The Issue Whether Respondents committed discriminatory housing practices against Petitioner as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner.2
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a male of Hispanic origin. Petitioner suffers from a debilitating physical illness and has a history of mental illness. Respondents own and/or operate a large apartment complex in Dade County, Florida. At no time relevant to this proceeding did Respondents or their staff know that Petitioner suffered from a debilitating illness. Petitioner resided in Apartment 1519 of Respondents’ apartment complex between an unspecified date in 1999 and December 2003. In approximately March 2003, Petitioner requested permission of Respondents to transfer to another apartment in Respondents’ apartment complex. This request was made prior to the expiration of Petitioner’s then-current lease. Petitioner testified that the request was made after Apartment 1519 was vandalized. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondents had a policy that permitted a resident to transfer from one apartment to another apartment prior to the end of the tenant’s term only if the tenant’s payment history demonstrated that the tenant had no rent checks dishonored by the tenant’s bank and that he or she had not been late in paying the rent on more than two occasions. Respondents denied Petitioner permission to transfer from one apartment to another only because of Petitioner’s poor payment history. Over the course of his tenure in Respondents’ apartment complex, Petitioner had been late with his rent payment on 12 separate occasions and had rent checks dishonored on two separate occasions because his bank account had insufficient funds to cover the checks. There was no evidence Respondents discriminated against Petitioner by denying his transfer request. In December 2003, Respondents evicted Petitioner from Apartment 1519. This action was taken based on Petitioner’s poor payment history, because he repeatedly caused disturbances at the apartment complex, and because he damaged his apartment and neighboring apartments by intentionally flooding his apartment.3 There was no evidence Respondents discriminated against Petitioner by evicting him from Apartment 1519.
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. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 1st day of April, 2004.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice (Petition for Relief) filed against Respondents should be granted by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Samari Lake East (Development) is a residential condominium apartment development located on approximately 16 or 17 acres of land in the City of Hialeah Gardens, Florida. It is one of the largest such developments in Miami-Dade County. The Development is home to a racially and ethnically diverse group of persons. Because of the diversity of its residents, it has been described, appropriately, as a "rainbow community." While the majority of the residents are of Hispanic origin and speak Spanish, many different countries and cultures are represented in the community. There are some, but not a relatively large number of, black and African-American residents. The exact number is difficult to ascertain. No records are kept which keep track of such information. Persons of all ages, including approximately 500 children, reside in the Development. There are no age restrictions barring children from living in the Development. Petitioners are an African-American married couple with eight children. They have owned a two-bedroom, two-bath unit in the Development since approximately 1990. They resided in the unit from approximately 1990 until early July of 2002 when they were forced to vacate because the premises became uninhabitable as a result of an overflow of water and waste materials from within the unit's plumbing system. When they moved into the unit in 1990, Petitioners had only one child and Ms. Williams was pregnant with the couple's second child. At the time that they had to move out of the unit, Petitioners and their children had the following living arrangements: Petitioners and their two youngest children shared the master bedroom; three children (all girls) shared the second bedroom; two children (both boys) shared the living room; and the oldest child (a boy) lived on the balcony, which was enclosed. The Development is comprised of eight five-story multi-family, elevatored buildings having a total of 635 units (60 of which have three bedrooms and two baths, 510 of which have two bedrooms and two baths, and 65 of which have one bedroom and one and a half baths). First-floor units have porches. Units above the first floor have balconies. Most of the balconies, unlike the balcony in Petitioners' unit, are "open."3 Access to the units are by common exterior corridors and catwalks. Pursuant to Section 14A of the Development's Declaration of Condominium, "[e]ach Unit shall be used only as a single family residence" and "[n]o separate part of a Unit may be rented and no short term tenants (i.e., tenants for less than one month) may be accommodated in any Unit." The Development has two phases. Phase I consists of Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4, which together contain 330 units. One of these units is Petitioners' unit, Unit 2314, which is on the third floor in Building 4. Phase II consists of Buildings 5, 6, 7, and 8, which together contain 305 units. The buildings in Phase I were constructed more than a quarter of a century ago (in or around 1976 or 1977). The buildings in Phase II were constructed sometime later, and, as a result, they are in better general, overall condition than those in Phase I. Each phase has its own swimming pool and clubhouse. Residents and their guests are free to use the swimming pool from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Children under 12 years of age must be accompanied by an adult when at the pool. Persons who use the pool are expected to wear appropriate attire and refrain from activities that endanger themselves or others or that otherwise unreasonably interfere with others' peaceful enjoyment of the pool. The rules and regulations regarding the use of the pool are posted. In addition, individual copies of these rules and regulations are given to the residents. The clubhouse is available for use by residents (for a fee) for parties and similar functions. Residents, if they want to rent the clubhouse, must fill out a form in the management office in the Development and put down a refundable $100.00 rental deposit at least seven days in advance of the date of the desired rental date. If the clubhouse is available on the requested date, the resident will be permitted to use it. There is a $150.00 rental charge. There are parking areas in the Development for residents and visitors. These parking areas include spaces reserved for the handicapped. The resident parking area is closer to the buildings than is the visitor parking area. Each unit is assigned one primary reserved parking space. Since there are not enough parking spaces for each unit to be assigned a second reserved parking space, secondary reserved parking spaces are assigned on a "first come, first served basis." Unit owners fortunate enough to have a secondary reserved parking space must pay $30.00 for a parking sticker (with a bar code), as well as a monthly fee of $20.00. If they do not make these payments, they forfeit the space. Unit owners desiring to obtain a secondary reserved parking space must go to the management office in the Development and make a request that their names be placed on a "waiting list." There are 50 to 60 names on the list at any one time. When a secondary reserved parking space becomes available, the unit owner at the top of the list is awarded the space, provided that the unit's account is current. If the unit owner is delinquent in paying any assessed common expenses, the unit owner will be bypassed and the space will be given to the next non-delinquent unit owner on the list. The Development has a gated, two-lane entrance, at which there is a guardhouse manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week by at least one member of the Development's in-house security staff4 (whose members also patrol the Development on foot and in golf carts). All vehicles must pass through this gated entrance to enter the Development. Hundreds of vehicles pass through each day. The lane farthest from the guardhouse is for residents with reserved parking spaces and current parking stickers (with bar codes) affixed to their vehicles. If the equipment (which includes a laser bar code reader) is working properly, the gate arm will automatically rise when a vehicle with a properly affixed parking sticker is approaching. If the equipment malfunctions, the security guard stationed at the guardhouse will let the resident in (after asking for the resident's name and apartment number and confirming, from a list of current residents, which all security guards are required to carry with them, that the resident lives in the Development). Once inside the gate, the resident must park in his or her unit's assigned space. The lane closest to the guardhouse is for visitors. Visitors must stop at the guardhouse to be cleared for entry and given a yellow visitor's pass (which expires at midnight that day and is good only for that visit) by the security guard on duty. There is a switch inside the guardhouse that the security guard moves to raise the gate arm in the visitor's lane and let properly screened and authorized visitors into the Development. The "post orders" that the security guards are given contain the following instructions regarding their dealing with visitors at the entrance to the Development: The security officer should fill in visitor's pass completely. The unit number, telephone number and the vehicle tag must be written. Do not tear identification numbers off passes. In the future, the security officer will be required to announce all visitors before allowing entry to the property. The only person that can grant a visitor entry, is the person they are visiting. Night & Day shifts should call when there is low traffic, or when suspicion exists. Security must verify the telephone number by: Using a residents telephone list. Do not ask the visitor for the telephone number. In the event that a telephone number is not [o]n the list, you may ask visitor for the number. The officer will thereafter obtain entry clearance from the resident. Place the new telephone number on the list. File an entry in the logbook for building manager. If telephone happens to be disconnected Make an entry in the log and highlight for future follow up. Entry will not be granted without authorization of resident or person being visited. NO PHONE NO ENTRY. After clearance, for the guest, has been obtained, the Security Officer is to: Give visitor a Guest Pass; the pass should be h[u]ng [on] front rear view mirror. Advise guest that pass needs to be visible at all times and th[at] he/she needs to park in visitors parking. Have guest sign the pass on the back, which authorizes us to tow after 2359. Visitors must proceed directly to the visitor parking area (which is to the left of the guardhouse as one enters the Development). The resident parking area is off limits to visitors, except when they are dropping off an infant or a handicapped or elderly person. Security guards on patrol inside the Development attempt to make sure that no persons have entered the Development who do not belong there. It is not unusual for them, particularly in the pool areas in the Development (where uninvited guests have been discovered in the past) to stop and question persons with whom they are unfamiliar to find out if they are residents or invited guests. If a security guard determines that the person is an uninvited guest, the security guard will call the police to obtain a trespass warning against the person. Respondent Samari Lake East Condominium Association, Inc. (Association), was incorporated in August of 1977. Pursuant to the Development's Declaration of Condominium, the Association is responsible for the operation of the Development and the maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements (that is all parts of the Development except for the units themselves), and unit owners are obligated to pay assessments (regular and special) imposed by the Association for the costs and expenses incurred by the Association in the performance of its duties. The amount of a unit owner's regular assessment (or maintenance fee, as it is sometimes called) is based on the number of bedrooms in the unit and the unit's square footage. It includes charges for water and sanitary sewer services. (The Association is billed by the City of Hialeah Gardens for water and sanitary sewer services provided all of the units in the Development.5 The city does not bill individual unit owners.) According to Section 10B, C, and D of the Development's Declaration of Condominium: Assessments that are unpaid for over fifteen (15) days after the due date shall bear interest at a rate equal to the lesser of (i) eight percent (8%) per annum, or (ii) the maximum legal rate permitted under controlling law, from the due date until paid. In the sole discretion of the Board of Directors, a late charge, in an amount determined by the Board of Directors from time to time, for Assessments not paid when due may be assessed against a delinquent Unit Owner. Regular Assessments shall be due and payable monthly on the first (1st) of each month, unless the Board of Directors shall otherwise determine. The Condominium Association shall have a lien on each Unit for any unpaid Assessments, together with interest thereon, owed by the Unit Owner of such Unit. Reasonable attorney's fees (including fees in appellate proceedings) incurred by the Condominium Association incident to the collection of any Assessment or the enforcement of such lien (whether or not suit is instituted), together with sums advanced or paid by the Condominium Association in order to preserve and protect its lien, shall be payable by the Unit Owner upon demand and shall be secured by such lien. The Board of Directors may take such action as it deems necessary to collect Assessments by personal action, or by enforcing and foreclosing such lien, and may settle and compromise the same, if it shall so determine. Such lien shall be effective from and after the recording of a claim or lien as and in the manner provided by the Condominium Act. The Condominium Association shall be entitled to bid at any sale held pursuant to a suit to foreclose an Assessment lien, and to apply as a cash credit against its bid all sums due the Condominium Association covered by the lien enforced. In case of such foreclosure, the Unit Owner shall be required to pay a reasonable rental for the Unit, and the plaintiff in such foreclosure shall be entitled to the appointment of a receiver to collect such rental from the Unit Owner and/or Occupant. To assist it in discharging its responsibility to maintain the common elements in the Development, the Association employs a maintenance supervisor. Cosme Rodriguez has been employed by the Association as the Development's maintenance supervisor since 1993. He and his wife (who is black) live in the Development. Unit owners have been instructed to come to the management office if they have a maintenance-related complaint. After such a complaint is made, Mr. Rodriguez is sent out to investigate and determine what action if any, the Association should take to address the problem. On occasion, a "specialist," such as a plumber in the case of a plumbing problem, is hired to help. If it is determined that the problem is within the boundaries of the unit (which includes, among other things, according to Section 3B4(e), (f) and (l) of the Development's Declaration of Condominium, "[a]ll plumbing fixtures located within [the unit]," "[a]ll piping, ducts and wiring serving only [the] [u]nit," and "[t]he fresh water pipes, discharge pipes and all other plumbing, pipes and conduits serving only [the] [u]nit"), the Association will not take any action other than to tell the unit owner of its determination. The Development is a much more desirable place to live today than it was in the mid-1990's, when units were selling for less than a third of their present value.6 By the mid-1990's, conditions in the Development had become, in a word, "deplorable," so bad that condemnation proceedings had commenced and one of the buildings (Building 5) had been ordered to be demolished. There were a number of fire code and building code violations, some of which were "life-threatening." The fire alarm system was not operational, and replacement parts could not be found because the system was "obsolete." There were railings on the exterior corridors and catwalks above the first floor that had rusted and were loose. Some railings had already fallen off. The elevators did not work. There were cracks and spalls in the walkways, fire stairs, and building exteriors. Water was leaking into the buildings through the roofs. The swimming pools were closed because the water (which had turned green) was no longer safe to swim in, and they had become a dumping ground for used tires and other unwanted items. Crime was rampant in the Development. Two gangs considered the Development their turf. Light bulbs and fixtures in common areas in the Development were constantly being broken, largely due to gang activity. Consequently, "[t]he place was dark at night." The parking lot was littered with abandoned and stolen vehicles, as well the parts of vehicles. A "clandestine" car repair business was being operated out of the parking lot. When there was a significant rain event, the parking lot would flood because of poor drainage. Sometimes the water would be knee deep. Visitors commonly and, with impunity, parked in residents' reserved parking spaces or elsewhere where they did not belong (such as on the sprinklers). Overpopulation was a serious problem. Notwithstanding the mandate in the Development's Declaration of Condominium that "[e]ach Unit shall be used only as a single family residence," some units were shared by more than one family and had as many as 15 occupants. There were instances where a single room in a unit (either a bedroom or the living room) was rented out by the family living in the unit to another family (or families7), in violation of the prohibition in the Development's Declaration of Condominium that "[n]o separate part of a Unit may be rented " The large number of residents overwhelmed, not only the Development's facilities, but also the Association's financial resources. The cost of water and sewage usage was more than the Association was able to pay. The Association was in arrears to the City of Hialeah Gardens approximately $350,000.00 for water and sanitary sewer services. The Association also owed money for trash removal services. Making it even more difficult for the Association to meet its financial obligations was that some unit owners (particularly the younger ones) were not paying their assessments. With the Association paralyzed by debt, unable to meet its responsibilities, "chaos" reigned in the Development. Finally, in 1995, a group of unit owners, led by Maria Colson, went to court and requested that the Association be placed in receivership and that the court, through a receiver, administer the Association. The request was granted by Miami- Dade County Circuit Court Judge Rosemary Usher Jones, who, in or around September of 1995, appointed Stanley Tate to serve as receiver for the Association.8 In or around November of 1995, Mr. Tate was succeeded as receiver by a team of three persons, one of whom later became the sole receiver. The plight of the unit owners and the Association had not improved appreciably by May of 1996, when Judge Jones appointed Respondent Rafael Penalver to serve as receiver for the Association. Mr. Penalver is a Florida-licensed attorney who has been practicing law since 1976. He presently is a partner in the law firm of Penalver and Penalver, P.A. Since high school, Mr. Penalver has been actively involved in civil rights activities. Among the most notable of these activities was his service as a member of the Commission for four years. Mr. Penalver began actively serving in his capacity as receiver for the Association on July 1, 1996. A couple of months later, Mr. Penalver, on behalf of the Association, contracted with SPM Group, Inc. (SPM), an established community association management firm, to provide a site manager for the Development to oversee the Association's day-to-day operations. The site manager that SPM provided was Respondent Carlos Reyes, one of its employees. Mr. Reyes is a Florida-licensed community association manager. The Association is still in receivership today. Mr. Reyes continues to act as site manager. Mr. Penalver remains the receiver, however, he now serves at the pleasure, and under the supervision, of Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Michael Chavies, who was assigned the case in 1999.9 Judge Chavies is "very involved" in administering the Association. He holds hearings once or twice a month. Unit owners are given the opportunity to address Judge Chavies at these hearings and to air their concerns. Notices of the hearings before Judge Chavies are posted at various places in the Development. These notices are in both English and Spanish, as are all other notices that are posted by Respondents in the Development.10 Unit owners also have the opportunity to attend meetings conducted from time to time by Mr. Penalver and Mr. Reyes (including the annual meeting of unit members, at which Mr. Penalver presents them with a copy of the annual report that he prepares.) Spanish is spoken at these meetings; however, both Mr. Penalver and Mr. Reyes are fluent in Spanish and English,11 and they have never refused any request to serve as interpreter for English-speaking attendees who do not understand or speak Spanish. (Ms. Williams is not someone who would need such help from Mr. Penalver or Mr. Reyes. As she testified at hearing, while she does not read or write Spanish "very well," she does "speak it and understand it."12) The Development has experienced a "turn[] around" in the time that Mr. Penalver and Mr. Reyes have been there. Many physical improvements have been made, and, as a result, the condemnation proceedings that had been initiated before their arrival have been "halted." New railings have been installed.13 There is a new sprinkler system. Fire extinguishers are now properly located (every 75 feet) in the common exterior corridors. A new fire alarm system (including mini-horns in each unit), financed by a special assessment imposed in July 1999, has been installed. The project began in or around late 1999 or early 2000. Efforts to complete the project in a timely manner were stymied by unit owners who did not allow the contractor into their units when asked to do so. In some instances, court orders were needed to gain access. (The contractor experienced some problem, initially, in gaining access to Petitioners' unit.) Four buildings, including Building 4, Petitioners' building, have new elevators, and the elevators in all of the buildings now operate reliably. New lighting has been installed. The swimming pools are open and safe to use. The parking areas have been repaved and equipped with a new storm drainage system, which has alleviated the previous flooding problems. This project (which was first approved in 1995 or 1996, before Mr. Penalver was appointed receiver) was finished in September of 2001. The project cost $377,000.00 and was paid for with federal funds obtained through the Community Development Block Grants program. The recipient of the funds was the City of Hialeah Gardens, not the Association. The funds were administered by Miami-Dade County. Acosta Constructors, which performed work on the project pursuant to a contract with the City of Hialeah Gardens, posted signs (on barricades) in the parking areas, in Spanish, advising motorists as to where there was construction work ongoing and where they therefore could not park. The Association was required by law, after the project had been completed, to increase the size and number of handicapped spaces and to locate these spaces closer to the buildings in the Development than the old handicapped spaces had been. To comply with this requirement, the parking areas had to be reconfigured. The reconfiguration has resulted in a reduction of the total number of parking spaces in the Development, making an already tight parking situation worse. Before the project, there were a total of 953 parking spaces (including resident, visitor, and handicapped spaces). There are now a total of approximately 920 parking spaces, 870 of which are for residents. Of the 870 resident parking spaces, 635 are primary reserved parking spaces (one for each unit) and the remaining spaces are secondary reserved parking spaces. Unit owners had to be assigned new primary reserved parking spaces following the reconfiguration. Mr. Penalver enlisted the assistance of a unit owners' advisory committee to help him determine how these reassignments should be made. Taking into consideration the input he received from the unit owners' advisory committee, Mr. Penalver recommended to Judge Chavies that new primary reserved parking spaces be assigned based on "proximity" (distance from the unit), with first floor unit owners given the opportunity to park directly behind their units, where possible, so as to minimize the noise and other disturbances they had to contend with due to the location of their units and for the additional purpose of enhancing the value of these first-floor units (which have a lower value than comparable units on the floors above them). Judge Chavies adopted Mr. Penalver's recommendation at a hearing held on the matter (of which unit owners were given written notification, in both English and Spanish). Thereafter, Petitioners were assigned a new primary reserved parking space (space number 503), which is farther away from their unit than was their old space (304). Others owning units above the first floor, including Petitioners' next door neighbors (whose new primary reserved parking spaces are next to Petitioners') now also have to walk a greater distance to get from their primary reserved parking space to their unit than they did prior to the reconfiguration of the parking areas. Petitioners' race and familial status played no role in the assignment of their new primary reserved parking space. While much progress has been made, there are still physical improvements that need to made by the Association. The buildings' roofs still leak and need to be repaired. Steps, however, have been taken to fix the problem. A special assessment of approximately $2,000.00 per unit (approved by Judge Chavies) has been imposed for a roof replacement project and a contractor to do the work has been hired. There are still cracks and spalls in the walkways,14 fire stairs, and building exteriors. There are such cracks and spalls in the area outside of Petitioners' unit15 and elsewhere in the Development, including, most notably, in Buildings 1 and 2, which have the greatest number, and in the fire stairs in the Phase II buildings. The next major project the Association intends to undertake (following the completion of the roof replacement project) is the replacement of these fire stairs. After all structural repairs have been made, the buildings will be painted. Petitioners' race and familial status have played no role in the Association's prioritization of physical improvements. The Association's efforts to make physical improvements have been hampered by the failure of some unit owners to pay their assessments when due. Initially, Mr. Penalver simply "begged" delinquent unit owners to pay the money they owed and took no other action. After three years of employing this strategy, he started sending cases to a collection attorney, Michael Chadrow, Esquire, of the law firm of Bakalar, Brough & Chadrow, P. A. (Bakalar law firm) to take appropriate legal action. Since March of 1999, Mr. Chadrow and others in the Bakalar law firm have filed 112 foreclosure actions on behalf of the Association. Once a matter is turned over to the collection attorney, Mr. Penalver takes a "hands off approach" and lets the attorney handle all communications with the delinquent unit owner regarding the unit owner's arrearage. Petitioners were among the unit owners who did not pay their assessments and whose cases were sent by Mr. Penalver to the collection attorney. Petitioners' case was one of the last to be sent,16 even though their outstanding unpaid balance was greater than most, if not all, other delinquent unit owners. They had made no payments from August 31, 1996, until the time Mr. Penalver turned their case over to the collection attorney. As a consequence of being behind in their payments, Petitioners were unable to obtain a secondary reserved parking space. They had requested that their names be placed on the "waiting list" for such a space and they were next on the list when a space became available, but were bypassed because they were in arrears at the time. Petitioners' race and familial status played no role in their not being able to obtain a secondary reserved parking space. Mr. Penalver delayed in turning Petitioners' case over to the collection attorney because he thought that it might be difficult for Petitioners, due to the large size of their family, to meet their financial obligations to the Association. Before sending their case to the collection attorney, Mr. Penalver made an effort to speak with Petitioners. He went to their unit several times and knocked on the door, but no one answered. Mr. Penalver was finally able to make contact with Mr. Williams, when he spotted Mr. Williams outside of Petitioners' unit. Mr. Penalver asked if Williams would be willing to work out a "payment plan." Mr. Williams responded by telling Mr. Penalver that he would be filing a harassment action against Mr. Penalver. Petitioners' race and familial status played no role in Mr. Penalver's decision to send their case to the collection attorney (although their familial status was a factor in his not sending it sooner). Mr. Penalver believed that not pursuing legal action against Petitioners after having waited as long he did for Petitioners to bring their account current would have been unfair to the ninety percent or so of the unit owners who were up-to-date in their assessment payments. On May 1, 2001, a Final Summary Judgment of Foreclosure and Order Taxing Costs and Attorney's Fees was entered against Petitioners and in favor of the Association in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. As of June 29, 2001, Petitioners had not made any assessment payments since August 31, 1996, and their outstanding unpaid balance was $15,616.00. On that date, faced with the imminent public sale of their unit, they tendered payment to the Association, bringing their account current and satisfying the judgment that had been entered against them. By the next month, Petitioners were already in arrears again, and, in the following months, they continued to fail to make their assessment payments. A second foreclosure action was commenced by the Association against Petitioners in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. A Final Judgment of Foreclosure was entered against Petitioners and in favor of the Association on October 18, 2002. A Clerk's Certificate of Satisfaction of Final Judgment of Foreclosure was issued on December 19, 2002. Petitioners corresponded in writing with the Bakalar law firm during the time the law firm was working on collecting the monies Petitioners owed the Association. In their correspondence to the law firm, after complaining about the conditions in the Development and the manner in which they and their family and friends had been treated by the Association and its agents, Petitioners expressed their willingness to "come to some type of agreement" with the Association. Following his routine practice, Mr. Penalver determined that the issues raised in the correspondence should be dealt with by the collection attorney handling the case. Despite not having the cooperation of all unit owners, the Association's financial situation is not nearly as bleak now as it was when Mr. Penalver became receiver. For example, the amount of the Association's indebtedness to the City of Hialeah Gardens is presently $35,000.00, a tenth of what it was at the start of Mr. Penalver's receivership. Like the Association's indebtedness, crime in the Development has also been reduced dramatically. A significant contributing factor to the reduction in crime in the community has been the Association's stepped-up efforts to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining entry to and loitering in the Development. The Association's first line of defense against intruders is the security guard stationed at the guardhouse, who is responsible for screening visitors seeking to enter the Development and instructing those permitted entry where to park. Ms. Williams' sister, Iris Thomas, was involved in an incident with security staff at the entrance to the Development on the evening of October 24, 2001. Ms. Thomas had been given a visitor's pass and allowed to enter the Development earlier in the day to pick up three of Petitioners' children. When she returned to the Development with the children,17 she got into a dispute with the security guard manning the entrance. She wanted to drive into the resident parking area closest to Petitioners' unit so she could quickly drop off the children and then leave. The security guard told her, however, that she had to park in the visitor parking area inasmuch as none of the children in the vehicle were infants. Ms. Thomas expressed her displeasure upon being told this. The security guard contacted his immediate supervisor (the shift supervisor that evening), Alexander Santiero, and asked him to come to the guardhouse to assist in dealing with Ms. Thomas. As he approached the guardhouse and started speaking with the security guard, Mr. Santiero saw one of the children in Ms. Thomas' vehicle exit the vehicle and go into the guardhouse. The child apparently touched the switch controlling the gate arm in the visitor's lane because the arm began to rise. Mr. Santiero reacted by getting a portable metal sign to drag over an "access sensor" on the pavement in front of Ms. Thomas' vehicle (on the other side of the gate) so that the arm would lower. As he moved in front of Ms. Thomas's vehicle with the sign in his hand, Ms. Thomas' vehicle lurched forward, hitting Mr. Santiero and injuring his ankle. In anger, Mr Santiero threw the sign that he was still holding onto at Ms. Thomas' vehicle. Police were called to the scene, but no arrests were made. The determination to deny Ms. Thomas access to the resident parking area was in keeping with reasonable Association policy and, like Mr. Santiero's reaction to being hit by Ms. Thomas' vehicle, was not based on racial or other impermissible considerations.18 The security guards who patrol the Development are responsible for checking to see that no unauthorized persons have been successful in gaining entry to the Development. It is also their responsibility to make sure that those who are authorized to be there (invited guests and residents) are acting in compliance with the Association's rules and regulations and, if they are not, to take appropriate action. Discharging these responsibilities frequently draw the security guards to the pool areas, which are magnets for uninvited outsiders who enter the Development by jumping over the fence that separates the Development from the property around it. Ms. Williams has had two encounters with security guards in the pool area (in Phase I) that have left her upset. The first encounter occurred in or around June of 1999. Ms. Williams was in the pool with her two-year old son, who was wearing only a diaper, when she was approached by a security guard asking that she change her son into shorts. Ms. Williams complied with the request. At no time was she told that she could not use the pool. The second encounter occurred in or around June of 2000. Ms. Williams was in the pool area with her children and other family members (her mother-in-law, her younger sister, and a nephew) when she got into a dispute with a security guard who had been dispatched to the area to investigate a complaint of excessive noise. Ms. Williams was unable to convince the security guard that she lived in the Development. Consequently, the security guard asked her and her family to leave. Ms. Williams became "outraged." The security guard contacted Mr. Reyes and asked him to come to the pool area. When he arrived on the scene, Mr. Reyes walked up to Ms. Williams, whom he recognized, and told her to calm down. He then spoke to the security guard and told him that Ms. Williams lived in the Development and that therefore she and her family were entitled to use the pool. The security guard responded by apologizing to Ms. Williams. After speaking with the security guard, Mr. Reyes turned his attention back to Ms. Williams. One of her sons, who appeared to Mr. Reyes to be between six and seven years of age, was naked. Mr. Reyes told Ms. Williams that she and her family could stay in the pool area, but that the young boy needed to have on appropriate attire. There is no indication in the evidentiary record in the instant case that the actions of the security guards and Mr. Reyes in the two pool area incidents related above involving Ms. Williams and her family were the product of any racial animus or any other illicit motivation. Petitioners and their family have not used the pool since the last of these two incidents. They have not done so, however, of their own choosing, not because they have been denied use of the pool. Another common facility that Petitioners have not used is the clubhouse. It cannot be said, though, that they have been unfairly denied use of the clubhouse inasmuch as, at no time, have they followed the established procedure to which all unit owners must adhere in order to be able to enjoy such use. The security guards are not the only ones who patrol the grounds of the Development. Mr. Penalver and Mr. Reyes do so as well. On the evening of March 22, 2001, at around 9:00 p.m., Mr. Penalver observed a young man in a ski cap pulled down to his eyes walking slowly on the "island" between two rows of parked vehicles in the resident parking area. It appeared to Mr. Penalver that the young man was looking inside the parked vehicles. This aroused Mr. Penalver's suspicion, particularly since there had been a car burglary in the Development a couple of nights before. Mr. Penalver approached the young man, whom he did not recognize, and asked him if he lived there. He asked no other questions, nor did he stop or detain the young man. The young man, it turned out, was Darrell Williams, Petitioners' teenage son. Darrell responded to Mr. Penalver's inquiry by calling Mr. Penalver a "racist." He then walked away, went up to his parents' unit, and told them about what had just happened. Mr. Williams decided to call the police "to put this on record" because he believed (erroneously) that Darrell had been unfairly harassed and discriminated against by Mr. Penalver. After contacting the police, Mr. Williams went downstairs to the resident parking area and confronted Mr. Penalver in a hostile manner. He informed Mr. Penalver that he had called the police and demanded that Mr. Penalver wait with him until the police arrived. Mr. Penalver remained with Mr. Williams, waiting for the police to respond to Mr. Williams' call. The police officer who responded to the scene spoke with Mr. Williams and Mr. Penalver, filled out paperwork, and then left. That evening, Mr. Penalver did not treat Darrell any differently than he would have treated anyone else, unfamiliar to him, doing what he observed Darrell doing. The reduction in the Association's indebtedness and in crime in the Development has coincided with a decrease in the number of persons residing in the Development. To address the overpopulation problem that plagued the Development at the time Mr. Penalver took over as receiver, the Association, in November of 1996, adopted, with court approval, the following reasonable occupancy limits, which are consistent with HUD guidelines: a maximum of two persons in a one-bedroom unit; a maximum of four persons in a two-bedroom unit; and a maximum of six persons in a three-bedroom unit. This policy was designed to reduce, not the number of families with children who lived in the Development,19 but the total number of persons of all ages who called the Development home. Notices of this policy are posted at the entrance to every building in the Development. The Association has issued anywhere from 50 to 100 notices of violation to unit owners in violation of this policy. In those instances where the unit having a greater number occupants than allowed is being used by more than one family, a fine has been imposed against the unit owner. The Association has not taken any other action to enforce its adopted occupancy limits. After receiving complaints from Petitioners' neighbors about the noise and the number of persons living in Petitioners' unit, Mr. Reyes, on March 29, 2001, sent Petitioners a notice of violation advising Petitioners that there were "too many people" in their unit. No fine was imposed, however. Although Petitioners continued to be in violation of the occupancy limit for a two-bedroom unit, no enforcement action was taken against them pursuant to Mr. Penalver's instructions. Mr. Penalver, however, did recommend to Petitioners, when there were three-bedroom units available, that they consider moving into such a unit,20 a recommendation Petitioners declined to follow. Mr. Penalver has been criticized by some unit owners for not strictly enforcing the Association's occupancy limits. He has endured this criticism since he "does not have the heart to force people out" due to the size of their families. In addition to the March 29, 2001, notice of violation for having "too many people" in their unit, Petitioners have received several other notices of violation during Mr. Penalver's receivership. Like the March 29, 2001, notice of violation, these other notices of violation were signed by Mr. Reyes (or for him, by his secretary) and contained the following advisement: If the above mentioned violation(s) is(are) true, then we respectfully request that you immediately correct them[.] [I]f you disagree [,] [p]lease notify us in writing within 7 days. If the violation(s) re- occurs, per Florida Statute 718.112[,] . . . you can be subjected to a fine of $50.00 per day up to $1,000.00. Your cooperation in observing the rules and regulations would be greatly appreciated[.] [T]his will help us in maintaining a peaceful and safe place to live. These other violations were based on reports received by Mr. Reyes of misconduct involving Petitioners' children. One notice of violation was dated January 24, 2000. It advised Petitioners that their "account ha[d] been fined $50.00." The violation alleged was "throwing a mustard bottle." Another notice of violation was dated February 7, 2000. The violation alleged was "breaking glass bottle, threatening other children." Mr. Reyes had been told about the incident by two or three young residents (approximately nine to 11 years of age). The children reported to Mr. Reyes that the incident took place on the grounds of the Development. The notice reflected that no fine was being imposed against Petitioners. A few days later, Petitioners received a notice of violation, signed by Mr. Reyes' secretary, advising them a second time of the violation that had been described in the February 7, 2000, notice of violation. This notice of violation, like the February 7, 2000, notice of violation, indicated that Petitioners were not being fined. There was a notice of violation dated February 10, 2000, advising Petitioners that their "account ha[d] been fined $100.00" for "threat[en]ing other kids, picking fights." Petitioners were fined because this was a repeat offense.21 Petitioners received another notice of violation dated February 10, 2000. The violation alleged was "jumping on vehicles." The notice reflected that Petitioners' "account ha[d] been fined $100.00." Earlier in the month, the Development's director of security, Pablo Diaz de la Rocha, had observed two of Petitioners' sons, Larry Williams, Jr., and Jordan Williams, jumping on the hoods of parked vehicles in the Development. Mr. de la Rocha took their names and wrote a report, which he subsequently sent to Mr. Reyes. He also entered into an agreement with Larry and Jordan, allowing them to perform "community service" (by taking to the bus bench, outside the Development's entrance, shopping carts that had been brought into the Development from a nearby supermarket) in lieu of their parents' having to pay a fine for their misconduct. To Mr. de la Rocha's knowledge, Larry and Jordan did not live up to their end of the bargain. It was only after being advised by Mr. de la Rocha of the brothers' noncompliance that Mr. Reyes sent Petitioners the notice of violation described above. Mr. Reyes has not issued a notice of violation every time he has received a complaint about the conduct of Petitioners' children. The notices of violation he has sent to Petitioners (which number no more than seven or eight) represent a very small percentage of the total number of notices he has issued since becoming site manager. Other families whose children have engaged in misconduct of which Mr. Reyes has been made aware have also received notices of violation. Petitioners have not been unfairly singled out. No notice of violation has been sent to Petitioners, nor has any fine been imposed upon them, based on racial considerations or on their familial status. Unfortunately, Petitioners are not able to enjoy the overall improved conditions in the Development because the conditions inside their unit are such that they can no longer live in it. The unit has been uninhabitable since on or about Saturday, July 6, 2002. On that day, Ms. Williams and her children, upon returning to their unit, discovered the unit "ankle deep" in water and waste materials. Ms. Williams telephoned the guardhouse and advised the security guard on duty of the situation. The family then left, taking with them what they could. That same day, Mr. Rodriguez was asked by Mr. Reyes to check out a "plumbing problem" in Petitioners' unit. Mr. Rodriguez went to Petitioners' unit to investigate. It was his routine practice, as maintenance supervisor, to check out all maintenance-related problems referred to him, regardless of who the unit owner was complaining about the problem. He treated Petitioners' complaints no differently than those made by other unit owners. Mr. Rodriguez knocked on the door to Petitioners' unit, but no one answered. He then went up to the roof. Using a motorized snake, he made sure that the main lines servicing Petitioners' unit and the units beneath and above Petitioners' unit (which main lines are common elements that the Association is responsible for maintaining) were unclogged. He then returned to his unit, thinking "everything was okay." The following Monday (July 8, 2002), Mr. Rodriguez was asked to look into a complaint from Petitioners' next door neighbor (in unit 2316) that water was leaking into her unit from Petitioners' unit. Mr. Rodriguez went back to Petitioners' unit. Mr. Williams was there. He let Mr. Rodriguez in and showed him the flooding in the unit. Mr. Rodriguez then returned to the roof. He put the snake down the main lines and found no obstructions. Mr. Rodriguez reported back to Mr. Reyes, telling him that the flooding in Petitioners' unit did not appear to be caused by any problem in the main lines. After obtaining Mr. Penalver's approval, Mr. Reyes hired a plumber to determine the cause of the flooding in Petitioners' unit. The plumber Mr. Reyes hired was Ricardo Frankie. Mr. Frankie has worked as a plumber for the past 23 years. Mr. Frankie came out to the Development the same day he was called (July 8, 2002). After conducting the tests he typically performs to determine the source of a overflow problem in a multi-story building, Mr. Frankie concluded that there was a blockage, not in the main lines, but in a pipe or pipes serving only Petitioners' unit. Before leaving, Mr. Frankie verbally advised Mr. Rodriguez of his conclusion. He subsequently provided a written report. Mr. Rodriquez informed Mr. Williams that, because the obstruction was within the interior boundaries of Petitioners' unit, it was Petitioners', not the Association's, responsibility to take care of the problem. On July 11, 2002, Mr. Williams contacted the Miami- Dade County Health Department complaining that there was "sewage backup throughout [his] building." A Health Department inspector, Paul Silvestri, was dispatched to the Development that same day, but Mr. Silvestri was unable to make contact with Petitioners. Another Health Department inspector, Seidel Sanchez, went to the Development the following day. Based on what he observed and the information he obtained from speaking with Mr. Rodriguez, with Mr. Williams, and with others, Mr. Sanchez decided to issue Mr. Williams an Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance, which directed Mr. Williams to abate, within 48 hours, the "unsanitary condition existing on property under [his] control," to wit: "sewage water inside unit 2314, also [going] into unit 2316 closet and room." Petitioners had a plumber, Lee Allen, come to their unit that same day to look at the problem. The Association's failure to take any further action to address the flooding problem in Petitioners' unit was based on the reasonable belief that the Association was under no legal obligation to take such action. Petitioners' race and familial status played no role in the Association's failure to act. In summary, there has been no showing of any acts of commission or omission by Respondents the purpose or effect of which was to disadvantage Petitioners based on their race or familial status.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding that Respondents are not guilty of any "discriminatory housing practice" and dismissing Petitioners' Petition for Relief based on such finding. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated the provisions of Florida’s Fair Housing Act, Section 760.20-760.37, Florida Statutes (2002) (the Fair Housing Act), by evicting Petitioners and thereby allegedly breaching a rental agreement, as more fully described in the Petition for Relief. (References to statutory sections and chapters are to Florida Statutes (2002.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are Hispanic. The parties agree that Mrs. Villamizar is handicapped by a mental disability of an undocumented nature. Respondent works full-time as a fireman, and he has managed real estate on a part-time basis for over 15 years. Sometime in August, 2001, Petitioners rented an apartment from Respondent pursuant to a verbal rental agreement. The apartment is identified in the record as Apartment 5 (the apartment). The apartment is one of several in a building located at 1484 Northwest 15th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33125 (the building). Petitioners rented the apartment in conjunction with a rent subsidy program administered by Volunteers of America. Petitioners resided in the apartment as their primary residence until approximately February 23, 2003. At that time, Respondent evicted Petitioners pursuant to a court order issued by the County Court In and For Dade County, Florida (the County Court). Respondent evicted Petitioners for nondiscriminatory reasons. Mr. Villamizar threatened Respondent, abused alcohol and drugs, and was involved in approximately 12 police incident reports at the building. After Respondent painted the outside of the building, Mr. Villamizar painted the apartment door, the railing, and an exterior wall with a different color. Mr. Villamizar also painted, "Fuck the fire department" on the outside of the apartment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2003, 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 27th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michelle Jackson, Acting Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerardo and Rodica Villamizar Post Office Box 010461 Miami, Florida 33130 Eddie Gomez 17835 Southwest 10th Court Pembroke Pines, Florida 33029
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Relief was timely filed.
Findings Of Fact In January 2008, Petitioner filed a “Housing Discrimination Complaint” with FCHR and/or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The complaint alleged that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based upon her race (black) and religion (Christian) in its servicing of her home mortgage loan. On or about March 27, 2008, a “Determination” was issued finding no reasonable cause to believe that Respondent committed a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner. On April 18, 2008, FCHR sent a “Notice of Determination of No Cause” to Petitioner by certified mail No. 7007 1490 0002 5958 0931. Petitioner received the Notice on April 22, 2008, according to the certified mail receipt included in the case file. The Notice advised Petitioner that “FCHR has determined reasonable cause does not exist to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred.” The Notice further advised Petitioner that she could request an administrative hearing, and clearly stated that any such request “must be filed with the FCHR within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Notice.” A “Petition for Relief, in blank” was sent to Petitioner along with the Notice. On May 23, 2008, FCHR received a completed “Petition for Relief” form from Petitioner. The form was signed by Petitioner and dated May 20, 2008. Petitioner stated in her response to the Order to Show Cause that she “never received any paperwork on the above case” and that “the only paperwork that [she] received was on or a about June 9, 2008.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 18th day of June, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioner in violation of the Fair Housing Act1 as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) on January 7, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Prior to its sale to Mr. Aizenstat, Mr. Maine owned the Building in which Petitioner leased an apartment. Mr. Maine decided to sell the Building, and he employed Respondent Alvarez and his company to represent him as his real estate broker. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondents were acting as agents on behalf of Mr. Maine. There were four apartments in the building, one of which was the apartment leased by Mr. Maine to Petitioner. Respondents notified all apartment owners of Mr. Maine’s plans to sell the building and secured permission from each tenant, including Petitioner, to show the tenant’s apartment to prospective purchasers.3 During the course of deciding whether to purchase the Building, Mr. Aizenstat arranged with Mr. Alvarez to view and photograph the interiors of the apartments. With Petitioner’s permission, Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Aizenstat entered Petitioner’s apartment on February 11, 2004, and took a number of photographs. Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Aizenstat also photographed the interiors of the other apartments in the Building as well as photographs of the exterior of the Building. The reason for taking each photograph was business-related. Petitioner is a white male and Mr. Alvarez is of Hispanic origin. Petitioner alleged that Mr. Alvarez called him a “gringo” when he was trying to get Petitioner to sign some documents pertaining to his tenancy in the Building.4 The confrontation at which Mr. Alvarez allegedly made the racial slur occurred the first part of March 2004. Mr. Alvarez denied using any racial slur directed towards Petitioner. The undersigned finds that denial to be credible. Mr. Aizenstat was present during the confrontation at which Mr. Alvarez allegedly made the racial slur. Mr. Aizenstat testified that Mr. Alvarez made no racial slur towards Petitioner. The undersigned finds Mr. Aizenstat’s testimony to be credible. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that such a slur was made. During that confrontation between Petitioner and Mr. Alveraz in early March 2004, Mr. Alvarez asked Petitioner to sign certain documents so that Mr. Maine would not have to institute eviction proceedings against him. That statement was not a threat and it was not made because of Petitioner’s race. As a consequence of the sale of the Building by Mr. Maine to Mr. Aizenstat, all tenants had to move out of the Building. At the time of the final hearing, the Building was vacant. Mr. Aizenstat testified that he planned to tear down the Building and build another structure on the property. There was no evidence that Respondents treated Petitioner any differently than any other tenant in the Building either before or after the sale of the Building to Mr. Aizenstat.
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 that underpins this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent has committed a discriminatory housing practice based on the Petitioner's physical handicap, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20-760.37, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In September of 1993, the Petitioner rented an efficiency unit from the Respondent. They had an unwritten month-to-month tenancy agreement. In addition to the monthly rent for the efficiency unit, the Respondent also billed the Petitioner monthly for the electricity used in the efficiency unit. The Petitioner resided in the efficiency unit with his wife. The efficiency unit was part of the house in which the Respondent lived with his wife and their minor child. In September of 1993, the Petitioner was suffering from the disease Lupus. When he rented the efficiency the Petitioner told the Respondent that he was suffering from Lupus and provided the Respondent with some information about the disease. As a result of the Lupus, in September of 1993, the Petitioner suffered from symptoms which were, to some extent, disabling, but at that time the Petitioner was still able to work and was employed as a security guard. For approximately two years the Petitioner and the Respondent had a substantially harmonious relationship. During that time the Petitioner and his wife were frequently invited to participate in social occasions in the Respondent's home. During that time the Respondent twice loaned money to the Petitioner so that the Petitioner could buy automobiles. On several occasions the Respondent worked on the Petitioner's automobiles without charging the Petitioner for his labor. On several occasions the Respondent helped the Petitioner find work when the Petitioner was unemployed. During 1995 the Petitioner was hospitalized as a result of his Lupus and other medical complications caused by the Lupus. During the course of the 1995 hospitalization, all of the Petitioner's toes were surgically removed and portions of all ten of his fingers were surgically removed. After a lengthy hospitalization, the Petitioner returned to reside in the efficiency unit he rented from the Respondent. While recuperating from the surgery, it was necessary for the Petitioner to use a wheelchair. To facilitate the Petitioner's access to the efficiency unit, the Respondent built and installed a ramp at the entrance to the efficiency unit. During the Petitioner's recuperation, the Petitioner's wife had to make a two-week trip to Cuba. The Respondent installed an intercom between the efficiency unit and the portion of the house in which the Respondent resided, so that the Petitioner would be able to contact the Respondent if he needed assistance. While the Petitioner's wife was in Cuba, the Respondent's wife assisted the Petitioner on several occasions and prepared several meals for the Petitioner. During the latter part of 1995 the Petitioner's attitude and conduct began to change. He became very confrontational and argumentative. He also made a number of threatening statements to his wife, to the Respondent's wife, and to others. He also engaged in frequent loud and abusive arguments with his wife. On November 14, 1995, the Petitioner's wife called the police because her husband had threatened to kill her and himself with a revolver. The police impounded for safekeeping the Petitioner's .38 caliber revolver and several rounds of ammunition. During the following months, the Petitioner continued to be confrontational and argumentative, and continued to make threatening remarks. On at least one occasion the Petitioner made remarks to the Respondent's wife to the effect that he could burn down the house or blow up the house. These remarks caused the Respondent's wife to worry about her safety and the safety of her family. As a result of those worries, on one occasion in April of 1996 when the Respondent's wife heard a "ticking" sound in the Petitioner's efficiency unit, she became frightened that the Petitioner might have left a bomb in the efficiency, and she called the police. The police searched the efficiency unit and did not find a bomb. In April of 1996, the Respondent began eviction proceedings against the Petitioner by filing a Complaint for Tenant Eviction in the County Court. The grounds for the eviction were that the Petitioner had failed to pay rent for one month and had failed to pay for electricity for two months. The Petitioner never paid the past due rent and electricity bills. The Petitioner and his wife moved out of the Respondent's efficiency unit the day before he was to be evicted. The Respondent's act of evicting the Petitioner was not motivated by the Respondent's handicap. The Respondent's act of evicting the Petitioner was motivated solely by the Petitioner's failure to pay past-due rent and electricity bills and by the Petitioner's confrontational and threatening conduct.2
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing the Petition and denying all relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1998.
