The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed a discriminatory housing practice against Respondent in violation of Section 760.23(2), Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, an Armenian, began renting one of the units in Respondent’s Colony Apartments on August 14, 2002, The initial lease term was August 14, 2002, to August 31, 2003. The monthly rent was $340 per month. Petitioner renewed his lease beginning September 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004, for a monthly rent in the amount of $350. Petitioner renewed his lease beginning April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005, for a monthly rent in the amount of $360. Petitioner renewed his lease in a timely manner on or about March 31, 2005. On April 1, 2005, the monthly rent for Petitioner’s apartment increased to $370. On April 4, 2005, Respondent charged Petitioner an extra $50 as a month-to-month charge because Respondent’s staff unintentionally failed to enter the lease renewal into management’s software. This clerical error resulted in Petitioner receiving one or more delinquency notices. On April 6, 2005, Petitioner paid $365 in rent. Petitioner paid $370 in rent on May 6, 2005. The rules addendum to the lease agreement at issue here provides as follows in pertinent part: LATE PAYMENTS AND RETURNED CHECKS: a. Rent paid after the first day of each month shall be deemed as late; if rent is not received by close of business on the 5th day of the month, resident agrees to pay an additional fee of $50.00. Such fees will be considered additional rent. * * * 4. TERMINATION OF LEASE: Either Resident or Landlord may terminate this Lease Agreement at the end of the term by giving the other party thirty (30) days prior written notice. If Resident vacates [or] fails to give such notice, the Lease will be renewed on a month-to-month basis for successive one-month terms at a premium of $50.00 above the current monthly market rent until either party gives thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other, as provided herein. . . . * * * 9. RIGHT OF ACCESS: Landlord shall have the right to enter the Apartment without notice, for inspection maintenance and pest control during reasonable hours. In case of emergency, Landlord may enter at any time to prevent damage to property. * * * 15. REPAIRS: Resident accepts the Apartment in its current “as is” condition. Landlord will make necessary repairs to the Apartment to render Apartment tenantable with reasonable promptness after receipt of written notice from Resident unless the repairs are required due to acts of negligence of Resident of his guests, in which case, Resident agrees to pay Landlord immediately the cost of repair. Resident agrees to make maintenance checks at regular intervals on each smoke alarm located in the Apartment and to immediately report any and all defects in writing to Landlord . . . Resident shall maintain the Apartment, including the fixtures therein, in a clean, sightly and sanitary condition . . . . * * * 23. RULES AND REGULATIONS: * * * e. Parking: Resident agrees to abide by the parking regulations established by Landlord. No trailers, campers, boats, or commercial vehicles will be allowed without the written permission of Landlord. Motor vehicles may be towed at Resident’s expense, without notice, if parked improperly or if parked on lawns. Only operating passenger vehicles with current tags and ordinary size may be parked on the Premises, motorcycles shall not be parked beside buildings, under overhangs or under stairways; disabled vehicles with flat tires shall not be parked on the Premises and all such vehicles may be towed away without notice and at the Resident’s expense. No vehicle repairs will be allowed on the Premises. * * * o. Maintenance: Service call are performed during normal weekday working hours except in cases of bona fide emergencies. All service calls must be reported by the Resident to the Landlord (i.e. office personnel). They may be reported by telephone, written message, or in person. Maintenance personnel employed by the Landlord are not authorized to take any individual calls except those that are made through the office. Service calls are performed on a “first-come, first-served” basis with priority given to those requests that would constitute a hazard or discomfort to a resident. On April 28, 2005, Petitioner requested Respondent to perform the following maintenance in his apartment after lunch: (a) repair large burner on stove; (b) repair bottom oven element; (c) repair living room blind; and (d) repair rusty kitchen drain. Respondent completed these repairs the next day. Petitioner paid $370 in rent for the month of June 2005. On June 10, 2005, Petitioner complained that his refrigerator was leaking and that he lost food in the freezer compartment. Respondent gave this complaint a high priority and changed Petitioner’s refrigerator. By letter dated June 15, 2005, Respondent advised Petitioner that his apartment was in an unsanitary condition. The letter informed Petitioner that he had seven days to correct the matter at which time, Respondent intended to inspect Petitioner’s apartment. A letter dated June 22, 2005, stated that Respondent intended to inspect Petitioner’s apartment for cleanliness on June 23, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. The letter also advised that Respondent intended to fix a leak causing damage to the apartment below Petitioner’s apartment. In the letter, Respondent demanded that Petitioner clean his bathtub so that Respondent’s maintenance men could caulk it and stop the leak. The letter warned Petitioner that if the bathtub was not cleaned, Respondent would have a housekeeper to clean it and charge Petitioner’s account $50 for the service provided. Petitioner paid $370 in rent for the month of July. On July 6, 2005, Respondent finally adjusted Petitioner’s account to correct the erroneous $50 one-time, month-to-month charge carried over since April 2005. It took three months for Respondent to verify that the $50 charge was Respondent’s clerical error and not Petitioner’s failure to pay his rent on time or his failure to timely renew his lease. The correction resulted in a zero balance on Petitioner’s account. On July 5, 2005, Petitioner requested the following maintenance in his apartment: (a) repair problem causing sink to backup; and (b) repair problem causing bathtub to have spots and an unpleasant odor. Petitioner told Respondent he believed that the maintenance men had poured a chemical in his bathtub, causing the spots and the odor. Respondent gave this complaint a high priority, sending a maintenance man to Petitioner’s apartment later that day. The maintenance man repaired the sink and inspected the bathroom. There is no credible evidence that Respondent used a chemical in the building’s plumbing system that caused the spots and bad smell in Respondent’s bathtub. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner did not keep his tub clean. In July 2005, Respondent’s staff placed a warning notice on Petitioner’s vehicle. The notice advised that the vehicle was subject to towing by a date certain due to an expired license tag as of May 2003 and a flat tire. After receiving the notice, Petitioner moved his vehicle and parked it in another area of the apartment complex. Respondent’s staff issues these warning notices to any vehicles on the apartment premises that are parked improperly, broken down and unattended, had missing or expired license tag, and/or had a flat tire. Respondent’s staff does not check to determine the ownership of the car before issuing the warning. Respondent’s staff placed a second warning notice on Petitioner’s vehicle for the same reasons. On August 23, 2005, Ace Towing & Storage, pursuant to a contract with Respondent, removed Petitioner’s car from the premises. The contract with the towing company results in five to ten cars per month being removed from the premises. Between the time that Petitioner’s car was towed in August 2005 and the hearing, Petitioner compiled a long list of vehicles that he claims violated Respondent’s rules and regulations for motor vehicles. During the hearing, Respondent presented persuasive evidence that all but two of the cars had been moved or towed from the premises. The two vehicles that remained at the apartment complex no longer violated Respondent’s rules and regulations. On August 23, 2005, Petitioner complained that the deadbolt lock on his apartment door would not move. On August 24, 2005, Petitioner complained that his kitchen blind needed to be replaced. On August 25, 2005, Petitioner would not allow Respondent’s maintenance men to enter his apartment to make repairs. On August 30, 2005, Petitioner’s downstairs neighbor filed a written complaint with Respondent. The neighbor complained that his apartment had bathroom mold for the fourth time and that he was experiencing breathing problems due to the mold. The neighbor also complained that Petitioner made noises all night long. According to the neighbor, the noises sounded like Petitioner was moving furniture. On or about August 31, 2005, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter advising him that loud noises from his apartment were disturbing other residents. The letter requested Petitioner’s cooperation in keeping noise at a minimum. At some point in time, Petitioner filed a housing complaint with the City of Jacksonville. In response to Petitioner’s complaint to the City of Jacksonville, Respondent delivered a timely letter dated September 13, 2005, to Petitioner. The letter informed Petitioner that it would be inspecting his apartment on September 14, 2005. The letter complied with the requirements of Section 83.53, Florida Statutes (2005). On September 14, 2005, Respondent and the city’s inspector attempted an inspection of Petitioner’s apartment pursuant to Chapter 518, Jacksonville Municipal Code, to determine compliance with the City’s Property Safety and Maintenance Code, a city ordinance, which sets minimum property standards. The inspector could not complete the inspection because he could not gain access to Petitioner’s apartment. By letter dated October 12, 2005, Respondent provided Petitioner with a seven-day notice of termination of tenancy with option to cure, as authorized by Section 83.56(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), and rules addendum to the lease agreement. The letter states as follows in relevant part: You are hereby notified the GMC Property Management intends to terminate you tenancy, for reason of your failure to comply with the duties imposed upon tenants by law and/or with material provision of you rental agreement, to wit: It has come to our attention that you are disturbing and being a nuisance to the resident (sic). This is in violation of your lease agreement. We need you to correct this matter immediately to avoid termination of your lease agreement. Demand is hereby made that you remedy the noncompliance within seven (7) days of this notice or your lease shall be deemed terminated and you shall vacate the premises upon such termination. If this same conduct, or conduct of a similar nature is repeated within 12 months, your tenancy is subject to termination without your being given an opportunity to cure the noncompliance. Because Petitioner was not at home or would not open the door, Respondent delivered this letter to Petitioner in a timely fashion by posting it at the entrance to Petitioner’s apartment. On April 6, 2006, Petitioner renewed a lease for the term beginning April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007, for $385 per month. On May 8, 2006, Petitioner complained that he was having problems with his plumbing because his bathroom had brown spots on the floor and wall. Petitioner would not let Respondent’s maintenance in his apartment on May 9, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent did not commit a discriminatory housing practice based on Petitioner’s national origin. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Sukyasov 2705 Stardust Court, No. 10 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Gregory Simms GMC Property Management 9550 Regency Square Boulevard, Suite 902 Jacksonville, Florida 32225
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondents engaged in prohibited conduct against Petitioner by discriminating against him based on his race and/or national origin in the terms and conditions, privileges, or provision of services or facilities in the sale or rental of real property in violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Florida Commission on Human Relations is the state agency charged with investigating complaints of discriminatory housing practices and enforcing the Fair Housing Act. It is also charged with investigating fair housing complaints filed with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601, et seq. Petitioner, Emmanuel Agbara, is an adult, black male, who is of Nigerian decent. On or about September 18, 2008, Petitioner submitted an offer to purchase Condominium 406 in Orchid Springs Village. Because the real property sought to be purchased was a part of a condominium, there were several contingencies imposed by the declaration of condominium and associated house rules. Respondent, Orchid Springs Condominium, No. 200, Inc., is a non-profit corporation charged with the management of the condominium. Incidental to this responsibility, in conjunction with Bay Tree Management Company, the board of directors has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of the sale of a condominium to a third party. In the event the board of directors or Bay Tree Management Company disapproves of the sale, the condominium documents outline a procedure wherein the proposed sale can be pursued by the property owner and prospective buyer (Petitioner herein). After Orchid Springs advised Petitioner that it had not approved his sale, this alternative was not pursued. Orchid Springs is a part of a mixed-use development of condominiums, patio homes, and private [single-family] residences and is diverse in terms of religion, national origin and income. Prospective buyers, and the Petitioner herein, were required to complete an application that inquired into the prospective buyer's background, intended use of the property, and required three character references. In addition, prospective buyers were required to pay for a "background" check. On September 20, 2008, Petitioner traveled from his home in Maryland to meet with Respondent, John Carroll, president of the condominium board of directors. As they met, an inspection of the condominium unit was being conducted by a home inspection professional. Petitioner anticipated that he would meet with Carroll and two other board members for the personal interview required by the condominium documents as a prerequisite for board approval. The two board members were not available to meet with Petitioner during his September 20, 2008, visit. During the course of the discussion between Petitioner and Carroll, it became apparent that Petitioner anticipated being an "absentee landlord." Carroll advised Petitioner that the owner/residents had various problems with renters, including recent police activity incidental to a drug laboratory in one of the rented condominium units. Carroll also related that four of the absentee owner units were in foreclosure and that placed an economic burden on the remaining owners. During the discussion between Petitioner and Carroll, Petitioner inquired as to whether he could do the three-board member interview by telephone. Mr. Carroll advised him that a telephone conference might be arranged, but that one board member could not do it alone. On October 8, 2008, Petitioner submitted his Association Application. As a part of the application process, Petitioner certified that he had been supplied copies of the Articles of Declaration of Condominium Ownership and By-Laws of Orchid Springs Village, No. 200, Inc.; the Service and Maintenance Agreement; and the manual, "Condominium Living--The Seville." The Association Application includes the following language: "[A]pplicant purchasing Condominium certifies that he/she has . . . read [and] agrees to abide by" the foregoing documents. The Association Application states that "[i]mmediately after submission of the application, Applicant is requested to arrange with the President for a personal interview with at least [three] Board Members present. Such personal interview is a firm requirement [and] may not be waived." Following receipt of a prospective buyer or renter's Association Application, the tasks of conducting the customary background and criminal checks are divided among board members. In this instance, Mrs. Thibodaux, now deceased, did the background check; and Mrs. Douglas did the criminal background check, which, apparently, was a local records check utilizing the county records available through the internet. Testimony reveals that Mrs. Thibodaux reported that she had some problems with two of Petitioner's character references and that the Social Security number he provided was incorrect. This testimony is discounted as Mrs. Thibodaux is dead and not available to testify, and there is no indication that Petitioner's Social security number is incorrect. In addition, two of Petitioner's character references testified at the final hearing. Mrs. Douglas' local criminal background check revealed a January 13, 1997, arrest for battery--domestic violence. The case was "nolle prossed" after the Petitioner was placed in pre-trial diversion. Orchid Spring's critical examination and appraisal of prospective buyers and renters is apparently "slipshod," but not atypical when the prospective cost of a thorough examination that would involve an investigation of an individual's credit history and a thorough criminal and background check. Concern raised by the background and criminal check prompted Carroll to contact Petitioner and request that he come to Florida and meet with three board members for the interview required by the condominium documents. Petitioner was unable to meet with the interview committee. On November 7, 2008, Petitioner was advised by Respondents that his application had been denied. No evidence of damages was advanced by Petitioner.
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 22nd day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 22nd day of November, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Emmanuel Agbara 1822 Metzerott Road, No. 206 Adelphi, Maryland 20783 Rex P. Cowan, Esquire Post Office Box 857 Winter Haven, Florida 33882-0857
The Issue Whether Respondent, IMT-LB Central Florida Portfolio, LLC (Respondent), committed a discriminatory practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2009).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and/or operates a residential rental property located at 4400 Martin’s Way, Orlando, Florida. The property, identified in this record as Village Park Apartments (Village Park), consisted of a two-story, multi-building, multi- apartment complex. Sometime in late October 2009, Petitioner leased an apartment at Village Park. Petitioner’s apartment was on the second floor and no other apartments were above his. Petitioner’s lease agreement required that Petitioner obtain and provide public utilities for his apartment. Although Petitioner claims he did not timely receive a copy of his lease in order to be on notice of this provision, the record is clear that after Petitioner became aware of the provision, he did not obtain public utilities for the apartment. Shortly after Petitioner received a bill for utility service for his apartment from Respondent in December 2009, Petitioner complained to governmental authorities about conditions at the apartment complex. With regard to the conditions of his living unit, Petitioner maintained there was a roof leak, a vanity pipe leak, and a non-working toilet. Ms. Johnson, an inspector for the City, came out to Village Park and inspected the unit. She found that the toilet and vanity required repair. She further determined that Respondent would need to get a certified roofing person to verify the condition of the roof, and to certify to the City that the roof was water tight. It was Ms. Johnson’s position that water damage was evident on the ceiling in Petitioner’s unit, and that Respondent would need to get a certified roofing person to verify the condition of the roof, as well as someone to restore the interior of Petitioner’s unit by repairing and/or painting the ceiling. An inspector from the Orange County Health Department also visited Village Park concerning a complaint about rats at the dumpster. Respondent timely addressed the rodent issue and the property is under contract with an extermination company that provides appropriate rodent deterrence. Respondent timely repaired the vanity leak and the toilet issue in Petitioner’s apartment. The roof issue, however, was not quickly resolved. Initially, Petitioner refused to allow Respondent into the unit to repair the ceiling. Ms. Johnson advised Petitioner that he would have to allow Respondent entry in order for them to be able to fix the ceiling and restore it to an appropriate condition. According to Ms. Johnson, the ceiling in Petitioner’s unit did not collapse as alleged by Petitioner. Ms. Johnson also noted that there was debris around the dumpster at Village Park. She was favorably impressed with the speed with which the maintenance crew cleaned up the mess at the dumpster site. Despite some delays in getting the roof inspection completed to Ms. Johnson’s satisfaction, all issues with Petitioner’s unit were resolved to the City’s satisfaction. Concurrent with the repair timeline to Petitioner’s unit, Respondent filed an eviction proceeding against Petitioner. That action progressed through the court, through mediation, and resulted in a stipulated settlement agreement. The Landlord/Tenant Stipulation was executed on January 27, 2010, and provided, in pertinent part: Defendant [Petitioner] agrees to place utilities in his own name at OUC no later than Feb. 3, 2010. * * * Defendant agrees to allow Plaintiff [Respondent] to enter his apartment for repairs on Feb. 1, 2010 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Petitioner failed to abide by the terms of the stipulation. Ultimately the court issued a Final Judgment for Possession and Writ of Possession for Petitioner’s unit. Petitioner's claim that the eviction process was retaliation for the complaints made to the county and city authorities, belies the fact that Petitioner failed to honor the terms of the lease, and the stipulation reached in the eviction proceeding. Petitioner’s race was not directly or indirectly involved in any manner. Nor was Petitioner treated less favorably than a similarly situated party not of Petitioner’s race.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Cambridge Management Inc., engaged in housing discriminatory practice in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, as amended, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2010).1/
Findings Of Fact In 2009-2010, Ms. Elizabeth Sherlock and her nine-year-old son, Luke Sherlock, rented a home from Ms. Sheryl Whitaker. The home was located in the Wedgewood II at Pelican Strand located in Collier County, Florida. The lease was from June 1, 2008, until June 1, 2010. Cambridge Management is the Master Association for the condominium association for the Strand properties. Cambridge Management did not rent or lease the home to Ms. Sherlock. Ms. Sherlock testified that the homeowner's association cited her for violations of the homeowner's association covenants, based on her son engaging in normal childhood activities such as climbing trees, archery, playing in the street and the community clubhouse. Ms. Sherlock testified that she was told in April 2010 that her lease would not be renewed, because her son had run across a sand trap on the golf course during a rain storm. According to Ms. Sherlock, Cambridge Management discriminated against her and her son by denying them access to their rented home.2/ Further, Ms. Sherlock testified that her son suffered severe traumatic stress, based on the security officers denying them access to their home. Finally, Ms. Sherlock testified that the decision not to continue renting to her caused her to move from the home and resulted in financial hardship. Ms. Sherlock's Petition for Relief summarily states that Respondents violated the Florida Fair Housing Act through "discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges or services, and facilities." The Petition for Relief does not contain any specific factual allegation against Respondents. The record does not support Ms. Sherlock's testimony that Cambridge Management engaged in any discriminatory practice or that it retaliated against her and her son in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act. Mr. LeClaire is a security guard for the Wedgewood at Pelican Strand. Mr. LeClaire testified that on June 24, 2010, at approximately 9:00 p.m., he had stopped Ms. Sherlock at the gate because his supervisor had told him that Ms. Sherlock may not be a current resident. After confirming that she was still a current resident, Mr. LeClaire allowed Ms. Sherlock to access her home through the gate. Although Mr. LeClaire's supervisor had told him that Ms. Sherlock may not be a current resident, no one from Cambridge Management had told Mr. LeClaire to deny Ms. Sherlock access to her rented home. Mr. Weaver is also a security guard for the Wedgewood at Pelican Strand. Mr. Weaver testified that on July 2, 2010, at approximately 9:00 p.m., he stopped Ms. Sherlock at the gatehouse to determine whether or not she was a current resident. Mr. Weaver credibly testified that he stopped Ms. Sherlock because he did not recognize her as a resident. After he verified that she was a current resident, Mr. Weaver allowed Ms. Sherlock into the community. Mr. Weaver credibly testified that he delayed her at most three minutes. Mr. Charles Sherlock is Ms. Sherlock's father. Mr. Sherlock resides in Naples, Florida, during the winter. He testified about the close relationship that he enjoys with his grandson Luke. According to Mr. Sherlock, Luke felt that it was his fault that he and Ms. Sherlock had been evicted from Ms. Whitaker's home, and had to move to Minnesota. Mr. Sherlock further testified that he had to pay for Ms. Sherlock's move to Minnesota, and that he would like to be reimbursed for the costs. Ms. Rubele is an officer with Wackenhut Security, and she testified about the Wackenhut Standard Operating Procedure for the Strand, and testified that Wackenhut's contact person for security was Ms. Brandy K. Callahan of Cambridge Property Management. Prior to the final hearing, Ms. Sherlock voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, her claims against Respondents, Wedgewood at Pelican Strand Neighborhood Association, et al., and Newell Property Management, et al., and voluntarily dismissed Respondent, Sheryl Whitaker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order of dismissal of the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondents engaged in a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Caribe Co-Operative Club Apartments, Inc. (Caribe Club), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation and a co-operative association that owns the apartment complex at issue in this proceeding located in Lake Worth, Florida. There are twenty-one apartments in the Caribe Club. The apartments constituting the Caribe Club are subject to duly-enacted bylaws and to a form proprietary lease. These documents govern the management of the co-operative association and specify the terms and conditions of each tenancy. An existing lease cannot be transferred until the transaction has been approved by the stockholders of the Caribe Club. If the transaction is approved, the prospective lessee is required to purchase a share of stock in the cooperative association and execute the form proprietary lease. The existing lessee and the proposed transferee are required to apply to the board of directors for approval of the proposed transaction. The board is then required to convene a meeting of the stockholders, at which the proposed transaction is discussed and the prospective lessee may be interviewed. Thereafter, a vote by secret ballot is taken, with each apartment having one vote. A two-thirds affirmative vote of the stockholders voting at the meeting is required for approval of the proposed transaction. Petitioner agreed to purchase the apartment at the Caribe Club owned by Phyllis McAuliffe for the sum of $13,500. As required by the bylaws of the Caribe Club, Petitioner and Ms. McAuliffe requested approval of the proposed transfer and Petitioner submitted her personal financial information in addition to the application. For approximately a year before she decided to purchase the McAuliffe lease, Respondent lived in the Caribe Club apartment leased by Quentin Mason, her boyfriend. After she and Ms. McAuliffe had come to terms, but before she submitted her request for approval to the board of directors, Petitioner painted and cleaned the McAuliffe apartment. In addition, she replaced a door. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Caribe Club had a president, two vice-presidents, a secretary, and a treasurer. These officers constituted the board of directors. Francis A. Phillip, Jr., the president of the Caribe Club, reviewed Petitioner's application and her supporting financial information. As required by the bylaws, Mr. Phillip called a special meeting of the stockholders for January 22, 1996, to consider the application. After her financial information was determined to be in order, Petitioner was briefly interviewed and then excused from the meeting. The only discussion of the proposed transfer consisted of Fernand Roy making a statement against the transaction and Mr. Mason giving a response. The proposed transaction was rejected by the vote by secret ballot that followed. Of the twelve voting stockholders at the meeting, seven voted against the transaction and five voted in favor. To the knowledge of the witnesses who testified, this was the first occasion that a prospective transfer had been rejected. The following stockholders were present at the meeting: Mr. and Mrs. Brooks (with one vote), Mr. Mason, Mr. and Mrs. Todd (with one vote), Mrs. Knutson, Mrs. Loomis, Mrs. Mack, Mrs. Senn, Mrs. Lambert, Mrs. Tognacci, Mr. Phillip, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Roy. At the formal hearing, there was competent evidence as to how five stockholders voted and the reasons of those who voted against the transaction. Mr. Mason and Mr. Reed voted for the transaction. Mr. Roy, Ms. Senn, and Mr. Phillip voted against the transaction. The Petitioner did not establish by competent evidence how the other individual stockholders voted or the reason for their votes. 1/ Fernand Roy participated in the stockholder meeting as a voting stockholder. Mr. Roy and Petitioner's boyfriend, Mr. Mason, had a long-standing feud. Mr. Roy did not want Petitioner to become a stockholder because she would then be able to support Mr. Mason's positions on various issues pertaining to management of the Caribe Club. Florence Senn participated in the stockholder meeting as a voting stockholder. Ms. Senn voted against the proposed transaction because she did not like the fact that Petitioner and Mr. Mason had been living together without the benefit of marriage. Ms. Senn did not discuss her position on the matter with anyone prior to the vote being taken. Ms. Senn told Petitioner before the vote was taken that if the stockholders rejected her application it would be because she was Mr. Mason's girlfriend. Ms. Senn was of the opinion following the vote that most of the stockholders who voted against the transaction did so because they did not like Mr. Mason. Mr. Phillip participated in the stockholder meeting as the presiding officer and as a voting stockholder. Mr. Phillip voted against the proposed transaction because he believed that Petitioner's entering the McAuliffe unit to paint, clean, and make repairs before the stockholders had approved the transaction evidenced an unwillingness on her part to comply with the bylaws and rules and regulations of the Caribe Club. Mr. Phillip testified that he had told Petitioner not to work in the apartment before the transaction was approved, but that she did so anyway. Before the meeting, Mr. Phillip mentioned to one or two other stockholders that Petitioner was working on the McAuliffe apartment, but he did not discuss his position on the transaction with anyone prior to the vote being taken. The evidence did not establish that any stockholder voted against the proposed transaction based on Petitioner's age, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion. 2/
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 discriminatory housing complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1999.
The Issue The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017-113 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to provide and promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing has been designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is authorized to establish procedures to distribute low-income housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of these credits. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida Housing is considered an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing administers the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation. Florida Housing initiates the competitive solicitation process by issuing a Request for Applications. §§ 420.507(48) and 420.5087(1), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(4). The low-income housing tax credit program (commonly referred to as “tax credits” or “housing credits”) was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Tax credits are awarded competitively to real estate developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. Typically, developers then sell the tax credits to raise capital for their housing projects. Because tax credits allow developers to reduce the amount necessary to fund a housing project, they can (and must) offer the tax credit property at lower, more affordable rents. Developers also agree to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years. The Request for Applications at issue in this matter is RFA 2017-113, entitled “Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties.” The purpose of RFA 2017-113 is to distribute funding to create affordable housing developments in the State of Florida. Through RFA 2017-113, Florida Housing intends to provide an estimated $14,601,863.00 of housing credit financing. Florida Housing issued RFA 2017-113 on October 6, 2017. Applications were due to Florida Housing by December 28, 2017.6/ Florida Housing received 33 applications in response to RFA 2017-113. Five proposed developments, including FOUR6 Skyway7/ and Eagle Ridge, applied for funding for housing credits in Pinellas County. Upon receipt of the applications, Florida Housing assigned each applicant a lottery number. Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score each application. The Review Committee reviewed, deemed eligible or ineligible, and ranked applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2017-113, as well as Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. As further explained below, the Review Committee deemed FOUR6 Skyway’s application ineligible for consideration under RFA 2017-113. Specifically, the Review Committee determined that FOUR6 Skyway’s application failed to state its housing project’s Development Location Point in “decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal point” as expressly required by Section Four, A.5.d(1), of RFA 2017-113. Conversely, the Review Committee found that Eagle Ridge’s application satisfied all mandatory and eligibility requirements for funding and was awarded 20 out of 20 total points. Eagle Ridge was assigned a lottery number of 16. On March 16, 2018, the Review Committee presented its recommendation of preliminary rankings and allocations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors. Based on the Review Committee’s recommendations, the Board of Directors (without explanation) stated that FOUR6 Skyway did not satisfy all mandatory and eligibility requirements for funding. Consequently, although FOUR6 Skyway was assigned a lower lottery number of 2, the Board of Directors selected Eagle Ridge for funding to develop affordable housing in Pinellas County. (Only applications that met all eligibility requirements were considered for selection.) The Board of Directors approved $1,660,000.00 in housing credit funding for Eagle Ridge’s housing project. FOUR6 Skyway protests Florida Housing’s selection of Eagle Ridge instead of its own housing project. FOUR6 Skyway specifically challenges Florida Housing’s determination that its application was ineligible under the terms of RFA 2017-113. If FOUR6 Skyway successfully demonstrates that Florida Housing erred in disqualifying its application, FOUR6 Skyway, by virtue of holding the lower lottery number, will be selected for housing credit financing in Pinellas County instead of Eagle Ridge. The focus of FOUR6 Skyway’s challenge is the information it provided in response to RFA 2017-113, Section Four, A.5.d., entitled “Latitude/Longitude Coordinates.” RFA 2017-113, Section Four, A.5, entitled “Location of Proposed Development” instructs, in pertinent part: The Applicant must indicate the county where the proposed Development will be located. This RFA is only open to proposed Developments located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas counties. * * * d. Latitude/Longitude Coordinates (1) All applicants must provide a Development Location Point[8/] stated in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. In its application, FOUR6 Skyway responded to Section Four, A.5.d(1), as follows: [Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place.] N 27 43 34.215880 [Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place] W 82 40 47.887360 As shown above, FOUR6 Skyway stated its Development Location Point in a “degree/minute/second” format instead of the required “decimal degrees” format.9/ Because FOUR6 Skyway failed to comply with the Section A.5.d instruction to state the Development Location Point in decimal degrees, the Review Committee (and subsequently the Board of Directors) determined that FOUR6 Skyway’s application was ineligible for funding.10/ In arguing that its application was eligible under RFA 2017-113, FOUR6 Skyway contends that map coordinates written in a “degree/minute/second” format may be converted to decimal degrees by using the following mathematical equation: Degree + minute/60 + second/3600 = decimal degrees. Using this formula, the coordinates FOUR6 Skyway listed in its application can be converted into the following decimal degrees: Latitude: N 27 43 34.215880 equals 27.726171 decimal degrees Longitude: W 82 40 47.887360 equals - 82.679969 decimal degrees Florida Housing does not dispute that the latitude/longitude coordinates FOUR6 Skyway listed (in either the “degree/minute/second” or decimal degree formats) correspond to a map location that would have been eligible for funding under RFA 2017-113. Consequently, FOUR6 Skyway argues that Florida Housing could have, and should have, used this “simple” mathematical formula to obtain the decimal degrees of its Development Location Point. FOUR6 Skyway further claims that it included sufficient information on the face of its application for Florida Housing to pinpoint the exact location of its proposed housing development in Pinellas County. Not only did FOUR6 Skyway list the address of its development, but it attached to its application a Surveyor Certification Form which also identified its Development Location Point using the “degree/minute/second” format.11/ FOUR6 Skyway asserts that, in light of the fact that the term “decimal degrees” is not defined by statute, rule, or in RFA 2017-113, Florida Housing should have deemed its application eligible for funding based on the information it provided. Finally, FOUR6 Skyway contends that Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-60.002(6) and 67-60.008 authorize Florida Housing to waive “minor irregularities” in applications. FOUR6 Skyway maintains that Florida Housing should have exercised its discretion and waived FOUR6 Skyway’s failure to state its Development Location Point in decimal degrees as a “minor irregularity.” Therefore, Florida Housing should have found FOUR6 Skyway’s application eligible for funding under RFA 2017-113. In response to FOUR6 Skyway’s challenge, Florida Housing asserts that it properly acted within its legal authority to disqualify FOUR6 Skyway’s application. Florida Housing argues that FOUR6 Skyway, by stating the latitude/longitude coordinates of its Development Location Point in the (unacceptable) “degree/minute/second” format, failed to comply with the express terms of RFA 2017-113, thus rendering its application ineligible for funding. In support of its position, Florida Housing presented the testimony of Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button oversees the Request for Applications process. Ms. Button initially explained the procedure by which Florida Housing awarded funding under RFA 2017-113. Ms. Button conveyed that Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score the applications. Florida Housing selected Review Committee participants based on the staff member’s experience, preferences, and workload. Florida Housing also assigned a backup reviewer to separately score each application. Review Committee members independently evaluated and scored discrete portions of the applications based on various mandatory and scored items. Thereafter, the scorer and backup reviewer met to reconcile their scores. If any concerns or questions arose regarding an applicant’s responses, the scorer and backup reviewer discussed them with Florida Housing’s supervisory and legal staff. The scorer then made the final determination as to each application. For RFA 2017-113, Florida Housing assigned Karla Brown, a Multifamily Programs Manager, as the lead scorer for the “proximity” portion of RFA 2017-113, which included the Section Four, A.5.d, latitude/longitude coordinates of the Development Location Point. Ms. Brown has scored proximity points for Requests for Application for approximately ten years. At the final hearing, Florida Housing offered the deposition testimony of Ms. Brown. In her deposition, Ms. Brown testified that, upon reviewing FOUR6 Skyway’s application, she immediately noticed that FOUR6 Skyway did not use decimal degrees to record the latitude/longitude coordinates of its Development Location Point. Ms. Brown explained that Florida Housing’s mapping software required applicants to list their Development Location Points in decimal degrees in order to locate the proposed housing project. The software would not allow her to plot latitude/longitude coordinates written in the “degree/minute/second” format. Consequently, she was not able to determine the location of (or award “proximity” points to) the FOUR6 Skyway development. As a direct result, Ms. Brown determined that FOUR6 Skyway’s application was ineligible for an award of funding under RFA 2017-113. Furthermore, Ms. Brown considered whether she should waive FOUR6 Skyway’s latitude/longitude coordinates as a “minor irregularity.” She determined that waiving FOUR6 Skyway’s “degree/minute/second” coordinates was not appropriate because RFA 2017-113 expressly instructed applicants to state the Development Location Point in the distinct format used by its mapping software, i.e., decimal degrees. At the final hearing, Ms. Button elaborated on Ms. Brown’s testimony maintaining that an applicant’s use of decimal degrees for its Development Location Point was critical in Florida Housing’s review of each application. Ms. Button reiterated that Florida Housing uses the application’s Development Location Point to confirm that the proposed housing project is located in the area covered by the Request For Applications. Ms. Button explained that when latitude/longitude coordinates are submitted in the wrong format, it is impossible for Florida Housing staff to plot the Development Location Point using its internal mapping software. Regarding FOUR6 Skyway’s argument that Florida Housing should have considered its “degree/minute/second” format as a “minor irregularity,” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing recognizes that developers occasionally make errors in their applications. In light of this possibility, the rules governing the competitive solicitation process authorize Florida Housing to waive “minor irregularities.” As provided in rule 67-60.008, [Florida Housing] may waive Minor Irregularities in an otherwise valid Application. Mistakes clearly evident to the Corporation on the face of the Application, such as computation and typographical errors, may be corrected by the Corporation; however, the Corporation shall have no duty or obligation to correct any such mistakes. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.002(6) and RFA 2017-113, Section Three, A.2.C. However, Ms. Button declared that the difference between latitude/longitude coordinates stated in “degree/minute/seconds” versus “decimal degrees” is more than just a “minor irregularity.” Converting map coordinates into decimal degrees goes beyond simply correcting a computational or typographical error. Such action requires the scorer to actually calculate the coordinate point on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Button explained that scorers are not prepared or trained on how to mathematically determine map coordinates. (In her deposition, Ms. Brown testified that she did not “even know how to begin to try to convert” a “decimal/minutes/second” coordinate to decimal degrees. She is a “scorer,” not a “surveyor.” Ms. Brown relayed that she was specifically trained to use the decimal degrees numbers, and only the decimal degrees numbers, to plot Development Location Points in the Florida Housing mapping software.) Ms. Button added that, not only would converting latitude/longitude coordinates into decimal degrees place the burden on the scorers to correctly enter an applicant’s data into the mapping software program, but, a scorer might miscalculate the plot points. This result would taint the reliability of the scoring process. Consequently, Florida Housing did not believe that it should have exercised its discretion to waive FOUR6 Skyway’s improper latitude/longitude coordinates and convert its “degree/minute/second” Development Location Point into decimal degrees. Therefore, Florida Housing fully supported Ms. Brown’s decision not to waive FOUR6 Skyway’s response to Section Four, A.5.d., as a “minor irregularity.” Finally, Ms. Button professed that transcribing latitude/longitude coordinates into decimal degrees would be contrary to competition by relieving an applicant of the minor, but real, burden of accurately plotting its project’s Development Location Point. Such a practice would allow a Florida Housing scorer to independently modify (and thus, benefit) a developer’s application, thereby enabling it to prevail over other applicants. Finally, at the formal hearing, FOUR6 Skyway presented evidence of other “minor irregularities” Florida Housing has waived in past Requests for Applications.12/ FOUR6 Skyway argues that, in light of these prior decisions, Florida Housing’s failure to waive its nonconforming latitude/longitude coordinates in this matter was arbitrary and capricious. However, FOUR6 Skyway did not offer any evidence or elicit any testimony that Florida Housing has ever waived similar coordinate formatting errors. On the contrary, Ms. Button stated that she was not aware of any other instance where Florida Housing waived an applicant’s listing of latitude/longitude coordinates in “degree/minute/seconds,” instead of decimal degrees, as a “minor irregularity.” Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, FOUR6 Skyway did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Florida Housing’s decision finding FOUR6 Skyway’s application ineligible for funding was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that Florida Housing’s proposed action to award housing credit funding to Eagle Ridge under RFA 2017-113 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of RFA 2017-113.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the protest by FOUR6 Skyway. It is further recommended that Florida Housing Finance Corporation select Eagle Ridge as the recipient of housing credit funding under RFA 2017-113. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) properly dismissed this matter for lack of jurisdiction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as a first-time home buyer, applied for and was pre-approved by Cendant Mortgage Corporation d/b/a/ Century 21 Mortgage for a mortgage loan. The loan, in the amount of $28,687.00, was to be insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). In February 2003, Respondent agreed to sell Petitioner his home. They agreed that Petitioner would pay Respondent $29,000.00 for the house. Respondent subsequently stated in writing that he agreed to sell his house to Petitioner for that amount. On March 5, 2003, Petitioner signed a form entitled No Brokerage Relationship Disclosure. The form made it clear that Century 21 Prime Property Resources, Inc., a local real estate agency, and its associates did not have a brokerage relationship with Petitioner. There is no evidence that the professional services of a licensed real estate agent was involved at all in this case. However, the local Century 21 real estate office gratuitously sent a few documents on Petitioner's behalf by facsimile transmission to Century 21 Mortgage in New Jersey. Respondent did not use the sales facilities or services of Century 21 for any purpose. On March 7, 2003, Cheryl Barnes, a certified appraiser, completed an appraisal of the property. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and/or FHA required the appraisal in order for Petitioner to receive the loan insured by FHA. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent was required to pay for the appraisal. In a letter dated March 10, 2003, Century 21 Mortgage advised Petitioner that the closing date was scheduled for April 16, 2003. The letter enclosed additional forms that Petitioner needed to complete in order to close the loan. The Housing Department, Division of Planning and Development, in Sumter County, Florida, sent Petitioner a letter dated March 19, 2003. The letter advised Petitioner that she was eligible for an award of Supplemental Household Income Protection funds to cover the down payment and closing costs on the loan. Subsequently, Respondent refused to sign any papers related to the sale of the house. The loan could not be closed without Respondent's cooperation. Petitioner had placed $250 in an escrow account with Century 21 Mortgage. The mortgage broker refunded all of the money in the escrow account to Petitioner after Respondent refused to sign any more paperwork. Finally, there is no evidence of the following: (a) that Respondent owned more than three single-family houses at any one time; (b) that Respondent sold more than one single- family home within any 24-month period; (c) that Respondent had an interest in the proceeds from the sale or rental of more than three single-family houses at any one time; and (d) the sale of the subject house did not involve the posting, mailing, or publication of any written notice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan M. Parker 3840 East County Road 478 Apartment D-30 Webster, Florida 33597 Paul Moore 2396 County Road 608 Bushnell, Florida 33513
The Issue Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”), intended action to award housing credit funding to Marquis Partners, Ltd. (“Marquis Partners”), based on the Request for Applications 2017-113 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties (the “RFA”) is contrary to governing statutes, Florida Housing rules, or the RFA specifications; and, if so, whether the award is contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated findings of fact, the oral and documentary evidence presented at hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the Findings of Fact are as follows: Parties Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. HTG Village and Marquis Partners submitted applications for funding from Florida Housing to develop affordable housing developments. Both applications were deemed “eligible” for funding. Marquis Partners was preliminarily selected for funding under the RFA. While HTG Village was determined to be eligible for funding, it was not selected for an award of funding. The “tax credit” program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects that qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect is that it reduces the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. Competitive Application Process Florida Housing is authorized to allocate tax credits, SAIL funding, and other funding by means of requests for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48), and adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60, which govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing handles disputes regarding the allocation of its tax credits, which were made available to Florida Housing on an annual basis by the U.S. Treasury, through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). In their applications, applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. Applicants normally sell the rights to that future stream of income tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount, which can be received, depends upon the accomplishment of several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. This, however, is not an exhaustive list of the factors considered. Tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(3). At issue here is RFA 2017-113: Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. The RFA was issued on October 6, 2017, and responses were due December 28, 2017. The RFA was modified on November 1 and November 29, 2017. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $14,601,863.00 of housing credits to applicants that propose developments in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. Florida Housing received 33 applications in response to RFA 2017-113. A review committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The review committee found 25 applications eligible and eight applications ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, seven applications were recommended for funding, including Marquis Partners. On March 16, 2018, Florida Housing’s Board met and considered the recommendations of the review committee for RFA 2017-113. Later, on March 16, 2018, at approximately 1:05 p.m., Petitioners and all other applicants in RFA 2017-113 received notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding, and that certain eligible applicants were selected for award of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets on the Florida Housing website, one listing the "eligible" applications in RFA 2017-113 and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In that March 16, 2018, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to seven applicants, including Marquis Partners. HTG Village was eligible, but not recommended for funding. All of the parties in this case applied for funding to develop a proposed development in Broward County. According to the terms of the RFA, a maximum of two Broward County applications are to be funded. Sailboat Bend was the other application, in addition to that of Marquis Partners that was selected for funding in Broward County. Once Marquis Partners dismissed its petition in DOAH Case No. 18-2157BID, there were no remaining challenges to Sailboat Bend. Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. Marquis Partners timely intervened. No challenges were made to the terms of RFA 2017-113. RFA 2017-113 Ranking and Selection Process The RFA contemplates a structure in which the applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. A list of the eligibility items is available in section 5.A.1, beginning on page 63 of the RFA. Only applications that meet all the eligibility items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. The eligibility items also include Submission Requirements, Financial Arrearage Requirements, and the Total Development Cost Per Unit Limitation requirement. Applicants can earn points for each of the following items (for a maximum of 20): Submission of Principal Disclosure Form stamped by Corporation as “Pre-Approved” (maximum 5 points); Development Experience Withdrawal Disincentive (maximum 5 points); and either Local Government Contribution Points (maximum 5 points) or Local Government Area of Opportunity Points (10 points). The RFA’s stated goal is to fund one application wherein the applicant applied and qualified as a non-profit applicant. As part of the funding selection process, the RFA starts with the application sorting order. All eligible applications are ranked by first sorting all eligible Applications from the highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order: First, by the Application’s eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.11.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.b.(4) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); and And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. The RFA also outlines the funding selection process as follows: The highest ranking eligible Application will be selected for funding for proposed Developments located in each of the following counties for which an eligible Application was received: Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas. If funding remains after funding the highest ranking eligible Applications as outlined in a. above, and if none of the Applications selected for funding in a. above qualify for the Non-Profit goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Application wherein the Applicant applied and qualified as a Non-Profit Applicant, regardless of county. If the selected Application cannot be fully funded, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. If funding remains after funding the highest ranking eligible Applications as outlined in a. above and at least one (1) of the selected Applications qualified for the Non-Profit goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Application in Broward County. If the selected Application cannot be fully funded, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. If funding remains after selecting the highest ranking eligible unfunded Broward County Application, or if there is no eligible unfunded Application located in Broward County, no additional Applications from any county will be selected for funding and any remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. HTG Village Standing One of the eligibility requirements in the RFA is that applicants are required to demonstrate site control by providing certain documentation as Exhibit 8 to the application. The RFA provides three ways to demonstrate site control: 1) eligible contract, 2) deed or certificate of title, or 3) lease. In order to demonstrate site control as an eligible contract, the following must be demonstrated: Eligible Contract - For purposes of this RFA, an eligible contract is one that has a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018; specifically states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; and the buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an assignment of the eligible contract which assigns all of the buyer's rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant, is provided. Any assignment must be signed by the assignor and the assignee. If the owner of the subject property is not a party to the eligible contract, all documents evidencing intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances of any kind between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, must be provided, and, if a contract, must contain the following elements of an eligible contract: a) have a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or contain extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018, and b) specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. In response to RFA 2017-113, HTG Village timely submitted application number 2018-303C (“HTG Village Application”) requesting an allocation of $2,561,000 in housing credits. HTG Village proposed to develop a 96-unit affordable, multifamily housing development in Broward County. The address of the development site provided within the application of HTG Village is “N Andrews Ave and NE 6th St., Fort Lauderdale.” (“HTG Village Development Site”). HTG Village had a contractual right to purchase the HTG Village Development Site as of the application deadline and satisfied the site control requirement of RFA 2017-113 as of the application deadline. HTG Village terminated its contract to purchase the HTG Village Development Site in a letter dated January 16, 2018, and delivered on January 17, 2018. HTG Village entered a First Amendment and Reinstatement to the original Purchase and Sale Agreement on May 8, 2018 (“Amended Purchase and Sale Agreement”), with a retroactive effective date of January 17, 2018. Although HTG Village terminated its purchase agreement after the application deadline, Ms. Button credibly testified that the determination of whether the applicant is ready to proceed with the development is at the time of the application deadline (through submission of the completed application) and again at the time of underwriting. Of the applicants that submitted applications in response to the RFA, four applicants submitted applications for development in Broward County. Two applicants received a score of 20 points, Sailbooat Bend and Marquis Partners. Of the two applicants that received 20 points, Marquis Partners was assigned a lottery number of nine. HTG Village and another applicant, Casa St. Angelo, received scores of 15 points. HTG Village was assigned a lottery number 1. In the solicitation process, if Marquis Partners is deemed ineligible, HTG Village would be the next highest-ranked application for funding for development in Broward. If Marquis Partners remains eligible, but its score is reduced to 15, HTG Village would replace Marquis Partners in the line for funding because HTG Village has the lowest lottery number (1). Marquis Partners Application In response to RFA 2017-113, Marquis Partners timely submitted application number 2018-279C (“Marquis Partners Application”) requesting an allocation of $1,727,000 in housing credits. Marquis Partners proposed to develop a 100-unit affordable, multifamily housing development in Broward County. Florida Housing determined that the Marquis Partners Application was eligible for an award of housing credits and preliminarily selected the Marquis Partners Application for an award of housing credits. The Marquis Partners Application was selected as the second Broward County application under subpart (c) of the funding selection process. As another eligibility item, RFA 2017-113 required that applicants identify their “Principals” by completing and submitting with their applications a Principal Disclosure Form as follows: Eligibility Requirements to meet the submission requirements, the Applicant must upload the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 08- 16) (“Principals Disclosure Form”) with the Application and Development Cost Pro Forma, as outlined in Section Three above. The Principals Disclosure Form must identify the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline and should include, for each applicable organizational structure, only the types of Principals required by Subsection 67- 48.002(93), F.A.C. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. RFA 2017-113 also enabled an applicant to obtain “points” by participating in Florida Housing’s advance review process as follows: Point Item: Applicants will receive 5 points if the uploaded Principal Disclosure Form was stamped “Approved” during the Advance Review Process provided (a) it is still correct as of Application Deadline, and (b) it was approved for the type of funding being requested (i.e., Housing Credits or Non-Housing Credits). The Advance Review Process for Disclosure of Applicant and Developer Principals is available on the Corporation’s Website http://www.floridahousing.org/programs/ developers-multifamilyprograms/competitive/ 2017/2017-113 (also accessible by clicking here) and also includes samples which may assist the Applicant in completing the required Principals Disclosure Form. Note: It is the sole responsibility of the Applicant to review the Advance Review Process procedures and to submit any Principals Disclosure Form for review in a timely manner in order to meet the Application Deadline. Marquis Partners participated in the advance review process, and on or about December 21, 2017, Florida Housing approved the Principal Disclosure Form submitted by Marquis Partners for an award of housing credits. The Principal Disclosure Form approved by Florida Housing during the advance review process did not properly identify Marquis Partners’ Principals for the corresponding types of entities as provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(93). Rule 67-48.002(93) defined the term “Principal” based on the applicant or developer entity, and then by the organizational structure of those specific entities. The term “Principal” was capitalized in the RFA. The RFA provided that unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms within the RFA have the meaning as set forth in Exhibit B, in chapters 67-48 and 67-60, or in applicable federal regulations. Within the disclosure form, the applicant was required to disclose the type of Principal, name of the Principal and organization structure of that Principal at each disclosure level. There were three disclosure levels provided on the disclosure form. The Principal Disclosure Form submitted with the Marquis Partners Application included errors at the second Principal disclosure level. The second Principal disclosure level required Marquis Partners to provide the type of Principal being associated with the corresponding first-level Principal entity and the name of the Principal. Marquis Partners failed to disclose one Principal at the second level as further outlined below. As of the application deadline and at all times pertinent to this case, amongst other partners, Cornerstone Marquis, LLC (“Cornerstone Marquis”), was identified as a general partner of Marquis Partners. As of the application deadline and at all times pertinent to this case, the members of Cornerstone Marquis were as follows: a) Jorge Lopez; b) Awilda Lopez; c) Mara Mades; and d) M3 Acquisitions, LLC. The members were properly disclosed at the second Principal disclosure level. As of the application deadline and at all times pertinent to this case, the managers of Cornerstone Marquis, LLC, were as follows: a) Jorge Lopez; b) Mara Mades; and c) Leon Wolfe. At the second Principal disclosure level, Awilda Lopez and M3 Acquisitions were incorrectly identified as managers of Cornerstone Marquis, LLC, when they were in fact only members. More importantly, Leon Wolfe was not identified at the second Principal disclosure level as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis. Since Leon Wolfe was a manager of Cornerstone Marquis, he should have been identified as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis, LLC, at the second Principal disclosure level. Florida Housing’s approval of Marquis Partners’ Principal Disclosure Form during the advance review process did not verify the accuracy of the information contained within the Principal Disclosure Form. The information in the Principal Disclosure Form was incorrect at the time it was submitted for approval and remained incorrect when it was submitted with the Marquis Partners’ Application. Florida Housing evaluates omissions from the Principal Disclosure Form based on whether the inclusion of the incorrect information negatively impacts other applicants. Marisa Button, director of multifamily allocation, testified that the misidentification of Awilda Lopez and M3 Acquisitions, LLC, as managers of Cornerstone Marquis is a minor irregularity. On the other hand, Florida Housing considered the failure to properly disclose Leon Wolfe as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis to be a material deviation. Leon Wolfe was disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form at the third disclosure level as a member and manager of M3 Acquisitions, LLC. However, Mr. Wolfe was not properly disclosed at the second level of disclosure as required. The RFA required that applicants disclose Principals in the Principal Disclosure Form for each type of entity. Ms. Button testified that the purpose of proper disclosure of all Principals of the entities that are associated with the applicant is so that Florida Housing is aware of who it is doing business with. Florida Housing screens the Principals to determine whether a Principal has been deficient to the corporation on prior affordable housing deals, identify bad actors, or to limit the amount of funding received by any related applicants. Florida Housing uses the disclosed Principals to determine if applications are related. Florida Housing made the advance review process available to assist applicants with completing the Principal Disclosure Form. During the process, there were sample charts provided to assist the applicants with completing the form. Marquis Partners participated in the review process and Florida Housing approved the form. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Marquis Partners did not properly disclose Mr. Wolfe on its Principal Disclosure Form and, as a result, it should not have been awarded the additional five points for the advance review approval. Moreover, the omission of Mr. Wolfe as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis is a material deviation that cannot be waived. Thus, the evidence shows that Marquis Partners is not eligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Florida Housing’s initial scoring decision regarding the Marquis Partners Application was erroneous, concluding that Marquis Partners was ineligible for funding and not eligible for five additional points, and awarding funding to HTG Village. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 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 27th day of July, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 304 1725 Capital Circle Northeast Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
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.
