 to Respondent. After she negotiated the check she received from Marsha Tenny, Respondent retained her commissions and did not pay her broker the pro-rata share that the broker was entitled to. Respondent did not inform her broker of the Riggins/Tenny lease agreement when she received the deposit from the Tennys on or about October 23, 1988. Respondent negotiated the Tenny's deposit check by depositing same into her personal account and drew a check in the amount of $1,100.00 as the rental deposit and remitted it to Mr. Riggins on October 2.1, 1988. Respondent retained the $400.00 balance as her fee. Respondent tendered her employing broker its portion of the commission fees ($174.00) on February 24, 1989. During early February 1989, the Tennys expressed dissatisfaction with the apartment and demanded a refund from Respondent. Respondent wrote the Tennys a letter of apology and submitted a money order to Marsha Tenny in the amount of $50.00 on February 3, 1989. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) As stated, Respondent was inexperienced with the rental business in Pinellas County. She was at the time undergoing other family problems, including tending to a sister in Orange County, Florida, who was very ill. At the time, Respondent commuted from Pinellas County to Orange County several times per week to visit with and assist her sister. Additionally, Respondent's office was being relocated and the staff was having to relay messages to her through her husband and other salesman employed with her broker. In addition to sending the Tennys a money order in the amount of $50.00, Respondent agreed to repay the Tennys the entire remaining balance of the finders fee that she received from the Riggins/Tenny leasing agreement as soon as she was financially able to do so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be issued a written reprimand and placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. During the probationary period, Respondent shall enroll in an approved post-licensure course and shall satisfactorily complete the same prior to termination of probation. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 4th day of April, 1990. Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Barbara B. Wise 1059 42nd Avenue, N.E. St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Kenneth E. Easley, Esq. Division of Real Estate Department of Prof. Reg. 400 West Robinson Street 1940 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 1900 Suite 60 Orlando, Florida 32802 Tallahassee, FL 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for nonconforming status on his property at 1607 and 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road, Gainesville, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of facts filed by the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: Mr. Mayhew resides in Hawthorne, which is located in the southeastern portion of Alachua County (County). (Some papers filed in this case identify his residence as being in Cross Creek, rather than Hawthorne, but with the same street address.) Since November 1998, he has owned property at 1607 and 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road, Gainesville, Florida. More specifically, the property is in an older, single-family residential neighborhood known as Florida Park which is located several blocks west of U.S. Highway 441, which runs in a north-south direction through the City, and approximately one-quarter mile north of Northwest 8th Avenue. In broader geographical terms, the property is located around one mile north of the University of Florida campus. There are two structures (or units) on Petitioner's property. One is a three-bedroom, two-bath dwelling constructed by the original owner (Mr. Gainous) in 1949, who occupied that dwelling with his wife. That unit's address is listed on the County Property Appraiser's records as 1607 Northwest 12th Road. The second structure, a two-bedroom, one-bath dwelling (also referred to as a "cottage"), was built by Mr. Gainous in 1957, and was apparently used primarily as rental property by the owner. The address of the second unit on the Property Appraiser's records is 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road. Separate gas meters and a single water line and electric meter serve the two units. (Although the two units are given separate street addresses by the Property Appraiser, only one tax bill is issued by the County Tax Collector.) When these structures were built, the County did not issue building permits. The property was in the unincorporated area of the County until 1961, when the City annexed the property. In 1964, the City adopted its first zoning plan and placed the property in what was then known as the Single-Family Residential (R-1a) zoning district. This category was used since the property was "closely consistent" with that zoning classification. A few years later, the property was rezoned to the Residential Single-Family zoning district (RSF-1), which apparently replaced the R-1a zoning district, and it still remains in that zoning classification. Under current zoning regulations, unless a property has "legal" nonconforming status, two family dwellings are not permitted in the RSF-1 zoning district. However, if a structure and use of land was in existence before the City annexed the property and adopted its zoning code, and was not otherwise shown to have lost that status, the nonconforming use is grandfathered and allowed "to continue until [it is] removed" or otherwise conflicts with conditions pertaining to nonconforming lots, uses, or structures. See § 30-346, Code of Ordinances. (Nonconforming status allows the owner to rent each unit on the parcel to no more than three unrelated persons. Thus, six unrelated persons could legally occupy Mr. Mayhew's two units. However, Mr. Mayhew has always rented to smaller numbers of tenants, and then only to graduate students or "professionals.") One way a property can lose its status is for the owner to not use the property in a nonconforming status for nine consecutive months. In the case of a rental property, this means that the owner has not rented the property for at least nine consecutive months. If this occurs, the owner is presumed to have abandoned the nonconforming status. See § 30-346(5)(d), Code of Ordinances. The precise date on which the City began using the nine-month time period is unknown. According to Mr. Calderon, this time period has been in the Code of Ordinances for "awhile," it was in the Code of Ordinances when "Citywide zoning" was first used in 1982, and he implied that it was in the first zoning code adopted in the 1960s. The City has no formal process by which it monitors properties to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements for legal nonconforming status. Generally, the issue arises after a complaint is filed by a third party or an inspection is made by City officials, who then require that the owner confirm (or prove) that the property still qualifies for that status. In this case, in October 2006, the tenant who occupied the cottage filed a complaint with the City concerning the installation of a new gas stove and other possible code violations. Prior to that time, no other complaints had been lodged against Mr. Mayhew's property. In response to that complaint, a code enforcement officer, Michael Wohl, inspected the property. During the course of that inspection, Mr. Wohl noticed that there were two rental units on one parcel of land. As a routine part of the inspection process, Mr. Wohl made an inquiry to determine if Mr. Mayhew had a landlord permit for each unit. Under the Code of Ordinances, a landlord permit is required for each rental unit. (The specific provision in the Code of Ordinances which imposes this requirement was not given.) According to Mr. Calderon, this requirement has been in the Code of Ordinances since 1989. Mr. Wohl learned that Mr. Mayhew had purchased one landlord permit for the parcel in the year 2000 (and had renewed that permit each year) but did not have a second permit. (When he purchased the property in late 1998, Mr. Mayhew did not know that such permits were even required. He obtained one as soon as this was brought to his attention.) After Mr. Mayhew advised Mr. Wohl that he was unaware that a permit was needed for each unit on his property, Mr. Wohl spoke with Mr. Calderon, who instructed Mr. Wohl to verify if the property was a legal nonconforming use (and therefore could qualify for two landlord permits) since it was located in a single-family zoning classification. Shortly thereafter, a citation was issued to Petitioner. The specific nature of the citation was not disclosed. In any event, by letter dated September 25, 2006, Mr. Calderon requested that Mr. Mayhew provide documentation to support the nonconforming use of the cottage at 1607 1/2 NW 12th Road as an accessory dwelling unit. In response to Mr. Calderon's request, on October 2, 2006, Mr. Mayhew submitted a lengthy letter with supporting documentation, including photographs of the units; copies of rental agreements of tenants who had rented the cottage since he had purchased the property in November 1998; information regarding the date of construction of the two units; and Property Appraiser records showing two units on the parcel. On December 7, 2006, the Department advised Mr. Mayhew by letter that "[b]ased on the physical evidence, property appraiser records and documents provided by you, the property is therefore classified as an existing non-conforming two-family development and is subject to regulations governing non-conforming uses." However, because the City apparently has a policy of notifying residents who live within 300 feet of the subject property of this type of decision, the City also issued on the same date a Notice of Decision to Issue Non-Conforming Status to Petitioner's Property (Notice)." (The record is unclear whether this notice was given pursuant to a policy or a specific Code provision. Other provisions within the Code of Ordinances provide for such notice when the Board conducts hearings on variances, appeals alleging error by an administrative official, and requests for special zoning exceptions. See § 30-354(h)(6)(i)-(k), Code of Ordinances.) In response to the Notice, affidavits were filed by a number of residents who lived adjacent to, or near, the subject property. After reviewing those affidavits, on December 20, 2006, the Department advised Petitioner by letter that based on "new information . . . submitted by affected persons within 300 feet of your property . . . [the] staff [is going to] reconsider the nonconforming status of your property." On January 25, 2007, Mr. Calderon issued a letter denying Mr. Mayhew's request for the following reasons: I have reviewed the information you submitted and those submitted by surrounding property owners. Based on the information and affidavits, there appears to be no consensus or conclusive data establishing emphatically that the subject property has been used consistently as a two-family development since annexation into the city. Evidence from the property owner would suggest that since 1998, the subject property has been used as a two- family dwelling and that no nine-month period has elapsed where the property was not used as a two-family dwelling. However, due to uncertainty for the period around and prior to 1998, staff cannot make a determination about the status of the development around and prior to 1998. Staff cannot determine whether the subject property was illegal, legal non-conforming or lost its non-conforming status at the time of ownership change in 1998. Since the current zoning of the subject property is RSF-1 (Single-family residential, 3.5 dwelling units per acre), the current use as a two-family dwelling is not permitted. Staff is therefore denying the request on the basis that available information cannot demonstrate continued use of the property as a two-family development, since annexation into the [C]ity of Gainesville. On February 8, 2007, Mr. Mayhew filed his appeal of that decision. Because Mr. Mayhew alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact, the appeal was forwarded to DOAH, rather than the Board. In his appeal, Mr. Mayhew alleged that the City had improperly relied on affidavits from neighbors to reconsider its decision, that there was no new evidence submitted to support a change in the City's initial decision, and that he could not get a fair hearing from the Board because several members of the Board live in the affected neighborhood or are members of a neighborhood association that includes the Florida Park area. Section 30-346(5)(d), Code of Ordinances, as amended in November 2006, provides the following restrictions on nonconforming uses: Whenever a nonconforming use of land or a building or other structure or any portion thereof is abandoned or the use is discontinued for a continuous period of nine months or more, such abandonment or discontinuance shall be presumed to constitute an intention to abandon or discontinue such use, and such use shall no longer be permitted. Any subsequent use of such building or structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. Although this section was amended in November 2006, the amendment did not affect (or otherwise change) the nine- month time period for losing a nonconforming use. Prior to the amendment, the section provided that if a nonconforming use was lost due to abandonment or discontinuation, the reestablishment of the use could be authorized by the Board, after hearing, if the Board found the design, construction, and character of the building not suitable for the uses in the district in which the nonconforming use is situated. Under the new amendment, that option no longer exists. The history note to this provision indicates that the original ordinance (No. 3777) was adopted on June 10, 1992, and was later amended on July 25, 1994.1 (However, Mr. Calderon indicated that the nine-month period dates back many years before the adoption of this particular Ordinance. See Finding of Fact 5, supra.) When an owner is required to demonstrate that his rental property has continuously retained its nonconforming status, he must show that the property has been continuously rented (with no nine-month breaks) not only for the period of time that he has owned the property, but also for the entire time the property has enjoyed nonconforming status, or in this case since the property was annexed by the City. Thus, Mr. Mayhew was obligated to show that the original owners (Mr. and Mrs. Gainous) rented the property continuously from the time the property was annexed in 1961 until it was sold to Mr. Mayhew in late 1998. The City's practice is to determine nonconforming status on a case by case basis but the burden is on the owner to prove that status through records such as building permits, landlord permits, zoning compliance permits, and occupational licenses, and "records from reputable sources." The parties agree that both units were continuously rented by Mr. Mayhew since the time he purchased the property in November 1998. The dispute here is whether the nonconforming use was abandoned for any nine-month period prior to Mr. Mayhew's purchase of the property. The City contends that Mr. Mayhew has presented no evidence to show that the cottage was rented by the prior owner from 1996 until the property was sold in late 1998. Although Mr. Mayhew clearly established (and the City agrees) that the property has been continuously rented since he purchased the parcel in late 1998, he conceded that the cottage was vacant when he purchased the property, that he had made no inquiry to the seller as to how long the cottage had been vacant, and that he had no personal knowledge regarding the rental history of the property during the three years preceding the purchase. He contended, however, that there are always periods of time when a unit remains vacant while the owner is actively seeking a new tenant or when necessary renovations must be made. While this is true, there is no evidence that this occurred during the years 1996, 1997, or 1998. (It is unknown where Mrs. Gainous presently resides, or even if she is still alive. When the property was sold in late 1998, Mrs. Gainous was described as being elderly and in poor health.) Significantly, City records show that Mrs. Gainous had secured landlord permits to rent the cottage from 1989 (when permits were first required) through 1995, but she had failed to obtain any permits for the years 1996, 1997, or 1998, at which time she sold the property to Mr. Mayhew. This raises a logical inference, not overcome by Mr. Mayhew, that she did not rent the cottage during those years. In addition, Dr. Kosch, who has lived across the street from the subject property for the last twenty years, testified that he personally observed several periods of time before the property was sold to Mr. Mayhew when there were no tenants in the cottage. Although Dr. Kosch could not specifically identify the exact time periods when this occurred (due to the passage of time), his testimony adds further support to a finding that there is insufficient evidence that the cottage was rented continuously (without any nine-month breaks) during the years 1996-1998. Mr. Mayhew purchased the property with the understanding that he could legally rent both units. While it may seem unfair for him to now have to prove that the property has been continuously rented (with no breaks exceeding nine consecutive months) since the 1960s, this interpretation of the Code of Ordinances has always been followed by the City without exception. According to Mr. Wohl, this situation has occurred at least 8 or 9 times in the last few years alone, and in each case, the property owner was required to prove a continued nonconforming use since the property was annexed by the City or placed in a more restrictive zoning classification.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a real estate broker in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issue herein the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, and the Florida Real Estate Commission were the state agencies responsible for the licensing of real estate professionals and the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida. Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker with license number 0414476. Respondent was operating as a real estate broker and operated a real estate brokerage under the name Roney Realty located at 424 Beach Drive Northeast, Number 205, in St. Petersburg. In early 1995, Kathleen M. Mitchell, a single mother and licensed practical nurse, while attending a garage sale, noticed a two bedroom house for sale at 805 59th Street South in Gulfport and called the broker's telephone number shown on the sign. Respondent was the broker listed. On the basis of that telephone call, Respondent and Ms. Mitchell met at the house, owned by Respondent's sister. At the time, Ms. Mitchell advised Respondent that she had credit problems and was burdened with a previous FHA mortgage which was in default. In response, Respondent urged her not to worry and assured her he could get her financing even though she had undergone a prior bankruptcy. He also indicated that the selling price for the house was variable, depending on financing and the amount of the down payment. Ms. Mitchell contends that Respondent indicated to her that he would represent both buyer and seller in a dual agency arrangement, which he got her to acknowledge in writing, and claimed he would not take a commission on the sale. The initial contract signed in this case, however, lists a commission of $1,925.00 to be paid by the seller. This inconsistency was not explained. As a result of the initial negotiations which began in January, 1995, Ms. Mitchell signed a contract for the purchase of the property on February 13, 1995, which, she claims, was to be effective in March, 1995. This agreement, reflecting a sales price of $55,000 also indicates that Ms. Mitchell had made a $200.00 cash down payment, and called for an additional payment of $800.00 within 5 days of signing and an additional $650.00 at closing, to include buyer's closing costs and prepaid items or prorations. This left a balance to be financed of $53,350. There were no other handwritten clauses placed on the contract form. Ms. Mitchell paid the initial $200.00 and agreed to pay the additional $800.00 when she moved in. On the basis of that contract and the deposit made, Ms. Mitchell was allowed to move into the house. Approximately two weeks later, when it became obvious that her financing was going to be a problem, Mr. Roney brought a second contract to the house for her to sign. At this time, Mr. Roney suggested that while the parties were waiting for her financing to be approved, Ms. Mitchell could rent the house for $500.00 per month. Ms. Mitchell agreed to do this if all the defects in the house, which she had identified and reported to Respondent, were fixed. She claims that he verbally agreed to fix everything and she thereafter signed the second contract, which is undated as to signature, but which bears an effective date of April 20, 1995. The second contract reflects a purchase price of $56,650, a deposit of $2,832.50, and a balance to finance of $53,817.50. Ms. Mitchell admits to having made the $200.00 down payment, and it is not clear whether she also paid the $800.00, but at one point in her testimony indicated that is all she paid by way of down payment. She has no idea where the figure of $2,832.50 comes from. Yet, at another point in her testimony, she claims to have given Mr. Roney $1,650.00 on March 1, 1996, which money he put into Stewart Fidelity Title Company's escrow account. The contract also reflects that the deposit is being held in escrow by Stewart Fidelity Title Co. No information was presented as to the current state of the deposit. This contract shows substantial hand-written modification to the standard contract clauses which clearly reflect that changes were made on July 7, 1995, and were "added after signing." However, there are substantial, modifications to paragraph 21 of the contract form, "additional terms", which are confusing as to when they were added and what they mean. For example, one added clause calls for the buyer to make monthly payments of $600.00 until closing ($100.00 per month credited back to buyer at closing). Another provides that the buyer accepts the property as is from day of possession and agrees to maintain the property until closing. A third indicated that the seller agrees to credit $650.00 toward buyer's costs upon closing, and a fourth states that if the buyer cannot obtain a mortgage within one year of possession, the seller may convert the agreement to a lease. The difficulty in interpretation of the above rests in the fact that arrows pointing to various of the comments are not defining in their application. For example, one arrow comes from the word "closing" down the side of the paper into the Acceptance/Rejection section where is stated, "as is meant landscaping [sic]." Another arrow points to the word "may" in the last addition and reflects, "7-7-95 added." Ms. Mitchell adamantly contends that when she signed the second contract, none of the hand-written additions were on it. Mr. Roney admitted as much at hearing, but no informationwas presented to indicate if the additions were agreed to by Ms. Mitchell at any time. She contends that when she saw those post-signing additions, she took the document to her mortgage person who directed her to contact Respondent and stop further proceedings. When Ms. Mitchell did that, she claims, she wastold by Mr. Roney not to talk to her mortgage man again, and that his, Mr. Roney's, mortgage broker would handle the obtaining of her mortgage from then on out. When Ms. Mitchell recounted those instructions to her original mortgage broker, he advised her to contact Respondent's escrow agent, get her deposit back and cancel the contract. Respondent admits to having requested Ms. Mitchell use a different mortgage broker but asserts this was because her broker was not having any apparent success in getting her qualified. Ms. Mitchell lived in the house in question for two months before she moved out. Upon the advice of an attorney, she claims, she paid no rent while she occupied the premises. While she occupied the property, she paid $250.00 to have it appraised by a state certified residential real estate appraiser who opined that as of May 9, 1995 the property was valued at $49,500. In the addendum to the appraisal report, the appraiser stated: The roof has active leaks and improperly installed areas; The front soffit has loose conditions; The electrical system has unsafe wiring and improper size fuses; The heating and AC units are not operating properly ("No source of heat"); The plumbing system has some deficiencies and possible leaks; The pool is in need of "Major Repair", including repair of leaking conditions at the main drain and tiles; termite damage was noted; the water heater needs repair (or replacement), and it is exposed to weather conditions; Window and door screens are missing; The lawn sprinkler is damaged and partially disassembled The storage shed has rust conditions. Though at hearing Respondent attempted to dismiss this appraisal as being based on the home inspection reports done at Ms. Mitchell's request previously and given the appraiser, and not his personal inspection, a review of the document clearly indicates the conditions noted above were determined from review of that report "and/or observation by the appraiser." Ms. Mitchell experienced first hand many of the problem areas noted in the appraisal report. When she mentioned to Respondent that the screen door was missing, he reportedly told her it wasn't necessary. When she complained to Respondent that she had no hot water for several days, he sent over a repairman who ultimately corrected the problem. The repairman's statement, dated "May, 1995", reflecting a charge of $445.00 for his service, indicates he repaired a water leak on the hot water heater; unblocked a restriction in the hot water supply pipe; and replaced defective control knobs on the shower. He also cut the side of the kitchen counter to fit in a new stove and delivered a replacement refrigerator with an ice maker and reconnected the water line to it. This latter installation was the result of Ms. Mitchell's continuing complaint that the refrigerator did not work for quite a while which resulted in her losing a substantial amount of perishable food. The first time that happened, she though it might be her fault and she replaced the lost food. However, when it happened again, she complained to Respondent and he told her to get it fixed. She did, at a cost to her of $100.00, which Respondent did not pay back. Finally, a refrigerator repair man was sent to the property on both April 4 and April 19, 1995. He finally recommended the unit not be repaired but replaced. This was done. When Ms. Mitchell complained to Respondent that the heating and air conditioning unit in the living room did not work, and that the bedroom unit did not heat, she admits that Respondent had a repairman come out and look at the unit. Though she claims the repairman told her it would take $483.00 to repair it, she appears to have confused the appliances, as the repairman's statement, dated April 19, 1995, refers to an estimated cost of $483.00 to replace the compressor on the refrigerator, not the heater/air conditioner. There is no evidence to indicate how the problem with those units was resolved. Ms. Mitchell contends that when she first saw the swimming pool, before she contracted to buy the house, it was clear and the pump was running. When she thereafter heard a noise in the pump, in February, 1995, before she moved in, she reported this to the Respondent. Nothing was done about it. After she moved in, the pool rapidly became unusable. The pump motor was inoperative and the water turned green. Ms. Mitchel claims she called Respondent almost daily about the pool. He told her his sister had the motor removed for repairs and he would get it back. The motor was subsequently returned, along with the pool equipment which had been removed, but the pool leaked, requiring her to add water every day, and she could not keep the water clear. In late April, 1995, a pool man was sent to the property who, according to Ms. Mitchell, indicated that there was a need to replace loose tiles and mastic because of the age of the pool, and a leak at the main drain. It is not clear from the evidence presented if these repairs were made. When the appraisal report was rendered, showing a fair market price considerably less than what she had contracted to pay, Ms. Mitchell advised Respondent on several occasions that she to cancel the contract. On May 2, 1995, after she had seen an attorney and another real estate broker, she wrote to Respondent requesting either that he refund the deposit money she had placed with him and reimburse her in the amount of $500.00 for her personal expenses, in which case she would vacate the property within one week of receipt of the money, or return her deposit within one week, in which case she would vacate the property by June 1, 1995. In either case, she indicated she would pay no more rent. In that regard, it appears she had paid no rent up to that time, though she had agreed to pay rent in the event they could agree upon the terms of a contract and the property was repaired. She claims she did not expect to live in the property rent free, but believed that what she had paid out in repairs was fair rent for her occupancy. No clear total figure for what she paid out was provided. In response, Ms. Mitchell received a letter from the Respondent in which he demanded payment of the rent due. Thereafter, on June l, 1995, Ms. Mitchell received a second letter from the Respondent in which he stated he assumed she had agreed to deduct the amount due for rent from the deposit money she had placed with him and which he held in escrow. According to Respondent's calculations, Ms. Mitchell owed $1,271.56 in back rent after crediting her with $100.00 of the $600.00 per month rent payment she was to make. When this $1,271.56 was deducted from the $1,603.45 escrow balance held by him, $331.89 would be left in the escrow account. Respondent gave her the choice of doing that or of paying what was owed in case, leaving the entire escrow account untouched. He advised her she must make her choice and advise him and the escrow agent within forty-eight hours. Respondent did not satisfactorily explain his calculations at hearing. From the state of the evidence presented, it was impossible for the undersigned to determine exactly how much money Ms. Mitchell paid by way of deposit, rent, or repairs. Between the receipt of Respondent's first and second letters, Ms. Mitchell spoke with him about the condition of the house and what she wanted to do with regard to it. At no time did she authorize Respondent to make any deduction from the amount in escrow. In the interim, she began to look for another house and to seek alternative funding. She also tried to contact Respondent but she was unable to do so, reaching only his pager. Finally, she received a three-day notice dated June 20, 1995 to pay the rent due or vacate. In response, she wrote an undated letter to Respondent in which she said she was sending $1,000.00 to pay $500.00 rent for both May and June, 1995, but neither mailed the letter nor sent the money. Thereafter, she received a second three day notice dated June 30, 1995, directing her to pay the rent due or move out. This notice was left in her mail box by the Respondent. She neither paid the rent nor moved out at that time. Ms. Mitchell finally moved out of the property in issue on July 18, 1995 and thereafter, on a weekly basis, either verbally or in writing, demanded return of her deposit. She did not get it back. Mr. Roney's account of the beginning of the parties' relationship is consistent with that of Ms. Mitchell, except that Ms. Mitchell initially indicated the property could not be worth more than in the mid-forty thousand dollar range. In response, Respondent claimed to have done a market analysis on the property which supported the asking price, and because his sister had put a lot of money into the property, it could not be sold for a price as low as even in the high forty thousand dollar range. It would appear from the independent appraisal done of the property, the true value was closer to Ms. Mitchell's estimation rather than Respondent's. Nonetheless, Ms. Mitchell liked the property and agreed to buy it at the asking price, after she had looked it over with a contractor friend of hers. Respondent admits that Ms. Mitchell was forthright with him in disclosing her financial problems. She told him of her bankruptcy of several years previous, and in response to his questioning, noted several other problems, none of which, by her account, were her fault. When Ms. Mitchell called Respondent on February 13, 1995, indicating she was ready to sign, he referred her to a mortgage company which he felt could help her. Based on what information Ms. Mitchell had provided, Respondent had been told that her financial problems were "fixable". As a result, the first contract was signed and the financing process initiated. On March 18, 1995, Ms. Mitchell called Respondent and indicated she wanted to move into the house prior to closing because her current landlord would neither acknowledge nor fix defects in her property, and she had to get out. Therefore, on or about March 20, 1995, Respondent re-wrote the contract and requested she use another mortgage broker as a condition of taking possession prior to closing. Respondent claims that the seller's disclosure as to the condition of the property was accurate but Ms. Mitchell wanted an independent inspection done to which Respondent agreed. He insisted, however, that if she wanted to move in before closing, she would have to take the property "as is." He advised Ms. Mitchell that his sister had not lived in the property for a year. It was not clear from the evidence presented whether the property was vacant for that entire year or whether it had been rented out. Ms. Mitchell moved in after signing the second contract. Respondent claims Ms. Mitchell called almost daily with some complaint or other and he would have each one fixed. Finally, he met with her and the handyman and they went around to check everything out. She seemed satisfied. Nonetheless, after that Ms. Mitchell called to complain about the swimming pool. Respondent's sister and the handyman both went to the house to explain how to work the filtration system. To insure that there was no leak in the pool, Respondent gave Ms. Mitchell the name of the pool company which had serviced the pool for ten years so that if anything went wrong, she could contact them directly to have it checked and get instruction. While Respondent contends the pool company report indicated no leak and no major problems, Ms. Mitchell wrote on the invoice submitted by the repairman dated April 25, 1993, "... notified me and Mr. Rony [sic] of need to replace loose tiles and main drain leak and re- mastic due to extreme age of pool." Unfortunately, no direct evidence was presented which resolves the apparent inconsistency in the evidence. Mr. Roney claims he tried to remedy any problem Ms. Mitchell had with the house. For example, on April 3, 1995, she called to complain about the refrigerator. On April 4, 1995 he told her to call whomever she wanted, and if the estimate were reasonable, she could deduct the repair charge from the rent. If the charge were estimated to be major, she was instructed to call back. When she called and said the charge would be $100.00, he authorized it. However, a week later, Ms. Mitchell again called and complained about the refrigerator and Mr. Roney replaced it the next day. The problems with the refrigerator are documented by independent evidence of record. The replacement there was admitted by Ms. Mitchell. Respondent asserts that the delinquency notices and track toward the closing. When he found out that Ms. Mitchell was trying to get an appraisal done on the property, he tried to tell her that an appraisal would be done as a part of the mortgage process, but she wanted her own. The results of that independent appraisal were discussed previously. Sometime thereafter, Ms. Mitchell told Respondent she wanted out of the contract. The seller agreed to let her out if Ms. Mitchell would pay some rent for the period she occupied the property. As a result, Respondent tried to get her to pay. When she would not, he sent the eviction notices. Respondent admits he did not receive $2,853.00 in deposit money from Ms. Mitchell. That figure cited was the result of her representations to him that she could come up with it. When the contract was signed, she gave him a check for a part of it and said she'd come up with the balance, but she never came up with the full amount. Any deposit payments made by Ms. Mitchell were deposited with Stewart Title Company where it remains. It is impossible to determine how much was paid as deposit by Ms. Mitchell and how much, if any as rent. Respondent asserts Ms. Mitchell never made any claim to him for return of her deposit. Any claims for return were all made to Stewart Title. Ms. Roney, the owner, did not want to lease the property or sell it on a lease option. She wanted to sell it outright because she needed the money for other investments. She agreed to a lease-purchase arrangement only because the mortgage broker assured her Ms. Mitchell could clear her credit and the sale could go through. She also agreed because Ms. Mitchell had had the property inspected and appeared to be satisfied with its condition. Ms. Roney claims she had no problems with the pool when she lived there and also claims that since the property has been sold, the new owners have not contacted her regarding any problems with the pool. She would not approve a refund of deposit under the conditions of this dispute. Respondent contends there have been no complaints filed against him for the practice of his real estate profession in the 15 years he has been licensed. No evidence of prior misconduct was shown.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of misrepresentation and breach of trust in a business transaction and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 13th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Paul H. Roney, Jr. 424 Beach Drive Northeast, Suite 205 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Gerald Schultz was a real estate broker holding License #0215135 and active firm broker for Choice Rentals and Realty Corporation (formerly Choice Rentals, Inc., and hereinafter "Choice Rentals"), which was a corporate broker holding License #0195222. Rosemary Hufcut entered into a contract with Choice Rentals on July 30, 1980, for Choice Rentals to provide her with rental information based upon criteria she gave Choice Rentals. Hufcut paid a fee of $50 to Choice Rentals for its services. Hufcut was looking for an apartment for herself and her two daughters. She specified she wanted a good neighborhood with good schools. Hufcut was given rental data by Choice Rentals and, with her father, visited a number of the apartments listed. The apartments were not suitable. On the following day, Hufcut requested a refund and submitted a written request for a refund on August 6, 1980. On August 26, 1980, Hufcut's refund request was denied by a letter from Choice Rentals (Petitioner's Exhibit #6). This letter provided in part: Refusal to accept available rental properties meeting the requirements as set forth in your contract with us, does not constitute cancellation of contractual agreement. (This is pursuant to the Florida Law regarding "obtaining a rental".) note - produced available rental property meeting the requirements stated on contract. Hufcut has never received a refund from Choice Rentals. The Board introduced Petitioner's Exhibits #1 through #6, which were received in evidence.
Recommendation Having found the Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board of Real Estate suspend the licenses of Respondents for ten years. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore J. Silver, Esquire 9445 Bird Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mr. Gerald Schultz c/o John Hume, Esquire 5100 North Federal Highway, Suite 405 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Choice Rentals & Realty 3367 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about July 7, 1967, Raymond M. Tonks leased certain property located in Dade County, Florida, from E. L. Phillips, Jr. and Ruth P. Phillips. A copy of the lease executed by the Phillipses as Lessors, and Tonks as Lessee, was received in evidence at the hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The property is described in the lease. The term of the lease was a period of five years, commencing from the date, of execution. The Lease Agreement contained an option to purchase which could be exercised by the Lessee at any time during the term of the lease. On or about July 25, 1972, the Phillipses and Tonks entered into a Lease Extension Agreement, which extended the terms of the previous lease agreement through July 9, 1975. A copy of this agreement was received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The Lease Extension Agreement explicitly included the option to purchase. On or about May 6, 1975, Tonks and the Petitioner entered into an agreement which they styled "Assignment of Lease". A copy of this agreement was received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Through the Assignment of Lease, Tonks assigned all of his interest in the earlier lease and Lease Extension Agreements to the Petitioner. Tonks explicitly warranted in the agreement that the option to purchase could be exercised by the Petitioner. The term of the lease in the Lease Extension had approximately two months to run at the time that Tonks and Petitioner entered into the agreement. Petitioner paid $275,000 for the interests that it received from Tonks. See: Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Tonks took a promissory note for a substantial portion of the purchase price. See: Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Petitioner placed no documentary stamp tax or documentary surtax stamps on the Assignment of Lease. Petitioner executed the option to purchase shortly after it received the Assignment of Lease from Tonks. The sale transaction between the Petitioner and the Philipses was closed on August 8, 1975. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6 and 7. The Respondent took the position that the documentary stamp tax and surtax stamps should have been placed on the "Assignment of Lease" so, as to reflect a $275,000 consideration. Accordingly the Respondent issued a Proposed Notice of Assessment of Tax and Penalty to the Petitioner on October 23, 1975. The proposed assessment included a penalty in the amount of the total taxes which Respondent contended were due. By letter dated December 11, 1975 from a representative of the Respondent to counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent stated that the assessment was made against the assignment of lease and not against the option to purchase contained within the lease. Petitioner filed this action in order to contest the validity of the assessment. Petitioner contends that the consideration paid to Tonks was for the option to purchase, rather than for the assignment of lease. Respondent contends that the largest possible consideration that could be attributed to the assignment of lease is the amount of rent that would have been due under the lease for the unexpired term of the lease.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Real Estate Commission should discipline the Respondent, Mounir Albert El Beyrouty, on charges that he failed to deliver rental proceeds, was dishonest in his dealings regarding the rental property, failed to escrow rental deposits and proceeds, and failed to properly reconcile his escrow account.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mounir Albert El Beyrouty, is licensed as a real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license no. BK 596936. He is the qualifying broker for Intermab, Inc., d/b/a Byblos Beach Realty. Acting through the real estate brokerage he qualified, Intermab, Inc., the Respondent orally agreed with Virginia Covington to manage apartment Unit 1-E, Redington Tower 3, located at 17940 Gulf Boulevard in Redington Shores, Florida. Initially, Covington, who is a federal district judge, was the personal representative and sole beneficiary of her mother's estate, which owned the unit; after probate, Judge Covington became the owner of the unit. The Respondent and Judge Covington agreed orally that the Respondent would try to lease the apartment on an annual basis at a lease rate of $850 per month, less a 15 percent commission to the Respondent. Although the Respondent was unable to secure such a lease, he intentionally misled Judge Covington to think there was such a lease and, in January 2008, began paying her $722.50 per month by check drawn on his brokerage operating account. He did this because he wanted her to think highly of his abilities as a real estate broker in the hopes that she would retain him to list the property when she decided to sell. Not long after he began sending monthly checks, the Respondent told Judge Covington that a leak in the kitchen sink should be repaired and a stained mattress should be replaced. He got her permission, took care of both items, and was reimbursed. However, he perceived that Judge Covington did not want to put additional money into the apartment unnecessarily and decided to avoid these kinds of conversations and dealings with her. Instead, he began to expend his own funds to maintain and upgrade the property as he saw fit without telling her. The Respondent secured a paying tenant for the apartment for six weeks during February and March 2008. He collected a $500 security deposit and $5,250 in rent, all of which he deposited in the brokerage operating account. He did not tell Judge Covington about the seasonal renter. Instead, he kept paying her $722.50 per month and continued to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $850 a month. When the seasonal renter left, the Respondent continued to pay Judge Covington $722.50 per month. In April 2008, the Respondent allowed friends to stay in Judge Covington's apartment free of charge and without paying a security deposit. He did not tell Judge Covington, rationalizing that he was paying her the $722.50 per month she thought was her share of the annual lease payments. The Respondent secured a paying tenant for the apartment for January, February, and March 2009. He collected a $500 security deposit and $9,000 in rent, all of which he deposited in the brokerage operating account. He did not tell Judge Covington about the seasonal renter. Instead, he kept paying her $722.50 per month and continued to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $850 a month. When the seasonal renter left, the Respondent continued to pay Judge Covington $722.50 per month. The Respondent secured a paying tenant for the apartment for January, February and March 2010. He collected a $500 security deposit and $9,000 in rent, all of which he deposited in the brokerage operating account. He did not tell Judge Covington about the seasonal renter. Instead, he kept paying her $722.50 per month and continued to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $850 a month. When the seasonal renter left, the Respondent continued to pay Judge Covington $722.50 per month. In July 2010, the Respondent was able to lease the apartment for a year at a monthly rent of $1,300. He also collected a $1,000 security deposit. He deposited this money in the brokerage operating account. He did not tell Judge Covington about the seasonal renter. Instead, he kept paying her $722.50 per month and continued to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $850 a month. In November 2010, Judge Covington told the Respondent to tell the tenant she wanted to increase the annual lease rate to $935 a month. The Respondent continued to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $850 a month and told her that he would advise the supposed tenant of the rent increase. Instead, he kept collecting $1,300 a month from the tenant and began paying Judge Covington $794.75 a month (the $935, less a 15 percent commission). He did not tell her there actually was an annual lease for $1,300 a month. The $1,300 annual lease was not renewed in July 2011. The Respondent continued to pay Judge Covington $794.75 a month and to lead her to believe there was an annual lease for $935 a month. In about June 2011, Judge Covington decided to sell her apartment. As the Respondent hoped and planned, she listed it with his brokerage. Judge Covington asked the Respondent to notify the supposed annual tenant, who she believed had been living in the apartment since December 2007, to make sure the tenant would be agreeable to a month-to-month lease during their efforts to sell. The Respondent continued to lead Judge Covington to believe there was such an annual tenant and assured her that he would be able to convince the tenant to cooperate with her plan to sell. From August 29 through October 5, 2011, the Respondent allowed friends to stay in Judge Covington's apartment free of charge and without paying a security deposit. He did not tell Judge Covington, rationalizing that he was paying her the $794.75 per month she thought was her share of the annual lease payments. In November and December 2011, the Respondent rented Judge Covington's apartment to the sister of the court clerk for $850 a month without requiring a security deposit. He did not tell Judge Covington about this rental. The Respondent secured paying tenants for the apartment for February, March and April 2012. He collected a $500 security deposit and $9,000 in rent, all of which he deposited in the brokerage operating account. He did not tell Judge Covington about the seasonal renter. Instead, he kept paying her $794.75 a month and led her to believe there was an annual lease for $935 a month. Despite several price reductions, the Respondent was unable to sell the apartment, and Judge Covington decided to switch selling brokers. In February 2012, she signed a listing agreement with another real estate broker. Later in February 2012, a real estate salesperson showed Judge Covington's apartment to a prospective purchaser. Upon questioning, an older woman told the salesperson that they were paying $3,000 a month in rent. The Respondent told the salesperson to disregard the information because the woman was not thinking straight, or words to that effect, because her husband had been ill. He also told her that the woman's son was actually paying the rent. The salesperson related this information to Judge Covington and also told her that she noticed that the residents were not the same people she happened to see in the apartment on one occasion in February 2012. Upon receiving this information, Judge Covington became suspicious that the Respondent had been dishonest and misleading her. She contacted the State Attorney's Office and the Division regarding the process for filing a complaint against the Respondent. She also arranged for a meeting with the Respondent. When she met with the Respondent, she brought a forensic accountant to review the Respondent's records. The Respondent told them he was sorry that Judge Covington was upset with him, but that he did not owe her any money--to the contrary, that she owed him money. However, he told them he was being audited by the Division and was unable to provide supporting documentation. At the final hearing, the Respondent provided a ledger to support his position that all the rent he collected belonged to him alone because Judge Covington owed him money throughout his dealings with her due to his payments to her, regardless whether her apartment was rented, and the money he spent to maintain and improve the apartment. (This was an after-the-fact justification for his failure to deposit any security deposits or rental payments into his escrow account when, in fact, he did not do so because he did not know it was required.) There is reason to believe that the ledger is not entirely accurate. For example, the Respondent omitted rent collected from at least one occupant of the apartment. It also does not account for the times the Respondent allowed friends and relatives to stay there free of charge, essentially acting as if he owned the apartment. Although the Respondent's testimony regarding the money he paid to maintain and improve the apartment is accepted, his failure to timely apprise Judge Covington regarding those expenditures makes it difficult to be certain about it. Finally, even accepting the ledger at face value, it shows that there were times when the Respondent owed Judge Covington, and not vice-versa. The Division attempted to make a case that the Respondent intended to and attempted to steal rental proceeds. It is unlikely that the Respondent actually targeted a federal judge to victimize in that way. It is more likely that the Respondent was attempting to impress Judge Covington with his skill and expertise as a real estate broker and, ultimately, to be rewarded with the listing on the property when it was sold. In so doing, the Respondent flagrantly violated several laws and rules regarding his professional responsibilities as a licensed Florida real estate broker. Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker for many years and depends on his license to make a living to support himself and his family. He has no prior disciplinary record. However, it has become known in this case that, over the years, he consistently has failed to use his escrow account for rental deposits and proceeds because he did not know it was required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order: finding the Respondent guilty as charged; fining him $2,000; suspending his license for one year; and placing him on probation for a suitable period of time and upon suitable conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 5th day of August, 2013.
The Issue The two issues raised in this proceeding are: (1) whether the basis and reason Respondent, Vestcor Companies, d/b/a Madalyn Landings (Vestcor), terminated Petitioner, Carlos Gomez's (Petitioner), employment on June 28, 2002, was in retaliation for Petitioner's protected conduct during his normal course of employment; and (2) whether Vestcor committed unlawful housing practice by permitting Vestcor employees without families to reside on its property, Madalyn Landing Apartments, without paying rent, while requiring Vestcor employees with families to pay rent in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, and Chapter 760.23, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the demeanor and candor of each witness while testifying, exhibits offered in support of and in opposition to the respective position of the parties received in evidence, stipulations of the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2002), and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant, material, and substantial facts are determined: Petitioner filed charges of housing discrimination against Vestcor with the Commission on August 30, 2002. Petitioner alleged that Vestcor discriminated against him based on his familial status and his June 28, 2002, termination was in retaliation for filing the charge of discrimination. Vestcor denied the allegations and contended that Petitioner's termination was for cause. Additionally, Vestcor maintained Petitioner relinquished his claim of retaliation before the final hearing; and under oath during his deposition, asserted he would not pursue a claim for retaliation. Petitioner was permitted to proffer evidence of retaliation because Vestcor terminated his employment. The Commission's Notice was issued on January 7, 2005. The parties agree that Petitioner was hired by Vestcor on June 25, 2001, as a leasing consultant agent for Madalyn Landing Apartments located in Palm Bay, Florida. Petitioner's job responsibilities as a leasing consultant agent included showing the property, leasing the property (apartment units), and assisting with tenant relations by responding to concerns and questions, and preparing and following up on maintenance orders. Petitioner had access to keys to all apartments on site. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was, as was all of Vestcor employees, given a copy of Vestcor's Employee Handbook. This handbook is required reading for each employee for personal information and familiarity with company policies and procedures, to include the company requirement that each employee personally telephone and speak with his/her supervisor when the employee, for whatever reason, could not appear at work as scheduled, which is a basis and cause for termination. The parties agree that Vestcor's handbook, among other things, contains company policies regarding equal employment; prohibition against unlawful conduct and appropriate workplace conduct; procedures for handling employee problems and complaints associated with their employment; and procedures for reporting illness or absences from work, which include personal notification to supervisors, and not messages left on the answering service. Failure to comply with employment reporting polices may result in progressive disciplinary action. The parties agree that employee benefits were also contained in the handbook. One such employee benefit, at issue in this proceeding, is the live-on-site benefit. The live-on- site benefit first requires eligible employees to complete a 90-day orientation period, meet the rental criteria for a tax credit property, and be a full-time employee. The eligible employee must pay all applicable security deposits and utility expenses for the live-on-site unit. Rent-free, live-on-site benefits are available only to employees who occupy the positions of (1) site community managers, (2) maintenance supervisors, and (3) courtesy officers. These individuals received a free two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment at the apartment complex in which they work as part of their employment compensation package. The rent-free, live-on-site benefit is not available for Vestcor's leasing consultant agent employees, such as Petitioner. On or about July 3, 2001, Petitioner entered into a lease agreement with Vestcor to move into Apartment No. 202-24 located at Madalyn Landing Apartments. The lease agreement ended on January 31, 2002. The lease agreement set forth terms that Petitioner was to receive a $50.00 monthly rental concession, which became effective on September 3, 2001. Although he was eligible for the 25-percent monthly rental concession, to have given Petitioner the full 25 percent of his monthly rental cost would have over-qualified Petitioner based upon Madalyn Landing Apartment's tax credit property status. Petitioner and Vestcor agreed he would receive a $50.00 monthly rental concession, thereby qualifying him as a resident on the property. Petitioner understood and accepted the fact that he did not qualify for rent-free, live-on-site benefits because of his employment status as a leasing consultant agent. Petitioner understood and accepted Vestcor's $50.00 monthly rental concession because of his employment status as a leasing consultant agent. The rental concession meant Petitioner's regular monthly rental would be reduced by $50.00 each month. On September 1, 2001, Henry Oliver was hired by Vestcor as a maintenance technician. Maintenance technicians do not qualify for rent-free, live-on-site benefits. At the time of his hire, Mr. Oliver did not live on site. As with other employees, to become eligible for the standard 25-percent monthly rental concession benefits, Mr. Oliver was required to complete a 90-day orientation period, meet the rental criteria for a tax credit property, be a full-time employee, and pay all applicable security deposits and utility expenses for the unit. On November 13, 2001, Michael Gomez, the brother of Petitioner (Mr. Gomez), commenced his employment with Vestcor as a groundskeeper. Groundskeepers did not meet the qualifications for rent-free, live-on-site benefits. At the time of his hire, Mr. Gomez did not live on site. As with other employees, to become eligible for the standard 25-percent monthly rental concession benefits, Mr. Gomez was required to complete a 90-day orientation period, meet the rental criteria for a tax credit property, be a full-time employee, and pay all applicable security deposits and utility expenses for the unit. On November 21, 2001, 81 days after his hire, Mr. Oliver commenced his lease application process to reside in Apartment No. 203-44 at Madalyn Landing Apartments. Mr. Oliver's leasing consultant agent was Petitioner in this cause. Like other eligible Vestcor employees and as a part of the lease application process, Mr. Oliver completed all required paperwork, which included, but not limited to, completing a credit check, employment verification, and income test to ensure that he was qualified to reside at Madalyn Landing Apartments. Fifteen days later, on November 28, 2001, Mr. Gomez commenced his lease application process to reside in Apartment No. 206-24 at Madalyn Landing Apartments. As part of the leasing process, Mr. Gomez, as other eligible Vestcor employees who intend to reside on Vestcor property, completed all necessary paperwork including, but not limited to, a credit check and employment verification and income test to ensure he was qualified to reside at Madalyn Landing Apartments. Included in the paperwork was a list of rental criteria requiring Mr. Gomez to execute a lease agreement to obligate himself to pay the required rent payment, consent to a credit check, pay an application fee and required security deposit, and agree not to take possession of an apartment until all supporting paperwork was completed and approved. Mr. Gomez's leasing consultant was Petitioner. On December 28, 2001, Petitioner signed a Notice to Vacate Apartment No. 206-24, effective February 1, 2002. The Notice to Vacate was placed in Vestcor's office files. Petitioner's reasons for vacating his apartment stated he "needed a yard, garage, more space, a big family room, and some privacy." Thirty-four days later, February 1, 2002, Mr. Gomez moved into Apartment No. 206-24 at Madalyn Landing Apartments without the approval or knowledge of Vestcor management. On January 9, 2002, a "Corrective Action Notice" was placed in Petitioner's employee file by his supervisor, Genea Closs. The notice cited two violations of Vestcor's policies and procedures. Specifically, his supervisor noted Petitioner did not collect administration fees from two unidentified rental units, and he had taken an unidentified resident's rental check home with him, rather than directly to the office as required by policy. As a direct result of those policy violations, Ms. Closs placed Petitioner on 180 days' probation and instructed him to re-read all Vestcor employees' handbook and manuals. Petitioner acknowledged receiving and understanding the warning. At the time she took the above action against Petitioner, there is no evidence that Ms. Closs had knowledge of Petitioner's past or present efforts to gather statements and other information from Mr. Gomez and/or Mr. Oliver in anticipation and preparation for his subsequent filing of claims of discrimination against Vestcor. Also, on January 9, 2002, Petitioner was notified that his brother, Mr. Gomez, did not qualify to reside at Madalyn Landing Apartments because of insufficient credit. Further, Petitioner was advised that should Mr. Gomez wish to continue with the application process, he would need a co-signer on his lease agreement or pay an additional security deposit. Mr. Gomez produced an unidentified co-signer, who also completed a lease application. On January 30, 2002, the lease application submitted by Mr. Gomez's co-signor was denied. As a result of the denial of Mr. Gomez's co-signor lease application, Vestcor did not approve Mr. Gomez's lease application. When he was made aware that his co-signor's application was denied and of management's request for him to pay an additional security deposit, as was previously agreed, Mr. Gomez refused to pay the additional security deposit. As a direct result of his refusal, his lease application was never approved, and he was not authorized by Vestcor to move into any Madalyn Landing's rental apartment units. At some unspecified time thereafter, Vestcor's management became aware that Mr. Gomez had moved into Apartment No. 206-24, even though he was never approved or authorized to move into an on site apartment. Vestcor's management ordered Mr. Gomez to remove his belongings from Apartment No. 206-24. Subsequent to the removal order, Mr. Gomez moved his belongings from Apartment No. 206-24 into Apartment No. 103-20. Mr. Gomez's move into Apartment No. 103-20, as was his move into Apartment No. 206-04, was without approval and/or authorization from Vestcor's management. Upon learning that his belonging had been placed in Apartment No. 103-20, Mr. Gomez was again instructed by management to remove his belongings. After he failed and refused to move his belongings from Apartment No. 103-20, Vestcor's management entered the apartment and gathered and discarded Mr. Gomez's belongings. As a leasing contract agent, Petitioner had access to keys to all vacant apartments. His brother, Mr. Gomez, who was a groundskeeper, did not have access to keys to any apartment, save the one he occupied. Any apartment occupied by Ms. Gomez after his Notice to Vacate Apartment No. 103-20 was without the knowledge or approval of Vestcor and in violation of Vestcor's policies and procedures. Therefore, any period of apartment occupancy by Mr. Gomez was not discriminatory against Petitioner (rent-free and/or reduced rent), but was a direct violation of Vestcor's policies. On February 10, 2002, Mr. Oliver signed a one-year lease agreement with Vestcor. Mr. Oliver's lease agreement reflected a 25-percent employee rental concession. Throughout Mr. Oliver's occupancy of Apartment No. 203-64 and pursuant to his lease agreement duration, Mr. Oliver's rental history reflected his monthly payment of $413.00. There is no evidence that Mr. Oliver lived on site without paying rent or that Vestcor authorized or permitted Mr. Oliver to live on site without paying rent, as alleged by Petitioner. On June 2, 2002, Ms. Closs completed Petitioner's annual performance appraisal report. Performance ratings range from a one -- below expectations, to a four -- exceeds expectations. Petitioner received ratings in the categories appraised as follows: Leasing skills -- 4; Administrative skills -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in paperwork, computer updating, and policy adherence; Marketing skills -- 4, with comments that Petitioner had a flair for finding the right markets; Community awareness -- 3, with no comment; Professionalism -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in paperwork reporting; Dependability -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in attendance; Interpersonal skills -- 3, with no comments; Judgment/Decision-making -- 3, with no comments; Quality of Work -- 2, with comments that work lacked accuracy; Initiative -- 4, with no comment; Customer service -- 3, with no comments; Team work -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in the area of resident confidence; Company loyalty -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in adherence to company policy and procedures; and Training and development -- 3, with no comments. Petitioner's Overall rating was 2.5, with comments that there was "room for improvement." On June 27, 2002, while on 180 days' probation that began on January 9, 2002, Petitioner failed to report to work and failed to report his absence to his supervisor, Ms. Closs, by a person-to-person telephone call. This conduct constituted a violation of Vestcor's policy requiring all its employees to personally contact their supervisor when late and/or absent from work and prohibited leaving messages on the community answering service machine. On June 28, 2002, Petitioner reported to work. Ms. Closs, his supervisor, informed Petitioner of his termination of employment with Vestcor for failure to report to work (i.e. job abandonment) and for probation violation, as he had been warned on January 9, 2002, what would happen should a policy violation re-occur. It was after his June 28, 2002, termination that Petitioner began his personal investigation and gathering of information (i.e., interviews and statements from other Vestcor employees) in preparation to file this complaint. Considering the findings favorable to Petitioner, he failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by Vestcor, when they terminated his employment on June 28, 2002. Considering the findings of record favorable to Petitioner, he failed to establish a prima facie case of housing and/or rental adjustment discrimination by Vestcor, based upon familial status of himself or any other employer. Petitioner failed to prove Vestcor knowingly and/or intentionally permitted, approved, or allowed either Mr. Gomez or Mr. Oliver to live on site without a completed and approved application followed by appropriate rent adjustments according to their employment status and keeping within the tax credit requirement, while requiring Vestcor employees with families (or different employment status) to pay a different monthly rent in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Petitioner failed to prove his termination on June 28, 2002, was in retaliation for his actions and conduct other than his personal violation, while on probation, of Vestcor's policies and procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Florida Commission on Human Rights enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief alleging discrimination filed by Petitioner, Carlos Gomez. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 29th day of August, 2005.
The Issue Whether or not the actions of the petitioner in amending its lease agreement resulted in increased costs which are reimbursable by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services through an interim rate request.
Findings Of Fact Hallandale is a licensed nursing home facility located in Hallandale, Florida, and at all times material hereto, Hallandale was certified to and was participating in the Florida Medicaid Program. The participation was subject to a standard nursing home provider agreement entered into by the parties. Pursuant to the agreement, Hallandale provides nursing care for Medicaid recipients and receives as payment the recognized rate of Medicaid reimbursement established for Hallandale by HRS in accordance with the applicable state and federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. The agreement may be cancelled by either party after giving thirty (30) days notice. In 1971, Hallandale entered into a lease agreement with the owners of the nursing home facility and began operating the nursing home. The lease called for a payment of $84.00 per month, per bed, had no escalation clause, and would not expire until 1986. At the time the lease was negotiated, the owners had been operating the nursing home themselves at a loss. To avoid bankruptcy or having to sell the property at a loss, the owners leased the property to Hallandale. However, within seven or eight years the owners began to put pressure on Hallandale to renegotiate the lease because the owners did not think they were getting a fair return on their investment. In 1981, the owners and Hallandale entered into negotiations to amend the terms of the lease to provide an increased rental rate and an extension of the lease term. The negotiations were not successful, and finally, by letter dated July 6, 1983, the owners issued the following ultimatum: "Although the lease has a renegotiation clause six months prior to expiration, we must renegotiate the terms and conditions of this lease immediately. The partnership has made a decision that we will definitely not renew or extend your lease unless we can come to some satisfactory arrangement regarding terms and conditions, effective immediately." On December 13, 1983, Hallandale and the owners entered into an amendment to the original lease. The amendment increased the lease payments and extended the lease until August of 1998. The amended lease provided for a minimum rental of $110 per month, per bed, as of September 1, 1983, with increases in the rental every year thereafter. Saul Lerner has been president of Hallandale since 1975 and has been associated with the facility since it was first leased in 1971. Mr. Lerner is an astute businessman who has been involved in a variety of businesses for forty years. He was chiefly responsible for renegotiating the lease with the owners. Although the lease was renegotiated due to the owners' threats to sell the facility, 1/ Mr. Lerner did not merely accede to the owners' demands. There were several offers and counteroffers made before the final agreement was reached, and the renegotiated lease provided for a considerably lower rental rate than that demanded by the owners. Prior to entering into the lease amendment Mr. Lerner consulted with people in the industry, had a MAI appraisal performed, discussed the situation with James Beymer, a real estate broker specializing in nursing home and health related facilities, consulted with his accountants who had been in the health care field for 13 years, and talked with Sebastian Gomez of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Mr. Lerner consulted with his business associates, and the pros and cons of renegotiating the lease were carefully considered. Hallandale's determination to renegotiate the lease in 1983 was a reasonable and prudent business decision. By agreeing to increased rental payments for the three years that remained on the original lease, Hallandale gained an additional 12 years to operate the facility. This permitted Hallandale to project its costs and plan for the future. It could make additions and improvements to the building, buy new equipment, and provide for stability in staffing. On the other hand, had Hallandale refused to renegotiate the lease, it faced an uncertain future. There was a strong possibility that the owners would not be willing to renew the lease when it expired, which would result in Hallandale's losing the equipment and improvements it had put into the building. In addition, the owners were threatening to sell the property, and even though Hallandale had the right of first refusal, it would have had difficulty in obtaining the money required to purchase the property. Further, Hallandale realized that even if the owners would be willing to negotiate a new lease in 1986, Hallandale would not have the same leverage or bargaining power in 1986 as it had in 1983. Hallandale has participated in the Medicaid program continuously since 1971. At the time of the hearing the facility had 142 patients, of which 45 were Medicaid patients. 2/ Hallandale has never refused a Medicaid patient, and some of the patients have been there 8 or 9 years. The Medicaid patients are treated the same as the private patients, to such a degree that no one knows which patients are Medicaid patients. Although the agreement with HRS allows a provider to leave the Medicaid program with 30 days notice, Hallandale has no intention to ever discontinue participation in the Medicaid program. The extended term of the renegotiated lease is not only advantageous to Hallandale, it is also beneficial to Hallandale's patients, including Medicaid patients. It secures continuity of care for the patients and ensures that the patients will not have to be moved to a new facility in 1986. The transfer from one facility to another can be a very traumatic event for an elderly person; some patients have died within weeks of a transfer. Further, the patients benefit immediately because the extended term of the lease allows Hallandale to make improvements to the facility and buy equipment that it would not have been able to do without the security of a long term lease. The lease payments called for by the new lease are not out of line with lease payments made by similar institutions. Mr. Lerner looked at other lease payments being made in the community and found that $110 per bed per month was not an exorbitant amount. James Beymer leased nursing home facilities that were not as nice as the Hallandale facility for $138 per bed per month $166 per bed per month, and $225 per bed per month. Had Hallandale purchased the facility for $3 million, the price asked by the owners, the cost per month per bed would have been over twice the amount of the lease payment. 3/ Lease payments are included in a facility's "fixed costs." The fixed costs also include depreciation, real estate taxes and insurance. The state places a cap on reimbursement rates for fixed costs. In June 1983, prior to the renegotiation of the lease, Hallandale's fixed costs were $4.61 per patient day; under the renegotiated lease, the fixed costs would be $5.16 per patient day. Thus, even with the higher lease payment, the fixed costs are considerably under the state cap of $12.50 per patient day. A provider's reimbursement rate is determined by HRS from a cost report submitted by a provider. The rate is a prospective per diem rate. If, during the prospective period, the provider incurs an increase in costs, the provider has a right to submit an interim rate request to HRS. The Department uses the same principles to determine whether costs submitted in an interim rate request should be allowed as in determining whether costs submitted in a cost report should be allowed. Lease payments are allowable expenses under the Medicaid program subject to the Medicaid cost reimbursement principles. In calculating Hallandale's per diem rate, HRS allowed Hallandale $84 per month lease cost for each Medicaid patient in the facility based on the 1971 lease. Prior to executing the new lease, Hallandale contacted HRS to inquire if the new lease cost would be allowable and was informed that the new costs would probably not be allowable. On November 9, 1983, Hallandale submitted an interim rate request to cover the increased cost of the new lease payments. The interim rate request was procedurally correct. By letter dated May 30, 1984, HRS denied the interim rate request because "...the lease cost was negotiated for investment related reasons and is not related to patient care." On June 25, 1984, Hallandale filed its petition for a formal administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the interim rate increase requested by Hallandale be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 26th day of April, 1985.
Findings Of Fact In June, 1975 Randall J. Conley, attempting to set his son and daughter-in-law up in business, arranged for them, with his help, to purchase Roger Sparks' business known as Sparky's Pizza. By Exhibit 6 dated June 17, 1975 the owner and lessor of the premises executed, with Randall M. Conley and his wife Sandra, a Consent to Assignment whereby the lease between the lessor and Mr. Spaghetti and Roger Sparks was assigned to the younger Conley and his wife and the previous lessees were released from further liability under the five year lease they had executed on April 30, 1974. (Exhibit 10) By Collateral Assignment Note dated 6-2-75 Randall J. Conley, Randall M. Conley and Sandra Conley obligated themselves to pay the Florida Center Bank $9750 over a five-year period and pledged the equipment and fixtures in the pizza business as security therefor. In October, 1975 Sandra, who had been operating the business, left for another job preparatory to separating from her husband. The business closed on November 1, 1975 and Defendant learned that the lessees were delinquent in the rent and payments on the chattel mortgage. Thereafter he attempted to sell the business. In November, 1975 Charles Hicks, the owner of a small fast-food chain, while looking for a site for a franchisee, saw the empty Sparky's Pizza and ascertained that information on occupying the property could be obtained from Defendant. He called Defendant's office and was told the rent was $260 per month. Arrangements were made for Defendant to show him the property the same afternoon. On November 25, 1975 Defendant showed Hicks and his putative franchisee, Ronald Beasley, the property. After being assured that the rental included the equipment and fixtures they agreed to accept an assignment of the lease if the lessor agreed and to bind the transaction Hicks gave Defendant a check for $200 made payable, at the request of Defendant, to Randall J. Conley. No written agreement was executed by the parties at this time. The check stated on its face that it was a deposit on lease of building here involved. The following day Defendant called Hicks and told him that the lessor had agreed with the assignment and that he should bring a check for $7,000 to pay for the equipment, plus a check for the rent. Hicks objected to the purchase of the equipment and demanded return of his $200 deposit. Defendant refused to return the money and Hicks immediately tried to stop payment on the check. When he did so he learned that his check had been cashed by Defendant as soon as the bank opened that morning, November 26. After Hicks was unsuccessful in getting his deposit returned he reported the incident to the FREC and the complaint here under consideration was filed. Defendant contends that he was operating as the owner of the lease and not in his capacity as a broker; that the consent to assignment of the lease did not result in an assignment; that by executing the collateral installment note he was part owner of the business; that when his daughter-in-law left and the business folded he acquired the leasehold by abandonment; and that he was entitled to retain Hicks' deposit of $200 as liquidated damages. One witness called by Defendant testified that the bank's policy on chattel mortgage loans was that they would only make such loans to the owners of the business. However, he acknowledged that he did not handle the loan here involved and never saw any documents showing Randall J. Conley having an interest in the leased premises, the equipment and fixtures for which was the subject of the loan represented by Exhibit 9. Defendant had advertised the sale of the lease in the newspaper and therein indicated the assignee of the lease would be required to assume payments on the equipment. Neither Hicks nor Beasley ever saw any such advertisement.
