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 Petitioner was subjected to housing discrimination by Respondent based on Petitioner's race, African-American, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Miguel Johnson is an African-American male and, therefore, belongs to a class of persons protected from discrimination under the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2009). He filed a complaint for housing discrimination against Riviera Towers at 6896 Abbott Avenue in Miami Beach. Respondent Riviera Terrace Apartments (Riviera Terrace) was apparently erroneously named Riviera Towers in the complaint and in the style of this case. Notice of that error was given by the owner, Arie Markowitz, and in the absence of any indication that Riviera Terrace is a corporate entity, Mr. Markowitz is also added as a Respondent. The style has been corrected to reflect these corrections. Riviera Terrace, 6890 Abbott Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, 33141, is a 20-unit apartment complex. Mr. Johnson thought that the complex has 22 units, but there is no evidence to support his thinking. Contrary to his request, the undersigned has no independent investigative powers and must accept the evidence in the record. According to his records, Mr. Johnson, on March 17, 2009, telephoned a number he saw on a "For Rent" sign at Riviera Terrace. A woman identified as Diana Miteff answered the telephone. Mr. Johnson said Ms. Miteff identified herself as the manager of the complex. The telephone records indicate that the conversation lasted one minute. Mr. Johnson testified that Ms. Miteff told him to call back later. Mr. Johnson telephoned Ms. Miteff again on March 21, 2009, and his records indicate that they talked for 8 minutes. Mr. Johnson testified that Ms. Miteff told him about the security deposit, that the rent for a one bedroom apartment was $900 a month, and that she had some vacant efficiencies. Mr. Johnson testified that a friend of his, Pedro Valdes, lives in the same complex and that together they met with Ms. Miteff the day after Mr. Johnson talked to her on the telephone, and saw a vacant efficiency apartment. According to Mr. Johnson, Ms. Miteff told him, after seeing him, that there were no vacancies. Ayesha Azara, Mr. Johnson's wife, testified that she made another unsuccessful attempt to rent a unit in Riviera Terrace in May 2009. She had no information in March 2008, except to say tht Ms. Miteff claimed to be the manager and told her the building was for elderly people. Pedro Valdes testified that he lives in Riviera Towers and gave his address as 6896 Abbott Avenue. He said that the "For Rent" sign for Riviera Terrace is not always posted in front of the complex. Mr. Markowitz is the owner of Riviera Terrace at 6890 Abbott Avenue. He testified that he is also the manager and that Ms. Miteff is a tenant. He uses her telephone number on the "For Rent" sign because he does not speak Spanish. The apartments are government-subsidized Section 8 housing. The only vacant efficiency in March 2008 was a unit for which he already had a written lease, but the tenant could not move in until after a government-required inspection. He also testified that his tenants are not all Caucasians and not all elderly. Ms. Miteff confirmed that she has been a resident of Riviera Terrace for 20 years. She concedes that she told Mr. Johnson's wife that the people in the complex are very quiet and mostly old people. Mr. Johnson's claim of discrimination based on race is not supported by the evidence, which is contradictory with regard to the name and address of the property, and because there were no vacant apartments at Riviera Terrace in March 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Petition for Relief be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2009, 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 15th day of October, 2009. 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 Louis A. Supraski, Esquire Louis A. Supraski, P.A. 2450 Northeast Miami Gardens Drive 2nd Floor North Miami Beach, Florida 33180 Miguel Johnson 916 West 42nd Street, Apt. 9 Miami Beach, Florida 33140 Miguel Johnson C/O Robert Fox 1172 South Dixie Highway Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Diana Mittles Riviera Terrace Apartments 6896 Abott Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33141
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent committed an unlawful housing practice by discriminating against the Petitioner on the basis of race, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dr. Rubye Johnson, is an African-American woman and, thus, is a member of a class protected under the Florida Fair Housing Act, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Canongate Condominium Apartments No. One, Inc., is the condominium association responsible for operation of the Canongate Condominium Apartments No. One ("Canongate"). Petitioner is a resident of Canongate and currently resides in Unit 201. She previously owned and lived in Canongate Unit 207, the unit at issue in this proceeding.3 She no longer owns Unit 207. Petitioner could not recall precisely when she became a resident of Canongate.4 She testified that when she became a resident of Canongate she was a renter, and she rented Unit 207. The evidence indicates that she likely moved into Unit 207 sometime before February 4, 2000. On February 4, 2000, the Association voted to amend Canongate's Declaration of Condominium, Article VII, Paragraph G, Section i. This amendment (the "2000 Amendment") prohibits the leasing or rental of units in Canongate. Existing leases and tenants as of the amendment's effective date were grandfathered for the balance of the lease term; however, no lease extensions or renewals were allowed. Institutional mortgagees' existing rights under the Declaration of Condominium were expressly preserved. At some point after Petitioner began renting Unit 207, the unit owner told her that due to the 2000 Amendment, she either would have to purchase the unit or move out in five years' time. The owner told her he thought the 2000 Amendment was approved because Respondent's Board of Directors ("Board") did not want any more black residents in the building.5 Petitioner purchased Unit 207 in or about 2004. When she purchased the unit, she was aware of the 2000 Amendment. She acknowledged that the 2000 Amendment prohibits the leasing or rental of units in Canongate without regard to race or gender. Petitioner testified that when she came home one day, Laura Ochacher, who had owned Unit 210, approached her about renting one of her units. Ms. Ochacher told Petitioner that Unit 210 was the subject of foreclosure and that her family was being evicted. Petitioner saw the eviction notice. Ms. Ochacher told Petitioner that Canongate property manager Marsha Allen had found a company to purchase Unit 210, and that the company had allowed them to remain in and rent Unit 210. Through examining a document printed out from the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office website, Petitioner learned that Lansdowne Real Estate Holdings, LLC ("Lansdowne") owned Unit 210. From this information, Petitioner surmised that Lansdowne had purchased Unit 210 and rented it to the Ochachers. She believed that Ms. Allen and the Board were complicit in what she viewed as a rental arrangement that violated the 2000 Amendment. Her belief was based on her knowledge of the screening and approval process entailed in purchasing a unit in Canongate. Petitioner did not independently investigate the matters that Ms. Ochacher relayed to her. She did not ask Ms. Allen whether she had found a company to purchase Unit 210; whether Unit 210 was, in fact, being rented; or whether she or the Board knew of and allowed rental of the unit. Petitioner understood Lansdowne to be a land company that bought and sold land on a large scale. She did not know whether Lansdowne is white, black, or of any other race. Petitioner also heard rumors from other Canongate residents that other units were being rented. She identified these units as 618, 520, 602, 105, 309, 106, 115, 120, 315, 515, 313, 410, 430, 503, 514, "and perhaps more." She did not identify who told her about these units, nor did she independently investigate whether the units were, in fact, being rented. Following her discussion with Ms. Ochacher, Petitioner decided to ask the Board whether she could rent Unit 207. She sent a communication to the Board, dated April 11, 2009, entitled "Issues and Concerns."6 Item 12 of this communication states: 12. It is rumored that there are renters in the building and that the board of directors are [sic] sanctioning these arrangements. Is this true? If so, under what circumstance would the board of director's [sic] sanctions [sic] renters in the building? If not, do you have a clue how this perception has been generated? Petitioner's testimony regarding whether she had actually requested permission from the Board to rent her unit was inconsistent. In her deposition, she testified that she viewed the statement in Item 12 as a request to rent Unit 207, but conceded that the request was "implied." At the final hearing, she acknowledged that her statement in Item 12 did not constitute a specific request, but stated that she previously had sent letters asking to rent the unit. She was unable to recall any specific letters she sent, when she sent them, or to whom the letters were sent. No such letters were proffered or admitted into evidence. Petitioner claimed that she had orally asked Ms. Allen and various Board members, on numerous occasions, whether she could rent her unit. However, she could not recall who, other than Ms. Allen, she ostensibly had asked, nor did she recall the substance or details of such conversations. Petitioner testified that, "by the way they acted," she knew she was not allowed to rent her unit. She stated that she also had been informed, orally and in writing, that she could not rent her unit. However, she could not recall who informed her, or any details of those discussions. She did not provide any evidence of written refusal to allow her to rent her unit. Petitioner testified that she had discussed with Marsha Allen her concern that white unit owners were allowed to rent their units, while she was not. She acknowledged that no one had ever told her she was not allowed to rent her unit because she is black. Canongate property manager Marsha Allen testified on behalf of Respondent. Ms. Allen's duties as property manager include overseeing the day-to-day operation of Canongate, reporting to the Board, and serving as Respondent's records custodian. Ms. Allen testified that rental of units in Canongate is prohibited under the 2000 Amendment. She testified that neither she nor the Board have allowed Canongate owners to rent their units, and that whenever owners have asked, they have been denied permission because of the rental prohibition. Ms. Allen testified that none of the units Petitioner identified was, in fact, being rented. Ms. Allen stated that Petitioner never had asked her whether she could rent her unit. She was not aware of Petitioner ever having asked the Board or any Board member whether she could rent her unit. Ms. Allen did not interpret Item 12 of Petitioner's April 11, 2009, communication as constituting a request for permission to rent her unit. Ms. Allen also stated that she never had discussed Canongate's rental policy with Petitioner, and she never had refused a request from Petitioner to rent her unit. She testified that she never had been directed by the Board or any Board member to refuse to allow Petitioner to rent her unit. Ms. Allen testified that Petitioner never had complained to her that she was being discriminated against by not being allowed to rent her unit, while white owners were allowed to rent theirs. Lansdowne sent a letter dated October 30, 2008, to Ms. Allen. The letter asked her to inform the Board that Lansdowne had acquired title to Unit 210 through foreclosure and that they were entering into an agreement with the borrower, Laura Ochacher, to continue her occupancy for 12 months, during which she could redeem the property by paying the foreclosure judgment. The letter stated: "[t]his should not be considered a rental arrangement." The letter explained that Lansdowne had paid the past due assessments for the unit and would pay outstanding legal fees once the Board approved the occupancy agreement. Upon receiving the letter, Ms. Allen reviewed the Canongate Declaration of Condominium, specifically, Article VII, Paragraph H., to ensure that the occupancy agreement for Unit 210 did not violate the 2000 Amendment's rental prohibition. Article VII, Paragraph H., provides that if the mortgagee of a condominium unit subject to an institutional mortgage given as security becomes the owner of the unit, the owner has the unqualified right to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the unit. Ms. Allen determined that, based on this provision, the occupancy agreement did not violate the 2000 Amendment. Ms. Allen consulted with Respondent's legal counsel, who independently verified that the occupancy agreement did not violate the 2000 Amendment. Respondent also presented the testimony of Joyce Meade, who has served as Respondent's president since 2008. Ms. Meade's duties as President include enforcing Respondent's condominium documents, overseeing the Board, conducting meetings, and supervising Canongate's property manager. Ms. Meade testified that Petitioner did not ask her for permission to rent her unit. She also testified that, to the best of her knowledge, Petitioner did not ask the Board for permission to rent her unit, and the Board did not specifically refuse. Ms. Meade testified that had Petitioner asked to rent her unit, she would not have been allowed because all rental requests are refused due to the 2000 Amendment. Ms. Meade testified that Petitioner never complained to her that she was being discriminated against because she was not allowed to rent her unit, while white owners were allowed to rent theirs. She also was not aware of any such complaints by Petitioner to the Board. Determinations of Ultimate Fact Petitioner failed to present persuasive evidence that she requested Respondent's permission to rent Unit 207. Petitioner subjectively may have believed that she requested permission in Item 12 of her April 11, 2009, communication, but that item cannot reasonably be read to constitute such a request. Item 12 merely asks if there are renters in Canongate and the circumstances under which the Board would allow renters. No other items in the April 11, 2009, communication constitute a request to rent the unit. Petitioner did not present any evidence that she submitted other written requests to rent her unit, and her testimony that she had orally requested to rent her unit was unpersuasive. Respondent's witnesses credibly testified that Petitioner had never requested, orally or in writing, to rent her unit. Petitioner also failed to establish that her request to rent her unit was refused. Her testimony on this point was unclear, imprecise, and unpersuasive, and she provided no evidence of written refusal to allow her to rent her unit. By contrast, Respondent's witnesses testified unequivocally that they had not refused to allow Petitioner to rent her unit. They also credibly testified that Petitioner never had complained to them that she was refused permission to rent her unit because she is black, while white owners were allowed to rent theirs. Petitioner did not establish that she was qualified and able to rent out her unit. The uncontroverted evidence established that the Canongate Declaration of Condominium prohibits leasing or rental of units. Accordingly, Petitioner could not have been allowed to rent her unit, even if had she asked. Petitioner did not present any competent substantial evidence establishing that Respondent allows similarly situated white unit owners to rent their units, while refusing to allow Petitioner to rent hers. Petitioner's testimony that Lansdowne was a purchaser and that the occupancy agreement for Unit 210 actually constituted a rental arrangement was merely her personal opinion, unsupported by any competent substantial evidence. Respondent showed that Lansdowne is an institutional mortgagee that took title through foreclosure and, therefore, was not similarly situated to Petitioner and the other owners who had purchased their units. Moreover, Petitioner presented no evidence that Lansdowne was white. In sum, there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of unlawful housing discrimination.
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 Canongate Condominium Apartments No. One, Inc., not liable for housing discrimination and awarding no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 9th day of August, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Assad F. Malaty, discriminated against Petitioners, Dr. James E. Townsend and his niece, Contessa Idleburg (formerly, Ms. Rogers), in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act and, if so, the appropriate remedy therefor.
Findings Of Fact Based on the weight of the credible evidence, Dr. Townsend has a qualifying handicap under the FFHA. He suffered a stroke in May 2014, upon which the requested modifications and accommodations were based. The stroke substantially limited one or more major life activities, given his need for using a wheelchair and walker. § 760.22(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Mr. Malaty conceded as much at the hearing.3/ Based on the weight of the credible evidence, Ms. Idleburg has a qualifying handicap under the FFHA. She has a shunt to drain fluid from her brain, has received Supplemental Social Security Income since at least 2014, and also has used a walker. That said, the evidence is undisputed that Petitioners requested the modifications and accommodations solely to assist Dr. Townsend after he suffered the stroke. Thus, Ms. Idleburg’s handicap is not relevant to the claims at issue. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, Petitioners informed Mr. Malaty in May 2014 that Dr. Townsend suffered a stroke and requested that he make several modifications to the Unit, including handrails in the bathroom, and handrails and a ramp at the front door, and to accommodate them by assigning them a parking spot outside the Unit. There is no dispute that the requested modifications and accommodation were never made. Importantly, however, the evidence does not establish that Petitioners’ renewed those requests again before they filed complaints with the Department of Justice in late 2016 and HUD in early 2017.4/ Although Dr. Townsend reminded Mr. Malaty in a December 2016 letter that he had failed to make the requested the modifications, the undersigned finds that letter to be more in the nature of a response to Mr. Malaty’s threat of eviction rather than a renewed request to accommodate them. The weight of the credible evidence also confirms that Petitioners never offered to pay for the handrails, ramp, or signage for the requested parking spot. Indeed, Dr. Townsend testified that he believed Mr. Malaty was responsible for making such modifications as the owner of the Unit. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the undersigned finds that Mr. Malaty did not evict Petitioners because of their handicaps or their requests for modifications or an accommodation. Mr. Malaty initially threatened to evict them for failing to pay rent in January 2013, reducing their rent in September and December 2016, and failing to take care of the lawn as required in the lease. It had been three years since Petitioners requested the modifications and accommodation due to Dr. Townsend’s stroke and they did not re-raise those issues again until after Mr. Malaty threatened to evict them for failing to pay the rent. The evidence also is clear that Petitioners could have avoided eviction by paying the missed rent by December 29, 2016. But, they failed to do so and then did not pay their rent in January 2017, which ultimately led to Mr. Malaty filing the eviction action.
Conclusions For Petitioners: James E. Townsend, Sr., pro se Contessa Idleburg, pro se Apartment 2101 140 Aida Street Lakeland, Florida 33805 For Respondent: Charlann Jackson Sanders, Esquire Law Office of Charlann Jackson Sanders 2225 East Edgewood Drive, Suite 8 Lakeland, Florida 33803
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 dismissing Petitioners’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO 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 19th day of December, 2019.
The Issue The issue for determination in this matter is whether Respondents engaged in acts of housing discrimination against Petitioners on the basis of race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Donald Travis and Lisa Harrell, are a bi-racial couple (Mr. Travis is African-American and, therefore, belongs to a class of persons subject to protection under Florida's Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes, and Ms. Harrell is white). They have two sons who are bi-racial (one is African-American and white, the other is white and Asian). Petitioners lived in Apartment 163 at 10075 West Highway 98, Pensacola, Florida 32506. Respondents, John and Anne Cutler, are the owners of two four-plex apartments at 10075 West Highway 98, Pensacola, Florida 32506, including the unit occupied by Petitioners that gave rise to this matter. They are both retired educators who own and operate their apartment rental business in their retirement. In their teaching and professional careers, both have instructed students of various races and national origins. Petitioner, Donald Travis, is a veteran of Desert Storm and has been treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He regularly takes medications to treat anxiety and depression. On April 4, 2008, Petitioners moved into Apartment 163, which had been recently painted, carpeted, and had a new ceiling fan and light installed in the living room. Everything went smoothly between Petitioners and Respondents for several months. Mr. Cutler had to unplug the downstairs toilet with a plunger a few times, but everything else seemed to be in working order. Both Mr. and Ms. Cutler considered Petitioners to be good tenants. As summer approached, Mr. Travis asked Mr. Cutler about installing a screen door for the sliding glass doors. This could not be done without replacing the entire sliding glass doors. When Apartment 131 became vacant, its screen door was moved to Petitioners' apartment. The screen door had a slit in it, which Ms. Cutler repaired with tape. When Apartment 132 became vacant, the good screen door from that apartment was used to replace the taped one in Petitioners' apartment. Respondents tried to keep everything in working order in Petitioners' apartment. When Petitioners' refrigerator door would not close, Respondents replaced the refrigerator. Respondents thought Petitioners were happy with their apartment. Petitioners called Respondents about a plumbing leak and said feces was running down the wall. The leak and pipe were fixed by B & G Plumbing. Petitioners were shown the water shut-off valve in case of future leaks. Petitioners believe that Respondents treated them differently from other tenants in the apartment buildings. Petitioners believe that other tenants were allowed to keep pets in their apartments while they were not. Respondents allowed tenants who had pets when they purchased the apartments to keep them, but banned pets on all future rentals. The rent for Petitioners' apartment, including water, sewer, and garbage, was $650.00. Petitioners always paid their rent on time. Petitioners asked to be moved into a better unit since they believed their unit was inferior to others in the complex. Petitioners wanted to move into Apartment 162 which, in their opinion, was in much better shape than their unit. Respondents offered to put new carpet into Apartment 162 before Petitioners moved in, but they refused. Petitioners decided to leave the apartment because they believed the maintenance was not properly performed. On December 5, 2008, the day Petitioners made known their desire to leave the apartment, Mr. Travis confronted Mr. Cutler. Mr. Cutler offered Apartment 132 to Petitioners because it was ready for occupancy after its occupants had moved out. Apartment 133 would soon be ready, and was also offered to Petitioners. Mr. Travis angrily refused to move into any apartments in the two four-plexes. He yelled at Mr. Cutler and told him he hated him. This exchange was witnessed by a neighbor, Gary Denton. Mr. Cutler offered to let Petitioners move out without penalty, and agreed to return their $650.00 deposit. Petitioners accepted the offer and received the deposit in full as well as a waiver of the first five days' rent for December and an additional four days of rent to allow them time to pack and move. Petitioners accused Respondents of renting one four-plex to whites only and the other to minorities. At the time Petitioners moved out, both four-plexes had tenants of different races. As of the date of the hearing, five of the six total units rented were to non-white tenants. Only one was rented to a white couple.
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 25th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 25th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: John Cutler Anne Cutler 5970 Limestone Road Pensacola, Florida 32504 Donald Travis Lisa Harrell 1008 West Young Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her religion or national origin in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Tal Simhoni ("Simhoni"), a Jewish woman who identifies the State of Israel as her place of national origin, at all times relevant to this action owned Unit No. 212 in Mimo on the Beach I Condominium (the "Condominium"), which is located in Miami Beach, Florida. She purchased this unit in 2009 and a second apartment (Unit No. 203) in 2010. Simhoni has resided at the Condominium on occasion but her primary residence, at least as of the final hearing, was in New York City. The Condominium is a relatively small community consisting of two buildings comprising 28 units. Respondent Mimo on the Beach I Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association"), a Florida nonprofit corporation, is the entity responsible for operating and managing the Condominium and, specifically, the common elements of the Condominium property. Governing the Association is a Board of Directors (the "Board"), a representative body whose three members, called "directors," are elected by the unit owners. Simhoni served on the Board for nearly seven years. From July 2010 until April 2011, she held the office of vice- president, and from April 2011 until June 1, 2017, Simhoni was the president of the Board. Simhoni's term as president was cut short when, in May 2017, she and the other two directors then serving with her on the Board were recalled by a majority vote of the Condominium's owners. The Association, while still under the control of the putatively recalled directors, rejected the vote and petitioned the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes ("DBPR"), for arbitration of the dispute. By Summary Final Order dated June 1, 2017, DBPR upheld the recall vote and ordered that Simhoni, Marisel Santana, and Carmen Duarte be removed from office, effective immediately. The run-up to the recall vote entailed a campaign of sorts to unseat Simhoni, which, as might be expected, caused friction between neighbors. Without getting into details that aren't important here, it is fair to say that, generally speaking, the bloc opposed to Simhoni believed that she had poorly managed the Condominium, especially in connection with the use of Association funds. Some of Simhoni's critics were not shy about voicing their opinions in this regard, which—— understandably——led to hard feelings. Simhoni vehemently disputes the charges of her critics and, clearly, has not gotten over her recall election defeat, which she blames on false, unfair, and anti-Semitic accusations against her. This is a case of alleged housing discrimination brought under Florida's Fair Housing Act (the "Act"). Specifically, Simhoni is traveling under section 760.23(2), Florida Statutes, which makes it "unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion." (Emphasis added). The applicable law will be discussed in greater detail below. The purpose of this brief, prefatory mention of the Act is to provide context for the findings of fact that follow. The principal goal of section 760.23(2) is to prohibit the denial of access to housing based on discriminatory animus. Simhoni, however, was not denied access to housing. She is, in fact, a homeowner. Contrary to what some might intuit, the Act is not an all-purpose anti-discrimination law or civility code; it does not purport to police personal disputes, quarrels, and feuds between neighbors, even ugly ones tinged with, e.g., racial or religious hostility. To the extent the Act authorizes charges based on alleged post-acquisition discrimination, such charges must involve the complete denial of services or facilities that are available in common to all owners as a term or condition of ownership——the right to use common areas, for example, pursuant to a declaration of condominium. Moreover, the denial of access to common services or facilities logically must result from the actions of a person or persons, or an entity, that exercises de facto or de jure control over access to the services or facilities in question. This is important because, while Simhoni believes that she was subjected to anti-Semitic slurs during her tenure as Board president, the fact is that her unfriendly neighbors——none of whom then held an office on the Board——were in no position to (and in fact did not) deny Simhoni access to common services and facilities under the Association's control, even if their opposition to her presidency were motivated by discriminatory animus (which wasn't proved). As president of the Board, Simhoni wound up on the receiving end of some uncivil and insensitive comments, and a few of her neighbors seem strongly to dislike her. Simhoni was hurt by this. That impolite, even mean, comments are not actionable as unlawful housing discrimination under section 760.23(2) is no stamp of approval; it merely reflects the relatively limited scope of the Act. Simhoni has organized her allegations of discrimination under six categories. Most of these allegations do not implicate or involve the denial of common services or facilities, and thus would not be sufficient to establish liability under the Act, even if true. For that reason, it is not necessary to make findings of fact to the granular level of detail at which the charges were made. The Mastercard Dispute. As Board president, Simhoni obtained a credit card for the Association, which she used for paying common expenses and other Association obligations such as repair costs. In applying for the card, Simhoni signed an agreement with the issuer to personally guarantee payment of the Association's account. It is unclear whether Simhoni's actions in procuring this credit card were undertaken in accordance with the Condominium's By-Laws, but there is no evidence suggesting that Simhoni was forced, encouraged, or even asked to co-sign the Association's credit agreement; she seems, rather, to have volunteered. Simhoni claims that she used personal funds to pay down the credit card balance, essentially lending money to the Association. She alleges that the Association has failed to reimburse her for these expenditures, and she attributes this nonpayment to anti-Semitism. There appears to be some dispute regarding how much money, if any, the Association actually owes Simhoni for common expenses. The merits of her claim for repayment are not relevant in this proceeding, however, because there is insufficient persuasive evidence in the record to support a finding that the Association has withheld payment based on Simhoni's religion or national origin. Equally, if not more important, is the fact that Simhoni's alleged right to reimbursement is not a housing "service" or "facility" available in common to the Condominium's owners and residents. Nonpayment of the alleged debt might constitute a breach of contract or support other causes of action at law or in equity, but these would belong to Simhoni as a creditor of the Association, not as an owner of the Condominium. In short, the Association's alleged nonpayment of the alleged debt might give Simhoni good legal grounds to sue the Association for, e.g., breach of contract or money had and received——but not for housing discrimination. The Estoppel Certificate. On September 20, 2017, when she was under contract to sell Unit No. 212, Simhoni submitted a written request to the Association for an estoppel certificate, pursuant to section 718.116(8), Florida Statutes. By statute, the Association was obligated to issue the certificate within ten business days——by October 4, 2017, in this instance. Id. The failure to timely issue an estoppel letter results in forfeiture of the right to charge a fee for preparing and delivering the certificate. § 718.116(8)(d), Fla. Stat. The Association missed the deadline, issuing the certificate one-week late, on October 11, 2017; it paid the prescribed statutory penalty for this tardiness, refunding the preparation fee to Simhoni as required. Simhoni attributes the delay to anti-Semitism. It is debatable whether the issuance of an estoppel letter is the kind of housing "service" whose deprivation, if based on religion, national origin, or another protected criterion, would support a claim for unlawful discrimination under the Act. The undersigned will assume for argument's sake that it is such a service. Simhoni's claim nonetheless fails because (i) the very statute that imposes the deadline recognizes that it will not always be met and provides a penalty for noncompliance, which the Association paid; (ii) a brief delay in the issuance of an estoppel letter is not tantamount to the complete deprivation thereof; and (iii) there is, at any rate, insufficient persuasive evidence that the minimal delay in issuing Simhoni a certificate was the result of discriminatory animus. Pest Control. Pest control is not a service that the Association is required to provide but, rather, one that may be provided at the discretion of the Board. During Simhoni's tenure as Board president, apparently at her urging, the Association arranged for a pest control service to treat all of the units for roaches, as a common expense, and the apartments were sprayed on a regular basis. If the exterminator were unable to enter a unit because, e.g., the resident was not at home when he arrived, a locksmith would be summoned to open the door, and the owner would be billed individually for this extra service. After Simhoni and her fellow directors were recalled, the new Board decided, as a cost-control measure, to discontinue the pest control service, allowing the existing contract to expire without renewal. Owners were notified that, during the phaseout, the practice of calling a locksmith would cease. If no one were home when the pest control operator showed up, the unit would not be sprayed, unless the owner had left a key with the Association or made arrangements for someone else to open his door for the exterminator. By this time, Simhoni's principal residence, as mentioned, was in New York. Although she knew that the locksmith option was no longer available, Simhoni failed to take steps to ensure that the pest control operator would have access to her apartment when she wasn't there. Consequently, Simhoni's unit was not sprayed on some (or perhaps any) occasions during the phaseout. Simhoni blames anti-Semitism for the missed pest control visits, but the greater weight of the evidence fails to support this charge. Simhoni was treated the same as everyone else in connection with the pest control service. Moreover, Simhoni was not completely deprived of access to pest control, which would have been provided to her if she had simply made arrangements to permit access to her unit. Short-term Rentals. Article XVII of the Condominium's Declaration of Condominium ("Declaration"), titled Occupancy and Use Restrictions, specifically regulates leases. Section 17.8 of the Declaration provides, among other things, that the Association must approve all leases of units in the Condominium, which leases may not be for a term of less than one year. In other words, the Declaration prohibits short-term, or vacation, rentals, which are typically for periods of days or weeks. Short-term rentals can be lucrative for owners, especially in places such as Miami Beach that attract tourists who might be interested in alternatives to traditional hotel lodgings. On the flip side, however, short-term rental activity is not necessarily welcomed by neighboring residents, who tend to regard transients as being insufficiently invested in preserving the peace, quiet, and tidy appearance of the neighborhood. At the Condominium, the question of whether or not to permit short-term rentals has divided the owners into competing camps. Simhoni is in favor of allowing short-term rentals. Accordingly, while she was Board president, the Association did not enforce the Declaration's prohibition of this activity. (It is possible, but not clear, that the Association was turning a blind eye to short-term rentals even before Simhoni became a director.) This laissez-faire approach did not sit well with everyone; indeed, dissatisfaction with short-term rentals provided at least some of the fuel for the ultimately successful recall effort that cost Simhoni her seat on the Board. After Simhoni and the rest of her Board were removed, the new directors announced their intent to enforce the Declaration's ban on short-term rentals. Simhoni alleges that the crackdown on short-term rentals was an act of religion-based housing discrimination. Her reasoning in this regard is difficult to follow, but the gist of it seems to be that the Association is selectively enforcing the ban so that only Simhoni and other Jewish owners are being forced to stop engaging in short-term rental activity; that the prohibition is having a disparate impact on Jewish owners; or that some owners are harassing Simhoni by making complaints about her to the City of Miami Beach in hopes that the City will impose fines against her for violating municipal restrictions on short-term rentals. The undersigned recognizes that a neutral policy such as the prohibition of short-term rentals conceivably could be enforced in a discriminatory manner, thus giving rise to a meritorious charge under the Act. Here, however, the evidence simply does not support Simhoni's contentions. There is insufficient evidence of disparate impact, disparate treatment, selective enforcement, harassment, or discriminatory animus in connection with the Association's restoration of the short-term rental ban. To the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Association is trying to stop short-term rentals at the Condominium for a perfectly legitimate reason, namely that a majority of the owners want section 17.8 of the Declaration to be given full force and effect. The Feud with Flores. Simhoni identifies Mr. and Ms. Flores as the worst of her antagonists among her neighbors. As advocates of the recall, these two were fierce critics of Simhoni. The Floreses reported Simhoni to the City of Miami Beach for engaging in short-term rentals without the required business tax receipt, in violation of the municipal code. At a code enforcement hearing, Mr. Flores gave Simhoni the finger. None of this, however, amounts to housing discrimination because the Floreses' actions did not completely deprive Simhoni of common facilities or services, even if such actions were motivated by anti-Semitism, which the greater weight of the evidence fails to establish. Indeed, there is no persuasive evidence that the Floreses ever had such control over the Condominium's facilities or services that they could have denied Simhoni access to them. Simhoni argues in her proposed recommended order, apparently for the first time, that the Floreses' conduct created a "hostile housing environment." Putting aside the legal problems with this belatedly raised theory, the Floreses' conduct was not sufficiently severe and pervasive, as a matter of fact, to support a "hostile environment" claim. Nor is there sufficient persuasive evidence in the record to support a finding that the Floreses acted in concert with the Board to harass Simhoni, or that the Board acquiesced to the Floreses' conduct. Roof Repairs. Simhoni alleges that the Association failed to repair the area of the roof over her unit, which she claims was damaged in Hurricane Irma, and that the Association has refused to make certain repairs inside her unit, which she asserts sustained interior water damage as a result of roof leaks. Simhoni asserts that, using Association funds, the Association not only repaired other portions of the roof, but also fixed interior damages similar to hers, for the benefit of non-Jewish owners. The greater weight of the persuasive evidence shows, however, that the roof over Simhoni's unit is not damaged, and that the Association never instructed the roofing contractor not to make needed repairs. Simhoni, in short, was not denied the service of roof repairs. As for the alleged damage to Simhoni's unit, section 7.1 of the Declaration provides that repairs to the interior of a unit are to be performed by the owner at the owner's sole cost and expense. The evidence fails to establish that the interior damage of which Simhoni complains falls outside of her duty to repair. Because this is a housing discrimination case, and not a legal or administrative proceeding to enforce the terms of the Declaration, it is neither necessary, nor would it be appropriate, for the undersigned to adjudicate fully the question of whether the Association is obligated to repair Simhoni's unit as a common expense. Here, it is sufficient to find (and it is found) that section 7.1 of the Declaration affords the Association a legitimate, nonpretextual, nondiscriminatory reason to refuse, as it has, to perform the interior repairs that Simhoni has demanded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding the Association not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Simhoni no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2019.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents, The Fourth Bayshore Condominium Association, Inc. (“Bayshore”), Karl Stemmler (“Stemmler”), and/or Richard Grove (“Grove”), discriminated against Petitioner, Robert Pagano (“Pagano"), on the basis of his physical handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Pagano is a Caucasian male who is handicapped by virtue of medical complications which resulted in the amputation of his left leg in March 2008. He has been confined to a wheelchair since that time. At all times relevant hereto, Pagano was renting a condominium unit at Bayshore. In January 2012, Pagano saw another unit at Bayshore advertised for rent. He called Grove, listed as the owner of the unit, and inquired about renting the property. Grove told Pagano that a key to the unit would be left under a mat between the screen door and front door on January 19, 2012. On that day, Pagano went to inspect the unit, accompanied by a friend, Philip Saglimebene. Upon arrival at the unit, Pagano and his friend began looking for the hidden key, but could not find it. They apparently made some noise while searching for the key, because they were confronted by Stemmler. According to Pagano, Stemmler began asking them in unfriendly terms who they were and what they were doing at the unit. The friend then told Stemmler they were looking for a key so they could go in and inspect the unit as Pagano was interested in renting it from Grove. Stemmler, supposedly identifying himself as a “building representative,” said there was no key to be found. He also reputedly told Pagano and his friend that they would not need a key anyway, “because you are not moving in.” When the friend explained that the unit was for Pagano, not him, Stemmler allegedly said that Pagano was not moving in either because he was an “undesirable.” When asked to explain that comment, Stemmler purportedly said, “He just is; that’s all you need to know.” (None of Stemmler’s comments were verified by competent evidence and, without verification or support, cannot be relied upon to make a finding of fact in this case.) Pagano believes Stemmler’s purported comments were based on the fact that he (Pagano) has long hair and a beard and does not fit into the conventional norm at Bayshore. He also believes that his handicap served as a basis for Stemmler’s alleged comments. There was no credible evidence presented at final hearing to substantiate Pagano’s suppositions. Grove had put his condominium unit up for rent at the beginning of the year. When Pagano called to inquire about it, Grove – who lives out-of-state – notified a friend to leave a key under the mat, as described above. That friend simply forgot to leave a key at the unit on the designated date. Grove knew nothing about Pagano’s interaction with Stemmler. Grove had not spoken to Stemmler prior to the day he and Pagano had their interaction. Stemmler had no authority to speak for Grove or to make a decision concerning to whom Grove would rent his condominium unit. Subsequent to the day Pagano visited the unit, Grove took the unit off the rental market because his wife decided to use the unit to house family and friends rather than renting it out to someone else. It took several weeks for the rental advertisement for the unit to be removed from a locked bulletin board at Bayshore. Grove said that if the unit ever went back on the market, he would call Pagano first about renting it, i.e., Grove had no opposition whatsoever to Pagano’s being a tenant. Van Buren, president of Bayshore, explained that the condominium association utilizes the support of voluntary building representatives to assist with security and minor maintenance at Bayshore. The volunteers, who are generally seasonal residents at Bayshore, do not hold keys to individual units and have no authority to grant or deny an applicant’s request to rent a unit. Stemmler is one of many building representatives who resides part-time at Bayshore. Pagano does not know of any non-handicapped individual who was allowed to rent a unit at Bayshore to the exclusion of himself or any other handicapped person. In fact, Pagano currently resides in another unit at Bayshore; he is already a resident there.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Robert Pagano in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 September, 2012.
The Issue The issues in this case are: 1) whether the abatement of certain requests for arbitration filed by the Petitioner constitutes a "rule" that must be adopted by the Respondent; and whether Proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 61B-45.0365, 61B-50.1265 and 61B-80.1165 are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a "condominium association" as defined by section 718.103(2), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is responsible for the administration, maintenance, management and operation of common elements and other condominium property identified as Condominiums One through and including Eleven of the Sabal Palm Condominiums of Pine Island Ridge, which are residential condominiums located in Broward County, Florida. The Respondent is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirements set forth in chapter 718 (the Florida Condominium Act) and related administrative rules. The Petitioner's Declaration of Condominium prohibits owners from keeping "any pet" in an apartment, other than as provided under rules adopted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's Rules and Regulations state as follows: "[N]o owners are permitted pets without prior written consent of the Board of Directors, other than a cat and/or fish. Permission will not be granted for any pet which weighs more than twenty (20) pounds at maturity. No lessee is allowed to keep pets except for one cat and/or fish." The Petitioner's Rules and Regulations further state that "dogs are not permitted unless 'grandfathered' or [with] prior approval by the Board of Directors." Disputes occur between the Petitioner's Board of Directors (board) and condominium apartment owners (owners) related to pets prohibited under the aforementioned rules. Pursuant to section 718.1255, the board is required to submit a request for non-binding arbitration by the Respondent prior to pursuing litigation in court to force compliance by an owner with established condominium restrictions. The Petitioner regularly files requests for arbitration with the Respondent, accompanied by a $50 filing fee. The Respondent employs Florida Bar licensed attorneys on a full-time basis as arbitrators. The purpose of the arbitration program is to address the financial disadvantage owners face when involved in litigation with condominium associations. Section 718.1255(3) provides as follows: LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.-- The Legislature finds that unit owners are frequently at a disadvantage when litigating against an association. Specifically, a condominium association, with its statutory assessment authority, is often more able to bear the costs and expenses of litigation than the unit owner who must rely on his or her own financial resources to satisfy the costs of litigation against the association. The Legislature finds that alternative dispute resolution has been making progress in reducing court dockets and trials and in offering a more efficient, cost-effective option to court litigation. However, the Legislature also finds that alternative dispute resolution should not be used as a mechanism to encourage the filing of frivolous or nuisance suits. There exists a need to develop a flexible means of alternative dispute resolution that directs disputes to the most efficient means of resolution. The high cost and significant delay of circuit court litigation faced by unit owners in the state can be alleviated by requiring nonbinding arbitration and mediation in appropriate cases, thereby reducing delay and attorney's fees while preserving the right of either party to have its case heard by a jury, if applicable, in a court of law. Arbitration is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Parties may agree to be bound by the written decision issued by an arbitrator. Arbitrators have the ability to issue subpoenas, permit discovery, and impose reasonable sanctions for violations of procedural rules or the failure to comply with certain orders issued by an arbitrator. If neither party files a complaint for trial de novo in a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days of an arbitrator's decision, the arbitration decision is final. Either party can enforce the decision by filing a petition in a court of competent jurisdiction after the 30 days have passed. Upon receipt of a request for arbitration, the assigned arbitrator reviews the request for arbitration to determine compliance with statutory filing requirements. Such requirements include prior notice to the owner allegedly in violation of the condominium restrictions, an opportunity to correct the alleged violation, and notice that litigation will commence if the alleged violation is not corrected. If the requirements are not met, the arbitration request is dismissed without prejudice. If the requirements are met, the Respondent provides a copy of the arbitration request to the offending owner, and the owner is required to respond to the alleged violations. Violations of pet restrictions are commonly submitted for arbitration, and, on occasion, an owner may defend a disputed pet by asserting that the pet is "medically necessary" and/or that a complaint has been, or will be, filed under an applicable Fair Housing Act. Fair housing laws essentially provide that it is unlawful to discriminate against any person in the provision of services or facilities in connection with his or her dwelling because of a handicap. Such discrimination includes refusal to make reasonable accommodations to rules or policies when such accommodations may be necessary to provide a handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Courts have deemed reasonable accommodations to include trained service animals and emotional support animals in cases litigated under fair housing laws. A variety of governmental agencies, including the Florida Commission on Human Relations, have statutory jurisdiction over disputes related to protections provided by applicable fair housing laws. The Respondent lacks subject matter jurisdiction to arbitrate issues governed by fair housing laws. When an owner indicates that the pet is, or will be, the subject of a fair housing complaint, the Respondent's arbitrators have issued orders requiring owners to demonstrate that such a complaint has been filed. If the owner fails to comply with the order by a time certain, the owner is deemed to have waived the opportunity to present such a defense. If the owner demonstrates that the fair housing complaint has been filed, the Respondent's arbitrators have sua sponte issued orders under various titles (hereinafter Abatement Orders) that delay arbitration until the pet issue is resolved by an appropriate agency. Either party may provide notice of the resolution to the arbitrator after the fair housing complaint is resolved. The case may or may not proceed to arbitration, depending on the disposition of the fair housing complaint and whether there are disputed issues remaining for arbitration. The routine practice of abating such arbitration requests commenced in 2005 and has continued through the date of the hearing. The Abatement Orders issued by the Respondent's arbitrators cite no specific rule or legal authority for the decision to abate a case. According to 2009-2010 email records, the Respondent's arbitrators have considered standardization of a procedural order to address abatement of fair housing cases; however, arbitrators are not required to use a specific standard order in abating a request for arbitration. The Petitioner asserts that the Respondent has no authority to delay arbitration for resolution of a fair housing complaint, and that arbitrators should sever fair housing issues from non-fair housing issues and immediately proceed to arbitration. The Petitioner has failed to present any credible evidence of injury caused by abatement of an arbitration so as to permit an appropriate governmental agency to address an alleged violation of fair housing protections. The Respondent has not adopted rules expressly authorizing the abatement of an arbitration proceeding. By letter dated February 9, 2012, the Petitioner notified the Respondent that it considered the practice of issuing Abatement Orders to be an unadopted rule, and that the Petitioner would file a petition for administrative hearing unless the Respondent commenced rulemaking proceedings. A draft of the proposed petition was included with the letter. During this proceeding, the Respondent has asserted that the inherent ability of an arbitrator to issue an Abatement Order is within the authority of an arbitrator to manage a case; however, by letter dated February 24, 2012, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that, after reviewing the draft petition, the Respondent had decided to initiate rule development. By letter dated March 1, 2012, the Petitioner notified the Respondent that the Petitioner would challenge any proposed rule that would authorize the Respondent to "temporarily or indefinitely" delay a request for arbitration as beyond the statutory authority granted to the Respondent by the Florida Condominium Act. Section 718.1255 requires that the Respondent adopt rules of procedure to govern arbitration hearings. The Respondent has adopted such rules of procedure in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 61B-45, 61B-50 and 61B-80. On March 9, 2012, the Respondent commenced development of the proposed rules at issue in this proceeding. The Petitioner has participated in the rulemaking process. On March 16, 2012, the Respondent published Notices of Development of Proposed Rules 61B-45.0365, 61B-50.1265, and 61B-80.1165. On July 27, 2012, the Respondent published Notice of Proposed Rules 61B-50.1265 and 61B-80.1165, which essentially relate to requests for arbitration related to board election disputes or recall of elected board members. On August 24, 2012, the Respondent published Notice of Development of Proposed Rule 61B-45.0365, which relates to all requests for mandatory non-binding arbitration pursuant to section 718.1255. On September 14, 2012, a Notice of Change was published, amending the text of the three proposed rules to provide as follows: The presiding arbitrator before whom a case is pending may issue any orders necessary to effectuate discovery, to prevent delay, and to promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of all aspects of the case. When a case is placed in abeyance or abated by a non-final order, no filing fee is necessary to re-open the case or otherwise proceed with this matter. The evidence fails to establish that the proposed rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
