The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Community Housing Initiative, Inc. (Respondent), committed a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner, Karen Lee Krason (Petitioner), in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact On or about June 11, 2009, Petitioner filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint with the Commission. Pursuant to the Commission's procedure, an investigation of the matter was completed that resulted in a Notice of Determination of No Cause. Essentially, the Commission found that based upon the allegations raised by Petitioner there was no cause from which it could be found that Respondent had violated the Florida Fair Housing Act. Thereafter, Petitioner elected to file a Petition for Relief to challenge the determination and to seek relief against Respondent for the alleged violation. The Commission then forwarded the matter to DOAH for formal proceedings. DOAH issued a Notice of Hearing that was provided to all parties at their addresses of record. The postal service did not return the notices as undelivered. It is presumed the parties received notice of the hearing date, time, and location. Petitioner did not appear at the hearing.
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 dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 4th day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Lee Krason 1715 Erin Court Northeast Palm Bay, Florida 32905 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 COPIES FURNISHED BY CERTIFIED MAIL Nicole Tenpenny, Registered Agent Community Housing Initiative, Inc. 3033 College Wood Drive Melbourne, Florida 32941 (Certified No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 3000) Nicole Tenpenny, Registered Agent Community Housing Initiative, Inc. Post Office Box 410522 Melbourne, Florida 32941-0522 (Certified No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 2997) Michael Rogers, Officer/Director Community Housing Initiative, Inc. 1890 Palm Bay Road, Northeast Palm Bay, Florida 32905 (Certified No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 2980)
The Issue Whether Respondents, Housing Authority of Flagler County and Chris Beyrer, Executive Director of the Housing Authority of Flagler County (collectively, the Authority); and Advantage Realty and Management, Inc. and Dymitri Belkin (collectively, Advantage), discriminated against Petitioner Jennifer Nichole King (Petitioner) based on her race by engaging in discriminatory terms and conditions, discriminatory statements, and steering, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who is a participant in the Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8 Program). On April 8, 2013, Petitioner moved from the Pinellas County Housing Authority’s Section 8 Program to the Authority’s Section 8 Program. The Authority did not transfer Petitioner into its Section 8 Program, but rather administers Petitioner’s Section 8 voucher for the Pinellas County’s Housing Authority in accordance with the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. The essence of Petitioner’s claim against the Authority is that, because of her race, the Authority, and its executive director, Chris Beyer, steered her away from homes in predominately white areas and told her she needed to look for homes in the “projects.” According to Petitioner, when she inquired about certain homes in nicer, predominantly white areas, Chris Beyer told her that people like her did not qualify for that type of housing. She also suggested that, because of discrimination based on her race, the Authority allowed Advantage, and/or the owners of the housing units that she rented under the Section 8 Program, to continue to receive rent and raise rental rates, even though the Authority knew that repairs required for habitability were not being made. The evidence, as outlined in the Findings of Fact below, does not support Petitioner’s claims against the Authority. During her orientation process for Section 8 services in Flagler County, Petitioner completed the Authority’s voucher briefing process, which included both an oral briefing and an information packet. The subjects covered by the briefing information and documentation included family and owner obligations and responsibilities; the housing selection process; a list of the Authority’s resources for locating housing, which included areas outside of poverty or minority concentrated areas; the Authority’s process for determining the amount of housing assistance payment for the family and maximum rent; and a list of participating realtors that manage properties for various owners participating in the Section 8 Program. After Petitioner completed the voucher briefing process, on April 18, 2013, the Authority issued Petitioner a Housing Choice Voucher. In July 2013, Petitioner independently, and voluntarily, located a potential rental unit at 49 Raintree Place, Palm Coast, Florida 32164 (Raintree Place unit), and submitted a Request for Tenancy Approval for this unit to the Authority, along with a copy of the proposed dwelling lease for the unit. The Raintree Place unit was a four bedroom, detached single-family home constructed in 2006. The proposed rent for the unit was $1,000.00 per month, with a required security deposit of $1,500.00. The Authority inspected the unit, determined that it passed the housing quality standards, and that the rent was reasonable. The Authority then approved the unit and executed a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract with the owner, or owner’s agent, to pay housing assistance to the owner on behalf of Petitioner. On May 29, 2014, the owner of the Raintree Place unit filed an eviction action against Petitioner for nonpayment of rent. At a subsequent mediation, the parties to the eviction action entered a stipulation agreement on July 2, 2014, which required Petitioner, among other things, to vacate the unit by July 31, 2014. The stipulation agreement also provided that if Petitioner timely performed all of the terms and conditions of the stipulation agreement, then the owner agreed to dismiss the eviction case. On July 31, 2014, Petitioner timely vacated the Raintree Place unit as agreed, thereby avoiding a judgment for possession against her. Thereafter, on August 6, 2014, the Authority issued Petitioner a new Housing Choice Voucher to locate another rental unit. In August 2014, Petitioner independently, and voluntarily, located another potential unit located at 92 Ulysses Trail, Palm Coast, Florida 32164 (Ulysses Trail unit). Petitioner submitted a Request for Tenancy Approval for this unit to the Authority, along with a copy of the proposed dwelling lease. This unit was a four bedroom, detached single- family home constructed in 2002. The proposed rent for the unit was $1,200.00 per month, and the security deposit was $1,500.00. The Ulysses Trail unit was owned by Serghei Potorac. Mr. Potorac hired Advantage to manage the unit. Advantage managed the Ulysses Trail unit until September 6, 2017. The Authority inspected the Ulysses Trail unit and determined that it passed the housing quality standards and that the proposed rent was reasonable. The Authority then approved the unit and executed a HAP contract with the owner, or the owner’s agent, Advantage, to pay housing assistance to the owner on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner and her family moved into the Ulysses Trail unit on September 1, 2014. During Petitioner’s tenancy, the owner of the Ulysses Trail unit received various notices for city code violations because of Petitioner’s failure to maintain the property in accordance with local city codes or ordinances. The alleged violations included overgrown lawn, failing to screen outside trash containers, and accumulation of trash on the property. As a result, the city assessed fines against the owner totaling over $800.00. On July 8, 2015, Advantage sent Petitioner a seven-day notice to cure, demanding that she pay the outstanding fines. Petitioner ultimately either corrected, or agreed to correct, the violations. As a result, the city waived the outstanding fines. After conferring with the owner, Petitioner and Advantage advised the Authority that the owner would not proceed against Petitioner. On July 13, 2015, the Authority conducted an annual inspection of the Ulysses Trail unit. The unit passed the inspection but there were some issues that the Authority felt needed to be addressed. Therefore, on July 13, 2015, Robert Beyrer, the Petitioner’s housing counselor at the Authority, sent Advantage an email regarding those issues. The next year, on July 12, 2016, the Authority conducted its next annual inspection of the Ulysses Trail unit. Because of some noted deficiencies, the unit did not initially pass inspection. The Authority sent correspondence to Advantage detailing the deficiencies that needed correction by August 12, 2016. Thereafter, Advantage provided the Authority with an invoice from VK Services showing that the deficiencies had been timely corrected. During the time period from July 2015 through October 2016, the Authority received copies of at least four three-day notices that Advantage had delivered to Petitioner for failing to timely pay rent. With respect to a three-day notice delivered to Petitioner on October 11, 2016, the owner subsequently filed an eviction action on October 20, 2016. During a court-ordered mediation, the parties entered into a Stipulation Agreement dated November 10, 2016. When Petitioner failed to comply with the November 10, 2016, Stipulation Agreement, Advantage filed an affidavit on February 2, 2017, on behalf of the owner, seeking a judgment for possession. That same day, without advising the Authority of the ongoing eviction action, Petitioner asked the Authority to conduct a special inspection of the Ulysses Trail unit. During the Authority’s inspection, the Authority found that the unit failed the inspection as a result of various deficiencies attributed to both the owner and Petitioner. The next day, on February 3, 2017, the court entered a final judgment for possession against Petitioner, and the court clerk issued a writ of possession. In response, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the execution of the writ, claiming, among other things, that Advantage failed to repair items as agreed in the November 10, 2016, Stipulation Agreement. In the meantime, the unit was re-inspected by the Authority on February 27, 2017, and the inspector found that some of the deficiencies had been addressed but there remained some that still needed to be corrected. On March 14, 2017, the Authority did a final inspection of the unit and determined that the remaining deficiencies had been addressed by both Advantage and Petitioner. Following two hearings on Petitioner’s motion in the eviction case, the court granted Petitioner’s motion to stay and vacated the final judgment. The court also reduced Petitioner’s portion of the rent due for the months of January and February 2017 based on its findings regarding the outstanding repairs. Further court orders reflect that Advantage ultimately addressed the disputed repairs and that Petitioner was ordered to pay full rent for the months of March and April 2017. The Authority was not a party and did not appear in the eviction proceedings. Thereafter, the owner gave Petitioner notice and advised the Authority that Petitioner’s lease would not be renewed, and that Petitioner would need to vacate the unit by August 31, 2017. The Authority subsequently sent correspondences to Petitioner explaining what she needed to do in order to be eligible to move to another location with continued housing assistance from the Authority. Petitioner timely vacated the Ulysses Trail unit and was issued a new voucher by the Authority on September 1, 2017, that could be used for a new rental unit. On October 13, 2017, Petitioner sent Robert Beyrer an email stating: Good Morning, Can you email the list of realtors that you have. I misplaced ours with all the moving about. Also I am going to need to request an[] extension of my voucher. Do we need to sign anything? Thank, Jen King In response, Robert Beyrer sent Petitioner another copy of the list of participating realtors in Flagler County previously provided to her by the Authority during her initial voucher briefing. The Authority, through Robert Beyrer, also granted Petitioner’s request for an extension of her voucher until December 1, 2017. On October 30, 2017, Petitioner sent Robert Beyrer another email advising that she was having difficulty finding another unit. By email, Robert Beyrer responded by further extending the expiration date of her voucher until December 31, 2017, and counseling her on various sources where she might find available units, stating: There are rentals out there. I am not sure who you are speaking with. I would continue to contact the landlords on the participating realtors list, check the local newspaper weekly, and check Zillow.com for reputable property management companies. We have been leasing people up with your voucher size in your price range. I will continue to keep my eyes open for you! Petitioner independently and voluntarily located a potential rental unit located at 10 Pier Lane, Palm Coast, Florida 32164 (Pier Lane unit) and, on December 27, 2017, submitted a Request for Tenancy Approval for this unit to the Authority, along with a copy of the proposed dwelling lease for the unit. The Authority inspected the Pier Lane unit and determined that it passed the housing quality standards and that the proposed rent was reasonable. The Authority then approved the unit and executed a HAP contract with the owner, or owner’s agent, to pay housing assistance to the owner on Petitioner’s behalf. On February 1, 2018, Petitioner moved into the Pier Lane unit. At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner was residing at the Pier Lane unit and the Authority was paying HAP payments to the owner on behalf of Petitioner under a HAP Contract with the owner. At the hearing, Petitioner maintained that the crux of her housing discrimination complaint was actually based on racially discriminatory statements allegedly made to her by Chris Beyrer. Petitioner alleged that Chris Beyrer said to her, among other things, “You cannot live by the canals; they do not rent to people like you.” Petitioner testified that she took Chris Beyrer’s statements to mean that she could not rent a unit by the canals because they do not rent to black people or people of color. Petitioner admitted, however, that Chris Beyrer never referenced or otherwise indicated that race was the underlying reason or motive when he made the alleged statements. Chris Beyrer denied making the alleged discriminatory statements attributed to her by Petitioner, or any other racially discriminatory statements. Ms. Beyer explained that any housing suggestions to Petitioner would have been on the type of unit Petitioner could afford to rent based on the amount of her reported household income and rental subsidy. Ms. Beyer’s testimony was credible and is accepted. Rather than showing racial discrimination against Petitioner in the Authority’s administration of the Section 8 Program, the evidence showed that, as a Section 8 participant in Flagler County, Petitioner was and is free to locate or choose an eligible rental unit anywhere in the Authority’s jurisdiction and submit the proposed rental unit to the Authority for approval. Further, at the hearing, Petitioner withdrew any claim that Advantage had unlawfully discriminated against her because of her race by failing to make requested repairs or by providing false repair records for the Ulysses Trail unit to the Authority. Specifically, Petitioner stated at the hearing that she did not believe Advantage had engaged in any discriminatory conduct towards her, and was rescinding her housing discrimination complaint against Advantage. Nevertheless, near the close of the hearing, one of Advantage’s witnesses, a repairman from VK Services, provided brief testimony confirming that he had personally made the repairs at the Ulysses Trail unit, as indicated in the various invoices provided by Advantage to the Authority. The testimony is credited. Finally, despite Petitioner’s claims that the Authority also discriminated against her by allowing Advantage to raise rents and continuing to pay HAP to the owner during the years of her tenancy at the Ulysses Trail unit while unaddressed deficiencies existed, Petitioner admitted that she voluntarily chose to accept the owner’s proposed rental increases and repeatedly renewed her lease with the owner. The evidence further showed that Petitioner was always free under the Section 8 Program to reject lease rental increases and relocate to a new unit of her choice with continued housing assistance from the Authority. In sum, the evidence does not support Petitioner’s claim that, because of racial discrimination, the Authority steered her to only certain rental units, that the Authority allowed rent increases despite lack of repairs, that there were discriminatory statements made against her, or that Advantage was complicit in the alleged discrimination.
Recommendation Based upon 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 and Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioners, Debra Jones and John Frazier, or either of them, on the basis of his or her handicap, violating Subsections 760.23 (1), (2), or (4), Florida Statutes (2008).1 If discriminatory conduct has been proven, whether quantifiable damages, or other allowable remedies, have been proven under Subsection 760.35(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Debra Jones, is a Caucasian female, who claims to be a disabled person under the Florida FHA. Petitioner bases her claim on the fact that she asserts that she has a tumor that causes pinched nerves in her back and lateral scoliosis, which prevents her from working and limits her activities of daily living. Petitioner Jones testified that she has been approved for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Petitioner offered no medical proof of her alleged disability, or that she was receiving Social Security benefits. At the hearing, it was not apparent that Petitioner Jones was impaired. Petitioner Jones is also the caregiver for Petitioner John Frazier. Petitioner John Frazier is speech impaired and appears to suffer from mild mental retardation. However, Petitioners failed to offer any medical evidence of Frazier’s disability, or that he was receiving Social Security benefits based on his disability, or that his physical impairments substantially limit one or more of his major life activities. Sometime during the early summer of 2007, Petitioners, who were homeless at the time, drove by a home listed as “for rent” at 1018 Canal Drive, Lakeland, Florida. Petitioner Jones approached the house and saw that Respondent Teresa Conboy was working on the repair of the house. Jones asked to see inside the house. Conboy refused, saying that the house was not ready to be shown. Jones returned to her truck and retrieved her and Petitioner Frazier’s income papers and showed them to Conboy. After a quick review, Conboy stated that Petitioners’ combined income was insufficient to rent that house because the monthly rental amount exceeded 30 percent of their combined income. Petitioners departed and took no further action to rent the house on Canal Drive. They did not complete an application or file a complaint with FCHR. Sometime during the late summer (July or August 2007), Petitioners were again looking for rental housing, drove by a house listed as “for rent” at 2440 Idlewild Street, Lakeland, Florida. Petitioner Jones approached a worker doing repairs on the house, who identified himself as Jeremy Fishbeck and asked for the name and telephone number of the contact person for the house. When Jones learned that the house was owned by Respondents, she left the area, made no attempt to contact Respondents and did not attempt to complete a rental application. Petitioners allege that the discriminatory conduct by Respondents dates back to May of 2006 when Petitioners inquired about the availability of renting a house located at 2441 Broadway Street, Lakeland, Florida, owned by Respondents. They were told and observed, that the house was under repair, but that they could submit an application to rent it. They were told that, when the work was completed, they would be contacted. Petitioners inquired regularly with Respondents about the availability of the house, and were told that it was not ready. During this period, Petitioners came to the mistaken belief that Respondents were holding the house for them. They expected that Respondents would rent the house to them when the repairs were complete. Respondents did not share that understanding. At no time did Respondents promise to rent the house to Petitioners. When the house was ready for occupancy in the spring of 2007, Respondents reviewed Petitioners rental application, along with other applications that had been submitted, and decided to rent the house to a different couple. The testimony is credible that, at the time Respondents received the applications for the rental of the house on Broadway Street, they determined that Petitioners total income was not more than $1,100 per month and that the fair rental value for the house was $800 per month. Therefore, the monthly rental amount far exceeded 30 percent of Petitioners’ combined income and that Petitioners did not qualify to rent the house. Further, Respondents were not aware that Petitioner Jones was disabled. They observed that Petitioner Frazier may have had a disability. In either case, the testimony was credible that Petitioners were not denied the opportunity to rent the house on Broadway street based on either of Petitioners’ alleged disabilities. Petitioners offered no evidence to demonstrate that Respondents’ reason for denying their rental application was a pretext for housing discrimination based on their alleged disability. Based on the testimony presented at the hearing, the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that no discriminatory housing practice has occurred. Further, since Petitioners only completed and submitted rental applications to Respondents in April 2006, and May 2007, the alleged discriminatory actions occurred more than 365 days prior to the filing of the Complaint on July 10, 2008. Therefore, the allegations in the Complaint are not timely, and cannot be considered. § 760.34(2), Fla. Stat. Petitioners presented no evidence of quantifiable damages. Their testimony was that they felt humiliation, discomfort and inconvenience because their application was turned down.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order denying the relief sought and dismissing the petition filed in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in the rental of a dwelling based on her race, in violation of Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes (2015).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the exhibit admitted into evidence and testimony offered by witnesses at the final hearing. Ms. Smith is a Black female and currently resides in Gainesville, Florida. Saul Silber Properties is a company that manages Oak Glade located at 3427 Southwest 30th Terrace, Gainesville, Florida 32608. Respondent provides residential rental apartments in Gainesville, Florida. Saul Silber is the owner of Saul Silber Properties. Ms. Smith is a former resident of apartment number 54I of Oak Glade.1/ Ms. Smith rented the apartment pursuant to a residential lease agreement entered into on January 15, 2014.2/ The lease was for a one-year renewable term. Ms. Smith filed a complaint with the Commission alleging Respondent issued her a Notice of Non-Renewal of her lease agreement on the basis of her race. The Commission issued a “No Cause” determination and Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Relief, which is the matter before the undersigned. During her tenancy at Oak Glade, Ms. Smith had raised numerous complaints with the property manager regarding matters involving her neighbor, Anne E. Dowling. Ms. Dowling, who was White, was a former resident of apartment number 54H. Ms. Smith’s issues with Ms. Dowling included complaints concerning smoking, loud music, non-residents living in the apartment, the number of visitors outside Ms. Dowling’s apartment, and Ms. Dowling’s cat scratching her car. All of the complaints were addressed and resolved by the property manager. The incident that led to the major blow-up between the neighbors involved Ms. Smith and Ms. Dowling’s daughter. Ms. Smith and Ms. Dowling’s daughter were involved in a verbal altercation after Ms. Smith verbally reprimanded Ms. Dowling’s granddaughter (age range of 7-9 years old) and her friend. Ms. Smith testified that the two girls turned their backs to her, bent over, and wiggled their buttocks in a side-to-side motion. Ms. Smith understood this gesture to be disrespectful and a suggestion to “kiss their behinds.” Ms. Dowling’s daughter was not a resident of the apartment complex. The altercation was so loud that Ms. Osteen heard people “screaming” while she was in her office. Ms. Osteen discovered Ms. Smith and Ms. Dowling’s daughter involved in a screaming match. Ms. Osteen later consulted with the senior property manager about the incident and it was determined that both Ms. Dowling and Ms. Smith would be issued a Notice of Non-Renewal. On March 15, 2016, Respondent issued Ms. Smith and Ms. Dowling a Notice of Non-Renewal, which was posted on the door of each tenant’s respective apartment. The notices did not state a reason for non-renewal. Ms. Dowling’s lease would expire effective May 30, 2016; and Ms. Smith’s lease would expire effective December 30, 2016. Prior to expiration of her lease, Ms. Dowling advised Ms. Osteen that she was terminally ill and requested that she be permitted to stay at Oak Glade. Ms. Dowling explained that her support system was located in the area and due to financial limitations, moving from the complex would create a hardship for her. For these reasons, Ms. Dowling was permitted to enter a new lease and was moved to a different apartment. The decision to permit Ms. Dowling to remain at the complex was made by the senior property manager. Ms. Dowling passed away approximately four months later, on September 28, 2016. Other than her mistaken belief that Ms. Dowling did not receive a Notice of Non-Renewal, Ms. Smith did not offer any evidence to support her claim of housing discrimination in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
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: finding that Respondent, Saul Silber Properties, LLC, did not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner, Ms. Smith; and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2017H0320. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this supplemental proceeding is whether Respondents Soo Y. and Myung S. Chung, separately or together, retaliated against Petitioners as a result of Petitioners' exercise, or attempted exercise, of a protected housing right.
Findings Of Fact From August 2012 through January 2015, Petitioners Verdell Carter ("V. Carter") and her daughter Courtney Carter ("C. Carter"), who are African-Americans, rented and occupied a residential unit in Cité Condominiums ("Cité") in Miami, Florida, which served as their principal residence. At all relevant times, the owners of this unit were Soo Y. Chung and Myung S. Chung (collectively, the "Lessor"). Respondent Cité Condominium Association, Inc. (the "Association"), oversees the operation of the property. The Association's Board of Directors (the "Board") is its governing body. At all relevant times, a third-party property management company, FirstService Residential Florida, Inc. ("Management"), performed on-site management services at Cité. V. Carter and the Lessor entered into a lease agreement concerning Unit No. 3206 at Cité in July 2012. Pursuant to the applicable declaration of condominium, this lease (like all such leases of units at Cité) was subject to Board approval as a condition precedent of V. Carter's taking possession of the leased premises. To obtain Board approval, V. Carter and the Lessor were required (as were all persons entering into such leases) to execute an Addendum to Lease, which made the Association a third-party beneficiary of the lease and, among other things, bound the lessee to all of the rules and conditions applicable to unit owners. There is some dispute concerning the term of the subject lease. It commenced on or around August 15, 2012——that much is certain. The Carters assert that the lease was for three years, until August 15, 2015. The Association contends that the lease had a one-year term with options to renew annually for up to two additional years. The Association maintains——and acted on the belief——that it had the right to veto any attempt to renew the lease. This particular dispute is immaterial, however, for whether or not the Association could veto a renewal attempt, it clearly had the right to dispossess the Carters if they disobeyed the Association's rules. The Addendum to Lease provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Lessee agrees to abide by this Addendum, the [provisions of the Association's Declaration, By-Laws, Articles of Incorporation, Rules and Regulations, as same may be amended from time to time,] and all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. If Lessee fails to comply with [any of these], Lessor shall promptly commence action to evict Lessee. If Lessor fails to promptly commence action to evict Lessee, Lessor hereby authorizes the Association . . . to commence eviction proceedings [on Lessor's behalf.] Unfortunately for everyone concerned, the Carters repeatedly violated the rules. Early in the lease term, V. Carter brought her dog into the unit without first registering the pet with the Association as required. After Management became aware in November 2012 that V. Carter had an unregistered pet on the premises, it provided her the form for curing the violation, but she failed timely to return the paperwork. As a result, on November 26, 2012, the Association assessed a charge of $56 against the Lessor's account.3/ Meanwhile, C. Carter moved into Unit No. 3206 without informing the Association, which gave rise to a series of violations. Although C. Carter initially occupied the premises as a guest, before long she decided to remain as a resident. In time, Management noticed that C. Carter's stay had exceeded 30 days, making her an "unregistered visitor." Additionally, C. Carter parked her car——which was an "unregistered vehicle"—— in spaces reserved for Cité's owners and tenants (both residential and commercial). This resulted in several $56 charges being posted to the Lessor's account in November 2012 for unauthorized parking and for parking an unregistered vehicle in an unauthorized area. In January 2013, the Lessor was again assessed a $56 charge because C. Carter had parked her unregistered vehicle in an unauthorized area, along with a separate $56 charge for the presence an unregistered visitor (namely C. Carter). By letter dated January 23, 2013, the Association notified the Lessor that it intended to take steps to terminate the lease between the Lessor and V. Carter due to the Carters' failure to comply with the Association's rules. Before that could happen, however, V. Carter registered her dog, C. Carter became a registered tenant, and C. Carter rented an additional parking space from the Association for her car. The Carters assured the Lessor and the Association that, in the future, they would comply with all of the Association's rules. In due course, the Board agreed to acquiesce to the continuation of the lease, and——with the exception of a few relatively minor issues too trivial to recount——relations between the Carters, Management, the Association, and the Lessor calmed down to a reasonably peaceful state of affairs. This détente ended on Sunday, June 22, 2014. On or around that date, the commercial tenant directly below Unit No. 3206 experienced damage from water intrusion at the ceiling. Minor dampness was observed on the carpet outside the front of Unit No. 3206. Management contacted V. Carter and notified her that maintenance personnel needed to enter her unit immediately to locate the source of the leak, which there were grounds to believe was inside. Management's authority to enter the unit was clear and is not disputed. The Addendum to Lease provides: The Association and/or its authorized agent(s) shall have the irrevocable right to have access to the Unit as may be necessary for inspection, maintenance, repair or replacement of any Common Elements accessible therefrom, or for making emergency repairs necessary to prevent damages to the Common Elements or other units. Claiming that she was in the process of showering and in a state of partial undress, V. Carter refused to admit the maintenance men that Sunday morning. They left, so that V. Carter could finish getting ready. When the repair crew returned a short while later, however, V. Carter turned them away again, explaining that she was leaving for church. First thing the next day, June 23, Management notified the Lessor that V. Carter had refused to let maintenance personnel into the unit so that they could identify and repair the source of a suspected leak. The Lessor authorized Management to access the unit that morning. V. Carter, however, again refused to allow the maintenance men to enter the unit. This obstinacy violated the Association's rules and resulted in the imposition of charges totaling $126, for which the Association billed the Lessor. Eventually, Management gained access to the unit and fixed the problem in the bathroom which had caused the leak. Because V. Carter had refused access to the unit in violation of the Association's rules, the Association notified the Lessor and the Carters that it would not approve an extension of the lease beyond August 15, 2014. On June 25, 2014, V. Carter requested a meeting with the Board to discuss this decision. Her request was denied. By letter dated July 11, 2014, the Lessor notified the Carters that the lease would terminate on August 15, 2014. The Lessor also demanded payment of past due rent for April ($500) and July ($1,500) plus reimbursement of a returned-check charge of $30 that the Lessors had incurred when the Carters' June rent check bounced. A few weeks later, a heavy rainstorm, which took place late at night on Sunday, August 3, 2014, and during the early morning hours of August 4, caused Unit No. 3206 to flood. Other units flooded as well, causing an emergency situation for Management, which by all accounts responded promptly. The Carters claim to have been out of town at the time of this incident. Regardless, V. Carter acknowledges that Management contacted her by phone and requested permission——which she gave——to enter her unit to take remedial measures. Maintenance personnel entered the unit and extracted the water. In doing so, they discovered that the patio drain had been plugged with a flower pot, which likely had allowed water to pool on the patio and ultimately flood into the unit through the patio door. The Carters allege that the maintenance men discriminated against them on the basis or race or color by entering other units before taking care of Unit No. 3206. There is no persuasive evidence, however, of any sort of delay (discriminatory or otherwise) on the part of the maintenance crew, which as mentioned responded quickly and reasonably to an overnight situation affecting multiple units in addition to the Carters'. The Carters did not vacate Unit No. 3206 on or before August 15, 2014. As it happened, however, there was another rainstorm on that day which caused further flooding in the unit. C. Carter was present at the time, and she contacted Management, which addressed the immediate problem. After that, a months-long struggle ensued, during which Management and the Lessor attempted to arrange for repairs to be made to fix the damages that had resulted from the August floods and the earlier, June leak, and the Carters, while demanding that the repairs be made, refused access to repairmen and generally failed reasonably to cooperate. Around this time, as well, the Carters——who in the Lessor's eyes had become holdover tenants as of August 15——stopped paying rent to the Lessor. On August 19, 2014, the Lessor gave the Carters a statutory three-day notice to pay rent or vacate the premises on or before August 22, 2014. The Carters did not leave. On September 12, 2014, the Lessor gave the Carters another statutory three-day notice. The Carters, however, did not quit the premises. On or around September 19, 2014, the Lessor commenced an action for eviction in the Miami-Dade County Court. Several months later, the county court entered a judgment of eviction against the Carters, and, on January 20, 2015, a writ of possession was issued. The Carters moved out of Unit No. 3206 on January 23, 2015, but not without incident. Association rules prohibit the use of the stairways when moving furniture and other household goods. Residents who are moving in or out of Cité must reserve (and pay a fee for the use of) the freight elevator and loading dock. The Carters had not arranged to use the freight elevator, preferring instead to use the stairs. Management saw this violation in progress and sought to stop the Carters from moving their belongings down the stairs. The Carters would not be deterred. Management called the police, an officer arrived, and the unauthorized transport of goods through the stairwell was arrested. Meantime, V. Carter's dog urinated on the hallway carpet and on the wall. As a result of this memorable departure, the Association imposed charges against the Lessor's account totaling $950. V. Carter claims to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, which she characterizes as a "non-visible" disability. C. Carter claims to suffer from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which she characterizes as a "non- visible" disability. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of the Association's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, the Carters, or either of them, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus directed toward V. Carter or C. Carter. There is no persuasive evidence that the Association refused, upon request, to make a reasonable accommodation for either V. Carter or C. Carter. There is likewise no persuasive evidence that any of the Lessor's actions, including bringing suit to evict the Carters, were motivated by discriminatory animus or were taken to retaliate against the Carters for their exercise of a protected housing right. In sum, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination or retaliation could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that the Association did not commit any prohibited act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding the Association not liable for housing discrimination and awarding the Carters no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2015, 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 27th day of April, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her national origin or ethnicity in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Fabiola Heiblum ("Heiblum") is a Hispanic woman who, at all times relevant to this action, has owned Unit No. 5C in the Carlton Bay Condominium, which is located in North Miami Beach, Florida. She purchased her unit in 2004 and has resided there continuously since some time in 2005. Respondent Carlton Bay Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association") is the entity responsible for operating and managing the condominium property in which Heiblum's unit is located. In March 2008, the Association's Board of Directors ("Board") approved a special assessment, to be levied against all unit owners, the proceeds of which would be used to pay insurance premiums. Each owner was required to pay his share of the special assessment in full on April 1, 2008, or, alternatively, in three equal monthly installments, due on the first of April, May, and June 2008, respectively. Heiblum's share of this special assessment was $912.81. At or around the same time, the Board also enacted a procedure for collecting assessments, including the special insurance assessment. According to this procedure, owners would have a grace period of 15 days within which to make a required payment. After that period, a delinquent owner would be notified, in writing, that the failure to pay his balance due within 15 days after the date of the notice would result in referral of the matter to an attorney for collection. The attorney, in that event, would file a Claim of Lien and send a demand letter threatening to initiate a foreclosure proceeding if the outstanding balance (together with costs and attorney's fees) was not paid within 30 days after receipt of the demand. This collection procedure applied to all unit owners. Heiblum did not make any payment toward the special assessment on April 1, 2008. She made no payment on May 1, 2008, either. (Heiblum concedes her obligation to pay the special assessment and does not contend that the Association failed to give proper notice regarding her default.) The Association accordingly asked its attorney to file a Claim of Lien against Unit No. 5C and take the legal steps necessary to collect the unpaid debt. By letter dated May 8, 2008, the Association's attorney notified Heiblum that a Claim of Lien against her property had been recorded in the public records; further, demand was made that she pay $1402.81 (the original debt of $912.81 plus costs and attorney's fees) to avoid foreclosure. On or around May 10, 2008, Heiblum gave the Association a check in the amount of $500, which the Association returned, under cover of a letter dated May 16, 2008, because its attorney was now in charge of collecting the overdue debt. Heiblum eventually paid the special assessment in full, together with costs and attorney's fees, thereby obviating the need for a foreclosure suit. Heiblum believes that the Association prosecuted its claims for unpaid special assessments more aggressively against Hispanics such as herself than persons of other national origins or ethnicities, for which owners the Association allegedly showed greater forbearance. Specifically, she believes that the Association did not retain its attorney to undertake collection efforts against non-Hispanic unit owners, sparing them the costs and fees that she was compelled to pay. There is, however, no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that the Association did not commit any prohibited discriminatory act vis-à-vis Heiblum.
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 Heiblum no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 27th day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Monroe County Housing Authority, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner, Diane Scott, on the basis of her race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Diane Scott is a black women. Her husband, Kenneth Scott, who lives with her, is a black man. Respondent Monroe County Housing Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Authority") is responsible for providing low income and affordable rental apartments in Monroe County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “County”), a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Housing Authority is responsible for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Ms. Scott and her husband (hereinafter referred jointly as the “Scotts”), are former residents of apartment number 23 (hereinafter referred to as the “Apartment”), Tropical Isle Apartments, one of the Housing Authority’s housing developments, located at 260 41st Street, Marathon, Florida. The Scotts rented the Apartment pursuant to an Affordable Housing Residential Lease Agreement entered into on March 1, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Lease”). The Lease provided for a one-year rental period. As the Scotts readily admitted at hearing, Ms. Scott has raised numerous complaints with the Housing Authority concerning matters ranging from drug sales and use at Tropical Isle Apartments, which door maintenance personnel should utilize to enter the Apartment, and, most recently, the employment of an individual with a criminal record at Tropical Isle Apartments. Ms. Scott’s complaints, which were made in person, by telephone, and by email, were numerous and extremely time-consuming to deal with by personnel of the Housing Authority. Efforts to respond to Ms. Scott’s complaints more often than not did not satisfy her. By letter dated January 23, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Notice of Violation”), the Scotts were informed that Ms. Scott’s conduct constituted a violation of the Lease and that if it continued, could result in termination of the Lease (why the letter was signed by Charla Rodriguez, Director of Operations, The Housing Authority of the City of Key West, Florida, was not explained at hearing). Jesus Manuel Castillo, Sr., Executive Director of the Housing Authority, met with the Scotts on February 28, 2008, to discuss the Notice of Violation and determined that the Notice had been properly issued. Ms. Scott’s behavior did not improve. Consequently, by letter dated October 30, 2008, Susan E. Vogt, Housing Manager for Tropical Isle Apartments, informed the Scotts that their Lease would not be renewed and that, therefore, their Lease would expire effective January 12, 2009. Ms. Vogt’s more than four-page letter described in some detail the events which had led to the decision to not renew the Scotts’ Lease. The decision to not renew the Scotts’ Lease was made by Mr. Castillo, Sr. Mr. Castillo had met with Ms. Scott on more than one occasion and had been the recipient of her emails and telephone calls and was well aware of the time and effort staff had to expend dealing with Ms. Scott’s complaints. Mr. Castillo, on behalf of the Housing Authority, decided to not renew the Scotts’ lease, rather than evicting them so that the Scotts would be able to continue to receive a Section 8 voucher. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Even the Scotts admitted at hearing that their lease was not renewed primarily because of Ms. Scott’s continuous complaints, adding that they “believed it was also because of their race.” Even Ms. Scott’s Proposed Recommended Order fails to mention how her race played any part in her treatment by the Housing Authority. Ultimately it is determined that the Housing Authority did not commit any prohibited act vis-à-vis Ms. Scott.
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 the Monroe County Housing Authority not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Ms. Scott no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 14th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Manuel Castillo, Sr. Monroe County Housing Authority 1400 Kennedy Drive Key West, Florida 33040 Diane Scott Post Office Box 501586 Marathon, Florida 33050 Franklin D. Greenman, Esquire Greenman, Manz & Ables Gulfside Village, Suite 40 5800 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 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 Whether Respondents engaged in a discriminatory housing practice in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, as amended, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2011)1/.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondents Hoyt and Nancy Davis (the Davises) own a residential property located at 1856 Cross Pointe Way, St. Augustine, Florida (the Property). The Property is utilized exclusively as a rental. Respondent Florida Coastal Jacksonville Realty, Inc. ("Florida Coastal") and its principal John McMenamy ("McMenamy") acted as listing agents for the Property (collectively, the "Broker Respondents"). Mr. McMenamy and his company have managed the rental of the Property for approximately six years. In association with their listing of the Property, the Broker Respondents were responsible for advertising, showing, accepting applications for and assisting in the selection of tenants for the Property. At the time of the events in question, the Property was being offered for lease at a rate of $1,450 per month. Generally, due to its location within a St. Johns County golf community and proximity to good schools, the Property rents easily and quickly. The Rental Applications On May 14, 2010, Petitioner Jaime Terry (Mrs. Terry) contacted McMenamy regarding the Property. McMenamy instructed Mrs. Terry on the rental application process. On the afternoon of Sunday, May 16, 2010, Petitioners submitted via e-mail their rental application, dated May 15, 2010. On their application, the Petitioners disclosed that they had previously declared bankruptcy. The bankruptcy was entered in December 2007 and discharged in January 2009. Petitioners also disclosed that they were currently living with Mrs. Terry's parents. The application included a statement of the Terrys' monthly income, and also disclosed that they had three children residing with them -- aged eleven, five and two at the time. A memo attached to the application elaborated on the bankruptcy and other details of their employment and financial situation. Mrs. Terry testified that during the application process the Respondents did not solicit additional information concerning her employment history. On May 18, 2010, McMenamy ran a credit check on the Terrys using the "Online Rental Exchange." The credit report for Jaime Terry reflected a credit score of 664, while Steven Terry's assigned score was 649. However, both reports noted "conditional" approval because of the bankruptcy filing. Although the exact date is unknown, at approximately the same time that the Terrys submitted their application, another couple, Rick and Jessica Egger (the Eggers) contacted McMenamy regarding their interest in possibly renting the Property. On the evening of Thursday, May 20, 2010, the Eggers formally submitted an application to rent the Property. The Eggers' application disclosed that, unlike the Terrys', they did not have a bankruptcy in their history. In addition, the Eggers' combined monthly income was higher than the Terrys'2/ and the younger of their two children was nine years old. The credit report obtained for the Eggers reflected a credit score of 672 for Jessica Egger and 696 for Rick Egger, with an unconditional approval rating. Respondents' Tenant Selection Process McMenamy testified that in evaluating applications, potential tenants must meet certain minimum criteria. Factors he considers in assessing applicants include credit checks, criminal background checks, employment status, and rental history. However, he agreed that the evaluation process he uses is subjective. McMenamy acknowledged that bankruptcy would not automatically disqualify a potential tenant, and in fact, confirmed that he has rented to tenants who have a bankruptcy in their history. With regard to credit scores, McMenamy testified that he considered a score below 500 to be unacceptable. Mrs. Davis testified that McMenamy manages the entire process of renting the Property on behalf of herself and her husband. Once McMenamy determines the suitability of a prospective tenant, he discusses that tenant with the Davises. McMenamy does not discuss applicants with the Davises that he does not consider eligible. The Davises do not participate in the background screening process and they do not review applicants' credit ratings. However, Mrs. Davis was aware of McMenamy's process for selecting tenants, and she confirmed her understanding that applicants must meet certain minimum requirements. In selecting a tenant, McMenamy looks not only for a candidate that is financially qualified, but also one who will rent the property for a significant period of time, will take good care of the property, and will make monthly rent payments in a timely manner, according to Mrs. Davis. Denial of Petitioners' Lease Application Mr. Davis testified that he and Mrs. Davis discussed the Petitioners' application with McMenamy. At hearing, Mr. Davis recounted that conversation as follows: Cross-examination by Mr. Organes: Q. Mr. Davis, you stated that you had discussed with Mr. McMenamy the application of Steven and Jaime Terry? A. Yes. Q. And that’s a common practice with Mr. McMenamy as when he receives reasonably qualified applicants, he discusses them with you? A. Yes. Q. And that’s what he did with the Terrys? A. Yes. Q. And you said you did not tell him not to rent to them because of their children? A. That is true, we did not tell him. Q. The issue of children wasn’t discussed at all? A. No. Q. What reason did you give him to tell them why their application was being denied? A. Because of their past rental history and their bankruptcy foreclosure. Q. In general if you don’t approve of an applicant, what reason would you give for denying that applicant? A. I would give that reason, that we didn’t feel that, you know, we probably would get a better applicant and the reason we turned them down is because we didn’t feel that they were suitable for our rental. There is no evidence in this record as to precisely when the above conversation between the Respondents took place, although based upon Mr. Davis's statement that "we probably would get a better applicant" it is reasonable to infer that it was prior to the Eggers submitting their application on the evening of Thursday, May 20, 2010.3/ Early on the morning of Friday, May 21, 2010, McMenamy sent an e-mail to Ms. Terry, which read: Jaime I left a message yesterday but did not hear from you. I spoke to the owner about the application and she was concerned about not really having any rental history and the number of small children. She is a perfectionist and just had the home professionally painted. The one family who lived there had small children and there were handprints all over the walls so that it needed to be repainted. So this was her main concern and therefore does not want to rent to you and the family. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, John At hearing, Mrs. Davis maintained that the Petitioners' children were not the determining factor in the decision to deny their application. Rather, it was based on their finances and lack of rental history. Consistent with Mr. Davis's testimony, Mrs. Davis also testified that she and her husband did not instruct McMenamy to reject the Petitioners' application because of their children. After being informed that their application was denied, Petitioners immediately began searching for alternate housing. Mrs. Terry testified that their primary concern was to locate a rental in a high quality school district. Within a couple of weeks of receiving the denial e-mail from McMenamy, the Terrys located a home at 983 Lilac Loop, St. Johns, Florida. Petitioners entered into a lease for this property on June 6, 2010; the rent was $ 1,200 per month. Although the Lilac Loop home was acceptable, the Terrys considered it to be inferior to the Property, and Petitioners paid to have the home repainted and wired for cable access. The cable installation fee was $150.00. On September 22, 2010, Petitioners were notified that the Lilac Loop house was in foreclosure. Petitioners appealed to a default-law organization in an attempt to enforce their one-year lease, but were ultimately unsuccessful. As a result of the foreclosure, Petitioners were forced to seek alternative housing within the same school district, and in November 2010, leased a property at 1528 Summerdown Way, Fruit Cove, Florida, 32259. The monthly rent at 1528 Summerdown Way was $1,600 monthly. Petitioners also incurred additional expenses necessitated by hiring a moving service, in the amount of $773.50. At of the hearing, Petitioners continued to reside in the Summerdown Way rental. The Commission Investigation On August 16, 2010, the Terrys filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint with HUD alleging they had been unlawfully discriminated against by Respondents based upon their familial status. Thereafter, the Commission opened an investigation of the allegation. As part of that investigation, Respondents were invited to submit written statements setting forth their version of the events at issue, and any defenses to the allegation they wished to raise. On August 19, 2010, the Davises submitted a written statement to the FCHR. In the first paragraph of that submittal the Davises stated: To Whom it May Concern: We enlisted realtor John MaMenamy to find a new tenant for our rental house at 1856 Cross Pointe Way, St. Augustine, FL 32092. Mr. McMenamy was told that we preferred not to rent to someone with more than one, if any, very small children at this particular time. The reason being we just had to have the interior of the house professionally repainted and repairs made to several areas, the walls in particular. Additionally, in light of the fact there were several highly qualified persons interested in and looking at the house concurrently. The submittal continued by identifying four former tenants of the Property, as well as the current tenants (the Eggers), all of whom had children living with them. It is found that McMenamy's e-mail of May 21, 2010, and the Davises' letter of August 19, 2010, constitute direct evidence that Respondents' decision not to rent to Petitioners was based upon their familial status. The testimony of McMenamy and the Davises that familial status was not the reason for refusing to rent to Petitioners is rejected as not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of a discriminatory housing practice against the Terrys in violation of section 760.23(1) and (2), and prohibiting further unlawful housing practices by Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2012.
