The Issue Whether Respondent, based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, false promises, and dishonest dealing, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein on September 30, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Based on admissions, Gary Steinman, Respondent herein, is a registered real estate salesman and holds license number 0084567. During times material to the allegations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Respondent was a registered real estate broker/salesman. During the period from November, 1974, until February of 1977, Respondent was employed by Suncoast Highland Corporation (Suncoast), an owner/developer. From February 25, 1977, and extending through June of 1978, Respondent was employed by Suncoast Highland Realty Corporation, a licensed real estate corporation. For purposes herein, the two (2) corporations are the same. (Tr. 150) 2/ From November of 1974 through June of 1978, in his efforts to induce prospective purchasers to buy lots in a Suncoast development known as Shadow Run, Respondent, in his capacity as a salesman for Suncoast, made the following verbal representations pertaining to the parcels in Shadow Run: Underground utility connections would be used exclusively in the sub- division; That a recreation area would be constructed, including tennis courts and a concrete boat ramp; and That a central water system would be installed by the developer. In November of 1974, Suncoast opened and offered for sale individual residential lots in Shadow Run. Respondent, during his employment with Suncoast is not now nor has he ever served as an officer or director of that corporation. Nor did Respondent formulate or participate in the formulation of policy or development decisions for the corporation. (Testimony of Respondent and C. Thomas Peterson, the President of Suncoast since 1964.) To summarize, Respondent is charged with making certain representations to purchasers or prospective purchasers of lots in Shadow Run Subdivision which allegedly Respondent knew or should have known were false. As stated, one such representation was that underground utilities (electric and telephone) would be installed for all lots in Shadow Run. The testimony and exhibits produced in evidence reveal and Respondent admits, without dispute, that the developer, Suncoast, did make such promises and representations in its initial public offering statement dated September 16, 1974. That public offering statement was in effect when Shadow Run Subdivision opened in November of 1974. The evidence reveals, and Respondent admits that he first learned, on January 15, 1975, that the developer decided not to install underground utilities and therefore would have conventional overhead utilities. C. Thomas Peterson verified that the decision to change utilities was not communicated to Respondent until January 15, 1975. (Tr. 119-120) This fact was also verified by another Suncoast salesman, William Mayer. (Tr. 139) Sue Reed and her husband purchased a lot in Shadow Run during December of 1974, and Respondent was the salesman. Respondent admits and the evidence reveals that Respondent represented to the Reeds, prior to the sale, that underground utilities would be installed in the development. Alfred Vetrano also purchased a lot in Shadow Run and again Respondent was the salesman. Mr. Vetrano first viewed Shadow Run during early 1976. At that tine, the decision had been made by Suncoast not to install underground electric utilities. In fact, overhead utility lines were completely installed in Shadow Run Subdivision at that time. Mr. Vetrano, a trained, licensed plumber, admits that he saw the overhead lines and power poles prior to the time that he purchased his lot sometime during 1976. (Tr. pp. 51-52) Chester C. Fennell also purchased a lot in Shadow Run during approximately March of 1976. (Tr. 92) Respondent sold Mr. Fennell his lot, although from Mr. Fennell's own testimony, he was also receiving certain information about the property in Shadow Run from another salesman, whose name he (Fennell) could not recall. When Mr. Fennell purchased his lot, the decision had been made by Suncoast not to install underground utilities. In fact, Mr. Fennell admits to seeing the overhead electric utilities. James Dovin also purchased a lot in Shadow Run on April 25, 1975. Respondent and another salesman, whose name Mr. Dovin could not recall, sold Mr. Dovin his lot. (Tr. pp. 107-108) According to Dovin, Respondent represented to him during his sales presentation, on or about April 25, 1975, that all underground utilities would be utilized in the development and that a park or recreation facility, including a tennis court and a boat dock and ramp would be built on the property. Mr. Dovin could not recall precisely whether Respondent or another unnamed salesman made representations to him during April of 1975. (Tr. 110- 111) Also, Mr. Dovin could not recall from which of the two (2) offices that were selling lots in Shadow Run, that he obtained the information concerning the subdivision. Nor, in view of the seven (7) year hiatus between the time he purchased the lot and the subject hearing, could Mr. Dovin recall with any specificity, exactly what took place and who made what representations. (Tr. pp. 111-114) Mr. Dovin, like other purchasers who had been told that a central water system would be utilized in the Shadow Run Subdivision, was offered by Suncoast a $1,000.00 credit toward the purchase price for the installation of a well. Concerning the representations allegedly attributed to Respondent respecting the construction of the recreation area with a boat ramp and the tennis courts, Respondent admits to having made these representations. Suncoast's president Peterson indicated his intention to install a boat ramp and tennis courts at the subdivision; however, the actual construction date for these facilities has been postponed on several occasions. In this regard, the evidence reveals that Respondent relayed these representations to prospective purchasers as they were told to him by officials of Suncoast. William Mayer, another Suncoast salesman who was involved in the day-to-day sales presentations at Shadow Run, corroborates Respondent's testimony on the above points. From the outset, it also appears, and the evidence reflects, that the developer in fact intended to construct a central water system for the subdivision. To accomplish their purpose, Suncoast purchased the pipe for transmission of the water to the various lots but later abandoned its efforts to construct a central water system based on cost prospectives and other factors. As a result, Suncoast resold the pipe it had bought to complete the central water system at a loss to the developer. (Testimony of president Peterson) Finally, as noted above, Suncoast gave a $1,000.00 credit to all property owners who had been told that a central water system would be constructed, as a means to help defray the costs of the homeowners in getting a well drilled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Respondent, Gary Steinman, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 30th day of June, 1982.
The Issue Whether Sam Lerner is guilty of violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Sam Lerner is a registered real estate salesman. Sam Lerner was employed by International Land Services Chartered, Inc. He was paid by International Land Sales Chartered Inc.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission take no action against the registration of Sam Lerner as a registered real estate salesman. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Sam Lerner 2821 North East 163rd St., Apt. 5F North Miami Beach, Florida 33160
Findings Of Fact At all times here involved Defendant was a broker registered with the FREC. In 1974 he obtained a listing on a house located at 227 River Hill Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. An associate measured the interior dimensions of all rooms in the house and the dimensions of the carport, basement, attached utility shed, covered entry way, covered patio, and walks. The interior dimensions of the heated portions of the house, which did not include the basement, was approximately 1540 square feet. The basement contained 310 square feet, the utility shed 120 square feet, the covered entry 38 square feet, a covered porch 295 square feet, two patios 497 square feet, and the carport 380 square feet. Thereafter Defendant made up and had placed in the Florida Times Union and Journal on July 14, 1974 an advertisement offering this house for sale with the ad stating the house contained 2300 square feet. Mr. and Mrs. Beaudreau saw the ad, arranged with Defendant's office to see the house, and on July 16, 1974 made an offer to purchase the house which offer was subsequently accepted by the seller. On September 3, 1974 the transaction was closed. Approximately one year later the Beaudreaus decided to put the house on the market and called a real estate broker to handle the sale. When the salesman visited the property he measured the floor area contained in the exterior dimensions of the house, excluded all unheated area and advised the Beaudreaus that the house contained approximately 1560 square feet. When the Beaudreaus asked Defendant why he had advertised the house as containing 2300 square feet and were given short shrift they complained to the FREC and the investigation and administrative complaint here involved followed. In appraising property the value of all components of the property are considered with the heated area generally receiving the highest value per square foot. The Jacksonville Board of Realtors conduct indoctrination courses which are required for all members, however, they do not teach how to determine the square footage in a house. No uniform system of measuring the square footage of a house is taught at the approved real estate course's which are compulsory for all applicants for registration with the FREC. There is no one uniform system for determining the square footage in a house. Some consider only the heated area should be included; others include areas not heated, such as porches, garages, basements, etc. No regulation has been promulgated by the FREC to standardize the procedure for determining the square footage of a residence, although the better view appears to be that only the heated area be included and all open area, such as porches, carports, patios, garages, etc. be excluded. The covered area of the residence at 227 River Hill Drive exceeded 2700 square feet. In placing the ad Defendant excluded the area of the carport to arrive at his figure of 2300 square feet.
Findings Of Fact Patricia B. Wright was the selling agent in a real estate transaction involving the purchase of a mobile home by Denver Brannen from Richard and Josephine Young in Panama City, Florida. At the closing, the purchaser paid $433 in cash to Respondent, who handled the closing. This was in addition to the $920 deposit made by purchaser when the contract was executed. At the closing funds owed to the sellers were disbursed by Respondent. These funds included a check on the Whaley Real Estate, Inc. escrow account for $920 and $212.66 in cash received from buyer at closing. The balance of the cash received from the buyer in the amount of $217.34 was retained by Respondent. A deposit slip for Whaley's escrow account purporting to deposit the cash received at closing and not disbursed to seller was prepared by Respondent, but the money was never deposited in the escrow account. Shortly after the closing Respondent left town reportedly with the purchaser. When the file of this transaction could not be located and the real estate office became aware that various documents were missing and had not been recorded, at tempts to locate Respondent were mane. Telephone contact was made with her in the St. Petersburg area. When asked about the cash received at closing, Respondent admitted she had taken it. The purchaser with whom Respondent had departed telegraphed $218 to Whaley Real Estate, Inc. Respondent's last employer registered with FREC is Trevor & Young, Inc., 1910 Drew Street, Clearwater, Florida. A copy of the Notice of Hearing sent to that address by certified mail was returned not delivered with the receipt stating addressee had moved and left no forwarding address.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of real estate professionals in Florida. Petitioner was a licensed real estate salesperson in Florida whose license was listed with Horizon Appraisal Service, Inc. in Ft. Myers. In October, 1989, Clyde H. Ward applied to Goldome Realty Credit Corporation for a $40,000.00 fixed rate mortgage on his property located in Ft. Myers. On October 5, 1989, Goldome sent Mr. Ward a commitment letter for a mortgage initially described as a 30 year fixed rate mortgage, but which was, five days later, amended to a 15 year fixed rate mortgage at 10%, conditioned upon, among other things, a satisfactory appraisal. Consistent therewith, Goldome thereafter contacted its regular appraiser in the area, Horizon Appraisal Service, Inc., and requested that an appraisal of the property be accomplished. Horizon assigned the Petitioner, Ms. Wilcox, to conduct the appraisal. The original first page of her report indicated the property was a manufactured house with a crawl space, not situated on a slab. In reality, however, as was noted on the amended first page of the report, as of October 9, 1989, the property was not a manufactured house and was situated on a concrete slab without a crawl space. Goldome denied a fixed rate mortgage to Mr. and Mrs. Ward but offered them a one year adjustable rate mortgage. The Wards accepted this change under protest. A formal denial of the fixed rate mortgage was sent to the Wards on December 18, 1989 by a form which indicated that their application for the fixed rate mortgage had been denied for (1) inadequate collateral, and (2) "we do not grant credit to any applicant on the terms and conditions you request." The "inadequate collateral" basis for denial noted, however, that a mortgage had been offered, accepted and closed with the Wards under an adjustable rate bank loan. On February 16, 1990, Mr. Ward wrote to Goldome expressing his concern over the denial of the fixed rate loan and the basis for denial. In response to Mr. Ward's letter, on March 7, 1990, Mr. Krohe, Goldome's vice president for residential lending, wrote to Mr. Ward and clearly stated that Goldome's denial of the fixed rate mortgage was based on several areas in the appraisal that caused concern. Mr. Krohe specifically pointed out that the fact that the property was described in the appraisal as being a "mobile home" was not the only reason for denial. In his testimony, Mr. Krohe cited several other reasons for denial. One was that the appraiser indicated that the predominant value of homes in the neighborhood was $35,000.00 and Mr. Ward's application was for a mortgage in excess of that. It is Goldome's policy typically to not make a loan in excess of the predominant value since there would be no way to sell the loan in the secondary market. In addition, comments on the appraisal indicated that homes in the area were a mixture of mobile homes and small CBS or frame houses located on paved and graveled roads, and the homes in the neighborhood reflected average maintenance. The zoning classification for the property was MH-3, which permits mobile home use on the property. Further, the room sizes and layout was indicated as "fair to average" and the appraiser pointed out an incurable functional problem with the room layout. This problem related to the fact that the only full bathroom in the house was located between the master bathroom and the second bedroom and could be reached only through one of those rooms. Further, the appraiser indicated there were no recent sales similar to the subject property in the neighborhood and those sales which were comparable were noted to have superior construction and functional utility. Mr. Krohe pointed out that not one of those concerns by itself necessarily would have caused the fixed rate mortgage applied for to be declined. He notes, however, that underwriting is not a science, and all of those reasons combined caused the underwriter to decline the loan. Notwithstanding his receipt of this letter, Mr. Ward filed a complaint with the Division of Real Estate which was referred to Investigator John Harris for inquiry in March, 1990. During the course of his investigation, Mr. Harris spoke only with the Petitioner, Ms. Wilcox, and with Mr. Ward. On or about March 22, 1990, he met with Petitioner at her place of business, Horizon Appraisal Service. During the course of that interview, Ms. Wilcox admitted she had made a mistake on the first page of the appraisal report whereon the property w as described as a manufactured home situated on a crawl space without a slab. She indicated she had corrected the form as soon as she found out about the mistake, occasioned not by a written description but by check marks to pre- printed descriptions which were to be marked if appropriate. The work was done by typewriter, not by pen. Mr. Harris also interviewed Mr. Ward, but did not interview anyone else during his entire investigation even though Ms. Wilcox pointed out that information she had from Ms. Selph and Mr. Krohe indicated that the declination of the loan was not primarily based on this erroneous information. In fact, Ms. Wilcox requested that Mr. Harris contact both Selph and Krohe to verify this but he chose not to do so, relying instead on the information provided to him by Mr. Ward and the March 7, 1990 letter from Krohe to Ward which he interpreted as indicating the denial was based on the description of the property as a "mobile home." That letter does not so indicate, however, and clearly shows that any such classification was not the sole basis for denial of the loan. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Harris considered the fact that Ms. Wilcox admitted to making the mistake as tantamount to an admission of culpable negligence and he recommended that action be taken against her. Thereafter, the matter was referred to a probable cause panel of the Real Estate Commission which, on May 15, 1990, considered the allegations against Ms. Wilcox and, after a review of the file and a presentation by a counsel to the Board, found probable cause. Review of the transcript of the probable cause panel as it relates to Ms. Wilcox reveals that even there, the case was inaccurately described to the panel by its counsel who claims that, "the loan was rejected on the basis of the appraisal which incorrectly described the structure as a manufactured house with a crawl space and no slab." Counsel completely omitted any mention of any of the other bases for denial which were described by Mr. Krohe in his deposition of which the Department was notified but declined to attend, and which could have been determined by an appropriate investigation into the matter. The discussion by the panel members, as documented in the transcript of its meeting, in no way related to the particulars of the alleged misconduct but instead concerned itself primarily with the status of the appraiser. In short, it is clear that the probable cause panel's finding of probable cause was based only on its review of the completely inadequate investigation by Mr. Harris and the slanted comments of the panel's counsel. Nonetheless, an Administrative Complaint was filed against the Petitioner which alleged culpable negligence, breach of trust and misrepresentation and concealment. Prior to the hearing, the Board dismissed the allegation of misrepresentation and concealment. A hearing was conducted on the remaining counts on October 11, 1990 in Ft. Myers before H.O. Parrish. In her Recommended Order dated December 12, 1990, Ms. Parrish concluded that the Department had failed to establish the Respondent committed any misconduct; that Ms. Wilcox had accurately described and evaluated the home within customary ranges; and that the lender verified the reasons for denial of the requested mortgage were not related to the typographical errors pertaining to the type of home, the crawl space, and the slab. Ms. Parrish thereafter recommended a Final Order be entered by the Commission dismissing the Administrative Complaint and such an Order was entered. By Motion dated March 4, 1991, Petitioner's counsel sought reimbursement for the Petitioner of attorney's fees and costs relating to her defense against the allegations made against her in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent has stipulated that the amount claimed for the original representation is reasonable as to both hours claimed and fee per hour. It claims, however, that fees and costs are not reimbursable here because, (1), Petitioner is not a small business entity, and (2), the Division had probable cause to initiate the Administrative Complaint. Petitioner has also submitted an additional affidavit, subsequent to the hearing, in which she claims 7.1 additional hours, at $110.00 per hour, for services rendered subsequent to the final hearing in the original action. Petitioner claims to be an independent contractor to Horizon Appraisal Service, Inc.. She works strictly on commission. She has a desk at the Horizon office and keeps almost all her business information there. She has no other office. She cannot do appraisals for other brokers because she can work for only one broker at a time. She claims to be licensed as an appraiser in Florida but the licensure information on file with the Department of Professional Regulation as of September 4, 1990, reflects she is licensed only as a real estate salesman. By affidavit dated December 6, 1985, and attached to the Independent Contractor Agreement of equal date, Petitioner outlines her working conditions with Horizon. She pays all her own license fees and dues; she is responsible for her own auto and transportation expenses; she pays all her client development costs without reimbursement; she is not required to maintain any set working hours; she takes vacations when she pleases; she is not required to meet any quotas; she receives no minimum salary, sick pay or other fringe benefits; she pays her own income and FICA taxes; and the association with the broker may be terminated by either party at any time. Under the terms of the Agreement referenced above, Petitioner is to get 45% of the fee charged by Horizon for the appraisal done by her. Any lawsuits for the collection of appraisal fees must be maintained only in the name of the Broker, however, since the appraiser is considered to be a subagent. Though the appraiser may conduct the actual appraisal, the Agreement requires that these completed appraisals be submitted to the broker for review, and Mr. Krohe, of Goldome, indicated that his institution would accept only appraisals signed by the broker, not the appraiser. The agreement also stipulates that all clients brought in by the appraiser will result in an additional 10% fee split, and will remain clients of the broker upon termination of the agreement. Notwithstanding the appraiser can take vacations when desired and work when she pleases, she must, however, notify the broker a minimum of two weeks in advance of vacation time and call in on days when she will not be available. The appraiser agrees to a five day turnaround on appraisals, may not solicit listings for the transfer of property other than owned by her, and, significantly, may perform her services only for this broker, Horizon Appraisal Services, Inc.,
The Issue Whether the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (“Respondent” or “FWC”) determination that Tallahassee Corporate Center, LLC (“Petitioner” or “TCC”), submitted a nonresponsive reply to FWC’s Invitation to Negotiate (“ITN”) No. 770-0235 is contrary to the Commission’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether it was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on exhibits admitted into evidence, testimony offered by witnesses, and admitted facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation. ITN No. 770-0235 and Background FWC is a state agency that seeks office space to be occupied by personnel from six of FWC’s divisions. FWC currently leases office space from TCC, which expires in October 2019. On July 19, 2017, FWC issued ITN No. 770-0235, seeking vendors that could provide 53,000 square feet of office space for lease. FWC anticipates occupying the space by November 1, 2019. Between August 15, 2017, and November 2, 2017, FWC issued four addenda to the ITN, which contained amendments, modifications, and explanations to the ITN. There were no bidders that challenged the terms, conditions, or specifications contained in the ITN or its amendments. TCC and NLH were two of the potential lessors that submitted replies in response to the ITN. FWC seeks to lease either a building that already exists or a non-existing building to be constructed in the future. The ITN describes the proposals requested as follows: Competitive proposals may be submitted for consideration under this Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for the lease of office space in either an existing building or a non- existing (build-to-suit/turnkey) building. NOTE: All buildings must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as stated in Attachment A, Agency Specifications, Section 6.D., page 32. OPTION 1 - an ‘existing’ building: To be considered an ‘existing’ building, the facility offered must be enclosed with a roof system and exterior walls must be in place at the time of the submittal of the Reply. OPTION 2 - a ‘non-existing’ building: Offeror agrees to construct a building as a ‘build-to-suit’ (turnkey) for lease to FWC. Each applicant that submitted a proposal in response to the ITN was required to meet the specification in Attachment A of the ITN. The ITN provides as follows: FWC is seeking detailed and competitive proposals to provide built-out office facilities and related infrastructure for the occupancy by FWC. As relates to any space that is required to be built-out pursuant to this Invitation to Negotiate in accordance with this Invitation to Negotiate, see Attachment ‘A’ which includes the FWC Specifications detailing the build-out requirements. The specifications in Attachment A provided the basic requirements for the potential leased space such that proposals offering existing or non-existing building may be compared and evaluated together. The ITN included certain provisions to clarify the rights contemplated by the ITN, and included the following disclaimer: This ITN is an invitation to negotiate and is for discussion purposes only. It is not an offer, contract or agreement of any kind. Neither FWC nor the Offeror/Lessor shall have any legal rights or obligations whatsoever between them and neither shall take any action or fail to take any action in reliance upon any part of these discussions until the proposed transaction and a definitive written lease agreement is approved in writing by FWC. This ITN shall not be considered an offer to lease. The terms of any transaction, if consummated, shall not be final nor binding on either party until a Lease Agreement is executed by all parties. This ITN may be modified or withdrawn by FWC at any time. The ITN also included a provision expressly reserving FWC’s “right to negotiate with all responsive and responsible Offerors, serially or concurrently, to determine the best-suited solution.” The term “Offeror” was defined by the ITN to mean “the individual submitting a Reply to this Invitation to Negotiate, such person being the owner of the proposed facility or an individual duly authorized to bind the owner of the facility.” This reservation of rights placed interested lessors on notice that only responsive lessors could be invited to negotiations. While TCC and NLH were two of the potential lessors that submitted replies in response to the ITN, the bidders submitted different proposals. TCC submitted a proposal for an existing building, and NLH submitted a proposal for a non- existing building. During an initial review of all replies, FWC determined TCC’s reply to be nonresponsive based on TCC’s response to ITN section IV.G (Tenant Improvements) and a statement titled “Additional Response” that TCC submitted with its reply. As a result, FWC did not evaluate or score TCC’s reply. After TCC’s reply was declared nonresponsive, there were no further negotiations with TCC regarding the ITN. NLH’s reply passed the initial responsiveness review and was then evaluated and scored by FWC. FWC ultimately issued an intended award of the contract to NLH after conducting negotiations. Tenant-Improvement Cap The ITN prohibited vendors from proposing conditional or contingent lease rates that included a tenant-improvement cap, or allowance. A tenant-improvement cap reflects the maximum amount the landlord is willing to spend to make improvements to leased space. Mr. Hakimi asserted that the tenant-improvement cap would be an incentive to FWC to enter a lease. However, the tenant-improvement cap would also place a limit on improvements. According to ITN section IV.E, any reply offering a lease rate with a tenant-improvement cap would be deemed nonresponsive: FULL SERVICE (GROSS) RENTAL RATE The Offeror shall provide FWC with a Full Service (gross) lease structure. Therefore, the lease rate must include base rent, taxes, all operating expenses (including, but not limited to, janitorial services and supplies, utilities, water, insurance, interior and exterior maintenance, recycling services, garbage disposal, pest control, security system installation and maintenance, and any amortization of required tenant improvements to the proposed space). There shall be no pass through of additional expenses . . . . Offerors must provide their best, firm lease rates. Lease rates that are contingent, involve a basic rate plus “cap” or “range” for such things as tenant improvements will be deemed nonresponsive. The ITN also provided, in section IV.G, that any current lessor must meet all ITN requirements, including those set forth in ITN Attachment A: TENANT IMPROVEMENTS The State requires a “turn-key” build-out by the Landlord. Therefore, Offeror shall assume all cost risks associated with delivery in accordance with the required specifications detailed in this ITN, including Attachment A (see pages 28-45). Additionally, replies for space which is currently under lease with, or occupancy by, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission does not exclude the Offeror from meeting the requirements specified in this ITN document. Offeror agrees to provide “turn-key” build-out/improvements in accordance with the specifications detailed in this ITN. (use an X to mark one of the following): YES or NO TCC responded “NO” to the statement “Offeror agrees to provide ‘turn-key’ build-out/improvements in accordance with the specifications detailed in this ITN.” Additional Response Not only did TCC include a barred tenant-improvement cap, but TCC also attached an addendum to its proposal, which provided the following: The reality is that as the current Landlord, it would be impossible to ask FFWCC to move out of its existing office space in order to meet the requested Agency Specifications in Attachment A. If this condition makes our response to the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) “non-responsive”, we stand willing to continue further negotiations with FFWCC. There was no provision in the ITN for additional responses outside what was requested in the ITN. More importantly, the addendum indicated TCC could not comply with the ITN, unless certain conditions were met. Mr. Hakimi confirmed the effect of what was written in the addendum when he testified that TCC is unable to meet Attachment A’s specifications because it presently has a tenant in place (i.e., FWC) that prevents it from constructing the building improvements necessary to comply with ITN Attachment A. Proof of Ownership of Property The ITN also provided that to be responsive, each lessor was required to submit certain documentation demonstrating the lessor’s control of the property proposed for the leased space: Replies must completely and accurately respond to all requested information, including the following: (A) Control of Property (Applicable for Replies for Existing and/or Non- Existing Buildings). For a Reply to be responsive, it must be submitted by one of the entities listed below, and the proposal must include supporting documentation proving control of the property proposed. This requirement applies to: The real property (land); The proposed building(s) (or structure(s); The proposed parking area(s). Control of parking includes the area(s) of ingress and egress to both the real property and the building(s). The owner of record of the facility(s) and parking area(s) – Submit a copy of the deed(s) evidencing clear title to the property proposed. The authorized agent, broker or legal representative of the owner(s) – Submit a copy of the Special Power of Attorney authorizing submission of the proposal. The Special Power of Attorney form was attached to the ITN as Attachment K. TCC’s certification was executed by TCC president, Lyda Hakimi. However, TCC did not execute Attachment K or include an executed power of attorney to demonstrate that TCC has control of the property. The evidence offered at hearing of the property’s ownership contained in TCC’s reply was a deed showing DRA CRT Tallahassee Center, LLC to be the property owner. Respondent argued that although TCC owns DRA CRT Tallahassee Center, LLC, the two are different legal entities. Because these were two different legal entities, TCC was required to provide a copy of Attachment K to its response to be deemed responsive. Broker Commission The ITN required lessors to agree to execute a broker- commission agreement, which was attached to the ITN as Attachment J: Offeror understands FWC is utilizing the services of a Tenant Broker representative for this lease space requirement and the successful Offeror shall execute a Commission Agreement, in coordination with FWC’s Tenant Broker representative, within fifteen (15) business days of notification of Award. Offeror agrees and acknowledges that a Tenant Broker Commission Agreement is a requirement and the successful Offeror shall be required to execute a Commission Agreement as described above. (use an X to mark one of the following): YES or NO The ITN included a schedule for the commission rate based on the total aggregate gross base rent that could be paid ranging from 2.50 percent to 3.50 percent. TCC conditioned its reply by agreeing to pay a two-percent broker commission, which is inconsistent with the commission schedule. By offering a lower commission rate, TCC could save money. TCC would then have a competitive advantage over other bidders. TCC’S Bid was Nonresponsive Based upon the foregoing, TCC’s bid submission added a tenant-improvement cap, failed to comply with the broker commission rate, failed to provide supporting documents to demonstrate proof of property ownership, and added additional conditions regarding compliance with the ITN requirements. The information requested and terms of the ITN were required for TCC’s bid to be responsive. TCC did not file a challenge to the specifications or any of the requirements of the ITN. It is now too late for such a challenge. TCC’s inclusion of a tenant-improvement allowance limits the amount that would pay for improvements. The lower broker commission increases the profit advantage for TCC more than for other bidders, which would be an unfair advantage over other bidders. TCC’s failure to comply with the terms of the ITN and failure to provide the required attachment to show proof of ownership were not minor irregularities, which FWC could waive. Therefore, FWC properly determined that TCC’s bid submission was nonresponsive. Standing TCC submitted a bid proposal that did not conform to the requirements of the ITN and it seeks relief that includes setting aside FWC’s rejection of its proposal. Therefore, TCC has standing to bring this protest. If it is determined that TCC was nonresponsive, NLH has standing to the extent the procurement process could be deemed contrary to competition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission enter a final order dismissing Tallahassee Corporate Center, LLC’s Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2018.
The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether Petitioners were the victims of a discriminatory housing practice, by allegedly being denied the opportunity to renew the lease of an apartment from Respondents, based upon their race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Vernon and Glenda Shaw are husband and wife. They and their children are African-Americans. Respondent EPI Townsend, LLC owns an apartment community located in Gainesville, Florida, known as Uptown Village. Respondent Epoch Management, Inc. (Epoch) manages Uptown Village on behalf of EPI Townsend, LLC. On June 25, 2010, Ms. Shaw submitted an application to lease an apartment at Uptown Village. She listed herself, her husband, and her two children as the proposed occupants. Ms. Shaw noted the family had a dog. She provided her email address on the application, as requested. At the time of application, prospective tenants of Uptown Village are given a document entitled ?Epoch Management, Inc. Rental Application Approval Criteria.? It contains an ?Equal Housing Opportunity? statement and displays the ?Equal Housing? logo approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (?HUD?). When she submitted her application, Ms. Shaw acknowledged receipt of the Rental Application Approval Criteria form. The Shaws’ application was approved, and Ms. Shaw subsequently signed a one-year lease (?the Lease?) agreement on June 26, 2010. Soon thereafter Ms. Shaw moved into Apartment 2- 201 of Uptown Village with her children and their dog. Mr. Shaw was living in Alabama at the time and planned on moving to Gainesville at a later date to join his family.1/ At the time the Shaws began their tenancy at Uptown Village, Rhonda Hayden served as the property manager and Stacy Brown as the assistant property manager for Epoch. Both were experienced property managers and both had received Fair Housing training. Ms. Hayden and Ms. Brown testified that Epoch tries to create a sense of community among its tenants. Its efforts include hosting monthly breakfasts and other events for tenants. Information about upcoming community events is sent to all tenants with email addresses on file via Constant Contact, an on-line social and business networking platform. The email address provided on Ms. Shaw's rental application was entered into Epoch’s Constant Contact list. The Uptown Village Lease The Lease contained several provisions intended to ensure a safe and peaceful living environment for tenants. For example, paragraph 4 of the Lease provided that a resident shall ?. . . not permit any disturbance, noises or annoyance whatsoever detrimental to the comfort and peace of any of the inhabitants of the community or its Landlord.? Similarly, paragraph 30(G) provided that the ?Resident shall ensure that the pet(s) does not, at any time, disturb any other Resident of the apartment community.? The Lease reserved to Epoch the right to determine, in its sole discretion, whether a pet was disturbing residents. The Lease also incorporated a code of community rules (?the Rules?) for Uptown Village, which provided in pertinent part, ?all garbage, refuse and other types of waste shall be placed in garbage receptacles? and that ?loud and boisterous noise or any other objectionable behavior by any Resident or guests is not permitted.? The Rules also noted that the "quiet time" hours of the complex were from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Paragraph 12 of the Lease provided that a tenant must give 60 days’ advance notice of his or her intent not to renew the Lease. If notice was not given, then the Lease would renew on a month-to-month basis at the then current market rate, plus $50.00. The Shaws' Neighbors The Alcubilla family, who are Hispanic, lived across from Petitioners’ apartment, in Apartment 2-202. The Alcubilla family included a husband and wife, as well as the wife’s mother (Mrs. Alcubilla), who spoke little English. A Caucasian graduate student, Amanda Watson, lived on the third floor of the building directly above the Shaws in Apartment 3-201. A Hispanic tenant, Angelo Caruso, lived with his girlfriend on the same floor as Ms. Watson. In October 2010, four months after the Shaws became residents, the Kohl family moved into Apartment 2-101, the first floor apartment directly beneath the Shaws’ apartment. Trouble in Paradise The Shaws' first rent check, dated July 9, 2010, was returned for insufficient funds. This was a Lease violation. On July 14, 2010, Epoch issued a reminder to Ms. Shaw advising her that a neighbor had complained about her dog barking all hours of the day. This was a violation of the Lease and the Community Rules. Mr. Shaw joined his family at Uptown Village on or about August 8, 2010. On the day he moved in, Epoch leasing agent Breanne Parks was conducting a survey of the community grounds and noticed empty boxes outside the Shaws’ apartment on the walkway, as well as trash outside another tenant’s apartment. She issued a warning notice to the Shaws and the other tenant in the building. Leaving trash outside of an apartment is a violation of the Lease and Community Rules. On August 20, 2010, the Shaws’ rent check was returned for insufficient funds. This was a Lease Violation. On October 8, 2010, the Shaws were notified by Epoch that they were being assessed a late fee for failure to pay their rent on time. One week later, on October 15, 2010, Epoch sent the Shaws notification about an outstanding balance on their account. The notices concerned Lease violations. On October 21, 2010, Ms. Watson complained to the office about loud arguments and sounds emanating from the Shaws’ apartment the night before. One of the noises sounded like someone or something had been thrown against a wall. Though she feared that someone was being physically abused due to the intensity of the impact, she decided not call the police. In response to Ms. Watson's complaint, Epoch posted a notice on the Shaws’ door for a second time warning them about noise and asking them to be considerate of their neighbors. The noise violation was considered a violation of the Lease and Community Rules. The same day Epoch posted the noise violation notice on the Shaws' door, Ms. Shaw called the management office and lodged a retaliatory noise complaint against Ms. Watson. As a consequence of this complaint, a warning notice was sent by Epoch to Ms. Watson. The noise violation was considered a violation of the Lease and Community Rules. On November 4, 2010, the Shaws’ rent check was returned for insufficient funds. This was a Lease violation. Epoch allows sworn officers from the Gainesville Police Department to reside on the premises in exchange for services to the community as a Courtesy Officer. At some point during the Shaws' tenancy, Courtesy Officer Farah Lormil, an African-American female police detective, noticed a car belonging to the Shaws parked in an area that was not a designated parking space. This was a violation of Community Rules. Detective Lormil testified that she left a note on the car asking the owner to move the vehicle because "your car doesn't belong here." Detective Lormil also included her name and badge number on the note. At hearing, Ms. Shaw testified that the note read "you don't belong here." Inasmuch as Petitioners did not offer the note in evidence, and given the context in which the note was written (a parking violation), the testimony of Detective Lormil as to the actual wording of the note is the more credible. On December 27, 2010, leasing agent Erin Napolitano wrote a memo to Ms. Parks reporting that Mrs. Alcubilla’s daughter, Mater Alcubilla, had come to the management office the prior weekend to complain about an incident involving Ms. Shaw. Consistent with her memo, Ms. Napolitano testified that Mater Alcubilla had told her that Ms. Shaw had screamed at her family, followed them up and down the stairs to their apartment, and loudly knocked on their door. Mater Alcubilla also accused Ms. Shaw of stating that she knew what type of vehicles the Alcubillas drove and dared them to call the police. The memo recorded Ms. Alcubilla’s daughter as stating the police were called but when they arrived at Building 2, Ms. Shaw already was gone and therefore, no enforcement action was taken. Ms. Napolitano ended her memo to Ms. Parks with a personal observation: ?I just don’t know what to do about all of this but it certainly seems to be escalating.? Whatever the source of the friction between the two families, Ms. Napolitano testified that she had no reason to believe there was any racial animus on the part of the Alcubillas. On December 30, 2010, Ms. Hayden invited Mater Alcubilla to the office to discuss the incident with Ms. Shaw. Following their meeting, Ms. Hayden notated the date of the meeting and substance of their discussion in the Alcubilla’s resident conversation log. Ms. Hayden recorded in her own handwriting: ?Resident very frightened, Resident plans on moving at the end of her lease-Resident claimed Ms. Shaw yelled at her and threatened her and told her she needed to return to her country.? Ms. Hayden considered this to be an interpersonal dispute between the Alcubillas and Ms. Shaw. Also on December 30, 2010, Ms. Hayden and Ms. Parks invited Ms. Shaw to the management office to discuss the Alcubillas’ complaints. Ms. Hayden recorded in the Alcubilla’s resident log that Ms. Shaw denied the Alcubillas’ accusations, became upset and told Ms. Hayden and Ms. Parks that her neighbors needed to mind their own business. Ms. Hayden also noted that the meeting ended when Ms. Shaw got up, stated, ?you wait? and left the office. Based on what she perceived as a threat by Ms. Shaw of continuing trouble with the Alcubillas, Ms. Hayden recorded her intent to notify a Courtesy Officer of the situation. On February 15, 2011, the Shaws received a three-day notice from Epoch for failure to pay rent, and a notice of an outstanding balance due. This was a Lease violation. Three weeks later, on March 4, 2011, the Shaws were issued another three-day notice for failure to pay rent. This concerned a Lease violation. Ms. Watson continued to hear the Shaws' dog barking and loud voices and other noises, included stomping and footsteps, emanating from the Shaws' apartment. On one occasion, the Shaws left Gainesville for the weekend and placed their dog out on the balcony because it barked continuously. The noise and barking interfered with Ms. Watson’s ability to study and to enjoy her residence. On March 5, 2011, Epoch posted a letter on the Shaws' door regarding complaints received from the Shaws' neighbors about the dog barking for hours at a time, often late at night and in particular on March 3, 2011. This concerned a Lease violation. The loud barking, stomping, and talking within the Shaws' apartment did not abate, and on March 9, 2011, Epoch sent the Shaws a "Seven Day Notice to Cure Lease Violation" which cited their violation of Lease Provision 30 and Community Rule Y. On March 17, 2011, Epoch send the Shaws an ?Urgent Outstanding Balance Due? notice regarding their outstanding unpaid utility bill. This concerned a Lease violation. Also on March 17, 2011, an email was generated by Epoch’s answering service which reported that Tara Kohl of Apt. 2-101 had called. The generated message stated Ms. Kohl’s complaint as, ?Apt. Above Very Noisy/Heavy Walking Again.? On March 19, 2011, Ms. Napolitano printed off the email note and called Ms. Kohl to get more information about the complaint. Ms. Napolitano recorded hand-written notes about the conversation on a printed copy of the email which read: ?Last couple nights—beating down on floor–jumping/walking. 3-4 am can hear them all the time.? The email with Ms. Napitano’s hand- written notes was placed in the Kohl’s tenant file. Immediately following Ms. Kohl’s complaint, Ms. Shaw wrote the following note and faxed it to the management office: To Uptown Village On Saturday night, March 19, 2011, I noted a very loud bumping noise coming from my floor. I was home alone and very afraid. I even feared calling the office or security in fear of retaliation. From past experiences when I have voiced a complaint, I receive notes on my door alleging that my dog was barking, that I had trash beside my door, we were stomping, we were too loud and have even found handwritten notes on my car. My family and I can no longer live in such turmoil. Please accept this letter as a formal complaint regarding harassment. If these occurrences continue, I will have no other choice than to contact HUD. Thank you in advance for your help. Glenda Shaw Prior to the date of the faxed letter neither Petitioner had ever complained about discrimination of any kind to anyone at Epoch. Ms. Hayden and Ms. Brown discussed the content of Ms. Shaw's fax and how to handle its allegations. They viewed Ms. Shaw’s complaint against the Kohls as retaliation against the Kohls for making a complaint about noise from the Shaws’ apartment the day before, and therefore a personal dispute. They also considered whether to respond to Ms. Shaw’s allegation of harassment by Epoch, and decided that any response would just be viewed by Ms. Shaw as evidence of further harassment. They decided to place the faxed letter in the Shaw’s tenant file and take no other action. It was a normal business practice of Epoch to generate a list of tenants whose leases were due to expire within the following 90 days. The list was used to create flyers reminding those tenants to contact the management office regarding renewal. Flyers were sent to each tenant on the list regardless of whether the tenant was in default of the lease or potentially a candidate for non-renewal. A renewal flyer was placed on the Shaws’ door in late March and a second renewal flyer was posted on the Shaws' door the following month. Neither renewal notice elicited a response from the Shaws. On March 25, 2011, Epoch sent the Shaws an ?Urgent Outstanding Balance Due Notice? regarding their overdue utility bill. This concerned a Lease violation. Just prior to Easter, 2011, an Uptown Village tenant asked the management office for permission to hold a private Easter egg hunt for their friends on the community’s volleyball court. Epoch approved the request. Uptown Village residents were not notified of the event through Constant Contact because the Easter egg hunt was not an Epoch-sponsored event. The individual who organized the event made the decision whom to invite. On May 10, 2011, Ms. Shaw came to the management office and was assisted by Ms. Brown. Ms. Shaw accused Brian Kohl of confronting her daughter and calling her ?two-faced.? Ms. Shaw demanded that Epoch take action against Mr. Kohl and stated that if Epoch would not do anything about the situation, she was going to call the police or the Florida Department of Children and Families. Before Ms. Shaw left, Ms. Brown asked about the Shaws' intentions to remain residents upon the expiration of their Lease. Ms. Shaw did not give a definitive answer. Ms. Brown then told Ms. Shaw that if the Shaws decided not to renew, Epoch would not hold them to the 60-day advance notice required by the Lease. Three days after this meeting, Ms. Brown notified Ms. Shaw that Epoch could not send a notice of violation to Mr. Kohl because the accusations against him were not Lease violations. However, Ms. Brown offered to discuss the allegations with Mr. Kohl, a truck-driver who was often on the road. On May 18, 2011, Ms. Brown met with Brian Kohl to discuss Ms. Shaw’s complaint. Mr. Kohl gave his side of the story. After he left, Ms. Brown entered the following note in the Kohl’s resident conversation log: Brian came in wanting to break lease b/c [because] daughter is being harassed by girls in 2-111 and 2-1012/ so badly that she won’t go outside. Told him that one 2-111 should be finish soon (they are on NTV [Notice to Vacate] and the other may too, (2-101) lease expires 6/25. Otherwise would do what I can and to give us the opportunity to help before he moves. Ms. Brown also made an entry in the Shaws' resident conversation log regarding Mr. Kohl’s allegation that the Shaws' daughter was bullying the Kohl’s daughter. The following day, May 19, 2011, Ms. Watson came to the management office and gave notice that she was moving out of Uptown Village when her lease expired in August 2011. She was asked to complete a form entitled ?Notice to Vacate from Resident.? In her own handwriting, she wrote the reason for vacating as ?loud tenants.? The Notice to Vacate from Resident was placed in Ms. Watson’s tenant file as part of Epoch’s regular business practices. At hearing, Ms. Watson testified that she and her fiancé had considered living in her apartment after they married and decided they could not live there due to the continued noise and disturbances emanating from the apartment below. With Ms. Watson’s notice to vacate, Ms. Hayden and Ms. Brown came to the realization that three tenants in Building 2 had levied complaints against the Shaws and two had made decisions to move out in whole or in part due to the Shaws’ conduct. Ms. Hayden and Ms. Brown then conducted a more thorough review of the Shaws’ tenant history, and discussed whether the Shaws should continue to reside at Uptown Village. They called Epoch’s attorneys to get legal advice and left a message. On May 29, 2011, Epoch received a handwritten letter from Tara Kohl making numerous complaints against the Shaws, including loud noises late at night, and the Shaws parking one of their cars in a handicapped parking space. On June 8, 2011, the management office received a hand-written letter from Brian Kohl giving notice of his family’s intent to break their lease and move out. The reasons given all centered on the noise being generated in the Shaws' apartment, and alleged threats that had been made by Ms. Shaw against Ms. Kohl. On June 17, 2011, Ms. Shaw called the management office and spoke with Ms. Brown. Ms. Shaw asked for a copy of her lease, inquired about the shortest lease term possible, and the amount of any rent increase. Ms. Brown did not commit that the Shaws' lease would be renewed nor did she quote a renewal rate. Ms. Shaw continued to press the issue and Ms. Brown finally stated that a normal rent increase on renewal was $100 a month. On June 20, 2011, Ms. Hayden and Ms. Brown spoke to Epoch’s attorneys regarding options for ending the Shaws' tenancy. A decision was made to non-renew their lease as that would cause the least disruption to the Shaws. Ms. Hayden prepared a non-renewal letter, and it was posted on the Shaws' door the same day. Later that afternoon, Mr. and Ms. Shaw came to the management office, met with Ms. Brown, and demanded to know the reason why their Lease would not be renewed. Ms. Shaw insisted that Ms. Brown had told her their Lease would be renewed at a rate of $937.00. Ms. Brown denied she made this statement. Ms. Brown asked Ms. Hayden to intervene in the dispute. Ms. Hayden explained that Epoch had a right to issue a non-renewal notice and that the decision was based on the numerous complaints received about the Shaws. Ms. Shaw insisted that if there were grounds to terminate the Lease for cause, Epoch should issue them a seven-day notice to vacate. Ms. Hayden explained that they had decided to issue a non- renewal notice rather than a notice to vacate to allow the Shaws more time to make arrangements and to foster an amicable parting. Epoch has sent non-African-American, White and Hispanic tenants notices of violation regarding excessive noise and non-payment of rent and fees, and also has terminated leases (through eviction) on these bases. There is no competent substantial evidence in this record to even suggest that the decision to non-renew the Shaws' lease was in any way related to their status as African-Americans. On June 23, 2011, Mr. Caruso’s girlfriend was walking their dog outside Building 2 off leash (in violation of the Rules) when it began to chase the Shaws' son. The dog nipped at their son’s leg but did not draw blood or break his skin. When Mr. Caruso learned of the incident, he came to the Shaws' apartment to apologize. He later returned and asked to take a photo of their son’s leg because he feared Ms. Shaw might bring legal action against him, given her hostility after he had offered her a bag to clean up her dog’s waste on a previous occasion. Ms. Shaw refused to allow Mr. Caruso to photograph her son’s leg. Instead, she told him if he did not leave she would call the police, and if his dog ever attacked again she would report him and have the dog put to sleep. On June 27, 2011, a second non-renewal letter was posted on the Shaws' door to ensure that Petitioner’s understood their lease would not be renewed. The following day the Shaws returned to the management office and insisted that at the end of the June 20th meeting, they had been told their lease would be renewed. Ms. Hayden denied this and reiterated that their lease was being non-renewed based on complaints from neighbors. As the meeting continued, Ms. Shaw became increasingly agitated; she turned to Ms. Brown and asked if Ms. Brown found her to be confrontational. Ms. Brown responded that she thought Ms. Shaw had a ?strong personality.? To that, Ms. Shaw replied, ?It’s my culture.? As the meeting continued, Ms. Shaw began to inject the issue of race into the conversation. For example, in response to Ms. Hayden’s remark that the decision to non-renew was not personal, since she would not even recognize Ms. Shaw if she saw her at a mall, Ms. Shaw stated that ?white people think we all look alike.? As the conversation was taking an uncomfortable turn, Ms. Hayden ended the meeting and referred the Shaws to Epoch’s attorneys if they had any further questions or concerns. In early July 2011, Mr. Caruso was returning to Building 2 after walking his dog on leash and encountered Mr. Shaw. Mr. Shaw told Mr. Caruso to keep his dog away or he would kick it. On July 11, 2011, Ms. Shaw complained to the management office about Mr. Caruso’s dog charging at her while it was on a leash. She noted this was the second incident involving the dog. Ms. Brown told Ms. Shaw she would look into the matter, since this would be considered a violation of the Lease and Community Rules. On July 12, 2011, Ms. Brown spoke with Mr. Caruso’s girlfriend and cautioned her to keep the dog under control. Ms. Brown noted their conversation in both the Shaws’ and Mr. Caruso's resident conversation log. On August 4, 2011, Ms. Watson completed a "Move Out Survey" and in response to a question about what could have been done by management to encourage her to stay, wrote in her own hand-writing: ?Dealt with loud neighbors more consistently and effectively . . .? She added that her reason for leaving was ?loud, inconsiderate tenants.? The Shaws refused to move out by the date given in their non-renewal notice and stopped paying rent. On August 3, 2011, the Shaws dual-filed a charge of housing discrimination (race and color) with the Commission and the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. The charge alleged that Epoch had refused to rent to them, made discriminatory statements, and had offered them less favorable terms, conditions, privileges, services or facilities than other non-African-American tenants. The facts supporting their charge were that they were not invited to the Easter egg hunt; that they had been told their lease would be renewed yet it was not; and that Ms. Hayden had made racist statements. The Shaws did not pay rent for July 2011,3/ and on August 4, 2011, were sent a "Notice to Pay Rent" by Epoch. The Commission investigated the Shaws' charge of housing discrimination and issued a determination on August 31, 2011, finding there was no probable cause to support the claims. On September 29, 2011, the Shaws filed a Petition for Relief from an alleged discriminatory housing practice, giving rise to the instant proceeding. During the pendency of this matter, the Shaws were evicted from Uptown Village for non- payment of rent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, determining that Respondents did not commit a discriminatory housing practice based upon Petitioners’ race and that the Petition be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a development order (Resolution No. 233- 1991) issued by Monroe County on June 26, 1991, to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., is inconsistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations, and/or whether it violates a Joint Stipulation of Settlement previously executed by the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), Monroe County (the "County"), and Key Largo Associates, Ltd.'s predecessor in title.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: DCA is the State Land Planning Agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. The County issued the Development Order which is the subject of this proceeding. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical Concern as designated in Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Development orders issued by a local government agency for an area of critical state concern are subject to review by DCA pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. On April 8, 1985, DCA, Monroe County, and I. D. Properties, the previous owner of the subject property, executed a Joint Stipulation of Settlement regarding DCA's challenge to a prior development order for the subject property. That Joint Stipulation of Settlement required the preservation of certain tropical hammock on the site including Paradise Tree hammock. After executing the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, I. D. Properties quitclaimed its interest in the site to Key Largo Associates, Ltd. Key Largo Associates, Ltd. proceeded to seek approval from Monroe County to develop the property inconsistent with the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. Those efforts resulted in the Development Order which is the subject of this case. The County Commission issued the Development Order granting a major conditional use permit for the Project to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., after being ordered to do so by the Circuit Court for Monroe County. The Development Order purports to authorize the complete elimination of existing tropical hammock on the site including the Paradise Tree hammock. The Development Order is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations adopted thereunder. In addition, the Development Order is contrary to the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which sustains the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs and which rescinds the issuance of Monroe County Resolution No. 233- 1991. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August 1993. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Betty J. Steffens, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Blackwater Associates Partnership 7225 S.W. 108th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Ray Parker Parker Real Estate 2028 North Dixie Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeiffer General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David K. Coburn, Secretary FLWAC Exec. Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Willis Phillips, may challenge the specifications of the invitation to bid at issue in this proceeding? Whether the Petitioner has standing to challenge the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' proposed award of lease number 590:2166 to the Intervenor, Rutherford Rentals, Inc.?
Findings Of Fact The Department issued an Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities, lease number 590:2166 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"), seeking to rent office space in Madison, Florida. Responses to the ITB were to be filed with the Department by 2:00 p.m., March 6, 1990. Included as part of the ITB was a map of the City of Madison (hereinafter referred to as the "Map"). Joint Exhibit 1. On page 1, paragraph 3, of the Bid Submittal Form which was included as part of the ITB it was indicated that "[s]pace to be located in Madison, Florida within boundaries depicted in the attached map (Attachment B.) Bidder to mark location of site on map Attachment B." The ITB referred to the Map as a "Map showing bid zone boundaries." See page 4 of the ITB. The Map was labeled as "Attachment B" and included the following language at the bottom of the Map: "WITHIN CITY LIMITS WITH EXCEPTIONS OF UNDESIRABLE LOCATIONS AS INDICATED." The Map included two areas within the City of Madison which were cross- hatched. At the bottom of the Map the word "UNDESIRABLE" had been written in black. This word only appears below the larger of the two cross-hatched areas. The Department intended to exclude any office space located within both of the cross-hatched areas on the Map. The Petitioner spoke by telephone with Robert Smith, a Facilities Services Managers Assistant for the Department, prior to submitting a response to the ITB. The Petitioner initiated the conversation. Based upon this conversation, the Petitioner was aware that property located within either of the cross-hatched areas on the Map was excluded from consideration under the ITB. The property which the Petitioner intended to offer to the Department in response to the ITB is located in the smallest of the two cross-hatched areas on the Map. The Petitioner was informed by Mr. Smith that the property located within the smaller cross-hatched area was excluded as undesirable. Mr. Smith informed the Petitioner that he could not submit a response to the ITB offering to rent property located in the small cross-hatched area. The exclusion from consideration of property located in the areas within the City of Madison which were located in the two cross-hatched areas of the Map could have been more clearly designated. The Department's designation of the excluded areas, however, was not ambiguous. It was clear that the Petitioner's property was located in an excluded portion of the City of Madison and that the Petitioner was aware of the exclusion of his property. Despite the Petitioner's knowledged that his property was located within an excluded area, the Petitioner submitted a response dated March 6, 1990, to the ITB proposing property located in the smaller cross-hatched area. In the Petitioner's response to the ITB he did not indicate the location of his property on the Map. Instead, the Petitioner submitted a different map of a portion of the City of Madison which included his property. Rules 10-13.006 and 10-13.007, Florida Administrative Code, require that protests of the bid specifications of the Department must be filed within 72 hours of receipt of notice of the bid specifications. The ITB did not indicate that persons adversely affected by the ITB could challenge the specifications of the ITB or that any such challenge had to be filed within 72 hours of receipt of notice of the ITB. The following statement appears of the last page of the Bid Submittal Form included with the ITB and submitted by the Petitioner: I hereby certify as owner, officer, or authorized agent that I have read the Invitation to Bid Package and all its attachments, and agree to abide by all requirements and conditions contained therein. . . . This certification was signed by the Petitioner. The Department decided to award the lease to the Intervenor. The Department determined that the Petitioner's bid should be rejected because the proposed property was located in an excluded area. The Petitioner filed a Formal Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on April 23, 1990, with the Department. The Petitioner challenged the Department's proposed award of the lease to the Intervenor and asserted that he was the lowest and best bidder. The Petitioner did not challenge the specifications of the ITB. The Department filed a Motion to Dismiss on Mazy 4, 1990. The Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition and an Amended Formal Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on May 14, 1990. For the first time, the Petitioner challenged the specifications of the ITB.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting the Department's Motion to Dismiss and dismissing with prejudice the Formal Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 12th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The Petitioner and the Department have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-2 See 9. 3-5 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 6 6-7. 7 and 11 Not relevant. 8-10 and 12-15 These proposed findings are consistent with Ms. Goodman's testimony. Ms. Goodman's opinions, however, are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although this proposed finding of fact is generally true, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Petitioner was not aware that both cross-hatched areas were excluded areas. See 9. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2 and hereby accepted. 3 5-8. 4 7. 5 6. 6 12. 7 9. 8 13 and 17. 9 4. 10 12. 11 17. 12 15. 13 16. 14 18 and hereby accepted. 15 20. 21 and hereby accepted. 22 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Cumulative. Hereby accepted. Copies Furnished To: John C. Pelham, Esquire Gary Walker, Esquire Post Office Box 13527 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3527 John L. Pearce, Esquire District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-2949 Clay A. Schnitker, Esquire Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32340 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether the Respondents are guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust, in a business transaction in violation of subsections 475.25(1)(b),(d) and (k), Florida Statutes, by virtue of the sale of the Wal-Mar Motel by Montver, Inc., to Derek and Lucy Lea.
Findings Of Fact At times material hereto, Respondents were the holders of the following Florida real estate license numbers: John H. McCain (McCain), license number 0192076; J. H. Miller license number 364090 and Dynamic Realty, Dynamic Commercial Group, license number 0044285. The licenses issued to Respondents McCain, Miller and Dynamic Realty were as broker, salesman and corporate broker, respectively. Prior to December, 1983, Derek and Lucy Lea, who are married, were residents of England. During the summer of 1983, they became interested in purchasing property in the United States and determined that in order to immigrate they would need to purchase and become owners of an American business. In keeping with their interests, they came to Florida (Pinellas County) during October, 1983 to inquire about the purchase of a motel listed by Respondent McCain. The Leas were assisted in their search by Dynamic Realty and J. Miller as selling brokers, acting as co-broker with Edna Stokes of Great Britain. The Leas learned of properties for sale in the States through advertisements, and decided that they were interested in purchasing a motel. Their preference was to own a business on the west coast of Florida because of the residence of Mrs. Lea's relatives in the Tampa area. The Leas responded to an advertisement of Edna Stokes who offered them information pertaining to Florida properties. The Leas advised Stokes of their special requirements, including a preference for the west coast of Florida, a motel business which offered a single story residence to accommodate the physical needs of Mrs. Lea's mother and a business situated off the major thoroughfares such that they could house their numerous pets and permit them to roam freely. Edna Stokes provided information on several motels in Florida including two in the Ft. Lauderdale area. Three were noted in the Clearwater/Dunedin area, one of which was under contract to another party and therefore not available. Of the remaining two, only one had the special locale and elevation requirements requested by the Leas, the Wal-Mar Motel located in Dunedin. The Leas had no prior experience in the motel business. During 1983, Mr. Lea was unemployed and his prior experience had been as a messenger in a bookmaking establishment. The major source of family support came from Mrs. Lea's employment as a computer operator. During October, 1983, the Leas began negotiations to purchase the Wal- Mar after they inspected the property late one evening. Respondent Miller made an arrangement for Mrs. Lea to revisit the Wal-Mar the next day. The Wal-Mar was listed for sale by Respondent McCain. Mrs. Lea, in the company of Respondents Miller, McCain and Kathy McCain, the daughter of Respondent McCain and the then manager of the hotel, inspected the Wal-Mar. Mrs. Lea concluded her inspection the following day. During the evening when Mrs. Lea inspected the Wal- Mar, she spoke to her husband by phone and they then decided to make an offer to purchase. Respondent Miller prepared an offer in accordance with Mrs. Lea's instructions and as a safeguard, included provisions in the purchase offer to protect the Leas' interest by allowing a suitable time for inspection and verification of both the physical condition of the premises and the financial books and records. The Leas' offer was accepted and Mrs. Lea returned to England. Respondent Miller later assembled financial data furnished by the owner and forwarded it to the Leas for their personal review. In addition to the written information passed on by Kathy McCain, Respondent Miller included an independent summary of survey results compiled by him of similar area motels respecting comparable rates. The Leas reviewed the information provided by Respondent Miller and confirmed their approval and satisfaction of the data by returning a telegram to Respondents Miller and Dynamic stating that the pertinent condition of the contract (paragraph 17E) was approved. 1/ The Leas returned to the United States and closed the transaction on December 17, 1983. They operated the Wal-Mar Motel through approximately January, 1985. The Leas enjoyed marginal success during the winter season of 1984 and made agreed mortgage payments to the seller for three months. Thereafter, they made no further payments although they continued to live and operate the motel and collected income for approximately ten additional months. They were eventually foreclosed and the property was returned to the seller. The Leas filed a civil suit and obtained a judgement against Respondent Dynamic. Dynamic did not appeal the judgement in favor of the Leas. However, the effect of that judgement is not dispositive of the issues relating to Respondent Dynamic's alleged wrongdoings herein based on, inter alia, different standards of proof in the two forums and Respondent counsel's stated position that Dynamic chose not to seek appellate review based solely on financial considerations. When the Leas contracted to purchase the motel, there was a general expectation within the tourist industry in the Tampa Bay area that the upcoming winter season would be a banner season. One factor leading to this expectation was the scheduling of the Super Bowl which was played in Tampa during 1984 and which was expected to bring a large influx of additional visitors. However, the expected increase in tourism did not occur and the area suffered a remarkably and unusually cold winter which led to a marked drop in tourism. Kathy McCain, who had agreed to assist the Leas in operating the motel and to assure a smooth transition, was unexpectedly told by the Leas that she should prepare to leave within days following the Leas purchase of the Wal-Mar. Ms. McCain inquired of the Leas whether they wanted to review certain files she maintained of past visitors such that the Leas could canvas them to determine whether or not they could generate some business through that medium and the Leas declined her offer. Kathy McCain thereafter disposed of the motel registration cards based on the Leas' wishes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed herein in its entirety. Recommended this 24th day of May, 1989, 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 24th day of May, 1989.
