The Issue Whether Respondents Orion Real Estate Services (Orion) and the Housing Authority of the City of Winter Park (Housing Authority) subjected Petitioner April Williams to discriminatory housing practices based on her race (African American, non-Hispanic), in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, part II, Florida Statutes (2019) (FHA).1
Findings Of Fact Ms. Williams, an African American female, lives in an apartment in the Meadows, a low-income housing complex located in Winter Park, Florida. The Housing Authority is a governmental entity that provides low- income housing through federal funds provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. It contracts with outside companies to manage the properties it owns. The Housing Authority owns the Meadows. Orion is a real estate services company that manages residential properties for landlords and investors. At the time relevant to these proceedings, Orion managed the Meadows for the Housing Authority. Ms. Williams had to climb up a stairwell to reach her unit. Her apartment was located above one unit and next to another. She shared a front porch with her next-door neighbor. The Meadows housed 300 residents during the relevant time period. Of those residents, 264 identified themselves as "Black" and 280 identified themselves as "Ethnic." There was no testimony or evidence as to how many identified as Hispanic. The Housing Authority claims it took no action against Ms. Williams, and therefore cannot be liable for discrimination. The Community Manager for the Meadows, LiMarys Rivera, testified she was an employee of Orion. However, she issued documentation on letterhead titled "The Housing Authority of the City of Winter Park." Ms. Rivera's signature line states that her title is "Property Manager Agent for the Winter Park Housing Authority." As such, the undersigned finds Ms. Rivera was a dual agent for both Orion and the Housing Authority. Ms. Rivera testified that once she received a complaint against a tenant, regardless of who made the complaint, it was standard procedure to first reach out to the alleged violator by telephone as a courtesy, and then if there was a subsequent complaint to send out a written "Notice to Cure" or "Notice of Material Non-Compliance with Opportunity to Cure and Proposed Adverse Action" (non-compliance notice) to that tenant. Respondents provided numerous non-compliance notices to tenants regarding various types of complaints. Ms. Rivera testified these non- compliance notices were issued to tenants of all races, and both Hispanic and non-Hispanic tenants. Over the course of a year to 18 months, Ms. Williams had made somewhere between 20 and 29 complaints against her next-door neighbor and her downstairs neighbor. Ms. Williams described both of these neighbors as Hispanic. Ms. Williams complained that her next-door neighbor was noisy and would smoke (and allow guests to smoke) on the front porch even though her building was designated as a non-smoking area. Ms. Williams also complained that the downstairs neighbor left items on the stairwell causing a hazard. These items included pizza boxes, shoes, rugs, and bags of trash. As a result of these complaints, both of Ms. Williams's neighbors were issued non-compliance notices. The downstairs neighbor received a non- compliance notice for leaving pizza boxes, trash, and the other objects outside her front door. Similarly, the next-door neighbor received a non-compliance notice for smoking in her apartment and common areas. Additionally, Respondents issued community flyers to all the tenants in the Meadows reminding them of basic rules, including not smoking, not leaving trash and debris outside, and keeping front porches clean. Ms. Williams also complained to Respondents that workmen who were performing maintenance in her unit were speaking Spanish. She requested that Respondents provide workmen that speak only English while on the Meadows property. At some point, Ms. Williams's neighbors made noise complaints against her. Respondents did not initially issue a non-compliance notice to Ms. Williams because she and her neighbors had numerous complaints against each other. Instead, Ms. Rivera attempted to hold a conciliation or mediation meeting with all of them. Ms. Williams refused. She did not see the point of the meeting, and believed Ms. Rivera would take the neighbors' side because Ms. Rivera, like the neighbors, was Hispanic. After Ms. Williams refused to meet, Respondents issued her a non- compliance notice for excessive noise. There was no evidence that she was required to pay any fees or fines as a result of the non-compliance notice against her. Ms. Williams testified she felt Ms. Rivera gave preferential treatment to Hispanics. When asked how they were treated better, Ms. Williams testified that her neighbors were not evicted despite the complaints made against them. Ms. Williams admitted, however, that Respondents did not evict her either.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by April Williams. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 21st day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Ricardo L. Gilmore, Esquire Saxon, Gilmore, Carraway and Gibbons, P.A. 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 600 Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Kevin Fulton, Esquire Fulton Strahan Law Group, PLLC 7676 Hillmont Street, Suite 191 Houston, Texas 77040 (eServed) April Williams 746 Margaret Square Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent, Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium Association, Inc. (Respondent or Condominium Association), violated the Florida Fair Housing Act, sections through 760.37, Florida Statutes,1/ by engaging in discriminatory housing practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, James Henkel (Petitioner), is a full-time resident of unit 609 within Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium. Petitioner is wheel-chair bound. He is physically disabled and protected for the purposes of the Florida and Federal Fair Housing Acts. Respondent is a condominium association charged with operation of the Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium (Condominium). The Condominium was developed by Harbour Pointe Land and Finance, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability company. Respondent is the successor in interest to the developer. Respondent now manages and maintains the Condominium common areas through its board of directors. Although Respondent has made subsequent changes with regard to security gates for the pool and dock, Respondent had no role in the design or development of the Condominium. The subject entrance and exit doors have opening pressures that vary, but are usually out of compliance with applicable Florida and Federal standards for handicap access. However, despite Petitioner’s allegations, the evidence does not support a finding that any of the door closers that are out of compliance have been altered since ownership of the Condominium was transferred and Respondent became responsible for management and operation of the Condominium. At one point in time, Respondent altered the pool gate in a manner inconsistent with the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) Design Manual. Respondent, however, has since made alterations to the pool gate to make it compliant and has a pending work order for additional changes, at Respondent’s expense, designed to make the pool gate’s key pad even more accessible to Petitioner. Access to the boat slip portions of the Condominium dock is a “Limited Common Element” that has always been limited to Condominium unit owners with assigned rights to one or more dock slips. See sections 3.20, 4.1, and 8.1B of the Condominium’s Declaration of Condominium. Petitioner’s unit does not have an assigned dock slip. Petitioner, however, along with other residents without boat slips have historically had access to the dock through a gate and key pad, the combination of which was provided to all unit owners. Initially, access to the dock for Petitioner and other residents who did not own boat slips was not a problem because there was only one gate to the dock and, once through the gate, Petitioner and other residents could proceed to the end of the dock where there was ample room to turn around a wheelchair. Although not officially designated as a common area, in essence, all residents, including Petitioner, with permission of the boat owners, enjoyed access to the dock, except for the boat slip areas. Later, however, security issues arose regarding the dock. Non-residents were going around the single security gate to get on the dock. With the goal of increasing security, Respondent installed a second gate further down on the narrow walkway portion of the dock before the end. Even after that, non-residents were accessing the dock by breaking the lock on the second gate or climbing around and jumping up on the other side of the pier. Respondent repaired the gate locks on more than one occasion, and has since made additional changes to the second gate to make it more difficult to get through or around. Petitioner agrees that dock security was a problem that needed to be addressed. The problem is that Petitioner cannot get through the second gate and the width of the dock between the gates is inadequate for Petitioner to turn around his wheelchair. If the area between the gates was common area, it would not meet the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) Design Manual standards. At the time of hearing, however, the dock area between the gates was not common area, and the evidence was insufficient to show that the dock was ever common area. Specifically, after assessing the issues and receiving two legal opinions that the entire dock was a “Limited Common Element” with access limited to condominium unit owners with assigned boat slips, Respondent’s board voted to change the condominium document with an amendment for improvements that would allow access for residents without boat slips, including access that would meet the needs for wheelchair access. That amendment, however, made it clear that, until the improvements were completed, access between the first and second gates is a Limited Common Element restricted to boat slip owners. In other words, the evidence failed to show that Petitioner or any other non-boat slip owners are entitled to access to the dock during the dock improvement design and construction. While Petitioner may have a claim if the ultimate improvements do not comply with applicable FHA standards, that claim is not ripe for consideration. In sum, Petitioner failed to show that Respondent discriminated against him because of his disability.
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 Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2015.
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 The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner because of handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Petitioner Shelley M. Wright ("Wright") was a graduate student at Florida International University ("FIU") in Miami, Florida. Wright has a physical disability that affects her mobility, and, as a result, she uses a wheelchair or scooter to get around. There is no dispute that Wright falls within a class of persons protected against discrimination under the Florida Fair Housing Act ("FFHA"). Respondent Servitas Management Group, LLC ("SMG"), manages Bayview Student Living ("Bayview"), a privately owned student housing community located on FIU's campus. Bayview's owner, NCCD — Biscayne Properties, LLC, leases (from FIU) the real estate on which the project is situated. Bayview is a recently built apartment complex, which first opened its doors to students for the 2016-2017 school year. On November 20, 2015, Wright submitted a rental application for a single occupancy efficiency apartment in Bayview, fitted out for residents with disabilities. She was charged an application fee of $100.00, as were all applicants, plus a "convenience fee" of $6.45. Much later, Wright would request that SMG refund the application fee, and SMG would deny her request, although it would give her a credit of $6.45 to erase the convenience fee on the grounds that it had been charged in error. Wright complains that this transaction was tainted with unlawful discrimination, but there is no evidence of such, and thus the fees will not be discussed further. Wright's application was approved, and, accordingly, she soon executed a Student Housing Lease Contract ("First Lease") for a term commencing on August 20, 2016, and ending on July 31, 2017. The First Lease stated that her rent would be $1,153.00 per month, and that the total rent for the lease term would be $12,683.00. Because Wright was one of the first students to sign a lease, she won some incentives, namely $500.00 in Visa gift cards and an iPad Pro. The First Lease provided that she would receive a $200.00 gift card upon lease execution and the balance of $300.00 upon moving in. As it happened, Wright did not receive the gift cards in two installments, but instead accepted five cards worth $500.00, in the aggregate, on August 20, 2016. There were two reasons for this. One was that SMG required lease holders to appear in-person to take possession of the gift cards and sign a receipt acknowledging delivery. Wright was unable (or unwilling) to travel to SMG's office until she moved to Miami in August 2016 to attend FIU. The other was that SMG decided not to use gift cards as the means of paying this particular incentive after integrating its rent collection operation with FIU's student accounts. Instead, SMG would issue a credit to the lease holders' student accounts in the amount of $500.00. Wright, however, insisted upon the gift cards, and so she was given them rather than the $500.00 credit. Wright has alleged that the untimely (or inconvenient) delivery of the gift cards constituted unlawful discrimination, but the evidence fails to sustain the allegation, which merits no further discussion. In May 2016, SMG asked Wright (and all other Bayview lease holders) to sign an amended lease. The revised lease made several changes that SMG called "improvements," most of which stemmed from SMG's entering into a closer working relationship with FIU. (One such change was the aforementioned substitution of a $500.00 credit for gift cards.) The amended lease, however, specified that Wright's total rent for the term would be $13,836.00——an increase of $1,153.00 over the amount stated in the First Lease. The explanation was that, in the First Lease, the total rent had been calculated by multiplying the monthly installment ($1,153.00) by 11, which did not account for the 12 days in August 2016 included in the lease term. SMG claimed that the intent all along had been to charge 12 monthly installments of $1,153.00 without proration (even though the tenant would not have possession of the premises for a full 12 months) and thus that the First Lease had erroneously shown the total rent as $12,683.00. As SMG saw it, the revised lease simply fixed this mistake. Wright executed the amended lease on or about May 10, 2016 (the "Second Lease"). Wright alleges that this rent "increase" was the product of unlawful discrimination, retaliation, or both. There is, however, no persuasive evidence supporting this allegation. The same rental amount was charged to all occupants of the efficiency apartments, regardless of their disabilities or lack thereof, and each of them signed the same amended lease document that Wright executed. To be sure, Wright had reason to be upset about SMG's revision of the total rent amount, which was not an improvement from her standpoint, and perhaps she had (or has) legal or equitable remedies available for breach of lease. But this administrative proceeding is not the forum for redressing such wrongs (if any). Relatedly, some tenants received a rent reduction through the amended leases SMG presented in May 2016, because the rates were reduced therein for two- and four-bedroom apartments. As was made clear at the time, however, rates were not reduced on the one-bedroom studios due to their popularity. Wright alleges that she subsequently requested an "accommodation" in the form of a rent reduction, which she argues was necessary because she leased a more expensive studio apartment, not by choice, but of necessity (since only the one- bedroom unit met her needs in light of her disabilities). This claim fails because allowing Wright to pay less for her apartment than every other tenant is charged for the same type of apartment would amount to preferential treatment, which the law does not require. Wright makes two claims of alleged discrimination that, unlike her other charges, are facially plausible. She asserts that the handicapped parking spaces at Bayview are unreasonably far away for her, given her limited mobility. She further asserts that the main entrance doors (and others in the building) do not afford two-way automatic entry, and that as a result, she has difficulty exiting through these doors. The undersigned believes it is possible, even likely, that the refusal to offer Wright a reasonable and necessary accommodation with regard to the alleged parking situation, her problems with ingress and egress, or both, if properly requested, might afford grounds for relief under the FFHA. The shortcoming in Wright's current case is the absence of persuasive proof that she ever presented an actual request for such an accommodation, explaining the necessity thereof, for SMG's consideration. There is evidence suggesting that Wright complained about the parking and the doors, perhaps even to SMG employees, but a gripe, without more, is not equivalent to a request for reasonable accommodation. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of SMG's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Wright, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus directed toward Wright. There is no persuasive evidence that SMG denied a request of Wright's for a reasonable accommodation at Bayview. In sum, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that SMG did not commit any prohibited act.
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 SMG not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Wright no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Lakeview of Largo Condominium Association, Inc., et al. (Lakeview or Respondent), violated chapter 70, Pinellas County Code of Ordinances, as alleged in the discrimination complaint (Complaint) filed by Francis Dandrea (Mr. Dandrea or Petitioner); and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the relevant stipulated facts and the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing. The parties agree that the Federal Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), the Florida Fair Housing Act (sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes, (2019)),2 and “the Pinellas County Code mirror one another, so the same legal arguments apply to all counts of the Complaint.”(*) The Lakeview campus consists of 12 to 14 acres of land and six residential buildings with approximately 60 condominiums in each building, for a total of 312 units. There are laundry facilities (a washer/dryer unit) on each floor for residents to use. Residents are not allowed to use laundry facilities found on the different floors of each building, but must use the facilities on their floor. If the laundry facilities on their floor are in use, 1 At the hearing, the parties jointly offered an additional exhibit, Exhibit Q, which was admitted into evidence. 2 Unless stated otherwise, all Florida statutory citations will be to the 2019 version of the Florida Statutes. No legislative changes have been made to sections 760.20 through 760.37 since 2013. residents must wait until the laundry facilities are available. In 2004, Petitioner was 71 years old, and his wife, Dolores Dandrea, was 70 years old when they purchased Lakeview Condominium No. 6113. On April 13, 2004, Petitioner and Mrs. Dandrea executed the following statement: I have read the frequently asked questions and answer sheet and understand my responsibilities as an owner.3 Lakeview’s Rules and Regulations (the “Rules”), Section VIII, paragraph three provides: “No new washer or dryer installations will be permitted within the units as of January 1, 1994 Upon the sale of the unit, washers and/or dryers within the unit must be removed.”(*) The Rules do not provide who (buyer or seller) is to remove the washer and dryer upon sale of a condominium unit. (*) Petitioner and Mrs. Dandrea resided in Condominium No. 6113 for nine years. In those nine years, Petitioner testified he had never thought about the Rules, specifically about the washer/dryer unit, as they were “very close” or “right next door” to the first floor laundry facility. In 2013, Condominium No. 6110 was listed for sale. Petitioner either knew or became aware that there was a washer/dryer unit in that condominium, a main purchasing point for Petitioner. On March 29, 2013, Petitioner executed an “AS IS” residential contract for the sale and purchase of Condominium No. 6110. The contract clearly listed additional personal property included in the sale: refrigerator(s); microwave oven; washer; dryer; and blinds. It is undisputed that the washer/dryer unit was installed prior to the Dandrea’s purchase of Condominium No. 6110. (*) An “Estoppel Letter”4 requested by the title company provided there were no violations against Condominium No. 6110 at the time of the sale. 3 As part of Lakeview’s screening process, all new residents have to acknowledge a “55+ Community Frequently Asked Questions and Answer Sheet DBR Form 33-032.” 4 The “Estoppel Letter” provides that the buyers are “Francis and Dolores D’Andrea”. Petitioner and Mrs. Dandrea moved from Condominium No. 6113 into Condominium No. 6110 in late April or early May 2013. A washer/dryer unit was in Condominium No. 6110, as specified in the purchase agreement. Petitioner’s current unit (Condominium No. 6110) is a dwelling within the meaning of the Act, 42 U.S.C.§ 3602(b), because it is within a multi-unit building occupied as a residence by several families. (*) On October 24, 2018, Lakeview’s community association manager, Frank Fundora, notified Petitioner and Mrs. Dandrea of their non-compliance with the Rules regarding the presence of the washer/dryer unit in Condominium No. 6110. (*) On January 22, 2019, Mr. Fundora, on behalf of Lakeview, sent the Dandreas a letter that “required” them to attend a Lakeview Compliance Committee hearing to explain their position as it related to the washer/dryer unit in their condominium. The hearing was held on February 6, 2019.5 On February 21, 2019, Mr. Fundora, on behalf of Lakeview, advised the Dandreas that they were found in non-compliance of the Rules by the Compliance Committee. (*) That violation was reported to the Lakeview Board of Directors (Board), who requested the washer/dryer unit be removed from Condominium No. 6110 within 14 days of the letter. Additionally, the Dandreas were notified that the non-compliance (the failure to remove the washer/dryer unit) would lead to a monetary fine of up to $100 per day to a maximum of $1,000. (*) The Dandreas did not remove the washer/dryer unit from Condominium No. 6110. On March 14, 2019, Mr. Fundora, on behalf of Lakeview, notified the Dandreas of the fine assessment of $100 per day for the violation of the 5 The January 22, 2019, letter provided the hearing would be on February 5, 2019, however the February 21, 2019, Lakeview letter to the Dandreas provided the hearing took place on February 6, 2019. Rules, up to a maximum of $1,000 fine, consistent with chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The fine was placed on Petitioner's account in an amount of $1,000 on March 22, 2019. (*) Petitioner, via letter to the Board dated April 19, 2019,6 requested a reasonable accommodation from the Rules pursuant to the Act. (*) The letter provides7: Dear Sirs, I respectfully request a conversation with you asap [sic] about reasonable accommodations at our condo complex…[sic] I am enclosing letters from our doctors stating that we should not get rid [of] our washer/dryer due to our medical complications and conditions. Respectfully, Francis Dandrea Along with the April 19, 2019, reasonable accommodation request, Petitioner submitted supporting documentation from medical professionals setting forth the medical conditions of both Petitioner and Mrs. Dandrea as the basis for the reasonable accommodation request. (*) The parties stipulated that the medical documentation below was provided in Petitioner’s request for a reasonable accommodation. That documentation provided: 11/06/2018 To whom it may concern, Francis Dandrea suffers from generalized arthritis in addition to medical diagnoses of emphysema and intermittent atrial fibrillation. His wife is limited functionally by polymyalgia rheumatic. Removing the washer/dryer from their condo would creat [sic] a physical hardship and is not recommended. 6 The certified letter was “signed for” by Mr. Fundora on April 22, 2019. 7 This letter was written in all capital letters. The text is provided in sentence format. Please share this communication with the patient. Signed by: /es/ JOHN H HULL, MD GERIATRICS & EXTENDED CARE 11/07/2018 05:41 Analog Pager: [Omitted] Digital Pager: [Omitted] And: 12/12/2018 To Whom It May Concern: Mrs. Dolores D’Andrea is under my medical care for 5 years. She asked me to write this letter. She has multiple medical conditions. It came to my attention that recently washer and dryer was [sic] required to be removed from her unit. Patient has urinary incontinence. It is absolutely important for her to have washer and dryer nearby, so she can wash her clothes because of frequent accidents. Also she has polymyalgia rheumatica, and it is very difficult for her to walk down the hall to a washer and dryer units that located down the hall in apartment area. [sic] It would be medically necessary for her to have washer and dryer in her apartment. If any questions, please feel free to call my office 727-584-7706. Sincerely, Helen Brvenik, M.D. Petitioner testified to his multiple infirmities: osteoarthritis; atrial fibrillation; and a bulging disc. Petitioner also provided that he had had surgery on both knees (“not replacements”), and he had to give up golf three years ago. Petitioner also testified that his wife has neurological problems, including double vision for which she had surgery, and anxiety issues. On April 24, 2019, two days after receipt of Petitioner’s request for a reasonable accommodation, Mr. Fundora, on behalf of the Lakeview Board, informed the Dandreas that Lakeview had denied the requested accommodation. Further, the Board voted to give the Dandreas until May 8, 2019, to comply with the Rules by removing the washer/dryer unit. If the Dandreas refused to do so, their right to use the common recreational facilities would be suspended. (*) Petitioner did not remove the washer/dryer unit, and on May 8, 2019, Lakeview suspended Petitioner's rights to the common recreational facilities. (*) Petitioner filed the Complaint against Lakeview with the PCOHR on May 13, 2019. (*) On September 8, 2019, the PCOHR issued a Determination of Reasonable Cause and Charge of Discrimination. (*) Those individuals who testified at the hearing either are friends of Petitioner, serve (or have served) on Lakeview’s Board, or are employed by Lakeview. However, none of them are health care professionals, and their observations are just that, observations without any medical training or knowledge of Petitioner’s health issues. Mr. Fundora testified that Lakeview did not have a process in place for the type of reasonable accommodation requested by Petitioner. However, Lakeview had, in the past, received reasonable accommodation requests for emotional support animals, large vehicles, and motorcycles. Those requests have been handled on a case-by-case basis.8 A request for additional medical information to support or discredit the requested accommodation for Petitioner (or Mrs. Dandrea) was never sought. There is no dispute that Lakeview objected to the Dandreas retaining the washer/dryer unit. Lakeview’s denial of the request for a reasonable accommodation within two days of the request appears to be solely based on observations made by non-medically trained residents or Board members who 8 At least one request for an emotional support animal was approved, while another was denied when the supporting documentation was found to be fabricated. had seen Petitioner (and Mrs. Dandrea) walking around the Lakeview complex at some time. These witnesses attempted to give opinions from their observations, yet they were not qualified to do so as they did not know if the requested accommodation was medically necessary. Lakeview has not articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for withholding the reasonable accommodation request. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that having the washer/dryer unit within Petitioner’s condominium is a reasonable accommodation; and necessary to afford Petitioner (and Mrs. Dandrea) the opportunity to the use and enjoy their home.
The Issue Whether the Hernando County Housing Authority (Respondent) unlawfully engaged in a discriminatory housing practice against Peggy Troiano (Petitioner) on the basis of her disability by refusing to provide Section 8 funding for a housing unit being occupied by Petitioner and the housing unit's owner, Petitioner’s daughter, Julia Williams.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Petitioner was an individual participant in a tenant-based voucher arrangement under the Section 8 Housing Program funded by HUD and administered by Respondent. Petitioner is an individual claiming that she is disabled because of a toxic injury that requires her to live isolated in a non-toxic environment. Respondent does not contest Petitioner’s claim of disability and it is, therefore, found that Petitioner is disabled or handicapped within the meaning of applicable law. Julia Williams is Petitioner’s daughter who, at all relevant times, owned the house located at 15141 Pomp Parkway, Weeki Wachee, Hernando County, Florida (“15141 Pomp Parkway unit”). Ms. Williams is specially trained to deal with toxic injury and is paid through a federally-funded, consumer-directed program to provide assistance to Petitioner. Respondent is a public housing agency that administers the Section 8 Housing Program as part of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which recodified the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. As a recipient of funding from HUD for its Section 8 Program, Respondent is required to comply with HUD Section 8 regulations, as well as all Federal, State, and local fair housing laws and regulations. In order to receive funding from HUD, Respondent is required to sign an annual contributions contract (ACC) wherein it agrees to follow the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). If Respondent does not follow the C.F.R. or HUD’s guidelines, HUD has the right to terminate Respondent’s Section 8 program funding. In addition, HUD could make Respondent repay any funding used for ineligible housing. On March 17, 2014, during the annual reexamination for her Section 8 voucher, Petitioner signed, under the penalty of perjury, a summary report which identified her as the only household member permitted to live in any unit under her Section 8 voucher. Around the time of the annual reexamination, Petitioner was living at a unit on Philatelic Drive with plans to move into and rent a unit at 15141 Pomp Parkway. The Pomp Parkway unit was owned, but not being occupied, by Petitioner’s daughter Julia Williams. In April of 2014, Petitioner asked Respondent for permission to rent the unit from her daughter. Petitioner and her daughter spoke with Respondent’s officials about her request. Generally, a public housing agency, such as Respondent, cannot approve a unit for participation in the Section 8 program if it is owned by a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sister, or brother of any member of the participant’s family. See 24 C.F.R. § 982.306. Respondent, however, ultimately approved Petitioner’s rental of the Pomp Parkway unit under the Section 8 program, even though it was owned by Petitioner’s daughter, pursuant to a limited exception under 24 C.F.R. § 982.306(d), which provides an express exception to the rule if “the [public housing agency] determines that approving the unit would provide reasonable accommodation for a family member who is a person with disabilities.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.306(d). Also, during April of 2014, Petitioner and Ms. Williams were working on constructing a caregiver suite for the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit and had discussions with Respondent’s staff about it. There are documents purportedly created during this time frame summarizing several conversations between Respondent, Petitioner, and Ms. Williams. The documents state that Respondent’s officials had a conversation with Petitioner and her daughter wherein they discussed the requirements for a live- in aide and that Petitioner and Ms. Williams were warned that Ms. Williams could never live in the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit. Respondent also contends that Petitioner and Ms. Williams were warned that, even if Ms. Williams was approved as a live-in aide, Ms. Williams could not live in the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit. On the other hand, Petitioner contends that the alleged conversations warning her that her daughter could not reside in the home did not occur during this time frame, and that she and her daughter continued to renovate the house to specifications suitable to accommodate Petitioner's disability with the expectation that her daughter would ultimately be able to reside in the home after renovations were complete. Upon consideration of the credibility of the witnesses and timing of the purported documents, the undersigned finds that the testimony and documents regarding these alleged April conversations are unreliable and do not support a finding that the conversations and warnings actually occurred during the April time frame. The evidence is also insufficient to support Petitioner's contention that Respondent was somehow responsible for Petitioner's expectation that her daughter would be able to both act as Petitioner's caregiver and live in the home while Petitioner was receiving rent vouchers under the Section 8 program. Petitioner was the only person that Respondent approved to live in the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit under her Section 8 voucher. In May of 2014, Petitioner’s daughter entered into a one-year residential lease with Petitioner and a Housing Assistance Payment Contract (HAP Contract) with Respondent. According to the HAP Contract, Petitioner was the only person able to reside in the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit without the express, written consent of Respondent. At the time the HAP Contract was signed, Petitioner advised Respondent that she would be the only person living in the unit. Ms. Williams, as the landlord, signed a check cashing agreement with Respondent wherein she agreed Petitioner would be the only person occupying the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit. Also, Petitioner’s income verification summary report provides that Petitioner is the only person allowed to live in a unit covered by her Section 8 voucher. In early May of 2014, Ms. Williams moved into the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit without notice to Respondent. Petitioner has never received written approval from Respondent to have Ms. Williams live and occupy the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit under the Section 8 voucher program. By letter dated June 17, 2014, Petitioner submitted an HCHA Live-in Aide Request Verification Form, along with letters from her doctor. Petitioner also requested that her daughter Julia Williams serve as her live-in aide. Approval for a live-in aide is a different process than the approval process to have someone added to the household. While Petitioner's request for a live-in aide stated that Petitioner was living at 15141 Pomp Parkway, it did not mention that Petitioner's daughter was the owner of the dwelling, nor did it include a specific request that Ms. Williams be allowed to move into and occupy the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit that she owned. Upon receipt of the written request for a live-in aide by Petitioner, Respondent began its investigation to determine whether Petitioner met the qualifications for a live-in aide and whether Ms. Williams met the qualifications to serve as a live- in aide. Respondent has implemented 24 C.F.R. § 5.403 into its written policy regarding live-in aides, which provides: LIVE-IN ATTENDANTS A family may include a live-in aide provided that such live-in aide: Is determined by the [public housing agency] to be essential to the care and well-being of an elderly person, a nearly-elderly person, or a person with disabilities, Is not obligated for the support of the person(s), and Would not be living in the unit except to provide care for the person(s). Under the C.F.R., a public housing agency is required to approve a live-in aide, if needed, as a reasonable accommodation for an elderly or disabled person. 24 C.F.R. § 982.316 (“The PHA must approve a live-in-aide if needed as a reasonable accommodation” to a family with an elderly or disabled person.). By letter dated June 27, 2014, Respondent notified Petitioner of the approval of her request for her daughter to serve as her live-in aide. Although Respondent was aware that a home occupied by an owner was not eligible for a Section 8 voucher at the time it gave its permission for Petitioner's daughter to serve as Petitioner's live-in aide, the letter did not speak to that issue. Rather, the June 27, 2014, letter, signed by Donald Singer, stated: Pursuant to your letter dated June 17, 2014 requesting a reasonable accommodation for a live in aide. Your letter also ask [sic] that the live in aide be your daughter, Julia Williams based upon her qualifications as presented. After reviewing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) regulations for Live-in Aides and the Housing Authority's Section 8 Program Administrative Plan for Live in Aides our office has determined that your daughter, Julia Williams meets the program qualification(s) to act as your Live in Aide. Therefore our office is approving Julia E. Williams as your Live in Aide effective immediately. Should you have any questions regarding this action/letter please contact our office at 352-754-4160. By email on August 11, 2014, Petitioner notified Mr. Singer that she and her live-in aide, Julia Williams, intended to live at the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit. On August 11, 2014, Petitioner’s daughter Julia Williams was still the owner of the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit. Under 24 C.F.R. § 892.352, a unit being occupied by its owner is deemed “ineligible” and a public housing agency is prohibited from providing funding for such unit. The C.F.R. provides a limited exception for shared housing that allows an owner to occupy a unit funded by Section 8. Under that limited exception, however, the Section 8 participant cannot be a blood relative of the resident owner. 24 C.F.R. § 982.615(b)(3). Based upon the prohibition under the C.F.R. which forbids a public housing agency from funding a unit occupied by an owner who is a blood relative of the Section 8 participant, by letters dated August 22, 2014, Respondent notified Petitioner and Ms. Williams that the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit was “ineligible housing” that could not be funded. The letters also informed Petitioner that Julia Williams' approval as a live-in aide did not supersede HUD regulations and that, because Julia Williams was occupying the unit, Respondent was terminating the HAP contract effective September 30, 2014. The only reason Respondent terminated the funding for the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit was because the C.F.R. does not allow Respondent to continue funding a unit occupied by its owner. Prior to the August 22nd letters, Respondent was advised by HUD that Respondent did not have any discretion in funding “ineligible housing.” HUD approved the draft of the August 22nd letters. The evidence does not support a finding that either Respondent or HUD waived or should otherwise be prevented from applying the limitations and requirements of the law that a Section 8 participant cannot be a blood relative of the resident owner. Respondent would have been willing to continue Petitioner’s housing assistance as long as Petitioner met program requirements and the housing was deemed eligible housing under the C.F.R. through the issuance of a new three-bedroom voucher for a different unit, or by having Petitioner live in the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit without Ms. Williams both owning and occupying the unit. By letter dated August 27, 2014, Respondent provided Petitioner with a new Section 8 voucher and voucher packet information so that Petitioner could start searching for a new rental unit where Ms. Williams could continue to serve as Petitioner’s live-in aide under Petitioner’s Section 8 voucher. The new voucher was required to be returned to Respondent by September 30, 2014. There was no testimony that Petitioner returned the new Section 8 voucher to Respondent by September 30, 2014, or that Ms. Williams moved out of 15141 Pomp Parkway by that date. On September 4, 2014, before the funding was terminated for the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit, Petitioner filed a complaint for discrimination. Petitioner emailed a signed three-bedroom voucher on October 30, 2014, a month after funding under the new voucher expired, for the rental of the 15141 Pomp Parkway unit that had already been deemed ineligible housing as defined by 24 C.F.R. § 982.316. That voucher is not valid and the facts fail to support a finding that Respondent’s refusal to allow Petitioner to participate in the Section 8 voucher program while occupying a unit owned and occupied by her daughter was because of Petitioner’s disability.
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 Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED the 22nd day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Bosshardt Property Management, LLC (“Bosshardt”), violated the Fair Housing Act as alleged in the Housing Charge of Discrimination.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are made based on the exhibits and testimony offered at the final hearing. Ms. Rabalais is the owner of Lot 198 at Salt Springs Resort, a Florida recreational vehicle condominium established pursuant to chapter 718, Florida Statutes. As an owner of a lot in Salt Springs Resort, she is a member of SSRA, the homeowner’s association. Bosshardt is a Florida corporation providing community association management services and was the Community Association Manager (“CAM”) for SSRA from September 2013 until August 31, 2019. Bosshardt acted as the agent, and at the direction of SSRA, managed the business related to the property, including enforcement of SSRA rules and decisions of the Board of Directors. The CAM is the general point of contact for the association. The CAM would collect on bills and collect payments for assessment and manage the property. Petitioner contends Respondent subjected her to retaliation beginning after the filing of Petitioner’s HUD complaint. In support of her position, Petitioner points to alleged harassment by Ms. Noble, the failure to maintain her lawn and repaint her lot number, and removal of one of her posts from the townhall webpage. Throughout the hearing, Ms. Rabalais raised allegations about incidents that occurred before December 20, 2018, which is 365 days prior to the filing of her Complaint of Discrimination dated December 20, 2019. However, some of the facts will be discussed herein to help supplement and explain the alleged continued discrimination and to provide a more detailed record of Ms. Rabalais’s complaints. Golf Cart Incident Petitioner alleges that Bosshardt was responsible for housing discrimination and harassment arising out of an April 17, 2018, confrontation between Petitioner and Sharon Noble, a lot owner and former SSRA board member. Ms. Rabalais identified Ms. Noble as one of the worst of her neighbors who disliked her. At some point before Ms. Rabalais filed the complaint of discrimination, Ms. Noble and Ms. Rabalais were good friends. While there is a dispute regarding the nature of the relationship, at some point the friendship deteriorated. In 2016, a dispute arose between Ms. Rabalais and Ms. Noble over Ms. Rabalais’s intent to file a lawsuit against SSRA and Ms. Noble’s refusal to assist her. The dispute was referenced in emails between Ms. Rabalais and Ms. Noble and through Ms. Noble’s testimony at hearing. Ms. Noble acknowledged at the hearing that she and Ms. Rabalais were no longer friends. On April 17, 2018, Sharon Noble was driving her golf cart on the road in front of Ms. Rabalais’s lot. She stopped her cart to send a text message to someone. At around the same time, Ms. Rabalais attempted to enter her drive way. Ms. Rabalais was unable to enter the drive way as two carts could not drive on the road side by side. Ms. Rabalais began to blow her horn so Ms. Noble circled around behind Ms. Rabalais’s golf cart to allow her to drive pass her. Ms. Noble then finished her text message and left the area. Ms. Noble credibly testified that she did not attempt to intimidate Ms. Rabalais. Ms. Noble believed the incident was intentional and as a result, she wrote an incident report documenting the incident. Ms. Noble reported the incident to the SSRA. Jane Jorden was in Ms. Rabalais’s golf cart and witnessed the incident. She recalled that Ms. Noble was recording Ms. Rabalais’s lot and blocking the driveway with her golf cart. Ms. Rabalais became upset after Ms. Noble drove her cart behind her. Ms. Rabalais went to the guard gate to report the incident and call the police. Tom, one of the employees working at the guard gate, completed a report regarding the incident. Tom did not testify at the hearing and, thus, his statement about the incident is not relied upon for a finding of fact. It is simply used to supplement the testimony offered at the hearing. Tom did not observe the incident but rather reported that the police were called and took statements from Ms. Noble and Ms. Rabalais. SSRA sent Ms. Rabalais a letter advising her to contact the police if she is concerned about her safety. While Ms. Rabalais believes that she was subjected to discrimination and retaliation by Respondent by way of the actions of Ms. Noble, the fact is that Ms. Noble, and more importantly Bosshardt, was in no position to deny Ms. Rabalais access to common services and facilities under SSRA’s control. To the extent Ms. Rabalais believed her fellow neighbors disliked her or were not nice to her, that activity is not actionable as unlawful housing discrimination. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the incident with Ms. Noble was a personal dispute that was not due to housing discrimination facilitated at the direction of Bosshardt. Lost Assessment Payment Between July 1, 2018, and October 1, 2018, a quarterly assessment accrued. Ms. Rabalais’s check with a send date of September 28, 2018, was mailed to Bosshardt using an address that was previously known to be Bosshardt’s address. However, the assessment check payment was returned and the label affixed to the envelope indicated that the mail was returned to sender, was not deliverable as addressed, and was unable to be forwarded. In order to qualify as a candidate for a position on the SSRA Board of Directors, all assessments must be paid before a designated date. As a result of the assessment check not being delivered before the deadline to declare candidacy, Ms. Rabalais did not meet the criteria to run for the Board. Ms. Rabalais alleges in her complaint that Bosshardt engaged in a discriminatory act by not accepting her payment so she could not run for the Board of Directors. There is no sufficient evidence to support this allegation. Although there was testimony from Ms. Nelson that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding delivery of the check, the evidence offered at hearing does not demonstrate that Bosshardt engaged in nefarious or discriminatory actions regarding the assessment payment. The greater weight of the evidence, however, established that the check was returned undelivered. Failure to Maintain Property and Paint Lot Number Ms. Rabalais alleged in her Complaint that Respondent failed to maintain her lawn and failed to repaint her lot number as it did for other lot owners. There was no clear indication that the conduct occurred on or after December 20, 2018. Generally, all lot owners received basic services. An exception would be if the lot owner has a “no trespassing” sign on the property. Diane Suchy worked as the designated CAM for SSRA. She testified that maintenance staff were employees of SSRA and worked at the direction of Bosshardt. They maintained common areas and the lawns of individual lot owners. The maintenance team also repaints the lot numbers as needed. Gary Gensberg, the maintenance supervisor, testified that he maintained Ms. Rabalais's lawn and conducted weed maintenance as needed. He also recalled that Ms. Rabalais did not have a large area that required maintenance. Regarding the lot numbers, they would be repainted if it was not visible. Ms. Rabalais's lot number was visible at the time in question. Mr. Gensberg credibly testified that he was never given instructions to not maintain Ms. Rabalais's lot. Despite the maintenance team maintaining Ms. Rabalais property as needed, the evidence established that Ms. Rabalais posted no trespassing signs on her property for an unknown period of time. Furthermore, there was no evidence to support a finding that if Ms. Rabalais’s lawn was not maintained or her lot number was not repainted, it was result of discrimination based on disability or retaliation. Townhall Facebook Group Page Gary Griffith, the Bosshardt president at the time of the allegations alleged in the Complaint, testified about the lot owners’ Facebook group page. Mr. Griffith testified that Bosshardt did not manage the Facebook group page. Rather, Mr. Foster, Brenda Harvey, and other lot owners, were administrators on the account. Thus, Bosshardt made no determination regarding who could post or remove posts from the account. The page had rules for posting including, the exclusion of posts that were argumentative, contained unfounded allegations, or attacked the Board of Directors. On February 4, 2019, Ms. Rabalais posted a message about her experience with litigation with SSRA and Bosshardt. At the end of that message she wrote, “SSRA/Bosshardt has caused a homeowner to kill himself and ruined many owners’ lives ….” The administrators determined the post was unsubstantiated and threatening and failed to comply with the guidelines established for the page. As a result, the post was removed. Based on the evidence offered at hearing, Bosshardt was not involved with removal of Ms. Rabalais’s February 4, 2019, post. Therefore, there was no evidence to establish that Bosshardt discriminated against Ms. Rabalais when her post was removed from the Town Hall page. Expert Testimony Petitioner offered the testimony of Gary Solomon, Ph.D., as an expert regarding HOA syndrome. He works as a professor at the College of Southern Nevada. HOA syndrome is not a recognized clinical disorder, and there are no peer-reviewed articles offered to support Dr. Solomon’s opinion. Despite his purported knowledge about HOA syndrome, he was unable to provide a basis for his conclusions. Dr. Solomon had not read the SSRA rules or policies and procedures; and he had no understanding of Florida condominium law. He was also unable to provide an opinion regarding whether Ms. Rabalais had suffered from HOA syndrome. Based on the evidence offered at hearing, Dr. Solomon was not accepted as an expert in this matter.
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 5th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 John McDonough, Esquire Meier, Bonner, Muszynski, O'Dell & Harvey Suite 2000 260 Wekiva Springs Road Longwood, Florida 32779 Scarlett Rabalais Post Office Box 5224 Salt Springs, Florida 32134 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents committed an act of discrimination based upon familial status against Petitioners in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own Unit L-105 at The Collins, located at 6917 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33141. Petitioners have a three-year-old daughter who resides with them and claim membership, for purposes of alleging discrimination under the Florida Fair Housing Act, in the class of familial status. Petitioners have exclusive use of their private patio, a limited common element, adjacent to their ground floor unit, subject to the terms and conditions, as well as the rules of the Association. This patio is in close proximity to the Association’s ungated common swimming pool. Unlike most of the condominiums on floors above the pool area, Petitioners’ unit does not have a glass protective barrier on their patio, or any barrier whatsoever installed outside their unit by the Association. All of the units located above Petitioners’ unit that have balconies that are raised from the pool’s surface in heights varying between the second floor and many floors above, without a glass barrier at the end of the balconies, would have a significant and dangerous drop to the pool level for anyone stepping over the edge. Petitioners owned Unit L-105 for 13 years before having a daughter, now three years old, which changed their status to familial for the past three years. Petitioners sought to have the Association allow them to install a glass barrier between their patio and the ungated pool in order to end their claim of discrimination based upon familial status and protect their daughter from accidentally falling into the pool if left unattended on the patio. Respondents refused to install or allow the installation of a glass barrier on Petitioners’ patio, citing that it would not conform with the rules and regulations of the condominium association concerning the common elements of the condominium. Petitioners installed what they called a “temporary” fence around their patio. The fence involved the drilling of holes into the concrete surface of the pool deck and installing posts and netting into the holes to create a fencelike barrier. Claiming this was not approved and not in conformance with the rules and regulations for the common elements of the condominium, the Association brought in workers who removed the fence, the posts, and filled in the holes that had been drilled into the concrete. The Association billed Petitioners $1,200 for having the removal and repair work done for the unapproved installation of the fence. At some point, after the fencing had been removed, Petitioners moved out of their condominium unit, but remain the owners of it. At the time of the hearing, Petitioners had pending in circuit court an action regarding the pool fence. No further details were given regarding the nature of the action and relief sought. Mr. Riveiro testified that he and his wife are willing to bear the cost, including any needed permits, parts, labor, and inspections for installing a temporary fence that will protect their daughter from accidentally falling into the pool. Mr. Blanco, the Association’s board president, who has served on the board of the Association for 15 or more years, testified that, during his tenure, the board has never discriminated against persons for any reason, including based upon their familial status. Respondents offered several solutions to Petitioners, including allowing a temporary fence that could be easily removed, but did not involve drilling holes in the common area of the pool deck. According to the local code enforcement officials, all that is required for garden or pool level doors that open to an “ungated pool” are door alarms to alert the occupants when the door is opened from inside or out. Mr. Riveiro testified that he could not use door alarms and keep his doors open to enjoy the breeze and fresh air because, after a time, the alarms sounded to remind the occupants the door has been left open. Because of this, Petitioners were not satisfied with setting up an internal fence that would keep their daughter from running out the door. An internal fence was superfluous since always keeping the doors closed avoids the need for a fence, but restricts Petitioners full use and enjoyment of their unit. If the residents wanted fences to be installed on the pool level, they would have to be uniform in design and function. Because this would be considered a material alteration to the common elements, 75 percent of the unit owners would have to vote in favor of such a change. A material alteration to the common elements was neither requested by Petitioners nor voted upon by the Association’s unit owners upon request from any individual, family, or the Association board itself.
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 not liable for housing discrimination and dismissing Petitioners’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Darrin Gursky, Esquire Gursky Ragan, P.A. 141 Northeast 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Fernando Riveiro 14838 Southwest 35th Street Davie, Florida 33331 Mayelin Perez 4495 Southwest 67th Terrace, No. 207 Davie, Florida 33314
The Issue Whether Petitioners have been subjected to an unlawful housing practice by Respondents, as alleged in the Housing Discrimination Complaint filed by Petitioners on March 13, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Ingrid Gomez and Luis Moran, are married. They and their son moved into Coral Gardens Apartments in early 2000. Petitioners entered into a one-year lease on January 13, 2000. The lease was not renewed at the end of one year, and Petitioners, thereafter, lived in their apartment as month-to- month tenants. Coral Gardens Apartments is a 36-unit apartment complex located in Naples, Florida. Many of the residents are minorities. Respondent DeMarco Investments is the absentee owner of the complex, which is managed through a Fort Myers company called Services-Taylor Made, Inc. Respondents Jim and Judy Hill were hired to manage the complex in March 2003. At some point in June 2003, Ms. Hill sent a notice to all tenants that stated as follows, set forth verbatim:1/ Now we have [sic] ask you to please make sure that when you give your children snacks, drinks, or what ever [sic] to eat that you the parent would make sure your children discard the trash inside the unit or in the dumpster. Apparently this went in one ear and out the other. Now all unit [sic] has to suffer this price because no one wants to help keep the trash up by disposing of it yourself [sic]. The adults are getting just as bad. So every unit is going to pay an additional $35.00 a month trash clean up fee. You want to live trashy MOVE across the street. So when you pay your July Rent pay an extra $35.00 to pay for the person that has to clean up YOUR trash. I sent out letters to everyone that it was $25.00 and if it didn't improve I would raise it. Well I didn't inforced [sic] the $25.00 and it hasn't changed at all. So it [sic] in effect for sure now [sic]. YOU WILL PAY $35.00 WITH JULY'S RENT. Now you don't want to pay it next month then start picking up the TRASH! Also from now on you put furniture out at the dumpster it will cost you $50.00 first piece and $15.00 per piece after that. They charge me to come and get the stuff then I charge you. The camera's [sic] will be watching and don't get caught. I hate to inform all of you we are not the old managers, the old owners, the old maintenance personal [sic]. We are new and we are the LAW here. We are working to improve this place and if you can't help with keeping this place clean then I DON"T [sic] want to here [sic]. I AM NOT GOING TO LIVE IN A TRASHY PLACE! After receiving this notice, Mr. Moran and Mr. Novarro went to the manager's office to discuss the propriety of the proposed $35.00 trash pick-up fee. Mr. Moran stated to Ms. Hill that he believed an imposition of such a fee on tenants was against the law. Mr. Moran testified that Ms. Hill stated, "I am the law." Mr. Moran demanded that Ms. Hill give him the phone number of Mr. DeMarco. He told her, "I want to talk to the owner of the circus, not the clowns." Mr. Moran testified that at this point, Ms. Hill became apoplectic. She called Mr. Moran "a fucking nigger Latino." Mr. Novarro, whose English was very sketchy, confirmed that Ms. Hill used those words. Ms. Gomez, who speaks relatively fluent English, testified that on another occasion Ms. Hill stated that she was "tired of the fucking negros Latinos." This raised a question whether Ms. Hill also used the term "negros" in her confrontation with Mr. Moran and whether it became "nigger" only in the imperfect translation. In any event, Ms. Hill's use of the word "fucking" was unambiguous and certainly indicated a racial animus against Mr. Moran, who is indeed a black Latino. In a second notice to all tenants dated June 22, 2003, Ms. Hill acknowledged tenant complaints about the $35.00 fee. She had "consulted the Florida Landlord/Tenant Act and state officials in Tallahassee," and concluded that she was required to rescind the $35.00 trash fee. Thus, the controversial fee was never collected. Dennis Gomez, Petitioners' middle-school-aged son, testified that Ms. Hill told him she would pay him $5.00 per week to pick up trash on the property. Mr. Moran told Dennis not to accept, because tenants paid Ms. Hill $10.00 per month to clean up the property. Dennis testified that after he refused the offer, Ms. Hill told him that he had to pick up the trash anyway because he "was a slave." When Dennis asked why he was a slave, Ms. Hill stated that Dennis' father was a "nigger and a slave," and that made Dennis a "slave, too." Dennis Gomez' testimony is not credible. There is undoubtedly a kernel of truth in his story, but Dennis' obvious embellishments of his conversations with Ms. Hill render his testimony of doubtful probative value. At some point in June 2003, Ms. Hill served Petitioners with a seven-day notice to vacate the premises, because of her confrontation with Mr. Moran. However, the notice was never enforced and the Petitioners stayed on until August 1, 2003, when they voluntarily terminated their tenancy. There was a problem with the return of Petitioners' deposit. Ms. Gomez contacted Mr. DeMarco, who returned the deposit to Petitioners after a two-month delay caused by cash flow problems with his businesses. Mr. DeMarco credibly testified that he knew nothing of the controversy between Petitioners and Ms. Hill until he received the Housing Discrimination Complaint. His only contact with Petitioners was the telephone conversation with Ms. Gomez in August 2003 concerning the Petitioners' deposit. From the weight of the testimony, it is apparent that there was a great deal of animosity between Petitioners and the Hills. The notices authored by Ms. Hill were crude and insulting, but were not directed toward Petitioners in particular. There is credible evidence that on at least one occasion Ms. Hill uttered a derogatory and insulting racial comment to Mr. Moran. However, the record evidence does not demonstrate that Ms. Hill took any action against Petitioners on the basis of their race or familial status. The $35.00 trash fee notice was provided to all tenants. The fee itself was never collected. Petitioners were given a seven-day notice, but it was never enforced. Petitioners chose to vacate their tenancy. No adverse action whatever was taken against Petitioners. DeMarco Investments was unaware of the hostile situation between Petitioners and the Hills. Mr. DeMarco's delay in returning Petitioners' deposit was due to legitimate business reasons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 8th day of September, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner on the basis of a handicap.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner formerly resided in Montrose Apartments at 563 West Montrose Street, Apartment 18, Clermont, Florida. Petitioner alleges that he is a handicapped/disabled person by virtue of a mental disability, who was "illegally" evicted from Montrose Apartments because of his handicap/disability. At all times relevant to this proceeding Francisco Guzman, Jr., owned and managed Montrose Apartments. Mr. Guzman was unaware of Petitioner's alleged handicap/disability. At no time during Petitioner's tenancy at Montrose Apartments did Petitioner notify management of the apartment complex that he had a handicap/disability. Furthermore, Petitioner never provided management with documentation verifying that he had a handicap/disability. Petitioner alleged that in early 2009, he requested that Respondent make plumbing repairs in his apartment unit and that Respondent refused to comply with those requests. He further alleged that Respondent did not take his maintenance requests seriously and treated other tenants at Montrose Apartments more favorably than he was treated. Petitioner admitted that he did not pay rent for his Montrose Apartment unit in March and April 2009. According to Petitioner, he withheld the rent because Respondent failed to make the requested plumbing repairs. In correspondence from him to a "Ms. Smith," Mr. Guzman indicated that on "Sunday [March] 22, 2009," he had posted a three-day notice on Petitioner's apartment, because he had not paid his March 2009 rent. Also, Mr. Guzman acknowledged that he had not been able to repair Petitioner's bathroom sink because he had been unable to gain access to Petitioner's apartment. Finally, Mr. Guzman indicated that he believed Petitioner was "avoiding [him] since he is unable to pay the rent." Petitioner did not pay rent for his Montrose Apartment unit in March and April 2009, even after Respondent notified him several times that the rent was past due and should be paid. Respondent began eviction proceedings against Petitioner in or about late April or early May 2009, by filing a Complaint for Eviction ("Eviction Complaint") with the County Court of Lake County, Florida. The Eviction Complaint was assigned Case No. 2009-CC001534. Respondent filed the Eviction Complaint against Petitioner after, and because, he did not pay the March and April 2009 rent for his Montrose Apartment unit. On May 5, 2009, a Final Judgment for Possession and Writ of Possession were entered against Petitioner. The Writ of Possession was served on Petitioner and enforced. On or about May 8, 2009, the apartment unit previously rented to Petitioner was turned over to Mr. Guzman. Petitioner alleges and asserts that: (1) he is disabled/handicapped due to a mental disability; (2) he was evicted because of his handicap/disability; and (3) Respondent knew Petitioner was handicapped/disabled. Nevertheless, Petitioner presented no competent evidence to support his claim.
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 Luis Bermudez' Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 26th day of February, 2010.
