The Issue Whether the Applicant is entitled to compensation in the amount of $2,500, to pay for "fill dirt" which was installed on the Applicant's real estate in relocating his homestead, after his former homestead was bought as right-of-way for Interstate Highway 75. This claim is under the guise of a relocation appeal, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance And Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 USC, 4601 - 4655).
Findings Of Fact In November, 1974, the Florida Department of Transportation paid the Applicant $32,500 in a negotiated purchase for the Applicant's property which was located in the line of construction for Interstate Highway 75. This price was for a mobile home 24' wide and 40' long, with appurtenances to the mobile home, to include a screen room, privacy paneling and carport. Prior to the November, 1974 sale of the property to the Department of Transportation, the Applicant had purchased another parcel of land in late 1973 or early 1974. It was on this parcel of land that was purchased at that time, that the Applicant relocated his home. The amount of payment for the new lot was between $2,800 and $2,900. In order to comply with certain standards of the DeSoto County, Florida Health Department, ten inches of "fill dirt" were required to be implaced to have the septic tank meet requirements for a drain field. The cost of the application of the "fill dirt" was $2,500. The expenditure of $2,500 for "fill dirt" is the item of controversy between the Applicant and the Respondent. The Applicant is claiming that the $2,500 should be reimbursed to him as part of a relocation assistance payment. The Respondent denies that the $2,500 is a proper item of compensation under the governing law on relocation assistance payments. The Respondent's denial is based upon the fact that it believes that "fill dirt" is not a compensable item. More specifically, the Respondent regards the selection of this piece of property by the Applicant as being a matter of choice, which did not have to be made. The Respondent is persuaded that other parcels of property were available, which did not require "fill dirt" to be brought in, in order to comply with health requirements and the Applicant failed to purchase such a parcel, therefore, the Applicant must defray the expense of his selection, in terms of the $2,500 which was spent to bring the property up to health standards. The history of the payments that were made by the Respondent can be derived by the application of the formula utilized. The Respondent looked at three comparable pieces of land , one for $32,500, a second for $28,500 and a third for $32,900. The closest comparable to the home that the Applicant sold, was the comparable listed at $32,500. The Respondent compared these comparable figures with the so called, "carve out" figure of a typical mobile home with equipment, on a typical mobile home site, which would have been a price of $25,721. Based upon this figure for a "carve out", and taking the figure for the closest comparable $32,500, the amount of maximum relocation reimbursement would have been $6,779. This figure is arrived at by subtracting the amount of the "carve out" figure from the closest comparable. In fact the Respondent spent $27,372 for the land purchased and other compensable items, thus entitling him to $1,651 in relocation reimbursement, according to the Respondent's calculations. Although, in the course of the hearing the Applicant was questioned about taking $1,651 as settlement. The Applicant said that he was only interested in the $2,500 figure. It should be stated that the $1,651, is an amount which does not contemplate the payment for "fill dirt". It is in fact a figure arrived at for payment of other items considered to be compensable. The question then becomes one of whether or not the Applicant is entitled to a $2500 payment for "fill dirt" which is not associated with the $1,651 which the Respondent claims the Applicant is entitled to. One final factual comment should be made. That comment is that the Respondent's acquisition and relocation assistance officer, David Nicholson, saw the Applicant's new property after the twenty five hundred dollars worth of fill dirt had been installed. At that time, Mr. Nicholson said that the property appeared to meet the criteria for a decent, safe and sanitary dwelling. The witness, Nicholson had not seen the property prior to the installation of the "fill dirt". Consequently, the Respondent can not challenge the statement by the Applicant to the effect that the "fill dirt" was necessary in order to achieve a decent, safe and sanitary dwelling.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent deny the payment of $2,500 to the Applicant for installation of "fill dirt" at the Applicant's present homesite. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Herman A. Beyer Post Office Box 382 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact By letter dated May 31, 1979 Respondent notified Petitioner that it was acquiring part of the property on which Petitioner's office was located and that it would be necessary for him to relocate. At the time Petitioner worked as a real estate appraiser in the office of the Pickens Agency owned by Philip Pickens. Pickens provided work space, telephones, secretary, data bank and supplies. The data bank contained data on real property throughout Florida and was invaluable to the appraisers in getting comparables to use for appraising like property. Due to the acquisition of additional property for the U.S. 90 right-of- way, it was necessary to move the two-story building in which Petitioner's office was located. This required moving out of this building into different quarters. In the building Petitioner's office, located on the second floor, comprised approximately 800 square feet in which he had desk, telephone and work space. The data bank was also located on the second floor. Philip Pickens owned another building in the Immediate vicinity into which Petitioner moved. The data bank was left in the original building which was jacked up in preparation for its move. Thee data bank remained available for use albeit less convenient for those using it. Petitioner had less space in the one-story building into which the Pickens Agency moved and Petitioner's office was located near the back door through which clients visited the Pickens Agency. He shared a telephone with another appraiser and had a smaller desk and less work space. He also experienced interruptions from visitors entering the office through the back door which opened into Petitioner's office space. During the two years immediately preceding the relocation of the office, Petitioner's appraisal work was performed exclusively for DOT. Part of this work was assigned him by the Pickens Agency and in some cases he was contacted directly by DOT for the appraisal . When employed directly by DOT, Petitioner received 50 percent of the appraisal fee and the Pickens Agency received 50 percent. When assigned work by the Pickens Agency, Petitioner received 45 percent of the appraisal fee. During the five months following Petitioner's move into the new quarters his income dropped substantially from what it had been before the relocation. Petitioner filed application for relocation benefits as soon as he moved his office and before any change in income occurred. Normally, there is a lag of three to six months between tile Line the appraisal work is done and payment is received. Petitioner's income during the first nine months of 1980 (January - October) we $10,622.97. For similar periods in 1979, 1978, and 1977 his income was $29,750, $26,382.50 and $22.252.50, respectively. Petitioner testified that he believes the loss of income was due to his inability to turn out as much work in the more restricted space and less privacy in the one-story building than he had before the move. Petitioner moved some 30 yards from his original location kept the same mailing address and the same telephone number. During the latter half of 1979 and the first half of 1980, the Lake City District of DOT had fewer relocation claims than in comparable periods of the two previous years. Relocation claims are related to appraisals which would indicate fewer appraisals were ordered by DOT in Lake City in 1979-80 than in the two previous years. During the period in question, most of Petitioner's work for DOT was generated by the Bartow office. This would require most of Petitioner's appraisal time out of Lake City with the use of the office primarily for the preparation of his appraisal report. No evidence was submitted to show the effect, if any, on the Pickens Agency's business resulting from the move or the business done by the other appraisers who also moved. During the period 1977-1980 the Pickens Agency employed between two and five appraisers and at the time of the relocation employed two appraisers, one of whom was petitioner. (Tr. p. 31). The number of appraisers employed varied with the volume of business coming into the agency. The appraisal work done by the Pickens Agency was statewide and not concentrated in the vicinity of Lake City.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her sex or an alleged handicap contrary to Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2008), Fair Housing Act, as amended (the Act).
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the discriminatory housing practice alleged in Petitioner's Housing Discrimination Complaint and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Because no evidence was offered at the final hearing held in the instant case, no findings of fact are made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Complaint and Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2010, 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 6th day of July, 2010. 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 Benjamin M. Esco, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Second Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Andrea Crump 9601 Collins Avenue, Apt. 906 Bal Harbour, Florida 33154
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondents, individually and jointly, on March 24, 1999, established, maintained, or operated migrant housing on their properties located on Rosebud Lane in Arcadia, Florida, without first obtaining permits from the Department of Health.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the State of Florida's Department of Health, and the DeSoto County Public Health Unit were the agencies in DeSoto County, Florida, responsible for the management and permitting of migrant labor camps and residential migrant housing within that county. Jack L. Sikes has been an environmental specialist II with the DeSoto County Health Unit for 18 years. His duties comprise the management of the migrant housing program within the county, including permitting and inspection of migrant residential housing units and camps. Migrant housing is defined within the Health Department as any structure housing five or more workers engaged in seasonal work, and who have changed their residence during the preceding year. Inspection standards applied to migrant housing relate to health and safety issues, such as cleanliness, refrigeration, hot and cold water, lights, bedding, and structural problems of the facility which impact safety. For the 1998-1999 growing year, permits were issued for 108 migrant worker camps in the county. In the 1997-1998 year there were only 16-17 permits issued for camps. The increase is due to state emphasis on increased safety for migrant housing. By far the greatest percentage of migrant workers are of Hispanic origin. The migrant population increases significantly in DeSoto County during the citrus harvest period which extends from November through June. On March 23, 1999, Mr. Sikes and a co-worker, as a part of a continuing search for un-permitted migrant housing, conducted a drive-through inspection of several mobile homes situated on Southwest Rosebud Lane in Arcadia, Florida. Eight of the lots on Rosebud Lane have mobile homes on them while the other lots are vacant. On this visit, Mr. Sikes did not see any of the indications normally present when a structure is used for a family home such as toys in the yard, laundry drying, etc. As a result, he suspected the homes, some of which were obviously occupied, were being used as migrant housing. The next day, March 24, 1999, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Mr. Sikes and a Spanish-speaking inspector, Robert Schultz, returned to the area and went to the structure located at 1408 Southwest Rosebud Lane, where in response to the inspectors' knock, the door was opened by an Hispanic individual who identified himself as Mario Hernandez. Through the interpretation services of Mr. Schultz, Mr. Hernandez indicated that he lived at that house with his five cousins, all of whose names were recorded on the "Documentation of Hand Laborer" form on which the answers to the interview questions were written. As recounted by Mr. Sikes, Mr. Hernandez spoke for the group as his cousins were not present when the interview began. Mr. Hernandez indicated that he and his cousins arrived in DeSoto County from another location to pick oranges during the first week of November 1998 and took up residence at 1408 Southwest Rosebud Lane. The mobile home they were occupying was large enough to be permitted for six residents. Mr. Hernandez also indicated he and his cousins were renting the mobile home but did not know from whom. Though this statement is hearsay, it is corroborated by an examination of the electricity billing records and other independent evidence of record. A four-fold November increase in electric usage over the mid-October 1998 electric bill indicates the structure was most likely unoccupied before November 1998 but was occupied for several months thereafter. In fact, just after the inspectors left the home, a bus discharged several other men who appeared to be migrant workers and four of them went in the direction of 1408. When Mr. Sikes and Mr. Schultz went to 1375 Southwest Rosebud Lane they found several Hispanic men getting out of a utility van and going into the mobile home. The inspectors went to the house and were invited in. Mr. Schultz translated. During the course of the conversation, the men indicated they had just returned from the fields where they worked picking oranges. They said they all lived in the mobile home with a sixth man who was not present at the time. They also indicated they had come to DeSoto County from Mexico around the first of the year to pick oranges, and had rented the mobile home from someone whose name they did not know. When the picking season was completed in DeSoto County, they intended to move on to other farm work elsewhere. The inspectors spoke with the driver of the bus who identified himself as a crew leader for Turner Foods for whom the migrant laborers also worked. The driver attempted to interfere with the inspectors' questioning of the workers who got off the bus, and as a result, the inspectors requested that he leave the area. Within five minutes of the driver's departure, Respondent Gary L. Frierson drove up and asked Mr. Sikes what was going on. Mr. Sikes advised Mr. Frierson that he and Mr. Schultz were conducting a housing investigation and that based on what information they had gathered, Mr. Frierson needed to obtain a residential migrant housing permit for the properties. Mr. Frierson did not deny he owned the property, but, by the same token, did not admit to owning it either. Mr. Frierson said he was trying to sell the property, but, due to tax considerations, was restricted to selling a limited number of parcels per year. Taken together, the evidence of record is abundantly clear that the occupants of both 1375 and 1408 Southwest Rosebud Lane on March 24, 1999, were migrant farm workers, and the properties were being used as residential migrant housing without being permitted as such. The question remains, however, as to who owned the property and was utilizing it in the fashion described. The public records of DeSoto County reflect that Alice H. Frierson is the owner of record of the property located at 1408 Southwest Rosebud Lane, and Gary L. and Alice H. Frierson, jointly, are the owners of record of the property located at 1375 Southwest Rosebud Lane. Respondents presented several documents in an effort to establish they did not own the properties in question. As to Lot 14 and Lot 22, Bokara Acres, unrecorded Agreements for Deed dated December 31, 1998, between both Mr. and Mrs. Frierson and Wayne Radloff as to Lot 14, and Ricardo Sanchez as to Lot 22, provide for a future transfer of title to each buyer, providing the buyer pays all amounts due on the purchase price. Identical Agreements for Deed were also issued the same date to Mr. Radloff for four other properties in the subdivision. As to Lot 14, a second Agreement for Deed, dated January 1, 1999, purports to transfer a future interest in the same property to Fernando Gomez, and on that same date, Mr. Radloff executed an Assignment of Agreement for Deed to Fernando Gomez. On January 9, 1999, Mr. Radloff also executed a Quit-Claim Deed for Lots 13 and 14 to Gary L. and Alice H. Frierson. As to Lot 22, on March 28, 1999, Mr. Gomez executed a Rescission of Agreement for Deed and Mutual Release to the Friersons in which the December 31, 1998, transfer of the property to Gomez was rescinded, thereby restoring title to Mr. and Mrs. Frierson. This is four days after the visit on March 24, 1999 by the inspectors, Mr. Sikes and Mr. Schultz. By none of the documents, however, did legal title transfer from Mr. and Mrs. Frierson to Mr. Radloff, Mr. Gomez, or Mr. Sanchez. In fact, Mr. Frierson admitted that he collected the rent from the occupants of both parcels weekly from January through March 24, 1999, though he indicated he had no idea which individuals occupied which property. All Mr. Frierson could recall was that a Hispanic man would come out to the truck each time Mr. Frierson went there and beeped his horn, and would give him the money due. He could not identify the man or even say if it was the same man each time. While the Department contends that the unrecorded Agreements for Deed are a sham designed to isolate Respondents from their legal responsibility to obtain permits for the property which they operate as residential migrant housing, Respondent vehemently denied this and produced a series of witnesses who, over several years past, have purchased real estate from them through the same process. None of these individuals experienced any difficulty in obtaining title to the property when they completed payment in full. It should be noted, however, that while these individuals have had no difficulty with the transactions, they are permanent residents of the area, and the situation regarding the parcels in question differs considerably. On none of the transfer documents in issue are the name and address of the person who prepared the document legible, and other technical deficiencies make the agreements un-recordable. When those factors are considered in conjunction with the coincidental concurrence of the documents with the arrival of the migrant workers, and the fact that all interest in the property reverted to Mr. and Mrs. Frierson immediately after the date of the Department inspection, the inescapable conclusion is that the transfers to Mr. Radloff/Mr. Gomez and Mr. Sanchez were not bona fide transfers of an interest in property, but were an effort to obscure the actual ownership of the property to avoid the responsibilities which go with the ownership of residential migrant housing. Other evidence of record supports that conclusion. For example, Respondents presented no documentary evidence to indicate they had ever received any of the weekly payments called for under the Agreements for Deed as to either property but claim that they received a down payment, and that Mr. Frierson collected "rent" each week. For the five properties sold to Mr. Radloff/Mr. Gomez for a total consideration of $63,000, the total down payment was $300. For the property sold to Sanchez for $20,000, the down payment was $100. Respondent admits he has no records to show the down payment or the monthly rental payments he received on either property. Respondents paid the electricity for both properties during the entire time the properties were under the Agreements for Deed through their account with the utility company and were not reimbursed. They provided water to 1375 Southwest Rosebud Lane free of charge from a well on adjacent property they owned. They paid property, casualty, flood, and hurricane insurance for both properties throughout the entire period and were not reimbursed. They did not advise the county property tax office that they had transferred interest in the property to someone else. Though Respondent gave a key to each property to the respective "purchaser," he never saw either at the property. All but one of the properties in which an interest was transferred to Mr. Radloff, Mr. Gomez, or Mr. Sanchez, are vacant and the location of the "buyers" is unknown. Mr. Frierson indicated that he frequently sells property by unrecorded Agreement for Deed. This is standard procedure for him. He claims he paid the electric bills on the properties when they were previously used as rental properties, and he did not cancel the service -- a thing he has done in the past when the buyer is short of cash or cannot pay the power company deposit. In one case under consideration here, he claims, the tenant paid more than was called for, so he used the accrued overpayment to pay the electric bill. As for insurance, he continued his coverage because he wasn't sure the buyer could get coverage. Respondent asserts he does not want to operate migrant housing and has told this to Mr. Sams of the Health Department. He wants single families, and the family which occupied one of the properties in issue on June 7, 1999, went in after the rescission of the Agreement for Deed. Mr. Frierson claims the family's rental business is far less formal than a normal rental operation. Many renters who terminate usually do so by leaving without notice. Many of the renters are Hispanics, whom he describes as quite naïve about paper work. When Mr. Sanchez advised him he wanted out of their agreement, Respondent prepared a Rescission and Release and a Quit-Claim Deed, though he admits the use of both is probably overkill. As to the transactions with Mr. Radloff, Respondent claims he entered into it on the basis of advice from his tax accountant to avoid a higher tax obligation. When he found that he didn’t have the tax problem after all, he bought the lots back and transferred them to Mr. Gomez, which, he contends was his original intention. Mr. Frierson contends that the money paid to him by Mr. Radloff actually came from Mr. Gomez, which, to Respondent, explains the concurrent transfers. He also contends that shortly after the transfer, Mr. Gomez came to him and wanted out of the deal, as had Mr. Sanchez, and he, Mr. Frierson, agreed. Respondent claims, however, that he had no idea of how the properties were used when Mr. Gomez and Mr. Sanchez had control of them. He overlooks the fact that he collected the rents weekly during that period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health enter a final order in this matter imposing administrative fines of $500.00 on Gary L. and Alice H. Frierson for the proven violation at 1375 Southwest Rosebud Lane, and an additional $500 fine on Alice H. Frierson for the proven violation at 1408 Southwest Rosebud Lane, both in Arcadia, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott, Esquire Department of Health Post Office Box 9309 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902-0309 James M. Beesting, Esquire 207 East Magnolia Street Suite B Arcadia, Florida 34266 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her national origin or ethnicity in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Fabiola Heiblum ("Heiblum") is a Hispanic woman who, at all times relevant to this action, has owned Unit No. 5C in the Carlton Bay Condominium, which is located in North Miami Beach, Florida. She purchased her unit in 2004 and has resided there continuously since some time in 2005. Respondent Carlton Bay Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association") is the entity responsible for operating and managing the condominium property in which Heiblum's unit is located. In March 2008, the Association's Board of Directors ("Board") approved a special assessment, to be levied against all unit owners, the proceeds of which would be used to pay insurance premiums. Each owner was required to pay his share of the special assessment in full on April 1, 2008, or, alternatively, in three equal monthly installments, due on the first of April, May, and June 2008, respectively. Heiblum's share of this special assessment was $912.81. At or around the same time, the Board also enacted a procedure for collecting assessments, including the special insurance assessment. According to this procedure, owners would have a grace period of 15 days within which to make a required payment. After that period, a delinquent owner would be notified, in writing, that the failure to pay his balance due within 15 days after the date of the notice would result in referral of the matter to an attorney for collection. The attorney, in that event, would file a Claim of Lien and send a demand letter threatening to initiate a foreclosure proceeding if the outstanding balance (together with costs and attorney's fees) was not paid within 30 days after receipt of the demand. This collection procedure applied to all unit owners. Heiblum did not make any payment toward the special assessment on April 1, 2008. She made no payment on May 1, 2008, either. (Heiblum concedes her obligation to pay the special assessment and does not contend that the Association failed to give proper notice regarding her default.) The Association accordingly asked its attorney to file a Claim of Lien against Unit No. 5C and take the legal steps necessary to collect the unpaid debt. By letter dated May 8, 2008, the Association's attorney notified Heiblum that a Claim of Lien against her property had been recorded in the public records; further, demand was made that she pay $1402.81 (the original debt of $912.81 plus costs and attorney's fees) to avoid foreclosure. On or around May 10, 2008, Heiblum gave the Association a check in the amount of $500, which the Association returned, under cover of a letter dated May 16, 2008, because its attorney was now in charge of collecting the overdue debt. Heiblum eventually paid the special assessment in full, together with costs and attorney's fees, thereby obviating the need for a foreclosure suit. Heiblum believes that the Association prosecuted its claims for unpaid special assessments more aggressively against Hispanics such as herself than persons of other national origins or ethnicities, for which owners the Association allegedly showed greater forbearance. Specifically, she believes that the Association did not retain its attorney to undertake collection efforts against non-Hispanic unit owners, sparing them the costs and fees that she was compelled to pay. There is, however, no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that the Association did not commit any prohibited discriminatory act vis-à-vis Heiblum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding the Association not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Heiblum no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 27th day of February, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner committed the violations alleged in the citations he received on February 6, 1997. If so, what amount, if any, should he be fined.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner owned and operated two apartment buildings located (adjacent to each other) at 732 and 740 Joe Louis Avenue in Pahokee, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the 732 Apartments and the 740 Apartments, respectively). Each building contained ten apartments used to house migrant farmworkers and members of their families, including their children. Among Petitioner's tenants was Speedy Martin. Petitioner paid Martin to help him maintain the buildings and grounds. Michael Menor is a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Department. He is assigned to the Department's Belle Glade office. In his capacity as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist, he inspects migrant farmworker housing to ascertain whether there is compliance with applicable statutory and rule requirements. Menor conducted inspections of the 732 and 740 Apartments on January 14, 1997. The inspections revealed the existence of violations at both locations. Following his inspections, Menor prepared inspection reports which accurately described the violations that existed at the two locations at the time of the inspections and which gave notice that these violations needed to be corrected by 8:00 a.m. on January 28, 1997. Before leaving, he handed these inspection reports to one of Petitioner's tenants, Marlo Camble. Approximately a week later, Camble provided the reports to Speedy Martin, who, in turn, notified Petitioner of the contents of the reports. The inspection report describing the condition of the 732 Apartments and grounds at the time of the January 14, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Repair cracks in building, south side. Replace 11 bathroom screens missing from building. Broken window [in] Apt. # 5 and two broken windows [in] Apt. 4. Repair or replace covers for water meters. Clean out garbage, litter and debris from east side of b[ui]ld[ing]. Replace missing screens [in] Apt[s]. #1 [and] 2. Provide or repair heat [in] Apt. #2. Exposed wires [hanging from two] public lighting . . . fixtures [on] west side of b[ui]lding. Exposed wires in meter room. Empty out storage area and repair door under stairs. Repair wall on side of storage area. Repair public lighting on 2nd floor. Repair or replace stove [in] Apt. #9. Repair or replace stove [in] Apt. #2. Note: Smoke detectors missing [from] Apt. #8. Fire extinguisher missing [from] Apt. #2. All fire extinguishers require reinspection and retag. The inspection report describing the condition of the 740 Apartments and grounds at the time of the January 14, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Replace missing screens in Apt[s]. #4 and #5. Repair leak on overhang, [in] front of Apt[s]. #4 and #5. Clean out garbage, litter and debris from east side of building. Repair heater [in] Apt. #4. Repair broken windows [in] Apt. #4. (2 windows broken). Remove or repair screen door [on] Apt. #3. Repair public lighting. Repair screen [in] Apt. #1. Exposed electrical wires [in] front of Apt. #1. Repair door frame and screen in meter room. Clean room. Provide cover for electrical wires in meter room. Repair overhang [on] corner of b[ui]ld[ing's] west side. Remove wooden poles [on] south side of building. Repair broken window [in] Apt. #3 [on] south side of building. Repair wall [on] south side of building. Provide covers for water meters. Replace 2 missing bathroom screens [on] south side of building. Repair public lighting [on] 2nd floor. Replace missing screen [in] Apt. #7. Repair 2 broken windows [in] Apt. #6. Exposed wire [on] west side of Apt. #6. Repair storage door under stairs and clean storage room. Note: All fire extinguishers require retag and reinspection. Replace fire extinguisher and smoke detector [in] Apt. #2. Menor returned to the 732 and 740 Apartments on January 31, 1997, to conduct follow-up inspections.1 The follow- up inspections revealed that, although Petitioner had remedied some of the problems that Menor had discovered during his January 14, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections), most of the violations found during these earlier inspections had not been corrected. Following his January 31, 1997, inspections, Menor prepared inspection reports which accurately described the violations that existed at the two locations at the time of the inspections and which gave notice that these violations needed to be corrected by 8:00 a.m. on February 4, 1997. Menor, on February 3, 1997, "faxed" Petitioner copies of the inspection reports. He also spoke with Petitioner and advised him of the contents of the reports. The inspection report describing the condition of the 732 Apartments and grounds at the time of the January 31, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Repair cracks in building, south side. Replace 11 bathroom screens missing from building. Broken window [in] Apt. #5 and two broken windows [in] Apt. #4. Repair or replace covers for water meters. Clean out garbage, litter and debris [from] east side of building. Replace missing screens [in] Apt[s]. #1 [and] 2. Provide or repair heat [in] Apt. #2. Repair door to storage area under stairs. Repair or replace stove [in] Apt. #9. Repair or replace stove [in] Apt. #2. Provide effective extermination of rodents. The inspection report describing the condition of the 740 Apartments and grounds at the time of the January 31, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Replace missing screens in Apt[s]. #4 [and] #5. Repair leak on overhang, [in] front of Apt[s]. #4 [and] #5. Clean out garbage, litter and debris from east side of b[ui]ld[ing]. Repair 2 heaters [in] Apt. #4. Repair overhang [on] corner of building['s] west side. Repair broken window [in] Apt. #3 [on] south side of building. Repair wall [on] south side of building. Provide covers for water meters. Replace 2 missing bathroom screens [on] south side of b[ui]ld[ing]. Repair public lighting [on] south side of b[ui]ld[ing]. Repair broken window (2)[in] Apt. #6. Repair storage door und[er] stairs. Provide effective extermination of rodents. Menor next inspected the 732 and 740 Apartments on February 4, 1997. The inspections revealed that none of the violations that Menor had discovered during his January 31, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections) had been remedied, with the exception of the violation resulting from the broken heater in Apartment number 2 in the 732 Apartments, which had been repaired since the January 31, 1997, inspections. (One of the heaters in Apartment number 9 in the 732 Apartments, however, was now in disrepair.) Although Petitioner had taken steps to address some of these continuing violations, his efforts, as Menor's February 4, 1997, inspections revealed, were inadequate to correct the targeted problems. Petitioner had ordered meter covers from the City of Pahokee, but he had not yet received them nor had he placed any temporary coverings over the uncovered meters. He had attempted to repair the cracks in the building on the south side of the 732 Apartments; the door to the storage area under the stairs in the 732 Apartments; the overhang in front of Apartment numbers 4 and 5 in the 740 Apartments; the overhang on the west side of the 740 Apartments; the wall on the south side of the 740 Apartments; and the door to the storage area under the stairs in the 740 Apartments; but the repairs he had made had not been done properly. He had put rat poison under the buildings and given tenants rat traps in an effort to alleviate the rodent infestation problem at the 732 and 740 Apartments; however, he had not gone to the expense of hiring a professional exterminator to deal with the problem, even though it should have been apparent to him that the services of an exterminator were needed to effectively eliminate the rat population at the two locations. Following the February 4, 1997, inspections, Menor prepared inspection reports which accurately described the violations that existed at the 732 and 740 Apartments at the time of the inspections and which gave notice that these violations needed to be corrected by 8:00 a.m. on February 6, 1997. Menor spoke with Petitioner and advised Petitioner of the contents of the inspection reports and what Petitioner needed to do to remedy the violations noted in the reports. Menor returned to inspect the 732 and 740 Apartments on February 6, 1997. Upon his arrival, Menor met Petitioner, who had also just arrived on the scene. In Petitioner's car were screens and light bulbs that Petitioner intended to install in the apartments and public areas that needed them. Notwithstanding Petitioner's intentions, none of the violations that Menor had discovered during his February 4, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections) had yet been remedied. Inasmuch as the deadline that Menor had given Petitioner to correct these violations had passed, Menor issued Petitioner two citations, one for the continuing violations at the 732 Apartments and the other for the continuing violations at the 740 Apartments. Each citation directed Petitioner "to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00," but provided that Petitioner could "have the amount of the fine . . . reduced or waived completely by demonstrating good faith in correcting the violations or by presenting 'before and after' evidence to the Palm Beach County Public Health Unit within 48 hours of the time of the issuance of th[e] citation." Menor told Petitioner that he would be back to the apartments on Monday, February 10, 1997, to see if the violations had been corrected and if a reduction or waiver of the fines was warranted. On February 10, 1997, Petitioner telephoned Menor and advised him that he needed an extra day to bring the 732 and 740 Apartments into compliance. Menor responded by telling Petitioner that he would postpone his inspections of the apartments until the following day. The following day, February 11, 1997, Menor paid a return visit to the 732 and 740 Apartments to conduct post- citation inspections. Some of the continuing violations that Menor had discovered during his February 4, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections) had still not yet been remedied. These unremedied violations created conditions that posed a serious threat to the health and safety of the tenants. Following his February 11, 1997, inspections, Menor prepared inspection reports which accurately described the violations that existed at the two locations at the time of the inspections and which gave notice that these violations needed to be corrected by 8:00 a.m. on February 17, 1997. Menor provided Petitioner, who was present during the inspections, copies of the inspection reports. The inspection report describing the condition of the 732 Apartments and grounds at the time of the February 11, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Replace covers for water meters. . . . Repair door to storage area. Provide effective extermination of rodents. Repair cracks in building, south side. Screens missing from bathroom window[s]. The inspection report describing the condition of the 740 Apartments and grounds at the time of the February 11, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Repair overhang [on] corner of building['s] west side./Repair storage door. Provide covers for water meters. Repair 2 broken windows [in] Apt. #6. Provide effective extermination of rodents. Menor next inspected the 732 and 740 Apartments on February 17, 1997. The inspections revealed that at neither location had Petitioner yet "provide[d] covers for water meters" or "provide[d] effective extermination of rodents," although he had corrected the other violations Menor had discovered during his February 11, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections). Following his February 17, 1997, inspections, Menor prepared inspection reports which accurately described the violations that existed at the two locations at the time of the inspections. Copies of these inspection reports were "faxed" to Petitioner on February 18, 1997. On February 24, 1997, Menor received a complaint from a tenant living in Apartment number 4 in the 740 Apartments that there were "rats in [her] refrigerator." Later that day, Menor went to the 740 Apartments to investigate the complaint. His investigation revealed evidence that rats had entered the complainant's refrigerator through a hole. Menor spoke with Petitioner following his investigation and emphasized the importance of Petitioner providing his tenants with effective "pest control." Two days later, on February 26, 1997, Petitioner telephoned Menor and told Menor that he (Petitioner) had made arrangements for a "pest control" company, Glades Pest Control, to provide extermination services at the 732 and 740 Apartments, but that it would not be until March 4, 1997, that such services would be rendered. On April 18, 1997, Menor returned to the 732 and 740 Apartments to ascertain whether the continuing violations that he had discovered during his February 17, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections) had been remedied. The inspections revealed that these violations had been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the February 6, 1997, citations and fining him a total of $1,000.00 ($500.00 per citation) for these violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 August, 1997.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in relocating and reestablishment of his small business pursuant to section 421.55, Florida Statutes (2009),1/ as implemented by Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-66.007, which, in turn, incorporates by reference the provisions of 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 24, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally-Assisted Programs (effective October 1, 2006),2/ and the Florida Department of Transportation Right of Way Manual 9.3.15, and, if Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement, the amount owed to him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and witnesses' testimony, the undersigned found the following facts: The Department is the state agency that has responsibility for paying certain relocation and reestablishment expenses of businesses that have been displaced because of a public transportation project. See § 421.55, Fla. Stat. Sometime in 1999 to 2000, Mr. Carey purchased eight rental units in Hillsborough County, Florida, as an investment property. Mr. Carey managed the rental property and testified that he would advertise vacancies through "word of mouth." The record shows that these rental units were rented weekly and included written and verbal leases. In 2005, the Department informed Mr. Carey that his rental property would be subject of an eminent domain taking and informed Mr. Carey about the law authorizing the Department to pay certain expenses in relocating and reestablishing a small business. On December 6, 2005, Mr. Carey filled out a Business Survey Questionnaire for the Department, stating his desire to relocate his rental business. The Department acquired Mr. Carey's property on April 18, 2009. By mid July 2009, Mr. Carey contacted Mr. Nappi to determine whether or not he was still eligible to receive relocation and reestablishment reimbursement for his small business. Mr. Nappi determined that Mr. Carey remained eligible to apply for reimbursement and informed him of that fact. On August 28, 2009, Mr. Carey purchased a replacement property located at 19002 Apian Way, Lutz, Florida, for $300,000.00. The replacement property contained a house that had been the homestead property of the prior owner. Mr. Carey credibly testified that the purpose of purchasing this replacement property was "to get back into the rental business" and that he advertised the replacement property for rent by "word of mouth." Receipts introduced into evidence show that Mr. Carey began making repairs and purchasing materials as early as the first week in September. Mr. Carey testified, on cross-examination, that he could not remember the exact date when he listed the replacement property for sale, or the exact date when he entered into a contract for the sale of the replacement property. Mr. Carey testified that he would speculate that the contract for sale of the replacement property occurred in early October 2009. On October 15, 2009, Mr. Nappi went to the replacement property with Mr. Carey to review the work that Mr. Carey had already begun on the replacement property and to discuss the expenses eligible for reimbursement. In reviewing Mr. Carey's claimed expenses, Mr. Nappi found that the following expenses would be eligible for reimbursement: (1) the drywall work detailed in Exhibit A; (2) $561.00 worth of the receipts of materials purchased from Home Depot; and (3) the painting expenses detailed in Exhibit C. Mr. Nappi also testified that in reviewing the claimed expenses that Mr. Carey would be eligible for reimbursement of a portion of the replacement property's ad valorem taxes. According to Mr. Nappi, Mr. Carey would have been eligible to receive the difference of the amount of the property taxes between the acquired property and the replacement property in the amount of $849.56. The only expenses that Mr. Nappi identified as not being reasonable were for hauling away yard waste contained in Exhibit D. According to Mr. Nappi, the Department questioned the amount of the charges and determined that an appropriate amount would be $1,200.00 as opposed to the $2,450.00 sought by Mr. Carey. Consequently, the majority of the expenses claimed by Mr. Carey were eligible items for reimbursement. On November 4, 2009, the Department sent Mr. Carey a letter denying his eligibility to receive reimbursement for expenses in relocating and reestablishing his small rental business. The Department denied Mr. Carey's eligibility because the updated TRIM notice for the property tax, that Mr. Carey provided the Department, showed the replacement property was homestead property. Because the replacement property was homestead, the Department reasoned that Mr. Carey had not reestablished a small business. Mr. Carey informed Mr. Nappi that the replacement property was not homestead property and that the TRIM notice was wrong. In response, on November 9, 2009, Mr. Nappi wrote the Hillsborough County Tax Collector to determine whether or not Mr. Carey's replacement property was homestead property. On November 23, 2009, while the Department waited for a response from the Hillsborough County Tax Collector, Mr. Carey closed on the sale of the replacement property for $332,500.00. Mr. Carey did not inform the Department that the replacement property had been sold. In February 2010, the Hillsborough County Tax Collector informed the Department that the replacement property was not homestead. Also, the Department learned for the first time that Mr. Carey had sold the replacement property. After learning that Mr. Carey had sold the replacement property, Mr. Nappi contacted his supervisor Elbert Johnson (Mr. Johnson). Mr. Nappi informed Mr. Johnson that "it did not appear that the reestablishment status of the landlord had been in fact established[,]" and the claim would be denied. Mr. Nappi testified the Department attempted to determine whether or not Mr. Carey had reestablished his rental business by examining Mr. Carey's efforts to rent the replacement property. Mr. Nappi directed a right-of-way specialist for the Department to contact realtors, who were associated with the property, to determine if Mr. Carey had listed the property for rent; to contact the local newspaper to learn if the property had been advertised for rent; and to conduct an internet search of the property. According to Mr. Nappi, the realtor indicated that she was not aware of whether or not Mr. Carey listed the property for rent and learned nothing from the newspaper or internet search. Mr. Nappi admitted that the Department did not contact Mr. Carey to ask him about his efforts to rent the property. The Department did not contact Mr. Carey or ask him to provide any information about his efforts to rent the property. Consequently, the Department did not have before it any information concerning Mr. Carey's efforts as to "word of mouth" advertising of the property. Mr. Knight, the state administrator of Relocation Assistance, testified that asking Mr. Carey about his efforts to rent the property would have been helpful information to have in considering the reimbursement. However, Mr. Knight acknowledged that Mr. Carey's selling of the home prior to determination of whether or not he was entitled to reimbursement made the issue moot. In the Department's estimation, Mr. Carey had simply "flipped a house" and had not reestablished his business. On March 25, 2010, the Department informed Mr. Carey that it was denying his application for reimbursement because he was not eligible because he had not reestablished his small rental business at the replacement property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order affirming its denial of Mr. Carey's application for reimbursement of reestablishment expenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 28th day of February, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondents have violated Florida's Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment to Petitioner because of her mental disability and familial status. If so, whether Petitioner should be granted the relief she has requested.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a single parent. She has three sons, aged 10, 12, and 14. At all times material to the instant case, her sons have lived with her in the same household. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner has suffered from phobias and from anxiety and panic attacks. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner has received social security disability benefits from the federal government based upon her mental disability. Summer Lakes is a rental apartment community in Oakland Park, Florida. Petitioner lived in an apartment at Summer Lakes with her three sons from June of 1994 to January of 1995. During the period of her tenancy, Petitioner experienced financial problems. As a result, she had difficulty making her rent payments. In January of 1995, she was evicted from her Summer Lakes apartment for nonpayment of rent. Following her eviction, she and her sons lived with her mother in her mother's house (where Petitioner and her sons still live). Petitioner's financial situation improved following her eviction. By August 12, 1996, she had been able to save a substantial sum of money. On or about that date (August 12, 1996), Petitioner returned to Summer Lakes to inquire about again renting an apartment in the community. Flags outside the rental office indicated that apartments were available for rent. Upon entering the rental office, Petitioner was greeted by Vicki Atkinson (now Keating), Summer Lakes' manager. Summer Lakes had had another manager when Petitioner had lived there previously. Petitioner filled out an application to lease an apartment in the community and handed it to Ms. Atkinson. She also presented to Ms. Atkinson various documents in an effort to show that she would be financially able to make the required rent payments. Among these documents were bank statements which reflected that Petitioner had approximately $25,000 in the bank. Petitioner, in addition, showed Ms. Atkinson paperwork Petitioner had received from the federal government regarding her social security disability benefits. The paperwork indicated that Petitioner had been awarded these benefits (monthly payments of $910.00) based upon the finding that she had a mental disability. Immediately after reviewing the paperwork, Ms. Atkinson told Petitioner, "We don't want your kind here." Petitioner pleaded with Ms. Atkinson to let her rent an apartment in the Summer Lakes community. She even offered to have someone co-sign her lease. Ms. Atkinson was unmoved. Claiming that Petitioner's income was insufficient, she refused to rent an apartment to Petitioner. Her refusal was actually based upon her desire not to rent to a person with a mental disability. In refusing to rent an apartment to Petitioner, Ms. Atkinson was acting on behalf of the owner of Summer Lakes, Pittco Summer Lakes Associates, Ltd. (Pittco). Pittco no longer owns Summer Lakes and Ms. Atkinson no longer is its manager. Pittco sold Summer Lakes to SummerLake Oakland Park, Ltd., on or some time before July 1, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that, although Ms. Atkinson and Pittco committed a "discriminatory housing practice" by refusing to rent an apartment to Petitioner because of Petitioner's mental disability and familial status, the Commission is without authority to grant the relief Petitioner has requested. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1998.
