The Issue Whether Respondents engaged in a discriminatory housing practice in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, as amended, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2011)1/.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondents Hoyt and Nancy Davis (the Davises) own a residential property located at 1856 Cross Pointe Way, St. Augustine, Florida (the Property). The Property is utilized exclusively as a rental. Respondent Florida Coastal Jacksonville Realty, Inc. ("Florida Coastal") and its principal John McMenamy ("McMenamy") acted as listing agents for the Property (collectively, the "Broker Respondents"). Mr. McMenamy and his company have managed the rental of the Property for approximately six years. In association with their listing of the Property, the Broker Respondents were responsible for advertising, showing, accepting applications for and assisting in the selection of tenants for the Property. At the time of the events in question, the Property was being offered for lease at a rate of $1,450 per month. Generally, due to its location within a St. Johns County golf community and proximity to good schools, the Property rents easily and quickly. The Rental Applications On May 14, 2010, Petitioner Jaime Terry (Mrs. Terry) contacted McMenamy regarding the Property. McMenamy instructed Mrs. Terry on the rental application process. On the afternoon of Sunday, May 16, 2010, Petitioners submitted via e-mail their rental application, dated May 15, 2010. On their application, the Petitioners disclosed that they had previously declared bankruptcy. The bankruptcy was entered in December 2007 and discharged in January 2009. Petitioners also disclosed that they were currently living with Mrs. Terry's parents. The application included a statement of the Terrys' monthly income, and also disclosed that they had three children residing with them -- aged eleven, five and two at the time. A memo attached to the application elaborated on the bankruptcy and other details of their employment and financial situation. Mrs. Terry testified that during the application process the Respondents did not solicit additional information concerning her employment history. On May 18, 2010, McMenamy ran a credit check on the Terrys using the "Online Rental Exchange." The credit report for Jaime Terry reflected a credit score of 664, while Steven Terry's assigned score was 649. However, both reports noted "conditional" approval because of the bankruptcy filing. Although the exact date is unknown, at approximately the same time that the Terrys submitted their application, another couple, Rick and Jessica Egger (the Eggers) contacted McMenamy regarding their interest in possibly renting the Property. On the evening of Thursday, May 20, 2010, the Eggers formally submitted an application to rent the Property. The Eggers' application disclosed that, unlike the Terrys', they did not have a bankruptcy in their history. In addition, the Eggers' combined monthly income was higher than the Terrys'2/ and the younger of their two children was nine years old. The credit report obtained for the Eggers reflected a credit score of 672 for Jessica Egger and 696 for Rick Egger, with an unconditional approval rating. Respondents' Tenant Selection Process McMenamy testified that in evaluating applications, potential tenants must meet certain minimum criteria. Factors he considers in assessing applicants include credit checks, criminal background checks, employment status, and rental history. However, he agreed that the evaluation process he uses is subjective. McMenamy acknowledged that bankruptcy would not automatically disqualify a potential tenant, and in fact, confirmed that he has rented to tenants who have a bankruptcy in their history. With regard to credit scores, McMenamy testified that he considered a score below 500 to be unacceptable. Mrs. Davis testified that McMenamy manages the entire process of renting the Property on behalf of herself and her husband. Once McMenamy determines the suitability of a prospective tenant, he discusses that tenant with the Davises. McMenamy does not discuss applicants with the Davises that he does not consider eligible. The Davises do not participate in the background screening process and they do not review applicants' credit ratings. However, Mrs. Davis was aware of McMenamy's process for selecting tenants, and she confirmed her understanding that applicants must meet certain minimum requirements. In selecting a tenant, McMenamy looks not only for a candidate that is financially qualified, but also one who will rent the property for a significant period of time, will take good care of the property, and will make monthly rent payments in a timely manner, according to Mrs. Davis. Denial of Petitioners' Lease Application Mr. Davis testified that he and Mrs. Davis discussed the Petitioners' application with McMenamy. At hearing, Mr. Davis recounted that conversation as follows: Cross-examination by Mr. Organes: Q. Mr. Davis, you stated that you had discussed with Mr. McMenamy the application of Steven and Jaime Terry? A. Yes. Q. And that’s a common practice with Mr. McMenamy as when he receives reasonably qualified applicants, he discusses them with you? A. Yes. Q. And that’s what he did with the Terrys? A. Yes. Q. And you said you did not tell him not to rent to them because of their children? A. That is true, we did not tell him. Q. The issue of children wasn’t discussed at all? A. No. Q. What reason did you give him to tell them why their application was being denied? A. Because of their past rental history and their bankruptcy foreclosure. Q. In general if you don’t approve of an applicant, what reason would you give for denying that applicant? A. I would give that reason, that we didn’t feel that, you know, we probably would get a better applicant and the reason we turned them down is because we didn’t feel that they were suitable for our rental. There is no evidence in this record as to precisely when the above conversation between the Respondents took place, although based upon Mr. Davis's statement that "we probably would get a better applicant" it is reasonable to infer that it was prior to the Eggers submitting their application on the evening of Thursday, May 20, 2010.3/ Early on the morning of Friday, May 21, 2010, McMenamy sent an e-mail to Ms. Terry, which read: Jaime I left a message yesterday but did not hear from you. I spoke to the owner about the application and she was concerned about not really having any rental history and the number of small children. She is a perfectionist and just had the home professionally painted. The one family who lived there had small children and there were handprints all over the walls so that it needed to be repainted. So this was her main concern and therefore does not want to rent to you and the family. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, John At hearing, Mrs. Davis maintained that the Petitioners' children were not the determining factor in the decision to deny their application. Rather, it was based on their finances and lack of rental history. Consistent with Mr. Davis's testimony, Mrs. Davis also testified that she and her husband did not instruct McMenamy to reject the Petitioners' application because of their children. After being informed that their application was denied, Petitioners immediately began searching for alternate housing. Mrs. Terry testified that their primary concern was to locate a rental in a high quality school district. Within a couple of weeks of receiving the denial e-mail from McMenamy, the Terrys located a home at 983 Lilac Loop, St. Johns, Florida. Petitioners entered into a lease for this property on June 6, 2010; the rent was $ 1,200 per month. Although the Lilac Loop home was acceptable, the Terrys considered it to be inferior to the Property, and Petitioners paid to have the home repainted and wired for cable access. The cable installation fee was $150.00. On September 22, 2010, Petitioners were notified that the Lilac Loop house was in foreclosure. Petitioners appealed to a default-law organization in an attempt to enforce their one-year lease, but were ultimately unsuccessful. As a result of the foreclosure, Petitioners were forced to seek alternative housing within the same school district, and in November 2010, leased a property at 1528 Summerdown Way, Fruit Cove, Florida, 32259. The monthly rent at 1528 Summerdown Way was $1,600 monthly. Petitioners also incurred additional expenses necessitated by hiring a moving service, in the amount of $773.50. At of the hearing, Petitioners continued to reside in the Summerdown Way rental. The Commission Investigation On August 16, 2010, the Terrys filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint with HUD alleging they had been unlawfully discriminated against by Respondents based upon their familial status. Thereafter, the Commission opened an investigation of the allegation. As part of that investigation, Respondents were invited to submit written statements setting forth their version of the events at issue, and any defenses to the allegation they wished to raise. On August 19, 2010, the Davises submitted a written statement to the FCHR. In the first paragraph of that submittal the Davises stated: To Whom it May Concern: We enlisted realtor John MaMenamy to find a new tenant for our rental house at 1856 Cross Pointe Way, St. Augustine, FL 32092. Mr. McMenamy was told that we preferred not to rent to someone with more than one, if any, very small children at this particular time. The reason being we just had to have the interior of the house professionally repainted and repairs made to several areas, the walls in particular. Additionally, in light of the fact there were several highly qualified persons interested in and looking at the house concurrently. The submittal continued by identifying four former tenants of the Property, as well as the current tenants (the Eggers), all of whom had children living with them. It is found that McMenamy's e-mail of May 21, 2010, and the Davises' letter of August 19, 2010, constitute direct evidence that Respondents' decision not to rent to Petitioners was based upon their familial status. The testimony of McMenamy and the Davises that familial status was not the reason for refusing to rent to Petitioners is rejected as not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of a discriminatory housing practice against the Terrys in violation of section 760.23(1) and (2), and prohibiting further unlawful housing practices by Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent engaged in a discriminatory housing practice by allegedly excluding Petitioner from participating in a homeowner’s meeting on January 14, 2009, or ejecting Petitioner from the meeting, based on Petitioner’s religion and alleged handicap, in violation of Section 760.37 and Subsections 760.23(2), 760.23(8), 760.23(8)(2)(b), and 784.03(1)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (2008),1 and, if not, whether Respondent is entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a condominium association defined in Section 718.103, Florida Statutes. Respondent manages a condominium development, identified in the record as Tregate East Condominiums (Tregate). Tregate is a covered multifamily dwelling within the meaning of Subsection 760.22(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a Jewish male whose age is not evidenced in the record. A preponderance of the evidence presented at the final hearing does not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of religion, ethnicity, medical, or mental disability, or perceived disability. Rather, a preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner in the association meeting on January 14, 2009. In particular, the fact-finder reviewed the videotape of the entire meeting that took place on January 14, 2009. The meeting evidenced controversy, acrimony, and differences of opinion over issues confronting the homeowners present. However, the video tape did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on Petitioner’s religion, ethnicity, or alleged handicap. Respondent seeks attorney’s fees in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2009). Pursuant to Subsection 120.595(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), this Recommended Order finds that Petitioner has participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose. Petitioner participated in this proceeding for a frivolous purpose within the meaning of Subsection 120.595(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2009). The evidence submitted by Petitioner presented no justiciable issue of fact or law. Petitioner provided no evidence to support a finding that he suffers from a handicap defined in Subsection 760.22(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner claims to have a disability based on migraine headaches but offered no medical evidence to support a finding that Petitioner suffers from migraine headaches or any medical or mental disability. Petitioner’s testimony was vague and ambiguous, lacked precision, and was not specific as to material facts. Petitioner called four other witnesses and cross-examined Respondent’s witnesses. Petitioner’s examination of his witnesses and cross-examination of Respondent’s witnesses may be fairly summarized as consisting of comments on the answers to questions and argument with the witnesses. Petitioner repeatedly disregarded instructions from the ALJ not to argue with witnesses and not to comment on the testimony of a witness. Petitioner offered no evidence or legal authority that the alleged exclusion from the homeowners meeting on January 14, 2009, was prohibited under Florida’s Fair Housing Act.3 Petitioner offered no evidence that he is a “buyer” or “renter” of a Tregate condominium within the meaning of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes. Rather, the undisputed evidence shows that Petitioner is not a buyer or renter of a Tregate condominium. Petitioner attended the homeowners meeting on January 14, 2009, pursuant to a power of attorney executed by the owner of the condominium. If a preponderance of the evidence were to have shown that the owner’s representative had been excluded from the meeting, the harm allegedly prohibited by the Fair Housing Act would have been suffered vicariously by the condominium owner, not the non-owner and non-renter who was attending the meeting in a representative capacity for the owner. The condominium owner is not a party to this proceeding. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner has standing to bring this action. Petitioner was neither an owner nor a renter on January 14, 2009. Petitioner’s only legal right to be present at the meeting was in a representative capacity for the owner. The alleged exclusion of Petitioner was an alleged harm to the principal under the Fair Housing Act. Respondent is the prevailing party in this proceeding, and Petitioner is the non-prevailing party. Petitioner has participated in two or more similar proceedings involving Respondent. The parties resolved those proceedings through settlement. The resolution is detailed in the Determination of No Cause by the Commission and incorporated herein by this reference. Respondent seeks attorney’s fees totaling $3,412.00 and costs totaling $1,001.50. No finding is made as to the reasonableness of the attorney fees costs because Respondent did not include an hourly rate and did not submit an affidavit of fees and costs. However, the referring agency has statutory authority to award fees costs in the final order pursuant to Subsection 760.11(7), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and requiring Petitioner to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the amounts to be determined by the Commission after hearing further evidence on fees and costs in accordance with Subsection 760.11(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2010, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioners, Miryam Hathaway and Benjamin Hathaway, were subject to a discriminatory housing practice by Respondents, Gerlinde 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2019), unless otherwise noted. Wermuth and Horst Wermuth, based on a handicap, in violation of Florida's Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own a condominium in Parkway Villas Condominiums ("Parkway Villas") located in Bradenton, Florida. Petitioners have lived in Parkway Villas since 2012. Parkway Villas, as described by Petitioner, Mrs. Hathaway, is a "nice elderly community" of 225 units.5 Parkway Villas is governed by the Parkway Villas Condominium Association, Inc. (the "Association"), a homeowners' association formed in approximately 1970. At the final hearing, Mrs. Hathaway testified that she suffers from a physical disability from a work injury that occurred many years ago. Supporting this claim, Mrs. Hathaway produced several medical records documenting an issue with her right shoulder and elbow, specifically acromioclavicular ("AC") joint arthropathy, which includes tendinosis, tendinopathy, and a partial tendon tear. Mrs. Hathaway asserts that this 3 By requesting a deadline for filing post-hearing submissions beyond ten days after the transcript filing date, the 30-day time period for filing the recommended order was waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). 4 Petitioners subsequently filed a document on September 10, 2020, which was not considered. 5 Petitioner Benjamin Hathaway did not participate in the final hearing. Nor did Petitioners produce any evidence regarding the discrimination claim he is pursuing against Respondents, or a specific disability from which he suffers. Consequently, when evaluating Petitioners’ allegations and cause of action in this FHA matter, any reference to "Petitioners" only concerns the representations and testimony of Miryam Hathaway. condition causes her chronic pain, and she has difficulty lifting more than five pounds with her right arm. Mrs. Hathaway also expressed that she suffers from depression, high blood pressure, and hypertension. Mrs. Hathaway claims that from approximately January 2018 through July 2019, Respondents (the "Wermuths") discriminated against her based on her disability by denying her the use and enjoyment of certain community amenities (the Association's pool), and then failing to make a reasonable accommodation to enable her to use those amenities.6 The Wermuths also reside in Parkway Villas. Gerlinde Wermuth is currently President of the Association's Board of Directors. Mrs. Wermuth served as Board President during all times relevant to Petitioners' FHA claim. Horst Wermuth is Gerlinde Wermuth's husband. Mr. Wermuth, however, has never served or held any position on the Association Board. The Association's Board of Directors has seven members. All Board members are residents of Parkway Villas. All Board action requires at least four affirmative votes of its members. The Board may not take any action without a quorum of four members. Petitioners point to Mrs. Wermuth as the primary perpetrator of the alleged wrongdoing based on her position as Board President. Petitioners contend that Mrs. Wermuth has severely abused her authority and mistreated Mrs. Hathaway for years. Petitioners' issues raised in this matter began in April 2016. That month, Petitioners applied to the Board for approval to enlarge the patio 6 Petitioners also alleged in their complaint filed with the Commission that Mrs. Hathaway, who is from Columbia, South America, was discriminated against based on her race and national origin, as well as retaliation. However, no evidence in the record supports a claim that the Wermuths took any actions or supported any Board decisions that were motivated by Mrs. Hathaway’s race or national origin or in retaliation for a protected activity. Petitioners further allege that the Wermuths committed a number of non-FHA indiscretions, which are not considered in this administrative proceeding, including abuse of power, defamation, elder abuse, emotional distress, extortion, intimidation, and invasion of privacy. outside their back door. Petitioners included with their application specific plans, diagrams, and measurements to allow the Board to determine whether the patio would fit within the community's aesthetics. The Board approved the patio construction on May 1, 2016, and Petitioners proceeded to construct their patio. On December 14, 2017, several Board members and unit owners, including Mrs. Wermuth, trooped across the Parkway Villas property inspecting the community for potential "Carport/Patio Violations." According to Mrs. Wermuth, the Board regularly surveys the grounds to ensure consistent compliance with the Association's Policies, Rules, and Regulations ("Association Rules"). Petitioners, as residents and owners of a Parkway Villas dwelling, are members of the Association and subject to the Association Rules. The survey revealed approximately 60 potential violations of the Association Rules. Thereafter, the Board determined that 23 of those potential violations warranted sending the unit owner a notice letter. Included on this list was Petitioners' unit (#115), about which was recorded "patio not approved." The Board determined that Petitioners' newly constructed patio departed from the plans that the Board reviewed and approved in May 2016.7 Following a Special Board Meeting held on January 5, 2018, the Board notified Petitioners of their findings. The Board warned Petitioners that they faced a fine of up to $1,000 unless they brought "their patio up to the agreed upon specifications." Petitioners were advised that they could appear before the Board's Compliance Committee on January 31, 2018, "to explain why you feel a fine should not be imposed." 7 Association Rules, General Rules number 3, states: "Villa owners must obtain written Board approval before constructing add-ons, patios, or making any alterations to the common element." On January 31, 2018, the Compliance Committee, of which Mrs. Wermuth is not a member, convened to review the status of the 23 violations identified in the survey done the previous December. By the time of the meeting, Petitioners were the only unit owners who had not voluntarily corrected their violation. At the Compliance Committee meeting, Petitioners acknowledged that the patio they constructed differed from the design they submitted in April 2016. Primarily, their patio exceeded the dimensions shown in the previous design and exceeded standard dimensions acceptable to the Board. The Board allowed Petitioners until March 31, 2018, to adjust the size of their patio. The Board also offered to work with Petitioners to bring their patio into compliance. At the final hearing, Mrs. Hathaway readily agreed that Mrs. Wermuth was very helpful in this process. Mrs. Hathaway relayed that Mrs. Wermuth made several welcomed suggestions advising how Petitioners could arrange their plants, and how to adjust uneven stone pavers. In the meantime, on February 1, 2018, Mrs. Hathaway requested a private meeting with three Board members, including Mrs. Wermuth. During this gathering, Mrs. Hathaway revealed that Petitioners had installed an "emergency" half bathroom in their condominium in January 2016 without the Board's knowledge. The Board later learned that the construction of the bathroom involved cutting through the concrete foundation of Petitioners' unit to connect the bathroom's pipes and plumbing to the Association's sewer system, as well as other significant plumbing and electrical work. Further, Petitioners never obtained the appropriate permits from Manatee County for the project, and the bathroom was constructed by an unlicensed contractor. In addition, Petitioners had taken a number of broken chunks of concrete from the unit's foundation and were using them as "decorative stones" around the plants on their patio, which the Association Rules prohibit. On March 12, 2018, the Board voted to impose three separate fines on Petitioners for violating Association Rules, one for installing a bathroom without Board approval, one for constructing the patio contrary to the approved design, and one for placing the concrete chunks, as well as hanging wind chimes, adjacent to their patio.8 The Board also suspended Petitioners from using the community common areas, which included the laundry room, the clubhouse, the exercise facilities, the showers, and the pool. On March 28, 2018, the Compliance Committee met during a Special Board Meeting to consider Petitioners' multiple violations. During the meeting, the Compliance Committee found that Petitioners, as of that date, had properly reduced the size of their patio. The Compliance Committee also recognized that Petitioners had removed the concrete chunks and wind chimes from their patio area. Thereafter, the Compliance Committee voted to eliminate all fines imposed for those two violations. Regarding the bathroom, however, the Compliance Committee concluded that the unapproved installation was too significant to overlook. The Compliance Committee was concerned that the structural alterations and plumbing necessary to construct Petitioners' new bathroom might have compromised the unit's infrastructure and potentially damaged the neighbor's adjoining unit. Consequently, the Compliance Committee upheld a fine of $1,000 for that violation. Mrs. Wermuth abstained from any vote on the matter. In addition to the $1,000 fine, the Board upheld the suspension of Petitioners' use of Association amenities and common areas, including the clubhouse, exercise room, laundry room, and community pool. The suspension was to remain in effect until Petitioners paid the $1,000 fine and until Manatee County inspected the bathroom's construction and deem it sufficient 8 The Parkway Villas Combined Amended and Restated Declaration of Condominium, section 9.3, directs that: "The Villa Owner shall be required to inform the Board in writing of any electrical, plumbing, or structural changes." for permitting, as well as Petitioners' payment, in full, of any outstanding fine (the $1,000). The Board decided that any unauthorized use of the common areas by Petitioners during the suspension period would result in additional fines. The Board formally notified Petitioners of its decision by letter dated March 29, 2018, and signed by Mrs. Wermuth. The letter expressly stated that any violation of the suspension from using the common areas "will be considered a separate finable violation of the association's condominium documents," which would have to be paid in full prior to restitution of full use. Sometime around March 2018, Petitioners took steps to have their bathroom appropriately inspected. Unlike her experience with the patio modifications, however, Mrs. Hathaway testified that Mrs. Wermuth was most unhelpful in this process. Mrs. Hathaway charged that Mrs. Wermuth ordered her to obtain inspections from both an electrician and a plumber. Based on this imperative, Petitioners proceeded to pay an electrician, a plumber, as well as a professional engineer to inspect their bathroom. They also contacted Manatee County to acquire the appropriate building permits. Petitioners ultimately secured several reports confirming that the bathroom was competently constructed, as well as a Certificate of Completion from Manatee County indicating that the bathroom complied with applicable building code requirements. (The evidence adduced at the final hearing was unclear as to exactly when Petitioners presented the results of these inspections to the Board. Mrs. Hathaway urged that she provided all the information to the Board before the March 29, 2018, Board meeting, and produced a bill from a plumber dated March 8, 2018. However, the building permit Petitioners received from Manatee County was not issued until April 3, 2018. More significantly, as described below, the Board did not consider the inspection results until well over a year later in July 2019.) On April 2, 2018, Petitioners paid the $1,000 fine to the Board for the unapproved construction of their half bathroom. Petitioners subsequently appeared before the Board in April and May 2018, to contest paying the fine, as well as the imposition of the suspension. Notably, at neither of these meetings did Petitioners specifically request an accommodation to allow Mrs. Hathaway to use the community pool while their dispute was pending the Board's review. Neither did they express Mrs. Hathaway's desire to use the pool in relation to a disability. Following Petitioners' payment of the $1,000 fine in April 2018, Mrs. Hathaway began using the pool. (In fact, the evidence indicates that she never stopped using the pool.) However, because the Board had not yet conducted its review of the bathroom inspections and permits, her suspension from accessing the common areas remained in effect. The Board later addressed Petitioners' violations during a meeting on April 23, 2018. At that time, the Board noted that Petitioners had not provided any paperwork demonstrating that their new bathroom had been proficiently constructed. Therefore, the Board moved to require Petitioners to have a licensed plumber inspect the connection between their bathroom and the Association's sewer line, and also to have a licensed electrician inspect the electrical work. Thereafter, Mrs. Wermuth, in her role as Board President, directed the Board Secretary to prepare a letter notifying Petitioners that, while the inspections remained outstanding, they faced a "$50 per day fine for violating the suspension from use of the clubhouse and pool areas." The letter, dated April 25, 2018, also alerted Petitioners that their current fine totaled $500, and further warned Petitioners that if they persisted "in using the pool and clubhouse areas before [the Board has] removed the suspension and approved your half-bath project, the fine may increase to the maximum of $1,000. The suspension will not be lifted until fines are paid in full." At the final hearing, Mrs. Wermuth explained that the Board imposed the fine to motivate Petitioners to comply with the Board's request as quickly as possible. However, once Petitioners proved that their bathroom adhered to Association Rules, Mrs. Wermuth represented that the Board fully intended to set aside the penalties. Despite her suspension, Mrs. Hathaway continued to regularly (perhaps daily) use the Association pool. Mrs. Hathaway explained that several medical professionals had advised her that the joint pain in her right shoulder and arm would benefit from physical therapy in the pool. To support her testimony, Mrs. Hathaway produced a doctor's letter from May 2017, which recommended that she "would benefit from use of the community pool to assist in her joint pain therapy." A year later in May 2018, Mrs. Hathaway visited a local hospital emergency room complaining of pain. Upon her discharge, the physician told her that using the pool "would assist with [her] joint pain therapy." Mrs. Hathaway credibly testified that, in May 2018, she provided both the doctor's letter and the discharge instructions to a member of the Association Board (not Mrs. Wermuth). However, Mrs. Hathaway admitted that, other than passing on these two documents, she did not communicate directly or indirectly with any Board member about her disability or health. Neither does the evidence establish that Mrs. Hathaway furnished these documents to the Board for the Board's consideration. More pertinently, Mrs. Hathaway conceded she never directly delivered these documents to either Mrs. or Mr. Wermuth. During her testimony, Mrs. Hathaway also described an incident on October 20, 2018, when she was exercising in the pool. (Mrs. Hathaway was still suspended from accessing the community's common areas.) That day, another Parkway Villas Board member (not Mrs. Wermuth) "viciously" yelled at her and demanded to know why she was using the pool when she was not allowed to be there. When Mrs. Hathaway did not exit the pool in a timely fashion, the resident called the Manatee County Sheriff's Office, who responded to the scene. The sheriff registered the complaint, but did not arrest Mrs. Hathaway. Petitioners never paid the fine for Mrs. Hathaway's unauthorized use of the pool during her suspension, which eventually reach the maximum amount of $1,000. Mrs. Hathaway explained that Petitioners felt that paying anything beyond the initial fine of $1,000 for the unapproved bathroom installation was "extortion" and simply not fair. Finally, on June 26, 2019, Petitioners sent a letter to the Board requesting the Board reconsider the outstanding sanction. The letter, addressed to Mrs. Wermuth, specifically expressed: [W]e would like to know when the sanctions no to use pool – fitness – laundry – comun [sic] areas that you ordered last year 3-26/18 after we paid $1,000 fine and present to you all the documentation from Manatee County 3-26/18 following the regulation's to instaled [sic] 1/2 bath on January 2016 and was approved with all Professional Plumbing – Electrician etc. On July 1, 2019, the Board held a Special Board Meeting to consider Petitioners' request. During the meeting, the Board determined that Petitioners had presented sufficient proof that their bathroom was installed in a professional manner and complied with all necessary building code and Manatee County permitting requirements. The Board also acknowledged that Petitioners had produced a Certificate of Completion from Manatee County and had paid the maximum $1,000 fine for the initial violation. Therefore, the Board voted to rescind the suspension of Petitioners' use of the pool, as well as all fines associated with Mrs. Hathaway's repeated violation of the suspension. Mrs. Wermuth presided over the meeting. However, she once again abstained from the vote. The Board notified Petitioners of its decision by letter, dated July 1, 2019, which stated that, "Any pending fines or suspensions to the Association's Common Elements are rescinded." The Board also posted its action on the Association website. In addition, the Board emailed the meeting minutes of the vote to the Parkway Villas residents and placed a copy of the minutes on the community bulletin board in the clubhouse. With Petitioners' right to access the Association's common areas reinstated, Mrs. Hathaway has been free to use the pool since July 2019. Despite the July 2019 publication of the Board's vote to lift Petitioners' suspension, at the final hearing Mrs. Hathaway complained that she has experienced a number of confrontations with other Parkway Villas residents who still believe that she is barred from using the pool. Mrs. Hathaway declared that she has been told to leave the pool; she has been yelled at in the laundry room; and, most significantly, "many people attack me, attacking us, at the pool." Mrs. Hathaway expounded that confrontations such as the one on October 20, 2018, are not uncommon. She proclaimed that, "people start to attack us because Mrs. Wermuth talk to everyone, she circulate all the information to all the residents." Mrs. Hathaway relayed that Parkway Villa residents have reported her to the Manatee County Sheriff's Office approximately seven times since March 2018. Mrs. Hathaway asserted that she has implored Mrs. Wermuth to re-notify the residents that the Board has rescinded Petitioners' suspension. However, Mrs. Wermuth allegedly has refused to do so. Therefore, as part of the relief for her FHA claim, Mrs. Hathaway desires all harassment related to her use of the pool to stop. Because Mrs. Hathaway believes that Mrs. Wermuth is responsible for imposing the sanctions in the first place, she asserts that Mrs. Wermuth should be ordered to spread the word that Petitioners are no longer prohibited from using the common areas. Accordingly, Mrs. Hathaway seeks an administrative order directing Mrs. Wermuth to inform all Parkway Villas residents that Petitioners are no longer forbidden from using the pool. Mrs. Hathaway also alleged several other instances of harassment by Respondents including: December 2017, Bicycle Incident: Mrs. Hathaway complained that Mr. Wermuth rode his bicycle too close to her as she walked down a sidewalk. Mrs. Hathaway described the incident as intentionally intimidating. Pictures of Petitioners' Unit: Mrs. Hathaway complained that Mr. Wermuth photographed her villa and complained about its condition. (This activity prompted Mrs. Hathaway to initiate a small claims court action against him.) Mrs. Hathaway's Use of the Laundry Room: Mrs. Hathaway claimed that in March 2018, Mr. Wermuth harassed her while she was doing laundry. Mrs. Hathaway claims that Mr. Wermuth took pictures of her in the laundry room and raised his voice at her. In addition to this FHA matter, Petitioners initiated several unrelated, but parallel, legal actions against Respondents in or about February 2018. These matters involved separate complaints in Manatee County small claims court against both Mrs. and Mr. Wermuth. In particular, on February 8, 2018, Mrs. Hathaway sued Mrs. Wermuth for discrimination, retaliation, intimidation, and harassment based on a "fine for no violations." See Miryam Hathaway v. Gerlinde Wermuth, Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Manatee County, Florida, Case No. 2018 SC 679. On April 5, 2018, Mrs. Hathaway sued both Mr. and Mrs. Wermuth for "harassment issues." See Miryam Hathaway v. Horst and Gerlinde Wermuth, Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Manatee County, Florida, Case No. 2018 SC 1509. These civil matters were dismissed in December 2018.9 However, Mrs. Wermuth was awarded over $20,000 in attorney's fees and costs spent in defending the matter against Mrs. Hathaway. At the final hearing, Respondents denied that they ever took any action against Petitioners based on Mrs. Hathaway's disability. They also rejected any allegation that they ever participated in a decision that refused or failed to accommodate Petitioners' alleged disability. Mrs. Wermuth testified that, while she did serve as Board President throughout the time of Petitioners' fines and suspension, she does not personally administer, control, or manage the Association. Further, as an individual Board member, she does not have the authority to unilaterally penalize a unit owner who has violated Association Rules. Neither can she personally suspend a unit owner's common use rights. Similarly, she does not have the power to reinstate the use of the Association's common elements, or grant any request for a disability accommodation, however reasonable. Regarding the Board's decision to impose the suspension on Petitioners, Mrs. Wermuth maintained that as a Board member, she must participate in the Board's actions to enforce the Association Rules. Mrs. Wermuth asserted that the Board does so in a consistent, fair, and uniform manner to all Parkway Villas residents. Regarding Petitioners' specific allegations, Mrs. Wermuth denied that she had any knowledge that either Petitioner suffered from a disability. She further denied any knowledge of a request from Mrs. Hathaway to use the pool for the express purpose of treating her shoulder pain. On the contrary, 9 In granting the Wermuths’ motion to dismiss, the judge noted that Mrs. Hathaway’s "claim surrounds a sequence of events that have occurred between approximately December 2017 to April 2018, wherein [Mrs. Hathaway] believes the Defendants have harassed, discriminated against, and intimidated her by approaching her, yelling at her, 'stalking' her, taking photos of her, and participating in the HOA board’s decisions denying her request to replace her patio, fining her for failing to bring her patio up to agreed-upon specifications, and suspending her common area privileges. [Mrs. Hathaway] claims that these events have caused her medical issues." Mrs. Wermuth expressed that, throughout the time period covered by Petitioners' complaint, she has seen Mrs. Hathaway physically active around the community. Mrs. Wermuth has observed Mrs. Hathaway walking, exercising in the pool, hosting a Latin dancing party, and taking part in exercise classes in the clubhouse. Mrs. Wermuth vigorously refuted the allegation that any of the Board's enforcement actions against Petitioners were administered unfairly. On the contrary, Mrs. Wermuth asserted that the fines and suspension were necessary to enforce the Association Rules, as well as to ensure that Petitioners adhere to them. Mrs. Wermuth explained that, in her experience, suspending a resident's access to the common areas is the most effective method to bring about compliance with Association Rules. Mrs. Wermuth further declared that none of the Board's actions regarding Petitioners were based on her personal feelings. Instead, Mrs. Wermuth recused herself from most of the Board's decisions addressing Petitioners' issues and consistently voted to "abstain." For his part, Mr. Wermuth testified that he does not hold, nor has he ever held, any decision-making authority with the Association or its Board. He has never served as a member of the Board or worked as an Association agent, committee member, or employee. Mr. Wermuth expressed that he has never made, nor has he ever had the power to make, housing determinations affecting Petitioners. Neither has he ever had any responsibility to determine Petitioners' access to community facilities. Petitioners did not present any evidence establishing that Mr. Wermuth participated in any vote of the Board to impose the fines or suspension on Petitioners. Further, as with his wife, Mr. Wermuth attested that he had no knowledge of any disabilities claimed by Petitioners prior to learning of their Petition filed with the Commission. On the contrary, he too has observed Mrs. Hathaway walking around the community, exercising in the pool, and using the fitness equipment in the Association's clubhouse. Mrs. Hathaway admitted that she had not spoken to Mr. Wermuth about her health or disability. Neither did she present any evidence that she requested an accommodation from him, or that he played any role in the Board's suspension of her use of the community pool. As to Mrs. Hathaway's complaints of other transgressions: Bicycle Incident: Mr. Wermuth did not recall ever riding his bicycle too close to Mrs. Hathaway while she was walking on a sidewalk. He specifically denied that he ever intentionally rode by her in an attempt to threaten or intimidate her. Mr. Wermuth offered that if his bicycle ever did pass too close to Mrs. Hathaway, it would have been unintentional and had nothing to do with her disability. Pictures of Petitioners' Unit: Regarding Mrs. Hathaway's complaint that he once photographed her villa, Mr. Wermuth testified that he frequently takes pictures of the Parkway Villas community as part of an ongoing scrapbook of his homes and neighborhoods. Mr. Wermuth stated that during the incident in question, he was simply taking pictures of the community's Christmas lights. He denied that he ever intended to agitate Petitioners. Similarly, no evidence shows that Mr. Wermuth photographed Petitioners' condominium based on Mrs. Hathaway's disability or some discriminatory animus. Mrs. Hathaway admitted that Christmas lights were strung up next to her unit at the time. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the Wermuths discriminated against Petitioners (Mrs. Hathaway) based on a handicap, or failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for the same. Accordingly, Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that the Wermuths committed unlawful discrimination in violation of the FHA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order determining that Respondents, Gerlinde Wermuth and Horst Wermuth, did not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioners and dismissing their Petition for Relief. 14 See Gooden v. Internal Rev. Serv., 679 Fed. Appx. 958, 966 (11th Cir. 2017)("[G]eneral allegations, based on mere speculation and hunches, in no way establish that any alleged [discriminatory activity] was race-, gender-, or disability based."). 15 Similarly, Mrs. Hathaway’s complaints about Mr. Wermuth riding his bicycle too close to her on the sidewalk or taking pictures of the side of her villa, at most, reflect a misunderstanding between neighbors, not a discriminatory housing practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Miryam Hathaway Benjamin Hathaway Post Office Box 15103 Sarasota, Florida 34277 Kimberly Valashinas, Esquire McGuinness & Cicero 3000 Bayport Drive, Suite 560 Tampa, Florida 33607 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner was subjected to housing discrimination by Respondent based on Petitioner's national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Rosa M. Cabrera is of Puerto Rican descent and, therefore, belongs to a class of persons protected from discrimination based on national origin under the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes, (2009). On September 17, 2009, she filed a complaint for housing discrimination against the management of Costa del Sol, LLC. Respondent, Monica Londono, is employed by Morgan Whitney, Inc., the company that manages Costa del Sol, a sixteen-unit apartment complex at 7425 Byron Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33141. Ms. Cabrera lived at Costa del Sol for 4 years. In her complaint, she alleged discrimination in the conditions and services provided to her as a tenant based on her national origin. The Housing Authority of Miami Beach inspected Ms. Cabrera's unit annually as required for units subsidized under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, also known as Section 8. On March 23, 2009, a notice was mailed to Ms. Cabrera to inform her that her annual inspection was scheduled for April 10, 2009, between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Mr. Cabrera was not there, on April 10, 2009, when the inspector arrived, so a door handle notice and a letter mailed the same day notified her that the inspection was rescheduled for April 13, 2009. About the same time, Ms. Cabrera said she had trouble with her hot water heater. On April 13, 2009, the unit failed inspection. The inspector found that a bedroom air conditioner was not cooling properly, that a sink stopper was missing, and that a closet door mirror was cracked. A re-inspection was scheduled for May 11, 2009. On April 22, 2009, Ms. Cabrera was offended and apparently turned away, what she said was, a group of six people who came to make repairs without giving her prior notice. On May 11, 2009, the same defects were noted and, on May 29, 2009, the Housing Authority abated the rent and terminated its contract for the unit with Costa Del Sol effective June 30, 2009. Ms. Cabrera was scheduled to meet her Section 8 case worker, Housing Authority Specialist Felipe Roloff, to "start the moving process" at 4:00 p.m., on June 5, 2009. Ms. Cabrera did not keep the appointment and it was rescheduled for June 16, 2009. On June 9, 2009, however, an "abate-cure" inspection was conducted and the unit passed. On July 21 and 23, 2009, Ms. Cabrera contacted Mr. Roloff to tell him that her refrigerator was not working and the landlord was given 24 hours to repair or replace it. When a handyman came alone to make repairs, Ms. Cabrera was afraid to let him in her apartment fearing sexual battery. So Ms. Londono accompanied the handyman when they attempted to deliver a refrigerator. They were unable to exchange the refrigerators because Ms. Cabrera had changed the locks without giving the manager a new key a violation of the terms of her lease, and she would not unlock the door. Ms. Cabrera's son arrived home at the same time and he also did not have a new key. At his suggestion, the refrigerator was left in the hallway for him to exchange it with the one in Ms. Cabrera's apartment later. Ms. Cabrera claimed, without any supporting evidence, that Ms. Londono publicly embarrassed her by calling her a "fucking Puerto Rican bitch" and a "ridiculous old lady." Ms. Londono, who is also of Puerto Rican descent, denied the allegation. Someone, Ms. Londono believes it was Ms. Cabrera, called the Miami Beach Code Compliance Division, to report that the refrigerator was left in the hallway and it was hauled away as household waste. Ms. Cabrera said the refrigerator left in the hallway was in poor condition. Ms. Londono, according to Ms. Cabrera, called the police and accused her of stealing the refrigerator. There is no supporting evidence of their accusations and suspicions about each other. When she finally got a replacement refrigerator, Ms. Cabrera said it was missing one of the crisper drawers. Ms. Cabrera believed she was being discriminated against in receiving poor services and also when Ms. Londono required her to move a plant from the hallway, but did not make another tenant move his motorcycle from the area where it was parked. Ms. Londono notified Mr. Roloff of Ms. Cabrera's lack of cooperation, and that she intended to collect August rent and to withhold a portion of the security deposit to cover the cost of the missing refrigerator. On August 5, 2009, the Housing Authority issued to Ms. Cabrera a Notice of Termination of Housing Assistance effective September 30, 2009. The Notice cited her failure to allow the landlord to enter to make necessary repairs and her failure to report the income of her son who was living with her. When the rent was not paid on August 5, 2009, Ms. Londono delivered a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate to Ms. Cabrera's unit. Ms. Cabrera did not vacate. Eviction proceedings were begun in September. Ms. Cabrera was evicted on November 22, 2009. After Ms. Cabrera moved the report of the inspection of the unit indicated that, among other damage, it was infested with fleas, supporting Ms. Londono's previous claim that Ms. Cabrera was leaving her window open to allow cats to come and feed in her unit, in violation of Section 8 rules. Ms. Cabrera's claim of discrimination based on national origin is not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Face and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 12th day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rosa M. Cabrera 7851 Northeast 10th Avenue, Apt. 26 Miami, Florida 33138 Monica Londono Morgan Whitney, Inc. Costa del Sol, LLC 1385 Coral Way, Penthouse 403 Miami, Florida 33145
The Issue Whether Respondents, Charleston Cay, Ltd., et al. (Charleston Cay), violated the Florida Fair Housing Act, as amended, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2010).1/
Findings Of Fact Ms. Cardwell is an African-American woman who rented an apartment from Charleston Cay. Ms. Cardwell and Charleston Cay entered into a written lease beginning on December 23, 2009, and ending on November 30, 2010. The lease required Ms. Cardwell to pay her rent on the first of each month and that the rent would be delinquent by the third of each month. Furthermore, the lease provided that non-payment of rent shall result in a breach of the lease and eviction. The initial monthly rent for Ms. Cardwell's apartment was $663.00, a month and was subsequently increased to $669.00, a month. Ms. Cardwell credibly testified that she had not read the lease or the Housing Addendum which she signed when entering into the lease and that she had not subsequently read either document. On November 1, 2010, Ms. Cardwell failed to pay her rent. On November 4, 2010, Ms. Jaster, manager of Charleston Cay apartments, posted a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate the premises. On November 9, 2010, Ms. Jaster posted another notice for Ms. Cardwell about non-payment and requesting that Ms. Cardwell call or come to the office. Ms. Cardwell paid $100.00, of the rent on November 17, 2010. Again, Ms. Jaster posted a three-day notice seeking payment of the remaining November 2010, rent in the amount of $569.00. On November 24, 2010, Ms. Cardwell paid an additional $200.00, of the $569.00, owed, leaving a balance of $369.00 for November 2010. Because Ms. Cardwell's written lease was to expire at the end of November, she requested that Charleston Cay enter into a month- to-month lease, but Ms. Jaster informed Ms. Cardwell that Charleston Cay was not interested in entering into a month-to- month tenancy. On December 1, 2010, Ms. Jaster posted another three- day notice requiring Ms. Cardwell to pay the $369.00, owed in November, or to vacate the premises. The facts also showed that Ms. Cardwell did not pay the $669.00, owed by December 1, 2010, or anytime thereafter. On December 8, 2010, Charleston Cay filed an eviction and damages complaint against Ms. Cardwell based on non-payment of the rent. Some time in December 2010, Ms. Cardwell contacted Ms. Tina Figliulo of the Charlotte County Homeless Coalition, seeking financial assistance to avoid being evicted. Ms. Figliulo credibly testified that the Charlotte County Homeless Coalition administers grant money to help prevent a person from being evicted and helps individuals find affordable housing. A provision of the grant, however, prevents the Charlotte County Homeless Coalition from paying money into a court registry if an eviction process has begun. Ms. Figliulo credibly testified that she contacted Ms. Jaster about making a payment on Ms. Cardwell's behalf. Ms. Jaster informed Ms. Figliulo that Charleston Cay had already begun eviction proceedings. Consequently, Ms. Figliulo was unable to use grant money to pay for Ms. Cardwell's back rent. Based on the eviction proceedings, Ms. Cardwell vacated the premises sometime in December 2010, and turned in her key for the apartment. The initial hearing on the eviction was set for January 5, 2011. On December 28, 2010, the hearing was cancelled based on Ms. Cardwell's vacating the premises. On January 13, 2011, Ms. Cardwell filed a Motion to Dismiss the case in county court indicating that she had given up possession of the premises. On January 31, 2011, the Charlotte County Court issued an Order dismissing the case effective March 1, 2011, unless Charleston Cay set a hearing on damages. The record credibly showed through the exhibits and Ms. Jaster's testimony that Ms. Cardwell was evicted from her apartment based on her non-payment of rent. There was no evidence that other individuals, who were not in Ms. Cardwell's protected class, were treated more favorably or differently, than she was in the proceedings. There was no evidence, either direct or indirect, supporting Ms. Cardwell's claim of racial discrimination. Ms. Cardwell testified that she felt that Ms. Jaster had acted based on race, because of Ms. Jaster's perceived attitude. Ms. Cardwell did not bring forward any evidence showing a specific example of any comment or action that was discriminatory. Ms. Jaster credibly testified that she did not base the eviction process on race, but only on non-payment. Ms. Cardwell specifically stated during the hearing that she was not addressing the retaliation claim or seeking to present evidence in support of the FCHR determination concerning the retaliation claim. Consequently, the undersigned does not make any finding concerning that issue. There was testimony concerning whether or not Ms. Cardwell had properly provided employment information required by the written lease in relation to a tax credit. The facts showed that Charleston Cay apartments participated in a Low Income Tax Credit Housing Program under section 42, of the Internal Revenue Code. On entering the lease, Ms. Cardwell had signed a Housing Credit Lease Addendum which acknowledged her participation in the tax credit, and agreement to furnish information concerning her income and eligibility for compliance with the tax credit. Failure to provide information for the tax credit would result in a breach of the rental agreement. As early of August 2011, Ms. Jaster, manager for Charleston Cay Apartments, contacted Ms. Cardwell about providing information concerning her income and continued eligibility for the program. Ms. Cardwell provided information that was incomplete as to her income, because it failed to demonstrate commissions that she earned. Again, in November 2010, Ms. Jaster contacted Ms. Cardwell about providing information to recertification for the tax credit. Finally, on November 11, 2010, Ms. Jaster left a seven-day notice of non-compliance, with an opportunity to cure, seeking Ms. Cardwell to provide information concerning her income. Ms. Cardwell provided information concerning her salary, but did not have information concerning commissions that she earned from sales. This information was deemed by Ms. Jaster to be incomplete and not in compliance for the low income housing tax credit. The record shows, however, that Ms. Cardwell's failure to provide the required income information was not a basis for her eviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order of dismissal of the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) properly dismissed this matter for lack of jurisdiction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as a first-time home buyer, applied for and was pre-approved by Cendant Mortgage Corporation d/b/a/ Century 21 Mortgage for a mortgage loan. The loan, in the amount of $28,687.00, was to be insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). In February 2003, Respondent agreed to sell Petitioner his home. They agreed that Petitioner would pay Respondent $29,000.00 for the house. Respondent subsequently stated in writing that he agreed to sell his house to Petitioner for that amount. On March 5, 2003, Petitioner signed a form entitled No Brokerage Relationship Disclosure. The form made it clear that Century 21 Prime Property Resources, Inc., a local real estate agency, and its associates did not have a brokerage relationship with Petitioner. There is no evidence that the professional services of a licensed real estate agent was involved at all in this case. However, the local Century 21 real estate office gratuitously sent a few documents on Petitioner's behalf by facsimile transmission to Century 21 Mortgage in New Jersey. Respondent did not use the sales facilities or services of Century 21 for any purpose. On March 7, 2003, Cheryl Barnes, a certified appraiser, completed an appraisal of the property. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and/or FHA required the appraisal in order for Petitioner to receive the loan insured by FHA. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent was required to pay for the appraisal. In a letter dated March 10, 2003, Century 21 Mortgage advised Petitioner that the closing date was scheduled for April 16, 2003. The letter enclosed additional forms that Petitioner needed to complete in order to close the loan. The Housing Department, Division of Planning and Development, in Sumter County, Florida, sent Petitioner a letter dated March 19, 2003. The letter advised Petitioner that she was eligible for an award of Supplemental Household Income Protection funds to cover the down payment and closing costs on the loan. Subsequently, Respondent refused to sign any papers related to the sale of the house. The loan could not be closed without Respondent's cooperation. Petitioner had placed $250 in an escrow account with Century 21 Mortgage. The mortgage broker refunded all of the money in the escrow account to Petitioner after Respondent refused to sign any more paperwork. Finally, there is no evidence of the following: (a) that Respondent owned more than three single-family houses at any one time; (b) that Respondent sold more than one single- family home within any 24-month period; (c) that Respondent had an interest in the proceeds from the sale or rental of more than three single-family houses at any one time; and (d) the sale of the subject house did not involve the posting, mailing, or publication of any written notice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 5th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan M. Parker 3840 East County Road 478 Apartment D-30 Webster, Florida 33597 Paul Moore 2396 County Road 608 Bushnell, Florida 33513
The Issue Whether Respondent, Cambridge Management Inc., engaged in housing discriminatory practice in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, as amended, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2010).1/
Findings Of Fact In 2009-2010, Ms. Elizabeth Sherlock and her nine-year-old son, Luke Sherlock, rented a home from Ms. Sheryl Whitaker. The home was located in the Wedgewood II at Pelican Strand located in Collier County, Florida. The lease was from June 1, 2008, until June 1, 2010. Cambridge Management is the Master Association for the condominium association for the Strand properties. Cambridge Management did not rent or lease the home to Ms. Sherlock. Ms. Sherlock testified that the homeowner's association cited her for violations of the homeowner's association covenants, based on her son engaging in normal childhood activities such as climbing trees, archery, playing in the street and the community clubhouse. Ms. Sherlock testified that she was told in April 2010 that her lease would not be renewed, because her son had run across a sand trap on the golf course during a rain storm. According to Ms. Sherlock, Cambridge Management discriminated against her and her son by denying them access to their rented home.2/ Further, Ms. Sherlock testified that her son suffered severe traumatic stress, based on the security officers denying them access to their home. Finally, Ms. Sherlock testified that the decision not to continue renting to her caused her to move from the home and resulted in financial hardship. Ms. Sherlock's Petition for Relief summarily states that Respondents violated the Florida Fair Housing Act through "discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges or services, and facilities." The Petition for Relief does not contain any specific factual allegation against Respondents. The record does not support Ms. Sherlock's testimony that Cambridge Management engaged in any discriminatory practice or that it retaliated against her and her son in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act. Mr. LeClaire is a security guard for the Wedgewood at Pelican Strand. Mr. LeClaire testified that on June 24, 2010, at approximately 9:00 p.m., he had stopped Ms. Sherlock at the gate because his supervisor had told him that Ms. Sherlock may not be a current resident. After confirming that she was still a current resident, Mr. LeClaire allowed Ms. Sherlock to access her home through the gate. Although Mr. LeClaire's supervisor had told him that Ms. Sherlock may not be a current resident, no one from Cambridge Management had told Mr. LeClaire to deny Ms. Sherlock access to her rented home. Mr. Weaver is also a security guard for the Wedgewood at Pelican Strand. Mr. Weaver testified that on July 2, 2010, at approximately 9:00 p.m., he stopped Ms. Sherlock at the gatehouse to determine whether or not she was a current resident. Mr. Weaver credibly testified that he stopped Ms. Sherlock because he did not recognize her as a resident. After he verified that she was a current resident, Mr. Weaver allowed Ms. Sherlock into the community. Mr. Weaver credibly testified that he delayed her at most three minutes. Mr. Charles Sherlock is Ms. Sherlock's father. Mr. Sherlock resides in Naples, Florida, during the winter. He testified about the close relationship that he enjoys with his grandson Luke. According to Mr. Sherlock, Luke felt that it was his fault that he and Ms. Sherlock had been evicted from Ms. Whitaker's home, and had to move to Minnesota. Mr. Sherlock further testified that he had to pay for Ms. Sherlock's move to Minnesota, and that he would like to be reimbursed for the costs. Ms. Rubele is an officer with Wackenhut Security, and she testified about the Wackenhut Standard Operating Procedure for the Strand, and testified that Wackenhut's contact person for security was Ms. Brandy K. Callahan of Cambridge Property Management. Prior to the final hearing, Ms. Sherlock voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, her claims against Respondents, Wedgewood at Pelican Strand Neighborhood Association, et al., and Newell Property Management, et al., and voluntarily dismissed Respondent, Sheryl Whitaker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order of dismissal of the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 2011.
