Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a mobile home park in Winter Haven, Florida, known as Swiss Village Mobile Home Park, in which lots are leased to mobile home owners on an annual lease. There are 383 lots in this park and this park has held a permit issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services since 1980 (Exhibit 1). Edward G. Ackerman and his wife entered into a lease with Respondent for the use of a mobile home lot for the period January 15, 1981 until December 31, 1981, at a monthly rental of $75.07 (Exhibit 2). That lease provides for year-to-year renewal with rent for future years based on the Cost of Living Index as determined by the U.S. Government at the nearest reporting period to the end of each calendar year (Exhibit 2). A Guaranteed Lifetime Rent Agreement (Exhibit 3) was executed by the lessor concurrently with the lease in Exhibit 2, which guarantees the rental on the lot leased to Ackerman shall not be increased more than the U. S. Cost of Living Index as long as Ackerman resides in a mobile home located on the leased lot. Using the annual change and CPI to recompute Ackerman's monthly rental has resulted in the rent increasing from $75.00 per month in 1981 to $89.50 per month in 1985 (Exhibit 4). Prior to the time of this hearing Ackerman had purchased a condominium to which he had moved and he was no longer a tenant at the Swiss Village Mobile Home Park. All leases negotiated in years subsequent to 1981, have a similar escalation clause in the rent with the additional proviso that the monthly rent would be increased each year a minimum of $5.00 per month, with the maximum increase not exceeding the CPI. Respondent has used the October All Items Consumer Priced Index For All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in determining the annual rent increase since operations commenced. This report is received in November and by promptly advising tenants the amount their rent will change, because of changes in the CPI-U, each. tenant receives approximately 30-days notice prior to the January 1 effective date. If the terms of the lease agreement are literally complied with and the December CPI is used, Respondent would have to calculate the rent due January 1 on the CPI which it receives in January. By the time tenants are notified of the effects of the CPI on their rent for the coming calendar year, they would already have paid an inadequate sum for the January rental, and perhaps for the month of February also, and would be billed for the deficiency. There is an active Home Owners Association at Swiss Village Mobile Home Park. This association has not complained of the failure of Respondent to provide 90 days notice prior to the automatic rent change which comes every January, nor have they requested arbitration. In order to insure tenants receive 90 days notice of the rental change, due to changes in the CPI, Respondent would have to use the July Consumer Price Index, which it receives in August. Had Respondent used the July CPI report and given tenants 90 days notice of the annual rental increases since 1981, these increases would have exceeded the increase computed using the October CPI (Exhibit 6). Exhibit 6 indicates the actual adjustments of rentals since 1981, has been $5.00 per month or the CPI, whichever is less.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether state use tax is due and payable on transactions wherein the taxpayer rented mobile homes to persons for use as private residences (which the lessees were required to maintain, repair, and insure), pursuant to leases under which the lessee would acquire title to his home upon payment in full of the total rent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order withdrawing the tax assessment against Park Place. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 25th day of June, 2004.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether, on three separate occasions, the Respondent raised the rent at Minerva Mobile Home Park without first delivering to the lessees an approved prospectus, as alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, Docket No. MH89446, issued on November 1, 1989; and (2), if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Haines City Investment, Inc., is the owner of Minerva Mobile Home Park located in Haines City, Florida. There are approximately 72 lots for lease in Minerva Mobile Home Park. On or about January 6, 1988, a Final Order was entered by the Petitioner finding, among other things, that the Respondent had raised the rent on lots in Minerva Mobile Home Park, effective January 1, 1986, without first filing a prospectus with the Petitioner (and therefore also without delivering to the homeowners an approved prospectus.) Among other things, the Final Order fined the Respondent $3,000 and ordered the Respondent to deliver an approved prospectus to each homeowner entitled to receive one within 15 days. During the pendency of a court appeal of the Final Order, on or about April 29, 1988, the Respondent entered into an Agreement to Remit Civil Penalty and Annual Fees. Effective January 1, 1987, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $11. Effective January 1, 1988, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $4.50. Effective January 1, 1989, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $6. Effective January 1, 1990, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $12.50, to $134.50 per month. The 11 homeowners who testified all paid all rent increases charged by the Respondent. The Respondent first filed a prospectus for Minerva Mobile Home Park for approval by the Petitioner in October, 1986. By this time, the Respondent had given the homeowners a copy of the proposed, but unapproved prospectus. However, the proposed prospectus was not approved by the Petitioner, and several revisions were made. The final revision was not approved until May 20, 1987. The approved prospectus was not delivered to the homeowners of the Minerva Mobile Home Park until some time in March, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a final order requiring that the Respondent refund the illegal rent increases to the homeowners (or former homeowners) in Minerva Mobile Home Park and requiring the Respondent to pay a $1,500 civil penalty. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 26th day of November, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra Roberts, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Albert Labossiere, President Haines City Investment, Inc. 2800 Minerva Park Haines City, Florida 33844 E. James Kearney, Director Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issues are whether the respondents engaged in a discriminatory housing practice, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2007),1 by discriminating against Petitioner, on the basis of her alleged disability, and by harassing Petitioner and retaliating against her.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a former resident of Broadview Mobile Home Park (Broadview), located at 1701 Post Road, Melbourne, Florida. Petitioner resided in Broadview for approximately six years from an undisclosed date in 2002 through September 8, 2008. Mr. Lamont Garber holds an ownership interest in Broadview. The record does not quantify the ownership interest of Mr. Garber. Mr. Garber manages Broadview with his brother, Mr. Wayne Garber. Broadview rents sites within the mobile home park to residents who own mobile homes. Each site has access to water and electric service. Each resident arranges his or her water and electric service directly with the respective utility provider. Sometime in 2005, Petitioner purchased a mobile home for approximately $6,500.00 and moved within Broadview to Lot 24. The rental agreement for Lot 24 required rent to be paid on the first day of each month. The rent for July 2008 was due on July 1, 2008. Petitioner failed to pay the rent payment that was due on July 1, 2008. On July 9, 2008, Broadview served Petitioner, by certified mail, with a notice that she had five business days in which to pay the rent due (the five-day notice). Petitioner received the five-day notice on July 10, 2008. The five-day period expired on July 17, 2008, with no rent payment from Petitioner. Petitioner had paid rent late in the past, but Petitioner had never been more than four or five days late. After July 17, 2008, Broadview initiated eviction proceedings. Petitioner tendered the rent payment on July 20, 2008, but Broadview proceeded with the eviction. Petitioner did not appear and defend the eviction proceeding. On August 26, 2008, the County Court for Brevard County, Florida, issued a Final Default Judgment of Eviction awarding possession of Lot 24 to Broadview. Law enforcement officers thereafter executed the Court's order and evicted Petitioner from Broadview on or about September 8, 2008. After Petitioner received the notice of eviction, she filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (DBPR). DBPR is the state agency responsible for regulating mobile home parks, including Broadview. The allegations in the complaint that Petitioner filed with DBPR were substantially similar to the claims of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and unlawful rent increases Petitioner asserts in this proceeding. DBPR rejected Petitioner's allegations and found that Broadview lawfully evicted Petitioner for non-payment of rent. The final agency action of DBPR is substantially similar to that of HUD and the Commission's proposed agency action in this proceeding. Each agency found that Broadview lawfully evicted Petitioner for non-payment of rent and rejected the allegations of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The DOAH proceeding is a de novo consideration of the proceeding before the Commission. A preponderance of the evidence does not establish a prima facie showing that Petitioner is disabled or handicapped. Petitioner has cancer and is receiving chemotherapy and radiation treatment. A preponderance of evidence does not show that the medical condition substantially limits one or more major life activities of Petitioner. Petitioner also alleges that she is disabled and handicapped by a mental condition. Petitioner submitted no medical evidence of the alleged disability or handicap. A preponderance of evidence does not establish a prima facie showing that, if such a mental condition exists, the condition substantially limits one or more major life activities of Petitioner. Assuming arguendo that a preponderance of the evidence showed that Petitioner were disabled or handicapped, a preponderance of evidence does not establish a prima facie showing that either of the respondents discriminated against Petitioner, harassed her, or evicted her in retaliation for Petitioner's disability or handicap. It is undisputed that Petitioner conducted neighborhood organization efforts to protest a rent increase at Broadview and repeatedly called law enforcement officials to report alleged drug and prostitution activity in Broadview.2 However, Broadview did not evict Petitioner for those activities, and Petitioner's testimony to the contrary is neither credible nor persuasive. Rather, Petitioner engaged in other activities that the respondents found objectionable. Petitioner baby sat for one or more dogs in violation of Broadview's prohibition against pets. Some of the dogs were dangerous to other residents. Petitioner also verbally abused Mr. Wayne Garber when he attempted to mediate with Petitioner concerning the presence of dogs and Petitioner's conduct toward management at Broadview. On July 1, 2008, Broadview served Petitioner with a seven-day notice concerning Petitioner's compliance with lease requirements. The notice, in relevant part, alleged that Petitioner harassed management and impaired the ability of management to perform its duties. The testimony of respondents describing the activities of Petitioner that precipitated the seven-day notice is credible and persuasive. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the respondents had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for requiring Petitioner to comply with the terms of the seven-day notice and for requiring Petitioner to comply with the requirement for rent to be paid on July 1, 2008. Petitioner failed to comply with either requirement, and Broadview evicted Petitioner for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The respondents did not harass or retaliate against Petitioner.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that the respondents did not engage in an unlawful housing practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 20th day of May, 2009.
The Issue Whether Rules 7D-30.04, 7D-30.06, 7D-31.01(2), 7D-31,01(4), 7D-31.01(5), 7D-31.01(12), 7D-32.01 and 7D-32.02, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority and are arbitrary and capricious?
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact were stipulated to and are hereby adopted: The following is a Florida non-profit corporation, whose address is 115 N. Calhoun Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The FMHA is organized and maintained for the benefit of its members, which includes approximately 950 mobile home park owners and operators. A substantial portion of these members own or operate parks which contain 10 or more lots and therefore are subject to regulation by the Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Department of Business Regulation. The Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Department of Business Regulation is delegated the authority pursuant to Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, to regulate mobile home parks, including the powers to enforce and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Chapter and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, including the authority to impose a civil penalty against a mobile home park owner for any violation of the Chapter, or a rule or regulation of the Division. Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, was enacted by the Florida Legislature as Chapter 84-80, was signed by the Governor and filed in the office of the Secretary of State on June 4, 1984. Rules 7D-30, 7D-31, and 7D-32, Florida Administrative Code, are rules of the Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Department of Business Regulation, which were properly adopted in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is a trade association the members of which are engaged in business in the mobile home industry in the State of Florida. The Petitioner has members who are mobile home manufacturers, retailers, equipment suppliers and servicers, owners and operators of mobile-home rental parks, developers of mobile home parks and subdivisions, insurance firms and lending institutions. The Petitioner has 1,020 members who develop mobile home parks and subdivisions or are owners and operators of mobile home rental parks. As stipulated to by the parties, approximately 950 of the Petitioner's members are owners and operators of mobile home rental parks. The Petitioner's members are involved in the rental of between 300,000 and 350,000 mobile home spaces. A substantial number of the Petitioner's members are subject to regulation by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), the "Florida Mobile Home Act." In July of 1984, subsequent to the effective date of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), the Bureau of Mobile Homes was created as a part of the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes. Dr. Faye Mayberry has been, and continues to be, the Chief of the Bureau of Mobile Homes. Following the enactment of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), the Bureau of Mobile Homes concluded that there was a need to clarify certain portions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), and a need to establish procedures necessary for the filing of prospectuses and other documents. Therefore, the Bureau initiated a process to determine what rules needed to be adopted. The Bureau also received numerous inquiries from mobile home owners and mobile home park owners concerning Chapter 723. The Bureau first looked at Chapter 723 in-house and looked at the nature of inquiries it had received and then drafted a conceptual approach to part of the rules. The conceptual draft, at the invitation of the Bureau, was reviewed by representatives of the Petitioner and the Intervenor. A meeting was held with the Respondent to discuss the conceptual approach. The Respondent left the meeting with the impression that the conceptual approach was not that far off. Following its discussions of the conceptual approach with the Petitioner and Intervenor, the Respondent drafted rules pursuant to Chapter 723. Four workshops, in three locations in Florida, were conducted to receive public input on the draft rules. Advance notice of the workshops was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Representatives of the Petitioner had notice of, and participated in, the workshops. Subsequent to the public workshops, in October of 1934, the Respondent published proposed rules under Chapters 7D-30 and 7D-31, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. In November of 1984, the Respondent published proposed rules under Chapter 7D-32. After publication of the proposed rules in the Florida Administrative Weekly, requests for a public hearing were received by the Respondent and public hearings were held. Representatives of the Petitioner attended these hearings and had an opportunity to provide input on the content of the proposed rules. Revisions were made to the proposed rules based upon suggestions from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee and comments made by the public during the hearings held by the Respondent. The revisions were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly in January of 1985. As revised, the rules contained in Chapters 7D-30 and 7D-31, Florida Administrative Code, became effective on January 10, 1985. The rules contained in Chapter 7D-32. Florida Administrative Code, became effective on February 6, 1085. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee did not file any challenge to the rules after they became effective. A substantial amount of input and work went into adopting Chapters 7D-30, 7D-31 and 7D-39, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner had notice of the promulgation of the rules at issue and has been involved in the development and distribution of information it believed was necessary to assist its members in complying with the requirements of Chapter 723. The Petitioner has distributed memoranda, conducted seminars, distributed prospectuses and communicated with representatives of the Respondent in an effort to assist its members in complying with the requirements of Chapter 723. The Petitioner provided definitions of terms for use in prospectuses and notices required by Chapter 723 and for use in complying with the Respondent's rules. The Petitioner has attempted to assist its members in preparing a prospectus which could be filed with the Respondent and would meet the requirements of Chapter 723. Toward this end, the Petitioner prepared a sample or model prospectus and conducted a seminar on the model prospectus on December 17, 1984. The seminar was conducted in Orlando, Florida, and was attended by over 600 people. In the model prospectus the Petitioner provided three alternative methods of providing for future rental increases to be included in a prospectus. The model prospectus discussed at the December 17, 1984 seminar was for use by those mobile home parks with 100 or more rental spaces. The Petitioner also prepared a model prospectus for mobile home parks with 26 to 99 rental spaces which it distributed in June of 1985. This model prospectus was sent to all members of the Petitioner. A large number of the Petitioner's members used the model prospectus prepared by the Petitioner. Information provided to members by the Petitioner was developed by the Petitioner based in part upon its discussions with the staff of the Respondent. The Petitioner received questions from its members concerning certain aspects of the Respondent's rules and Chapter 723 which the Petitioner attempted to answer. A substantial number of the Petitioner's members advertise their mobile home parks. Mr. Neil Kullman is a member of the Petitioner and is the President of Florida Leisure Communities. Florida Leisure Communities owns and operates 3 mobile home parks in Florida. Florida Leisure Communities waits for the Respondent to approve advertising materials it files with the Respondent because it has decided that it does not want to risk using an advertisement which may be found to be defective by the Respondent. Florida Leisure Communities does not wait for approval of its advertisements by the Respondent because it believes that it is required to do so by the Respondent's rules. Time delays have been experienced in getting advertisements approved. A substantial number of the Petitioner's members have rental agreements in existence at mobile homes parks which have anniversary dates or renewal dates which would allow increases in rent. Most of the rental agreements have renewal dates or anniversary dates of July 1 or January 1. The Petitioner provided information to its members in March of 1985 and August of 1985 concerning the Petitioner's understanding of what constitutes an effective notice of lot rental increase. In explaining how members can provide a concise explanation of the reason for a proposed lot rental increase, the Petitioner told its members the following in a memorandum distributed in March of 1985: You need only to provide a concise explanation of the reason for the proposed change. Be brief! You should only include a list of factors (for rent increases), or a short plain statement for the change in services or rules or regulations. Important! As for rent increases, the rule limits the factors you may consider to those specifically identified in the prospectus. If the homeowners go to mediation or arbitration, or to court, then only those factors identified in the prospectus can be used to justify the reasonableness of the increase. Also, you should only place on the notice of increase the category of factor used to determine the rent increase level. For example: Operating costs; Prevailing market rent; Prevailing economic conditions; or Consumer Price Index (CPI). Be sure to list only those factors which are necessary to fully justify the rent increase. In August of 1985 the Petitioner provided the following guidance to its members with respect to how to provide a concise explanation of the reason for a lot rental increase: 4. You need only to provide a concise explanation of the reason for the proposed increase. Be brief! You should only include a list of factors, or a short plain statement of the reason or reasons for the increase. For example, a response might be: "The reasons for the increase are increased operating costs, prevailing market rent, and prevailing economic [sic] conditions, as set forth in the prospectus." You need not to go [sic] into great detail as to the specific costs which may have increased during the course of the year which you may want to take into consideration, or do you need to explain what is intended to mean [sic] by prevailing market rent or prevailing economic conditions. You need only to include a concise explanation of the reasons for the increase. The recommendation of the Petitioner to its members concerning how to provide a concise explanation of an increase in lot rental was basically that the member refer to factors which might cause a rental increase as provided in the member's prospectus. In the model prospectus recommended by the Petitioner to its members in June of 1985, the Petitioner recommended that the following explanation of the manner in which lot rental could be increased should be used by its members: is as follows: Increase in Lot Rental The manner in which lot rental will be increased, Definitions. As used in this Section VIII: "Lot rental" means all sums paid or to be paid by the mobile home owner in consideration of leasing or renting a mobile home lot or lots in the Park. Such sums include any and all rents, special use fees, pass-through charges, installation and set-up charges, and other fees, charges and assessments imposed by the Owner. "Special use fees" mean those separately itemized amounts for specific services or privileges which are charged in addition to rent, including, but not limited to, such charges as guest fees, pet fees and entrance fees. "Pass-through charges" are defined as those amounts, other than special use fees, which are itemized and charged separately from the rent and which represent the mobile home owner's share of costs charged to the Park Owner by any state or local government or utility company. Notice of Increase. The mobile home owner shall be notified of any increase in the lot rental at least 90 days prior to the effective date of such increase. Lot Rental-Increases. General. The lot rental and each of the categories of charges current Iv or hereafter comprising a part of the lot rental are subject to periodic increases by the Owner. However, except for increases resulting from the imposition of pass-through charges, the lot rental will not be increased more frequently than annually, except for initial tenancies which commence after the beginning of the annual rental term. Factors Affecting Increases. Factors which may affect the level of increases in lot rental are as follows: Increased costs, which refers to any increases experienced by the Owner since the delivery of notice of the last increase in the lot rental in the total costs arising out of the ownership, operation and management of the Park. Prevailing Market Rent--Refers to the lot rental imposed in mobile home parks comparable to this Park, or the lot rental willingly paid from time to time by new residents of this Park. A park will be deemed comparable if it is located in the same general vicinity as this Park, and offers similar densities, amenities and services. Prevailing Economic Conditions--are intended to refer to those factors which bear on the economic viability of a real estate investment and which would be considered by a prudent businessman in establishing the base rent and other charges or any increase in the amount thereof. These factors may include: the costs attendant to the replacement of this Park in the economic environment existing at the time of any rental increase, including land acquisition costs, construction costs, and losses associated with the operation of a park prior to full occupancy, and the level at which the lot rental must be established in order that the Park Owner will realize a reasonable return on the costs referred to in this clause (1); the level of interest rates and other financing charges associated with construction, interim and permanent financing; (3) the availability of alternative forms of real estate investment capital; (4) the levels of the Consumer Price Index, defined as the United States Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index, U.S. City Average--All Urban Consumers, 1967 100, or, in the event of the discontinuation of publication of the Consumer Price Index, then an alternative index which has been reasonably related to the Consumer Price Index in evaluating economic conditions, and which has been, or can reasonably be expected to be, generally accepted as a replacement index for the Consumer Price Index; (5) the level at which the lot rental must be established in order that the Owner will realize a reasonable return on the "Owners's Equity"; for this purpose, the "Owner's Equity" refers to the fair market value of the Park from time to time, less existing mortgage indebtedness; (6) other economic factors which might reasonably be expected to affect-either the value of the Park, the rate of return available to the Owner of the Park at the existing level of rent, the present value of the real estate investment in the then current economic conditions, and which would be taken into consideration by a prudent businessman in considering the amount of rental increase required in the Park in order -to realize a rate of return similar to other at risk real estate ventures from the then current value of the Park. To the extent permitted by law, the mobile home owner may also be required to bear, in the form of increases in the lot rental, the costs incurred by Owner in installing capital improvements or performing major repairs in the Park. Additional Considerations The reasons for the increase in lot rental or other fees and charges will be set forth in the notice of increase. Only those factors set forth in the notice will be relied upon by the Park Owner as justification for the rent increase. The Park Owner reserves the right to amend this Prospectus or any Exhibit thereto from time to time to the extent permitted by law to conform with changes in relevant statutory provisions or changes in relevant rules of the Department of Business Regulation, or any other agency having jurisdiction over the operation of this mobile home park. An increase in one or more of the above- described factors may result in an increase in the mobile home owner's rent or other charges. Tenants assuming the remaining portion of a tenancy as prescribed by Section 723.059(3), F.S., are hereby notified that upon the expiration of the assumed tenancy, the Park Owner expressly reserves the right to increase lot rental amount in an amount deemed appropriate by the Park Owner with such increase being imposed in the manner disclosed in the Prospectus delivered to the initial recipient. A number of the Petitioner's members used the notice of lot rental increase recommended by the Petitioner and the portion of the prospectus quoted in finding of fact 33. The Respondent advised some of the Petitioner's members that the notice recommended by the Petitioner was deficient under the Respondent's rules. The notice was deficient because the Respondent determined that the notice did not provide a concise explanation of the reason for a lot rental increase. The notice used by several members of the Petitioner stated that the reason for the increase was "prevailing market conditions and economic conditions." The Respondent notified members that used this explanation that it was deficient. The Respondent also told those members that "the explanation must include the specific changes in the factors described in the prospectus under prevailing market conditions and economic conditions which were the reasons for the change." The Petitioner challenged the Respondent's interpretation of its rules concerning notices in Leon County Circuit Court. The Court advised the parties to work things out following a preliminary injunction hearing. Representatives of the Petitioner and the Respondent met and discussed the problem with the Petitioner's notice and the Respondent subsequently indicated that several examples of a concise explanation for lot rental increases proposed by the Petitioner were acceptable. The method of increasing rent provided in existing rental agreements at various mobile home parks varies. Because existing tenants have different anniversary dates or renewal dates, if notice of a lot rental increase affecting some tenants is given to all tenants of a park, it is more costly to the park owner. It is possible, however, to mail one notice of rental increase to all tenants of a park at the beginning of each year. Florida Leisure Communities has filed a prospectus for all three of its mobile home parks in Florida. The prospectuses have been approved by the Respondent. At the Colonnades, a Florida Leisure Communities park, 156 lots have been completed and 19 of those lots have been occupied. Improvements to be made by Florida Leisure Communities are specified in the prospectus for the parks. In order to keep pace with market conditions and provide different improvements, a new prospectus has to be filed with the Respondent. At Brittany Estates, another Florida Leisure Communities park, after a prospectus had been distributed to all tenants, a tornado destroyed 50 mobile homes. Most of the tenants of the 50 homes voluntarily terminated their leases. Mr. Bernie Covington is vice-president and director of the parks of Angeles Real Estate Management Company (hereinafter referred to as "Angeles"). Angeles owns and operates 13 mobile home parks in Florida. Angeles has filed a prospectus for Heritage Village, a 436 site park. The prospectus had not been approved or distributed as of the date of the hearing of these cases. Heritage Village owns and operates its own sewage treatment plant and water system. Heritage Village will be required, however, to tie into the County's water and sewage system at substantial costs. Existing leases with tenants of Heritage Village allow the park to pass the impact fees ($1,250.00 for sewage and $1,149.00 for water, per site) and the cost of tieing into the force main ($30,000.00 to $35,000.00) on to the tenants. The cost of tieing into the force main may not be passed on to the tenants under the Respondent's rules, however. Angeles has also filed a prospectus for Pleasant Living Mobile Home Park which has 218 tenants. The prospectus had not been approved or distributed as of the date off the final hearing of these cases. Angeles would now like to provide a secure area for storage of boats, RVs and cars and charge a fee for this service. The prospectus being reviewed by the Respondent, however, does not indicate that a secure area will be provided.
The Issue This case concerns a Notice to Show Cause served by Petitioner on Respondents, by which Petitioner orders Respondents to cease and desist their activities, to pay statutory fees, and to be assessed penalties. The activities in question are associated with the alleged need for Respondents to pay annual fees for mobile home lots rented within an alleged mobile home park operated by Respondents from the years 1984 through 1991. See, Section 723.007, Florida Statutes. Based upon the alleged nonpayment of the annual fees, Petitioner seeks to impose a civil penalty in accordance with Section 723.006(5)(d)1., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In 1978, Park T. Brittle purchased property in Leon County, Florida, which had been foreclosed on by Barnett Bank. This property had been originally developed by Miles Salgret. Prior to the purchase by Park T. Brittle, some lots had been sold by Mr. Salgret, approximately four in number. The property in question is known as Briarwood Estates. The Briarwood Estates is for use by mobile home owners who either own or rent lots on this property. Subsequent to his purchase, Park T. Brittle had the property surveyed by Tom Howard, a surveyor. Through this survey, a plat was prepared. The plat was submitted to the Leon County Property Appraiser. Subsequent to that time, beginning in 1980, the lots within Briarwood Estates have been individually assessed by the Property Appraiser for tax purposes. That is to say that the tax assessment is made on the individual lot owners. Park T. Brittle has sold 29 or 30 lots during his ownership. The property that is described in the plat is property in which the individual lot owners own to the center line of the roads which adjoin the lots. Respondents provide water and street lights as amenities within Briarwood Estates. Respondents are billed for these utilities and, in turn, charge individual lot owners for the amenities. In addition to the mobile home lots which have been sold, beginning with 1984 when the Florida Mobile Home Act was passed, the relevant time frame in this inquiry, Respondents have rented 10 or more mobile home lots on the property known as Briarwood Estates. These lots were rented to residential mobile home owners. More specifically, Respondents have continually collected monthly rents for mobile home lots on the property from 16 residential mobile home owners. All 16 of these mobile homes, during the period of 1984 through 1991, were mobile homes which were at least 8 feet by 35 feet in dimension. None of these 16 mobile homes are owned by Respondents. The 16 lots are not for purposes of rental spaces for RVs. In view of an attempt to institute a rental increase for the mobile home lots which Respondents rented at Briarwood Estates, a complaint was made to Petitioner concerning Respondents' intention to increase the rental fees. Respondents deferred to the requirements set forth by Petitioner concerning rent increases for those lots rented to the residential mobile home owners. Respondents complied notwithstanding Respondents' claimed uncertainty concerning the necessity to follow the guidelines and requirements established by Petitioner for adopting rent increases for lots rented to residential mobile home owners at Briarwood Estates. The uncertainty asserted by Respondents concerned the question of whether the 16 lots for which Respondents receive rents are part of a mobile home park, as defined in Section 723.003(6), Florida Statutes. Respondent, Park T. Brittle, testified at page 17 in the hearing transcript: "I attempted to follow those guidelines, not because I felt obligated, but if indeed later on it was determined that I was operating a mobile home park, I wanted to be sure that I was clear on that part of it." This refers to the increases in lot rental fees. Respondents do not concede that they are operating a mobile home park as it pertains to the payment of annual fees for each of the 16 lots in the amount of $1.00 in 1984 and $3.00 from 1985 through 1991, together with a 10% late fee charge for each year and each lot if the fees were not paid prior to December 31st of the year in question. Consequently, the fees for the 16 lots in the years 1984 through 1991 have not been paid. The amount due for the annual lot fees and penalties is $387.20. In addition to the amount assessed for annual fees for the lots and penalties for late payment, historically, Petitioner has assessed a $500.00 fine per year for noncompliance with the requirement to pay annual lot fees. Respondents do not believe that they are operating a mobile home park, rather it is their assertion that they are operating a mobile home subdivision. Respondents have cooperated with the Petitioner in the investigation concerning the payment of annual fees for lot rentals which was occasioned by inquiries by Park Brittle as well as a complaint by a tenant in one of the sixteen lots in question over increases in the monthly mobile home lot rental fees.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that final order be entered which requires Respondents to pay $387.20 in annual fees and penalties for the period 1984-1991, and assesses a civil penalty in the amount of $500. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 7th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2961 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 12 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found. Respondents' Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Harper Field, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 George Carswell, Esquire Post Office Box 508 Monticello, Florida 32344 Henry M. Solares, Director Department of Business Regulation, Florida Land Sales Condominiums and Mobile Homes 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's proposed rule 7D-31.002 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Petitioners and the Intervenor MLH Property Managers, Inc., contend that the rule is invalid. The Respondent and the Intervenor Federation Of Mobile Home Owners Of Florida contend the proposed rule is valid.
Findings Of Fact Facts stipulated to by the parties Petitioner, Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc. (FMHA), is a Florida nonprofit corporation whose address is 115 North Calhoun Street, Suite 5, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The agency affected by this proceeding is the Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (DBR), whose address is The Johns Building, 725 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000. The DBR is charged with the implementation, enforcement and interpretation of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, concerning mobile home park lot tenancies. The DBR also possesses statutory authority to impose civil penalties against a mobile home park owner for any violation of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, a rule of the Department promulgated thereunder, or a properly promulgated park rule or regulation. This proceeding concerns the Respondent's proposed rule 7D-31.002, which was published in Vol. 16, No. 7 of the Florida Administrative Weekly (April 27, 1990). The FMHA is a Florida nonprofit corporation, which is organized and maintained for the benefit of the owners of approximately 1,000 mobile home parks containing a combined total of approximately 300,000 to 350,000 mobile home lots. The owners of the 1,000 mobile home parks comprise a substantial portion of the membership of the FMHA. One of the primary purposes of the FMHA is to act on behalf of its members before the various governmental entities of this state, including the Respondent, Florida Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes. FMHA member mobile home parks are subject to the provisions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, and the rules of the DBR contained in Rules 7D-30 through 7D-32, Florida Administrative Code. FMHA member mobile home parks are required to register with the DBR, to pay annual fees to the DBR, to file prospectuses and pay filing fees for the same to the DBR, to submit advertising to the DBR for approval, and are otherwise subject to the regulatory authority of the DBR with respect to the operation and management of their mobile home parks. Additionally, FMHA member mobile home parks are subject to the DBR's enforcement authority, which includes the power to fine or impose other civil penalties for failure to comply with the above-referenced rules and statutes. Each of the owners of the FMHA member mobile home is engaged in the business of leasing individual mobile home lots to mobile home owners. The mobile home owners lease mobile home lots for the purpose of installing on the lots a mobile home owned by the tenant. The Federation of Mobile Home Owners of Florida (FMO) is a Florida nonprofit corporation whose membership is comprised of over 100,000 mobile home owners residing in Florida. The normal activities of the FMO include, among other things, representing the interests of Florida's mobile home owners before Florida administrative agencies, including DBR and the Division of Administrative Hearings, in rulemaking proceedings and otherwise. Thousands of FMO members reside in mobile home parks which are governed by Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, and the rules adopted thereunder by DBR. Thousands of FMO members were tenants of those parks on June 4, 1984, and thousands more have become tenants by purchasing a home located in those parks from a former mobile home owner who was a tenant of those parks on June 4, 1984. MLH Property Managers, Inc. (MLH), a Delaware corporation, is the managing general partner of MLH Income Realty Partnership V, a New York limited partnership. MLH Income Realty Partnership V is the owner of eight mobile home parks in the State of Florida, each of which contain 26 or more mobile home lots which are offered for lease or rent for the placing thereon of mobile homes to be used as residences. NIH has entered into rental agreements with the majority of residents in each of the parks which have a one-year term, with the intent of NIH that the terms and conditions of tenancy be established on a yearly basis. The NIH parks contain lots which were leased to their present mobile home owner tenants (or their predecessor mobile home owners) prior to June 4, 1984. The full text of the proposed rule which is the subject of this proceeding is as follows: 7D-31.002 Tenancy. (a) A tenancy under chapter 723, Florida Statues, begins when the mobile home park owner and mobile home owner enter into an initial rental agreement as defined in section 723.003(4), Florida Statues, or when the mobile home owner assumes occupancy in the park, whichever occurs first. (b) Once a tenancy begins in accordance with paragraph (1)(a) of this rule, it is continuous and cannot be terminated by the mobile home park owner except pursuant to section 723.061, Florida Statutes. (a) The enactment of chapter 723, Florida Statutes, did not terminate the tenancy of a mobile home park owner which was in existence on June 4, 1984, the effective date of the chapter. Furthermore, chapter 723, Florida Statutes, does not allow or authorize the mobile home park owner to terminate a tenancy in existence on June 4, 1984, the effective date of the chapter, in any manner other than pursuant to section 723.061, Florida Statutes. (b) A tenancy in existence on June 4, 1984, the effective date of chapter 723, Florida Statutes, shall be deemed a tenancy under chapter 723 if, prior to June 4, 1984, the mobile home owner either entered into a rental agreement with the mobile home park owner, or the mobile home owner assumed occupancy in the mobile home park. The rest of the facts The Respondent has previously attempted to adopt a similar rule. In Volume 14, Number 7, of the Florida Administrative Weekly of February 19, 1988, the Respondent published a proposed rule 7D-31.002. The rule proposed in February of 1988 read as follows: 7D-31.002 Fee, Charges and Assessments. For tenancies in existence before June 4, 1984, including any assumptions of those tenancies pursuant to Section 723.059, Florida Statutes, the mobile home owner is not obligated to pay any fees, charges or assessments which were not disclosed fully in writing prior to occupancy, any provision to the contrary in a prospectus notwithstanding, unless the park owner can establish that the fees, charges or assessments have been collected as a matter of custom as defined in subsection (4) of this rule. Furthermore, the mobile home owner is not obligated to install any permanent improvements at all, including those mandated by governmental entities or utility companies. For tenancies created on or after June 4, 1984, pass through charges, as defined in Section 723.003(9), Florida Statutes, may be imposed by the mobile home park owner if the mobile home owner's obligation to pay such charges was disclosed in general terms pursuant to Sections 723.011 and 723.012, Florida Statutes, or pursuant to Section 723.013, Florida Statutes, even though the charge being imposed was not disclosed specifically, and the imposition of such pass through charges is not a violation of section 723.042, Florida Statutes. However, pass through charges may not be imposed if the mobile home owner's obligation to pay such charges was not disclosed generally and prior to occupancy as required by Sections 723.011(2) and 723.012, Florida Statutes, or Section 723.013, Florida Statutes, whichever is applicable. No fee, charge or assessment shall be imposed by a mobile home park owner on the purchaser of a mobile home situated in the park that is offered for sale by a resident of the park and as a condition to the purchaser being reviewed or approved for residency in the park. A fee, charge or assessment has been collected as a matter of custom if it was collected prior to July 1, 1967. In the case of Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc., v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, et al., 10 F.A.L.R. 3919 (June 24, 1988), the former proposed rule quoted immediately above was determined to be invalid on several grounds. The proposed rule that is the subject of this case will substantially affect the substantial interests of the Petitioner and each of the Intervenors. A substantial number of the members of the FMHA and the FMO are substantially affected by the proposed rule and the relief sought is the type and nature which these associations may properly seek on behalf of their respective members. Mr. Bob Custer is a Vice President in De Anza Corporation. De Anza Corporation is the owner of Mobile Americana Mobile Home Park. De Anza Corporation is a member of the FMHA. De Anza Corporation purchased the park in July 1976. At that time there was a written lease offered to all home owners in the park. Subsequently, the park offered written leases to home owners in the park. After the adoption of Chapter 723 on June 4, 1984, the park owner filed a prospectus with the DBR, received approval from the DBR, and distributed the approved prospectus to the mobile home owners in the park in 1985. The prospectus contains provisions, including fees and charges, that are different from the earlier offered rental agreements used in the park. The prospectus is the controlling document used by De Anza Corporation in determining increases in lot rent and fees and charges that will be collected during the tenancy. Mr. Tom Keenan is the Vice President for Property Operations for Mobile Home Communities, Inc., which owns and operates 10 mobile home parks in Florida. Each of the individual-parks is a member of the FMHA. Lake Haven Mobile Home Park is owned and operated by Mobile Home Communities, Inc. Lake Haven Mobile Home Park entered into 4 year leases with its tenants, beginning in 1975 and again in 1979. After the adoption of Chapter 723, on June 4, 1984, Lake Haven Mobile Home Park filed and received approval for a prospectus from DBR, which was distributed to mobile home owners in 1985. The prospectus, including the rental agreement therein, contains terms and conditions different from the earlier 4 year leases (including the term of the rental agreement which is changed to annual), and there are different fees and charges which can be collected. Of the 379 lots that are rented in the park, approximately 200 tenants entered the park prior to the delivery of the prospectus. Mobile Home Communities, Inc., operates the park pursuant to the disclosures contained in the prospectus. Ms. Jan West is the owner and operator of Eagle's Nest Mobile Home Estates, a 64 space mobile home park located in Fruitland Park, Florida. Ms. West is a member of the FMHA. Eagle's Nest was developed in the 1930's and purchased by Jan West's parents in the 1940's. Prior to 1987 the rental agreements in the park were all oral. Ms. West does not know the terms and conditions of the rental agreements offered to tenants when her parents operated the park. All 64 of the lots in the park were offered for rent or lease on June 4, 1984, the effective date of Chapter 723. In 1987 Eagle's Nest filed a prospectus with the DBR and the prospectus was approved. All of the tenants of the park signed the lease agreement contained in the prospectus in 1987 when the approved prospectus was delivered. The fees and charges that are included in the prospectus were never disclosed in writing to any of the tenants prior to the delivery of the prospectus. The prospectus is the document that Eagle's Nest uses to determine the landlord tenant relationship under Chapter 723. Eagle's Nest collects lawn mowing fees and special services fees when they apply. Ms. West does not know if there were charges, other than the base rent, that were collected prior to 1987. She does not know if other charges, like late charges, return check charges, guest fees, vehicle storage fees, pet fees, special services fees, or pass-through charges were charged prior to delivery of the prospectus. Lawn mowing fees and maintenance fees were collected prior to 1987. It is a common practice in the industry to use a fixed term lease, or a lease for a term of years, in the prospectus and rental agreement approved by the DBR. The Mobile Home Study Commission was created in 1988 to study problems with alternative dispute resolution relating to mobile home park rents. Chapter 88-147, Laws of Florida. The Study Commission was reauthorized in 1989 for another one year period to study this issue. Chapter 89-202, Laws of Florida. The Study Commission was in existence, in 1988, when the Florida Manufactured Housing Association challenged an earlier proposed rule, 7D-31.002, which regulated the fees and charges that could be collected in mobile home parks. In that case the Division of Administrative Hearings issued a Final Order invalidating the earlier proposed rule on several grounds. That Final Order was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal. Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 10 F.A.L.R. 3919 (DOAH 1988), affirmed, 547 So.2d 636 (1st DCA 1989) (hereafter referred to as FMHA I). The DBR appeared at the Study Commission in 1990 and suggested legislation to directly overturn the hearing officer's decision in FMHA I. That suggested legislation was virtually identical to the proposed rule at issue in this proceeding. The legislation suggested by the DBR was not adopted. Thirty-five to forty percent of the tenants residing in MLH parks today resided there prior to the enactment of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, on June 4, 1984. MLH or its predecessors in interest delivered prospectuses approved by DBR to all tenants residing in the parks on June 4, 1984, at or before the expiration of those tenants' pre-Chapter 723 leases. The prospectuses delivered to such residents disclosed the manner in which the residents' lot rental amount would be increased, other fees and charges which the resident would thereafter be charged, and the manner in which pass-through charges (for governmentally- mandated capital improvements) would be assessed. In some of its barks MLH has passed on ad valorem property tax increases to park tenants. A number of tenants in MLH's parks are now contending that such charges cannot be passed on to them, even though such charges are disclosed in the park prospectuses which they received after enactment of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, because (the tenants assert) such charges were not disclosed to them prior to their moving into the parks before the enactment of Chapter 723. MLH has no knowledge as to whether each charge disclosed in its approved Chapter 723 prospectuses was disclosed by the previous owners of MLH parks at the time that the original tenant moved onto a particular lot before the enactment of Chapter 723. MLH intends to continue passing on ad valorem tax increases. The prospectuses for MLH parks approved by DBR provide for the collection of a $3.00 annual DBR filing fee. The obligation to pay that filing fee was not disclosed to tenants who moved into the parks before the enactment of Chapter 723 because, at that time, neither DBR nor any other state agency had regulatory jurisdiction over the parks and the legislature did not impose such a filing fee until the passage of Chapter 723 and the concomitant creation of the Bureau of Mobile Homes. As to the years prior to the enactment of Chapter 723, it is sometimes very difficult, if not impossible, for a current park owner to ascertain and establish what fees, charges, and assessments were disclosed to tenants before they moved into a park. There was no central regulatory authority at that time which was charged with the responsibility to monitor such disclosures. There was no required, standardized disclosure document such as the prospectus which is now required of most parks by Chapter 723. Some parks now subject to regulation under Chapter 723 came into existence as early as the 1930's and operated as informal, family-run businesses. Thus, for the industry in general, the records are not available to establish what disclosures were made to tenants who long ago moved in, and still reside in the parks, at the time they initially took up residence. MLH intends to continue the operation of its parks in Florida and, therefore, will be governed directly by the proposed rule, if it is adopted. Prior to the enactment of Chapter 723, there was no statutory limitation on the frequency of rent increases, no requirement that the park owner disclose the factors which would be considered in setting rents, and no requirement of the park owner to mediate rent disputes with statutorily recognized tenant organizations, all of which are now imposed under Chapter 723. All of the approved MLH prospectuses contain the land use descriptions required by Section 723.012(4)(c), (5), (14) (b), Florida Statutes, including a lot layout showing the location and size of all lots in the parks (whether vacant or occupied), the location of all recreation and common facilities, and a detailed description of those facilities. MLH was a member of the Florida Manufactured Housing Association at the time that the Division of Administrative Hearings rendered its opinion in Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 10 F.A.L.R. 3910 (D.O.A.H. 1988) ("FMHA I") and at the time FMHA I was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal. DBR will apply the proposed rule to the administration of Section 723.031(5),(6), Florida Statutes. DBR will apply the proposed rule to the administration of existing rule 7D-31.001(5), Florida Administrative Code. "Length of tenancy," as used in existing rule 7D- 31.001(5), F.A.C., is not defined by Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, or by existing DBR rules. Nor is the term "tenancy" expressly defined in Chapter 723, Florida Statutes or in DBR's implementing rules. The word "continuous" used in the proposed rule is intended to have its common and ordinary meaning. The resale value of a tenant's mobile home in a park, as compared to the value of a comparable mobile home purchased from a dealer's lot, is significantly higher due to the recreational and other amenities which are provided by the park owner for the tenants' use. The resale value of a tenant's mobile home in a park, as compared to the value of a comparable mobile home purchased from a dealer's lot, is significantly higher if the tenant can pass on to the purchaser of the in-place home a rent schedule which is more favorable than the current rent schedule being charged for a home newly being placed in the park. MLH uses and has entered into fixed-term, twelve-month leases with tenants in some of its parks. Those leases are part of DBR-approved prospectuses for the parks. MLH's parks and other parks regulated under Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, compete vigorously for tenants and are willing to and, in fact, do negotiate long-term leases and even lifetime leases with residents of the parks. It is important to park operators to have the flexibility to modify the prospectus disclosures regarding the use of vacant lots, vacant common areas, and land and improvements devoted to recreation facilities, in order to meet market changes and competition. It is very difficult, and sometimes impossible to obtain unanimous consent of residents in a mobile home park on most issues. In the case of MLH's park at Ellenton, Florida, the park land and improvements are valued at approximately $22,000,000. Yet it would cost MLH conservatively, $56,300,000 to purchase the homes in the park from the tenants. It would cost MLH, conservatively, $9,200,000 to $22,000,000 to move all of the tenants' homes from the park. Moreover, a portion of that required purchase price is for value added to the homes by reason of the placement of the homes in the owner's park. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the 1000 members in the full park division of the FMHA have parks that contain more than twenty-five (25) spaces. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services licenses a total of 5,500 mobile home parks in the State of Florida. FMHA developed a model prospectus for its members to comply with the law as enacted in 1984. FMHA advised its members to put all potential fees, charges, and assessments in prospectuses although such fees, charges, and assessments may not have been disclosed to the homeowner prior to the homeowner's occupancy in the park or prior to the homeowner entering into his or her initial rental agreement. Mobile Americana Mobile Home Park, a Pinellas County mobile home park, was purchased by De Anza in July, 1976. The park's prospectus number 5200119P was approved and delivered to homeowners in 1985. Since 1976, several leases and rules and regulations have been in effect in the park. The prospectus number 5200119P includes fees, charges, and assessments that were not previously disclosed in prior leases to homeowners. However, De Anza is not presently charging or collecting these undisclosed fees. De Anza manages A Garden Walk Mobile Home Park for MLH. Prospectus numbers 5000867P and 500086P86 are offered in the park. MLH offers various leases in A Garden Walk, including lifetime leases and the leased marked MLH Ex. $9. MLH Ex. #9 was used in the park after 1985 although the exact time of use is not known. Neither De Anza or MLH know what fees, charges, or assessments were disclosed to homeowners by previous park owners. For the last 3 years, De Anza has managed Hacienda Village Mobile Home Park. De Anza sets the rental amounts in its parks and uses the market approach. With the market approach, the park owners arrive at a market rent by comparing the rents in their parks with rents of other mobile home communities of comparable value. The park owners unilaterally arrive at the market value rent. The collection of governmental fees is accounted for in arriving at the market value rent. Approximately 5 to 7 years prior to the enactment of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, De Anza disclosed to homeowners living in De Anza owned parks the homeowners' obligations to pay for increased costs due to governmental actions and increases in taxes. All pre-1984 De Anza leases were subject to Chapter 83. Mobile Americana, Hacienda Village, and A Garden Walk are members of the FMHA. Mobile Home Communities also operates Windmill Village Mobile Home Park. Homeowners in Windmill Village were provided a prospectus in 1985. The prospectus contains terms and conditions that are different from the rental agreement that was in effect from 1983 until 1985. Five of the parks owned by MLH were purchased on July 1, 1987. The other three parks were purchased between July 2, 1986, and 1989. At the time MLH purchased its eight parks each park had an approved prospectus in place. One of MLH's parks, Colony Cove Ellenton, is located in Ellenton, Florida, and offers three separate prospectuses, including prospectus numbers 410024P, 410024P86 and 410024P2. Pages 74, 75, and 76 of Colony Cove Ellenton prospectus number 410024P describe the park's recreational facilities. The park owner, on page 77, paragraph 4(f), reserves the right from time to time to alter or change any of the facilities by the removal, relocation, or alteration of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities. Page 85 of this prospectus provides for the collection of costs incurred as a result of state and local government actions. MLH owns and operates Clearwater Cascade Mobile Home Community of Clearwater, Florida. Prospectus Number 5200525P86 lists each lot, including lot size, as well as describes recreational facilities and common facilities in the park. LaCasa Mobile Home Park, a MLH park, offers at least two prospectuses in the park, prospectus numbers 5800237P and 5800237P86. Prospectus number 5800237P describes the recreational facilities in the park. The prospectus provides for an assessment to homeowners for ad valorem taxes. The park owner also reserves the right from time to time to change any of the facilities by the removal, relocation, or alteration of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities. MLH has not been told by the Division it would not have a right to make modifications to its facilities in accordance with its prospectuses. The prospectuses delivered to homeowners in MLH parks allow for a variety of lease situations. There are no provisions in the prospectuses delivered by MLH which state that a prospectus applies only to persons who were in residence on June 4, 1984. All of the MLH prospectuses include reservation language similar to language contained in the Colony Cove Ellenton prospectus, reserving the right to modify facilities. MLH owns and operates Valleydale Estate Mobile Home Park, which it purchased on July 1, 1987. The Valleydale Estates prospectus contains some fees that were not disclosed to homeowners prior to occupancy. When MLH purchased Valleydale, it did not inquire as to disclosures made to homeowners. MLH also owns Heritage Village Mobile Home Park. Prior to its purchase of the park, MLH did not inquire as to disclosures made to homeowners living in the park. Since 1984, Dr. Faye Mayberry has been the Chief of the Bureau of Mobile Homes. The Division has the duty to review and approve prospectuses. Park owners draft prospectuses and submit them to the Division for review. Approximately 3000 prospectuses have been approved by the Bureau of Mobile Homes. As part of the approval process the Division does not verify the accuracy of the contents of the prospectus, nor does the Division determine if the contents of the prospectus are consistent with rental agreements offered to a particular mobile home owner. Park owners are advised by the Division that failure to cite deficiencies in the prospectus filing does not relieve them of obligations under the law. On January 10, 1985, Rule 7D-30.003 Florida Administrative Code, was adopted. Mobile home parks may offer more than one version of a prospectus in a park. Park owners sometimes submit subsequent prospectus filings that are inconsistent with previously delivered prospectuses. The Division has not established a policy regarding subsequent prospectus filings which contain disclosures concerning the number of lots in the park which are inconsistent with the disclosures in the previously approved and delivered version of the prospectus. Such inconsistencies between the subsequent prospectus and the previously approved and delivered prospectus filings are handled by the Division on a case by case basis. Prior to June 4, 1984, the primary issue of concern for mobile home owners was the mobile home park owners' failure to live up to disclosures that were given prior to the homeowners' occupancy in the park. (TV V, pg. 613). The prospectus delivered to mobile home owners residing in the following mobile home parks included fees, charges, and assessments other than pass-through charges, which were not disclosed to homeowners until after they moved into the parks: Park East Club -- Sarasota, Florida Caribbean Estates -- New Port Richey, Florida River Grove Mobile Home Village -- Sebastian, Florida Hacienda Village -- Winter Springs, Florida Ocean Pines Mobile Home Park - Indialantic, Florida A Garden Walk -- Palm Beach Gardens, Florida The amount for which a mobile home located in a mobile home park can be sold tends to decrease when the lot rental amount charged by the park increases. It costs several thousand dollars to move a double- wide mobile home within a 50 mile radius and set it up again the way it was before the move. /1 Many FMO members have complained to the FMO leadership of prospectuses being delivered in their mobile home parks which include fees, charges, or assessments which were not disclosed prior to June 4, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Lake Waldena Resort is a mobile home park as defined by Section 723.003(6), Florida Statutes. It is located at Route 4, Box 300, Silver Springs, Florida 32688. The mobile home park is subject to regulation pursuant to Section 723.002(1), Florida Statutes. That law is administered by the Petitioner. All Respondents are mobile home park owners as defined by Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes. The Hilgemans are park owners and have been at all relevant times for this dispute. At the times relevant to the inquiry Pat Montgomery was the park operator, which equates to park owner under the terms of the statute. Pat Montgomery concluded her affiliation with Lake Waldena Resort in May 1989. Pat Montgomery, as the park operator, who had been employed by Donald L. Hilgeman, collected the rent from the mobile homeowners who had lots within the park. She attended any problems that the mobile homeowners confronted her with. She ordered supplies for the operation of the mobile home park. She sold mobile homes for use in the park and ordered them for sale. She was involved with the provision of carports and screen rooms associated with mobile homes in the park. She was responsible for the payroll and basically everything that transpired in the day-to- day operations in the mobile home park. The Hilgemans had limited affiliation with the park. Mr. Hilgeman was involved with doing physical labor at the park and was Montgomery's employer. On July 26, 1988, a notice of lot rental increase was mailed to all tenants in the Lake Waldena Resort Mobile Home Park. This notice was provided in accordance with Rule 7D-32.002(1), Florida Administrative Code. The basis for this increase was associated with the economic pressures on the park owner brought about by increases in real estate taxes, insurance costs, sanitation fees, other fees payable to the Petitioner, and wage increases. An exemplar of the form notice which had been sent out to each mobile home owner may be seen in Respondents' Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. All notices were dispatched by U.S. Mail. As contemplated by Rule 7D-32.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, official notice was considered to have been made within five days of July 26, 1988, which corresponded to July 31, 1988. A meeting within 30 days of the provision of notice as described in Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, would equate to August 30, 1988. The proposed lot increase was from $78 to $88. At the time of notification of the lot increase Lloyd Carter was the vice president of the homeowners' association at Lake Waldena Resort. He was residing in the mobile home park. Gordon Gibson was the president of the homeowner's association who, at the moment of the lot increase, was residing in Minden, Ontario, Canada. Mr. Carter picked up a copy of the notice of lot rental increase from the office at the mobile home park shortly after the notice had been prepared on July 26, 1988. He then called Mr. Gibson in Canada and explained the particulars of that notice. At that time, Mr. Carter stated no concerns to Mr. Gibson about the notice of lot rental increase. He merely informed Mr. Gibson of the pendency of the lot rental increase. Under ordinary circumstances the' expected time for delivery of mail dispatched from the United States to Canada was in the neighborhood of five to seven days; however, in August 1988, the Canadians were undergoing a postal strike which delayed matters. Nonetheless, Mr. Gibson received his copy of the notice and on August 4, 1988, he wrote Mr. Hilgeman. A copy of that correspondence may be seen as Respondents' Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence. Mr. Gibson informed Mr. Hilgeman in that correspondence that he wished to have a meeting to discuss the lot rental increase. The meeting would be attended by a committee of not more than four persons under the direction of Mr. Carter. He asked that the meeting be held at a convenient time prior to August 26, 1988. The basis for Mr. Gibson's action in which he requested a meeting with the park owner was through the process of discussion with his board of directors in independent conversations in which it was decided that a meeting was desired. A meeting to discuss the reasons for the lot rental increase was not held before August 26, 1988, or before August 30, 1988. When Mr. Gibson sent his August 4, 1988 correspondence he was aware of the problems of the postal strike in Canada and the delay that this might promote in the receipt of his letter by the park owner. He had not instructed Mr. Carter to make any contact with the park owner prior to the park owner's receipt of the correspondence which outlined the fact of Mr. Carter's duties as chairman of the committee. The return receipt correspondence from Gibson to Hilgeman dated August 4, 1988, was received by, Pat Montgomery in mid August 1988. By correspondence of August 22, 1988, addressed from Mr. Hilgeman to Mr. Gibson, a copy of which may be seen as Respondents' Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, Mr. Hilgeman demanded of Mr. Gibson that he confirm that a majority of the Lake Waldena residents had in fact selected Mr. Gibson to represent them. Reference is made in that letter to section 723.078(2)(b), Florida Statutes, having to do with the requirements for bylaws in homeowners' associations. This request of Mr. Gibson is not a prerogative of Mr. Hilgeman as park owner in dealing with the issue of the conduct of the meeting. Nor is it available to Mr. Hilgeman to remind Mr. Gibson that he had to comply Section 723.037(1), Florida Statutes or Section 723.076(1), Florida Statutes. To the extent that those provisions have any relevance to the homeowners' association, the former pertains to standing to challenge increases in such things as the lot rental amount through the homeowners' association, something that the park owner is not called upon to advise the homeowners' association about. This question of standing does not enter in to the matter of the ability to represent mobile home owners at a meeting pursuant to Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, for purposes of discussing the lot rental increase. Likewise, the latter statutory reference that describes the idea of incorporation of a homeowners' association and the need to notify the park owner is not associated with the meeting to discuss the purposes of the lot rental increase. On the other hand, when Mr. Hilgeman referred to Rules 7D-32.003(1) and 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, those are provisions which have some significance in considering the matter of a meeting to discuss a lot rental increase. Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Codes, states: If requested to do so by the park owner or subdivision developer, the committee shall certify that it has been selected as described Rule 7D-32.003, Florida Administrative Code. The certification shall include a certificate of all members of the committee attesting to its proper formation under the statute in these rules. Significantly, that provision does not describe the relationship of such a request to the obligation of the park owner to meet within 30 days of notice of lot rental increase as contemplated by Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. None of the principals, given the statutory scheme and rules that were designed to effectuate the purposes of the statute, could have reasonably understood on what terms the park owner was entitled to make this request taking into account the complications of corresponding back and forth between the United States and Canada in the midst of a mail strike, the consequence of which made it unlikely that the meeting would take place on or before August 30, 1988. In the conclusions of law a discussion is made of the effect of the request for certification and whether it tolls the time for conducting the informational session to discuss the reasons for the lot rental increase. The envelope for the August 22, 1988 correspondence was stamped in the United States on August 23, 1988, in Bradenton, Florida. It also bears a date of August 29, 1988, which is seen as a part of the verification of receipt of that letter in Canada. Mr. Gibson received the Hilgeman correspondence of August 22, 1988 on August 29, 1988. Mr. Carter also received a copy of the August 22, 1988 correspondence by Mr. Hilgeman and had a discussion with Mr. Hilgeman about that letter sometime around August 23 or August 24, 1988. That conversation took place in the mobile home park. This did not lead to the resolution of the certification request made by Mr. Hilgeman to the homeowners' association. It was left to Mr. Gibson to take care of the response to the request for certification. In the conversation being described, between Hilgeman and Carter, Carter made it known that he intended to complain to the Petitioner about the park owner not meeting with the homeowners' committee within 30 days of notice. A complaint was made as may be seen in a copy of that complaint which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. That complaint was sent out on August 26, 1988. The basis for the homeowners' association complaining to the Petitioner was related to their concern that they preserve their right to have the meeting even if it transpired beyond the 30 days contemplated in the statute. Notwithstanding the complaint's existence, Mr. Gibson went forward with his attempts to try to satisfy Mr. Hilgeman concerning certification and did so with the assistance of Victor Davis a member of the board of directors of the homeowners' association. Mr. Gibson's attitude about this was to the effect that the request by Mr. Hilgeman was a legitimate request that should be complied with. A discussion had also been held between Carter and Hilgeman on August 18, 1988, in which Mr. Hilgeman gave advance notice of the fact that he needed several questions answered and that there would be a delay in the meeting. The indication was made that a letter would be sent to Mr. Gibson to have those questions answered. That eventuated in the August 22, 1988 correspondence from Hilgeman to Gibson. Upon making these matters known to Mr. Carter on August 18, 1988, Mr. Carter's only remark was that this would be "fine." On September 9, 1988, a letter was written from Ralph B. Murray, Jr., Specialist Enforcement Section, Bureau of Mobile Homes within the Petitioner's department which was sent to Mr. Hilgeman reminding him of the necessity to respond to allegations that had been made by the Lake Waldena Resort Homeowners' Association concerning the claim that Mr. Hilgeman had refused to meet with those mobile homeowners in the statutorily prescribed time as announced at Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. On September 13, 1988, by correspondence, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence, Mr. Hilgeman offered his reply. He tells Mr. Murray that he is not sure whether the homeowners' association is legitimate and that they had not responded to his August 22, 1988 correspondence to Mr. Gibson which he enclosed in his letter to Mr. Murray. He spoke of delays in the mailing time for mail coming from Canada. He makes mention of the fact of having informed Mr. Carter that the manager, who was Ms. Montgomery was on vacation and would not return until August 30, 1988. In fact, Ms. Montgomery was not available to meet with the homeowners' association in the period August 18 through August 30, 1988. This would not have relieved Mr. Hilgeman of the necessity to meet with the homeowners' association on or before August 30, 1988, had they complied with his request for certification prior to that date. They did not. Compliance with the certification process was achieved by correspondence of September 12, 1988 from Gibson to Hilgeman in which he sets out the explanation of certification of the credentials of the homeowners' association to form a committee and meet with the park owner. That was received by the park owner on September 19, 1988, in the person of Pat Montgomery. A copy of this correspondence and the certification of receipt may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. After receipt of the information concerning the certification of the homeowners' association committee, Mr. Hilgeman sent a letter to Mr. Carter on September 29, 1988, to establish a meeting. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 13 admitted into evidence. It outlines the fact that Mr. Hilgeman is sufficiently satisfied concerning the certification to have the meeting and offers a meeting prior to October 4, 1988 or after October 9, 1988, and invites Mr. Carter to consult with Pat Montgomery to establish a mutually convenient time for the meeting. A meeting was held between Mr. Murray and Mr. Hilgeman in October, 1988, in which a discussion ensued concerning whether or not Mr. Hilgeman himself would meet with the homeowners' committee. Mr. Hilgeman held firm in his attitude that his manager Pat Montgomery would be available to meet with the homeowners' committee, but that Mr. Hilgeman would not be meeting with them. As explained in the correspondence of October 14, 1988, addressed from Mr. Carter to Mr. Murray, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 14 admitted into evidence, contact was made between Carter and Montgomery and Carter was told on October 11, 1988 that a meeting would be held at 10:00 a.m. on October 14, 1988, between Montgomery and the committee. She was told by Carter that this meeting would not be acceptable unless Mr. Hilgeman was in attendance. Based upon conversations with Mr. Murray, the homeowners' association had been persuaded that it was only appropriate to meet with Mr. Hilgeman. Consequently, by this logic it was not appropriate to meet with Ms. Montgomery. A copy of this correspondence of August 14, 1988 was made available to Mr. Hilgeman. On June 7, 1989, the Petitioner brought an action against the Respondent and he sought a formal hearing which was conducted on February 22, 1990. Prior to that hearing the homeowners did have their meeting with Mr. Hilgeman on November 14, 1989, in which they were made aware of the reasons for the lot rental increase. The homeowners accepted the explanation and the idea of the increase and do not desire to pursue the present complaint against the Respondents. When Mr. Hilgeman sought certification of the credentials of the committee assigned by the homeowners association he was acting in good faith. In addition, he was entitled to look to Pat Montgomery as park operator and by consequence park owner under the definition of Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes, to speak for him in the course of the meeting to discuss the lot rental increase. The misconception of the committee of mobile home owners concerning the necessity to meet with Mr. Hilgeman and not with his park operator, as fostered by the remarks of Mr. Murray, who lead those mobile homeowners to believe that they could only meet with Mr. Hilgeman, caused a delay in arranging the meeting. Mr. Hilgeman should not be hold accountable for that delay.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered that dismisses these actions against the Respondents. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 18th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-4100 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1-9 are subordinate to facts found. Although Paragraph 10 is an accurate portrayal of the meeting of August 24, 1988 between Mr. Carter and Mr. Hilgeman, it should be stated that any meeting to discuss lot rental increase was contingent upon the response to the certification request made by Mr. Hilgeman and replied to by Mr. Gibson on a date beyond the 30 day period. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 13, whatever Mr. Hilgeman perceptions would be about the role of Ms. Montgomery, whether she was considered to be the same as an attorney representing or in some other capacity, in law she was a park owner and entitled to act in behalf of the park owners at the meeting. Concerning Paragraph 14, the effect of failing to respond to the request for certification within the 30 day period was tantamount to a waiver or agreement to meet at a time later. Paragraph 15 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 16, to the extent this paragraph suggests that the length of the meeting or breadth of detail in the explanation made by Mr. Hilgeman was inadequate, that idea is rejected in that sufficient explanation was given to comply with the requirements of law. The comments in Paragraph 17 are not relevant. The accommodation that was made between counsel was not a necessary arrangement to mitigate the circumstance in an instance where Respondent Donald L. Hilgeman had violated Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. This meeting was beneficial to the homeowners and park owners alike, but came at this late date based upon the failure of the homeowners to meet with Pat Montgomery over a year earlier. Respondents' Facts Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution to the dispute. Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of those two sentences that come before the last sentence in that paragraph. Paragraphs 4 and 5 and all sentences save the last of Paragraph 6 are subordinate to facts found. That sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 7 through 11 with the exception of the second sentence in Paragraph 11 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is misleading in that it intimates that Mr. Carter was derelict in his duties to make contact with Mr. Hilgeman to establish a meeting; however, the contacts that were made were in accordance with the expectations of Mr. Hilgeman and Mr. Gibson who were controlling the timing of that meeting. Paragraphs 14 through 16 with the exception of the last sentence to Paragraph 16 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence to Paragraph 16 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 17 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence which is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence which is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute. Paragraph 21 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute and is an inaccurate portrayal of the requirements of law as to gaining the approval of the majority of homeowners before representing them in the course of a meeting to discuss lot rental increases. Paragraphs 22 through 25 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 David D. Eastman, Esquire Parker, Skelding, Labasky & Corry Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Susan C. Marvin Pamela Leslie Assistants General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL, 32399-1007
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of a discriminatory housing practice based on physical handicap, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20-760.37, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates McGregor Mobile Home Park in Fort Myers. His wife serves as the office manager. In February 1995, Petitioner met with Respondent and his wife to discuss leasing or purchasing a mobile home at the park. The following month, Petitioner leased a mobile home with an option to purchase. In March 1996, Petitioner purchased the mobile home. At all material times, Petitioner has rented from Respondent a mobile home lot at McGregor Mobile Home Park. Within two months of purchasing the mobile home, Petitioner filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The complaint concerned Respondent’s attempt to charge her for an extra person residing in Petitioner’s mobile home. Respondent claimed that she required the person for physical assistance. In May 1996, Petitioner had a fence built around her mobile home lot. She did not obtain a building permit or the permission of Respondent, as was required under the rules of the park. Four to six weeks later, Petitioner had a deck built, again without a building permit or the permission of Respondent. At the time of the construction of the fence and deck, Petitioner had complained to local media about conditions at the park. A local television station broadcast a story about the park. The Lee County building department inspected the park and, on July 15, 1996, cited Respondent for a number of violations for, among other things, Petitioner’s fence and deck. Respondent’s wife immediately told Petitioner to remove these items. The disputes between Petitioner and Respondent seem to involve nothing more than disputes between a mobile home park operator and a park resident. Petitioner produced no credible evidence of discrimination against her on any basis. It does not appear that Respondent treated her any differently than he has treated other park residents. Petitioner also produced no credible evidence of discrimination against her on the basis of physical handicap. Approximately half of the park residents are handicapped. Also, the nature of Petitioner’s handicap is not well defined. At the hearing, she walked with a cane and limped noticeably. However, in the nearly three years that she has resided at the park, she has never used a wheelchair and very rarely used a cane.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 22nd day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Hurd 16 Circle Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Terrence F. Lenick Terence F. Lenick, P.A. 12699 New Brittany Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
