The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for a Pari-Mutuel Wagering occupational license and request for a waiver should be granted or denied for the reasons set forth in the Respondent's letter dated August 20, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency responsible for issuing occupational licenses to employees of pari-mutuel facilities in Florida. See § 550.105(1), Fla. Stat. On or about April 2, 2009, Ms. Jennings submitted an application for a pari-mutuel wagering license, specifically for a cardroom license that would allow her to be a dealer in the poker room of a pari-mutuel facility. Ms. Jennings indicated on the application form that she had never held a pari-mutuel license in Florida. In the section of the license application entitled "To Be Completed by Cardroom Applicants Only," Ms. Jennings answered "no" to the following question: "Have you ever been convicted of, or had adjudication of guilt withheld for, a felony or misdemeanor involving forgery, larceny, extortion or conspiracy to defraud or filing false reports to government agency, racing or gaming commission or authority, in this state or any other stated under the laws of the United States?" In the section of the application entitled "Background Information", Ms. Jennings answered "no" to the following question: "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld for any crime, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any criminal charges against you? If yes, give details in the space provided below." In the space provided, Ms. Jennings wrote: "Had adjudication; As part of a prosecution of someone else, I cooperated and gave testimony. However, I was personally not convicted of any wrongdoing." Upon investigation, the Division learned that Ms. Jennings had been adjudicated guilty of one count of grand theft in the third degree on January 26, 1995, in Brevard County, Florida. She was sentenced to two years' probation and required to report monthly to her probation officer. Ms. Jennings spent approximately three months in jail prior to her conviction because she could not pay for her bail. On April 22, 2009, Ms. Jennings submitted a request for a waiver from the Division so she could obtain her pari-mutuel wagering license. A waiver must be obtained by, among others, any new applicant for a Florida pari-mutuel license who has been convicted of any felony. Ms. Jennings was 27 years of age when she was convicted of grand theft. She explained that, at the time of the offense, she was involved with a boyfriend who had threatened to kill her and her family when she first became involved with him. She stated that she became "brainwashed and co-dependent on him and basically scared for my life."2 As a result, Ms. Jennings did whatever her boyfriend wanted her to do. According to Ms. Jennings, she was charged with grand theft because, at her boyfriend's direction, she obtained a cell phone under a false name. Ms. Jennings testified that she answered "no" to the question asking if she had been convicted of a crime because she was told by a federal prosecutor named Larry Turner that she would "have a clean record" if she testified against her boyfriend, who had been charged with murder.3 Ms. Jennings testified, and her boyfriend was convicted. Ms. Jennings assumed, therefore, that she would not have "anything in [her] background as a criminal record."4 Ms. Jennings gave the following testimony at the final hearing: She told the Division's investigators about the circumstances of her criminal conviction but did not tell them that she believed her criminal record had been sealed. She was shocked when the Division's investigators told her they had found records of her conviction: "I was like, Huh?"5 She had to go look up the records of the conviction and then her recollection of the arrest and conviction "came back to [her] . . . eventually."6 She was shocked when the Division's investigators told her they had found this conviction because she thought the conviction had been erased. Ms. Jennings has a high school education. After her conviction, Ms. Jennings tried to go to school, but she did not finish. For a time, she worked at a restaurant as a waitress; she had a part-time job doing promotional work for night clubs; and she also worked as a blackjack dealer at a nightclub where blackjack was played for entertainment. When asked what she had done with her life, Ms. Jennings responded: "I had boyfriends and long-term relationships and basically I was taking care of them."7 Ms. Jennings's current boyfriend, her sister, and her best friend testified that Ms. Jennings had always been honest with them. The totality of the evidence presented by Ms. Jennings is insufficient to establish she is rehabilitated and possesses good moral character: She failed to disclose her conviction for grand theft in her application for licensure; her explanations of the reasons for failing to disclose the conviction are inconsistent; her explanation of the act underlying her conviction of grand theft, procuring a cell phone under a false name, is unconvincing; and her vague description of her life since the conviction fails to demonstrate any accomplishments or any positive change in her circumstances since her conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order denying the application of Soon Young P. Jennings for a pari-mutuel wagering license. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 28th day of June, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the stipulations of the parties, matters officially recognized and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation that was at all times material to the instant case (but is no longer) in the coin-operated machine business. It owned various amusement and game machines that were placed at different locations pursuant to agreements with the location operators. Most of these agreements were not reduced to writing. In those instances where there was a written agreement, a "Location Lease Agreement" form was used, with insertions made where appropriate in the spaces provided. The form indicated, among other things, that Petitioner was "in the business of leasing, renting, servicing, maintaining and repairing of coin-operated machines" and that the agreement was "for the placement, servicing and maintaining of certain coin-operated machines" in the location specified in the agreement. In the coin-operated machine trade, the custom (hereinafter referred to as the "industry custom") was for the parties to an oral or written agreement for the placement of an amusement or game machine on the property of another to treat such an agreement as involving the location operator's rental of the machine owner's tangible personal property rather than the machine owner's rental of the location operator's real property. Petitioner and the location operators with whom it contracted followed this custom of the trade in their dealings with one another. They construed their agreements as involving the rental of Petitioner's tangible personal property by the location operators and acted accordingly. Petitioner collected from the location operators the sales tax due on such rentals and remitted the monies collected to Respondent. 1/ It engaged in this practice for approximately a decade without challenge by Respondent. In late 1990 and early 1991, Respondent conducted a routine audit (Audit No. 90-19801486) of Petitioner's records. The audit covered the period from January 1, 1988, to September 30, 1990 (referred to herein as the "audit period"). The Department's auditors are, for the most part, college-trained accountants. While they receive Department-sponsored training in the general procedures and standards they are expected to adhere to in conducting their audits, they are not provided with training and information regarding the trade customs and practices that are unique to particular industries or businesses they audit. The Department auditors who conducted the audit of Petitioner's records reviewed, among other things, those agreements between Petitioner and location operators that were reduced to writing. Based upon their reading of these agreements, the auditors erroneously, yet not unreasonably given the imprecise contractual language used, believed that the agreements into which Petitioner had entered were actually for the rental of the location operators' real property, not the rental of Petitioner's machines. They therefore concluded that, in light of then existing provisions of Rule 12A-1.044, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Rule"), Petitioner, as opposed to the location operators, should have paid sales tax and that Petitioner's purchase of machines and parts should not have been treated as tax exempt. In March of 1991, the Department sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Make Sales and Use Tax Audit Changes for the audit period based upon the auditors' findings. The Notice advised Petitioner of its right to meet with the Department and discuss these findings made by the auditors. Petitioner requested such a meeting. The meeting was held on May 7, 1991, in Tallahassee. Petitioner's attorney, Marie A. Mattox, Esquire, represented Petitioner at the meeting. Mattox was accompanied by Robert Matthews, one of Petitioner's officers. The Department was represented by the head of the its Bureau of Hearings and Appeals and several other employees. Mattox and the Department representatives discussed the contents of the written agreements the auditors had reviewed. During the discussion, Mattox reminded the Department representatives of the "industry custom." 2/ In addition, she brought to their attention that the agreements under review involved amusement and game, not vending, machines. The meeting lasted only approximately ten minutes. Mattox and Matthews left the meeting with the impression, based upon the comments made by the Department representatives, that the matter would be resolved in Petitioner's favor. To their surprise, on May 23, 1991, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment in which it announced its intention, based upon Audit No. 90-19801486, to issue an assessment against Petitioner in the amount of $238,780.06 for taxes owed (plus penalty and interest) for Petitioner's alleged use, during the audit period, of real property in connection with its coin- operated machine business. The Notice of Proposed Assessment contained a statement advising Petitioner of its right to protest the Department's proposed action. Mattox, on behalf of Petitioner, responded to the Notice of Proposed Assessment by sending a letter, dated July 22, 1991, to the Department's General Counsel. In her letter, Mattox advised the General Counsel that Petitioner was contesting the proposed assessment and made the following argument in support of Petitioner's position that the Department had made "an error:" This tax has been assessed apparently because of a misunderstanding on the part of the auditors as to the arrangements under which Lauren, Inc. conducts business. As I am sure you are aware, under Rule 12A-1.004, Florida Administrative Code, there are various arrange- ments and agreements through which amusement and game machine owners conduct business. The first arrangement is where the machine owner rents the real property upon which the machine is located from the location owner. Under this arrangement, the machine owner pays a "lease fee" to the location owner, which fee is subject to sales and use tax. Under this arrangement, the location owner collects tax upon the lease fee and remits said tax to the state. The second arrangement through which amusement and machine owners conduct business is where the machine is rented by the location owner. Under this scenario, the machine owner acts as tax collector for the State and submits sales and use tax paid on the "rental fee" paid to the machine owner by the location owner. On March 25, 1991, Carmen R. Cordoba, C.P.N., Audit Group Supervisor with the Department of Revenue, wrote to Mr. Matthews indicating that the Department was construing the arrangement under which Mr. Matthews operated to be a lease of real property as opposed to the rental of personal property. Specifically, the Department stated the following: "we found them to be agreements to lease space to place the vending machines." To the contrary, Mr. Matthews' agreements are not for the rental of real property. Instead, he rents his personal property (the amusement and game machines) to the various locations. Under this scenario, Mr. Matthews is responsible for collecting sales and use tax on the rental fee paid to him and transmitting the sales and use tax thereon to the Department of Revenue. Apparently, the Department of Revenue has assessed an additional use tax on the payments made to the location owners where the Department has construed that Lauren, Inc. "rents space" for the machines. An additional tax has been assessed on the purchase of the machines, purchases of parts, etc... because the Department found that he was not renting these machines. This is simply in error. The Department has specified that Lauren, Inc. must refund all taxes collected from the location owners where Lauren, Inc., purportedly "rents space." At that point, Lauren, Inc. can apply for a refund on the taxes paid by Lauren, Inc. on the rental of the personal property. It is my opinion that this is a simple misunderstanding by the Department of Revenue staff as not under- standing the arrangements made by Lauren, Inc. in conducting its business with various location owners. On July 25, 1991, Mattox sent a copy of this letter to the Disposition Section of the Department's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. By letter dated September 6, 1991, the Administrator of the Sales Tax Appeals Section of the Department's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals gave notice that Mattox's July 22, 1991, letter, had "been accepted for review as a qualifying protest." On November 13, 1991, a Notice of Decision was issued denying the protest. The nature of the protest was described in the Notice of Decision as follows: Lauren, Inc. is protesting the assessment of use taxation for the rental of real property involving the following situations: Taxation of purchases of vending machines, repairs and purchasers [sic] of parts; and Tax erroneously collected to be reimbursed to customers/landlords and taxpayer to request a refund from D.O.R. The following were set forth in the Notice of Decision as the "facts" pertinent to the protest: This is a first time audit of the taxpayer. The taxpayer is a full service vending machine business. The taxpayer has furnished representative con- tracts between his business and the location owners where his machines are placed. The specifics of the contracts are discussed below. According to the agreement, the taxpayer "installs, operates, services, and maintains coin operated machines on the proprietor's premises." The taxpayer has collected tax from location owners on their share of the proceeds, which he refers to as "rentals of the machine" to the location owners. The contract provides for the location owner to provide a space for the vending machines. It makes no reference whatsoever to a lease of the machine to the location owner. The taxpayer collects the money from the machines, and when applicable, also provides and owns the merchandise. The Notice of Decision contained the following discussion and analysis of the "law and [Petitioner's] argument:" You argue in the letter of protest that the Lauren, Inc. lease agreements are for the rental of personal property (the vending machines) to various locations. You state that "Mr. Matthews is responsible for collecting sales and use tax on the rental fee paid to him and transmitting the sales and use tax thereon to the Department of Revenue." You also state "an additional tax has been assessed on the purchase of the machine, purchases of parts, etc.... because the Department found that he was not renting these machines. This is simply in error." A tax is imposed on the privilege of engaging in the business of coin operated vending and amusement machines by Rule 12A-1.044(2)(A), F.A.C., which is written as follows: "(a) When coin-operated vending and amusement machines or devices dispensing tangible personal property are placed on location by the owner of the machines under a written agreement, the terms of the agreement will govern whether the agreement is a lease or license to use tangible personal property or whether it is a lease or license to use real property." Rule 12A-1.044(4), F.A.C., states..."the purchase of amusement machines or merchandise vending machines and devices is taxable, unless purchased for exclusive rental." The effect of the agreement is utterly clear. Lauren, Inc. provides the food and cigarette items to be sold. The sales revenues belong to Lauren, Inc. Sales tax is due the state from Lauren, Inc. on the entire amount of those sales revenues. A share of the sales revenues is paid to the location owner by Lauren, Inc. as consideration for what the location owner has provided, a license to use his realty by placing the vending machines on the premises. NO RENT WHATSOEVER FOR THE MACHINES IS PAYABLE BY THE LOCATION OWNER TO LAUREN, INC. UNDER THE AGREEMENT. Generally, whether an agreement is a lease or a license depends upon the intent of the parties as determined from the entire agreement. In determining the intent of the parties, the fact that the parties may use terms such as "lease," "lessor," "lessee," or "rent" will not be determinative of whether an agreement is a lease. In Napoleon v. Glass, supra, 224 So.2d 883 (3d Dist. Ct. App. 1968), the court, at 884-885 states: "Although the parking concession agreement was called a Concession Lease and provided for the payment of 'rent,' the document unquestionably created a licensor-licensee relationship rather than a landlord-tenant relationship." The "conclusion" that the Department reached by applying the foregoing principles of "law" to the pertinent "facts" in Petitioner's case was articulated as follows in the Notice of Decision: It is the Department's position that based upon the terms of the agreements provided by Lauren, Inc. that this is a license to use the location owner's real property rather than a lease of Lauren, Inc.'s tangible personal property to the location owners. Likewise, absent a re-rental of the vending machines, the sales tax is due from, Lauren, Inc. on its purchases of and repairs to its vending machines. Likewise, the taxes collected in error by the taxpayer from his customers should be reimbursed to the taxpayer's customers. The audit findings shall, therefore, remain as assessed. The Notice of Decision advised Petitioner of its right to file a Petition for Reconsideration. Such a Petition for Reconsideration was subsequently submitted on or about December 10, 1991, by Mattox on Petitioner's behalf. In the Petition for Reconsideration, Mattox made the following argument: The Notice of Decision is flawed in all respects. With respect to issue No. 1, which the Tax Conferee [the author of the Notice] has entitled "Vending Machines," even the situations set forth are incorrect. Lauren, Inc. does not contest nor is there any issue related to any finding regarding its vending machines. There is simply no issue regarding vending machines. There is also no issue regarding the taxation of purchases of vending machines, repairs, and/or purchases or parts. Lauren, Inc., purchases its machines and performs repairs for machines that are rented to various locations. Therefore, under Rule 12A-1.044, Florida Admini- strative Code, these purchases and repairs are exempt from taxation. The only issue in this case is the factual scenario with which Lauren, Inc. conducts business. Under Rule 12A-1.044, Florida Administrative Code, there are several instances in which the rental of tangible personal property are recognized. The Tax Conferee has apparently ignored the industry standards in this regard and has misinterpreted the manner and method in which Lauren, Inc., conducts business. As I originally stated in my July 22, 1991 correspondence to the Department protesting the assessment of Sales and Use Tax, Lauren, Inc. has agreements with various location owners to place amusement and game machines at any particular location and the location owner rents Lauren, Inc.'s personal property (amusement and game machines). Even under the Location Lease Agreements that Lauren, Inc. has with its customers, they specify that the company (Lauren, Inc.) is in "the business of leasing, renting, servicing, operating, maintaining and repairing... coin operated machines..." I am absolutely confounded as to why the Department has determined that Lauren, Inc., owes the above- stated tax and penalty. There has never been any question that Lauren, Inc. collected tax from the various locations and remitted this tax to the Department of Revenue. It appears that Lauren, Inc. is now to apply for a refund to the Department of Revenue, pay all sums already paid to the Depart- ment of Revenue to the various locations where its machines are located, for the various locations to remit this same amount back to the Department of Revenue. This simply does not make sense to me. With respect to the statement made in the Notice of Decision that the "effect of the agreement is utterly clear," Mattox continued: We are in complete agreement with the Tax Conferee in this regard, except for the fact that our conclusions are utterly inapposite. Lauren, Inc. does provide food and cigarette items to be sold out of the various machines, however, in this audit and protest, there is no issue regarding food and cigarette items or the tax paid thereon. The only issue is the [e]ffect of the agreement between Lauren, Inc. and the location owners. If the Tax Conferee had characterized this relationship correctly, a completely different result would have been reached. Lauren, Inc. does have vending machines as well as amusement and game machines. The Tax Conferee may have confused the vending arrangements with location owners with the amusement and game agreements. There is a recognized difference industry wide in the method and manner within which vending businesses and amusement and game business are conducted. There has been no such recognition by the Tax Conferee and we would sincerely appreciate the opportunity to present additional evidence, if necessary, to the Department of Revenue for its reconsideration of the issues raised herein. Sometime after it received the Petition for Reconsideration, the Department, through one of its employees, Vicki Allen, telephoned Mattox and asked her to provide the Department with any additional materials she wanted the Department to consider. Mattox responded to this request by letter dated February 19, 1992, in which she stated the following: You have requested that I provide additional information regarding Lauren, Inc. however, in lieu of providing this information through the mails, I would like the opportunity to sit down and explain in person our position regarding the sales and use tax assessments set forth in the recent assessment. Moreover, I am not certain as to whether any additional documentation or information exists or the nature of the documentation that will be helpful to you. Upon your receipt of this correspondence, please contact me to discuss this matter further. We are more than willing to provide additional information, but truly believe that the issues involved in this assessment could be resolved through a meeting between all parties concerned. Please advise accordingly. Allen never responded to Mattox's letter. On April 21, 1992, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration sustaining an assessment against Petitioner in the amount of $206,017.85 for taxes owed (plus penalty and interest). Allen was the author of the Notice of Reconsideration. The following were set forth in the Notice of Reconsideration as the "facts" upon which the sustained assessment was based: Lauren, Inc. is in the business of owning and operating coin-operated vending machines. The corporation entered into various agreements under which it received permission to install, place, operate, service and maintain its coin-operated vending machines on the premises of various location owners in return for an agreement to pay the location owners a percentage of the gross receipts from the machines. The corporation interpreted the agreements to be transactions involving the rental of tangible personal property and not for the license to use real property. Therefore the corporation collected and remitted tax on the gross receipts taken from the machines and from the location owners on the rental of the machines as provided under Rule 12A- 1.044(2)(b), F.A.C. The auditor determined that the agreements between Lauren, Inc. and the location owners, involving the placement of vending machines at the various location owner's premises, were agreements made for the license to use real property and not for the rental of tangible personal property. Therefore, the auditor assessed use tax on these transactions. In addition, the auditor assessed use tax on the purchases made by Lauren, Inc. for the coin-operated machines, parts, and accessories. The only issue maintained by you is whether or not the agreements between Lauren, Inc. and the location owners were agreements for the license to use real property or whether the agreements constitute the rental of tangible personal property and would therefore, exempt the purchases of the coin operated vending machines, parts, and accessories as provided under Rule 12A-1.044(2)(B), F.A.C. In the Notice of Reconsideration, the Department cited Section 66 of Chapter 86-152, Laws of Florida, which, the Department stated in the Notice, "amended Section 212.031, Florida Statutes, (F.S.), effective July 1, 1986, to make licenses to use real property, as well as leases, subject to tax." The Notice of Reconsideration also contained the following excerpt from Rule 12A-1.070, Florida Administrative Code: "(g) An agreement whereby the owner of real property grants another person permission to install and maintain a full service coin-operated vending machine, coin-operated amusement machine, coin-operated laundry machine, or any like items, on the premises is a taxable use of real property. The consideration paid by the machine owner to the real property owner is taxable." [Emphasis in original.] In addition, the provisions of subsections (2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Rule were recited in the Notice of Reconsideration. Allen stated her "conclusion" as follows in the Notice of Reconsideration: A review of the agreements presented in the audit file was made by this writer and the following conclusion was made: The agreements clearly reflect that Lauren, Inc. is installing, placing, operating and maintaining the coin-operated vending machines on the various location owner's realty for a percentage of the gross proceeds. Nowhere in the agreements does it state that Lauren, Inc. is leasing or renting the coin- operated vending machines to the location owner for a percentage of the gross proceeds. The agreements do, however, specifically state that the location owner will provide a space for Lauren, Inc. to install, operate, service, and maintain a coin-operated vending machine on the location owner's premises. The agreements made between Lauren, Inc., the owner of the machines[,] is and has been since July 1, 1986, a taxable license to use real property. Before that date, amounts paid for leases of real property were taxable, but licenses to use were not. Black's Law Dictionary defines a license to use real property as: "a privilege to go on premises for a certain purpose, but does not operate to confer on, or vest in a licensee any title, interest, or estate in such property." The agreements did not confer to Lauren, Inc. any "title, interest, or estate" in the location owner's realty, but, instead, only permitted Lauren, Inc. to come onto the property and place the coin- operated vending machines on the property for the purpose of making the machines available to those who wanted to use them. It is the Department's decision that the subject tax was assessed correctly pursuant to Rule 12A- 1.070(1)(g), F.A.C. and 12A-1.044(2)(a) and (c), F.A.C. and in accordance with Departmental policies and procedures. The audit findings shall remain as assessed in the enclosed closing statement. Particularly in light of the provision of Rule 12A-1.070, Florida Administrative Code, set forth in the Notice of Reconsideration, the agreements that Petitioner had provided the Department were reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that they were, as Allen had concluded, "taxable license[s] to use real property," notwithstanding that the parties to these agreements had intended that they be interpreted otherwise. The Notice of Reconsideration advised Petitioner of its right "to file a petition for a Chapter 120 administrative hearing with the Department." Petitioner filed such a petition with the Department on May 8, 1992. The Department referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 18, 1992, for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing Petitioner had requested. The hearing was held on October 6, 1992. Two witnesses testified at the hearing, Matthews and Manley Lawson, a member of the Board of Directors of the Florida Amusement and Vending Association. In addition to the testimony of these two witnesses, a total of 11 exhibits were offered and received into evidence. The evidence presented at hearing was supplemented by a stipulation into which the parties had entered prior to hearing. On November 23, 1992, the Hearing Officer issued a Recommended Order recommending that the Department "enter a final order withdrawing the assessment that is the subject of the instant proceeding." The Hearing Officer's recommendation was based upon the following Conclusions of Law set forth in his Recommended Order: The instant case is governed by the version of Rule 12A-1.044, Florida Administrative Code, that was in effect during the audit period (referred to herein as the "Rule"). It read in pertinent part as follows: "(2) Vending and amusement machines, machine parts, and locations. When coin-operated vending and amusement machines or devices dispensing tangible personal property are placed on location by the owner of the machines under a written agreement, the terms of the agreement will govern whether the agreement is a lease or license to use tangible personal property or whether it is a lease or license to use real property. If machines are placed on location by the owner under an agreement which is a lease or license to use tangible personal property, and the agreement provides that the machine owner receives a percentage of the proceeds and the location operator receives a percentage, the percentage the machine owner receives is rental income and is taxable. The tax is to be collected by the machine owner from the location operator. The purchase of the records, needles, tapes, cassettes, and similar items, machines, machine parts and repairs, and replacements thereof by the machine owner is exempt. If machines are placed on location by the owner under an agreement which is a lease or license to use real property, and the agreement provides that the machine owner receives a percentage of the proceeds and the location operator receives a percentage, the percentage the location operator receives is income from the lease or license to use real property and is taxable. The tax is to be collected by the location operator from the machine owner. The purchase of the records, needles, tapes, cassettes, and similar items, machines, machine parts, and repairs and replacements thereof by the machine owner is taxable. * * * (4) The purchase of amusement machines or merchandise vending machines and devices is taxable, unless purchased for exclusive rental. * * * The following examples are intended to provide further clarification of the provisions of this section: Example: The owner of Town Tavern enters into a lease agreement with Funtime Company. Under the terms of the agreement, Funtime will provide coin-operated video game machines to Town Tavern, with Funtime retaining title to the machines and providing repairs or replacement parts as necessary. As consideration for the rental of the machines, Town Tavern will give Funtime 60 percent of the proceeds from the machine. By the terms of the agreement, this arrangement is a lease of tangible personal property and Funtime, as the lessor, must collect tax from Town Tavern on the portion of the proceeds it receives. The purchase of the video game machines, machine parts, and repairs thereof by Funtime Company is exempt. The portion of the proceeds retained by Town Tavern is not taxable. Example: An amusement and vending machine owner enters into a license agreement with City Airport, which grants the machine owner the right to place amusement and vending machines in Concourse A. The amusement machines consist of several electronic games and a pinball machine. The vending machines consist of soft drink, snack food, and candy machines. City Airport has the right to designate the areas within the concourse where the machines will be located; the machine owner and owner's employees are to stock the machines and provide repairs as needed. As consideration under the agreement, City Airport will receive 15 percent of all proceeds from the machines. By the terms of the agreement, this arrangement is a license to use real property, and City Airport, as the licensor, must collect tax from the machine owner." 3/ At issue in the instant case is whether the agreements Petitioner entered into with location operators during the audit period were, as claimed by Petitioner, leases or licenses to use tangible personal property, within the meaning of subsection (2)(b) of the Rule, or whether they were, as asserted by Respondent, leases or licenses to use real property, within the meaning of sub- section (2)(c) of the Rule. After having carefully examined the record in the instant case, particularly the stipulations and evidence regarding the contents of the agreements in question, how the agreements were interpreted by Petitioner and the other parties to the agreements, and the trade customs prevailing at the time, the Hearing Officer finds that the agreements were leases or licenses to use tangible personal property, within the meaning of subsection (2)(b) of the Rule, and that therefore the assessment issued against Petitioner, which was predicated upon a contrary finding, is not valid. See Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc., v. Data Lease Financial Corp., 302 So.2d 404, 407 (Fla. 1974)("[i]n the construction of written contracts, it is the duty of the court, as near as may be, to place itself in the situation of the parties, and from a consideration of the surrounding circumstances, the occasion, and apparent object of the parties, to determine the meaning and intent of the language employed;" "[w]here the terms of a written agreement are in any respect doubtful or uncertain, or if the contract contains no provisions on a given point, or if it fails to define with certainty the duties of the parties with respect to a particular matter or in a given emergency, and the parties to it have, by their own conduct, placed a construction upon it which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court, upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the correct legal interpretation of the terms of the contract"); Oakwood Hills Company v. Horacio Toledo, Inc., 599 So.2d 1374, 1376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)("[i]t is a recognized principle of law that the parties' own interpretation of their contract will be followed unless it is contrary to law;" "the court may consider the conduct of the parties through their course of dealings to determine the meaning of a written agreement"); International Bulk Shipping, Inc. v. Manatee County Port Authority, 472 So.2d 1321, 1323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)("[w]hile we agree that the language of Item 220 [of the tariff] does not clearly cover the shifting charges at issue, we observe that a court may consider trade customs and prior dealings between the parties to give meaning to the provision"); Bay Management, Inc., v. Beau Monde, Inc., 366 So.2d 788, 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)("where a contract fails to define with certainty the duties of the parties, and the parties by their conduct have placed a reasonable construction on it, . . . such construction should be adopted by the court"). Accordingly, the assessment should be withdrawn. The Department, on January 15, 1993, issued a Final Order adopting the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and his recommendation that the subject assessment be withdrawn.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for a waiver of his 1996 conviction for cruelty to animals in order to receive a pari- mutuel wagering occupational license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for a pari-mutual wagering occupational license who wishes to be licensed as a greyhound owner in Florida. Respondent is the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutual Wagering, an executive agency of the State of Florida created by Section 20.165(2)(f), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's application, filed June 27, 2002, candidly disclosed a previous felony conviction of cruelty to animals. On or about June 20, 1996, Petitioner was, in fact, found guilty of a third degree felony (cruelty to animals: refusing medical care to a greyhound) under Section 828.12(2), Florida Statutes, by a jury in the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County in Case No. 96-30581CFAES. He was 26 years old at the time. Petitioner's conviction for cruelty to animals arose from the death of a greyhound puppy named "He's My Denny." The puppy was in Petitioner's care at the Daytona Beach Kennel Club. "He's My Denny" was bred and raised to be a racing greyhound. As a result of his aforementioned felony conviction, Petitioner served 57 days in the Volusia County Jail and the balance of five years via out-of-state probation. Petitioner entered into a Consent Order with the Division, whereby he was declared to be ineligible for any pari- mutuel occupational license under Section 550.105, Florida Statutes, for three years. On July 1, 2002, after his three-year suspension had run, Petitioner requested a waiver of his conviction of cruelty to animals, for the purpose of re-licensure. Stephen Toner, an Investigator for the Division, interviewed Petitioner on August 5, 2002, regarding his request for a waiver. During the interview, Mr. Toner completed a waiver interview form. Each page, with the exception of the last page of the form which contained Mr. Toner's comments, was initialed and dated by Petitioner. In commenting upon the interview and its form at hearing, Petitioner expressed concern that Mr. Toner had misunderstood him during the interview when he said something to the effect of "If I had known there would be this much trouble with such serious consequences, I would have just put the dog down." I accept that Petitioner meant, by this, or similar language, that he would have humanely euthanized "He's My Denny," rather than allowing the beast to suffer. However, this information is largely irrelevant. Petitioner received the Division's letter of license denial on September 20, 2002. The National Greyhound Association will not permit Petitioner to register a greyhound for racing purposes in any state unless the State of Florida will re-license him. Therefore, Petitioner is effectively precluded from his chosen line of work throughout the United States, by Florida's denial of his occupational license application. After being denied re-licensure by the Division, Petitioner received a Certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights, dated October 25, 2002. The Certificate states, in pertinent part: "grants [Petitioner] restoration of civil rights, except the specific authority to possess or own a firearm for any and all felony convictions in the State of Florida." Petitioner testified, without refutation, that, except for his cruelty to animals conviction, he has had no other trouble with the law except that when he was 19 years old, he was caught driving without a license and represented himself to police as his older brother, who did have a driver's license. At hearing, Petitioner did not list, or elaborate on, any signs of good moral character or rehabilitation since his 1996 Florida conviction for cruelty to animals.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for a pari-mutuel occupational license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Gibby 6278 Stanleyville Drive Rural Hill, North Carolina 27045 Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Department) is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the pari-mutuel wagering industry in Florida and those licensed under Chapter 550, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jack J. Garey, held pari-mutuel wagering license number 1470144-1081, was a licensed thoroughbred owner, and was a permitholder authorized to conduct horseracing at permitted facilities in the State of Florida. Calder Race Course (Calder) was, at all times material hereto, a permitholder authorized to conduct horseracing in the State of Florida. Incident to the operation of that business, Calder extended check cashing privileges to trainers, owners and other pari-mutuel wagering licensees. On or about November 3, 1997, Respondent endorsed and presented to Calder for payment two checks, each in the amount of $500.00, which were payable to Respondent and drawn on the account of Karin Montejo and Ramiro Montejo at Barnett Bank. Both checks, which Calder paid, were returned unpaid because the account was closed. On or about November 12, 1997, Respondent endorsed and presented to Calder for payment a check in the amount of $1,600.00 which as payable to Respondent and drawn on the account of Karin Montejo and Ramiro Montejo at Barnett Bank. The check, which Calder paid, was, as the previous check drawn on such account, returned unpaid because the account was closed. In late November 1997, Michael Abes, the vice president of finance at Calder, spoke with Respondent regarding the returned checks and demanded repayment. In turn, Respondent acknowledged the debt and promised to repay it; however, no payments were forthcoming. On or about December 27, 1997, Respondent endorsed and presented to Calder two more checks for payment. One check was in the amount of $2,000.00 and the other in the amount of $500.00, and each was payable to Respondent and drawn on the account of Karin Montejo and Ramiro Montejo at Barnett Bank. The checks, paid by Calder, were, as with the previous checks drawn on the same account, returned unpaid because the account was closed. Given the return of the previous checks and his discussion with Mr. Abes, it cannot be subject to serious dispute that Respondent knew when he presented the checks to Calder for payment, that the account on which the checks were drawn had been closed and that they would not be honored by the bank. Despite numerous demands, Respondent did not pay any portion of the outstanding obligation owed Calder until February 1998, when a payment of $300.00 was remitted. Subsequently, on June 5, 1998, the balance of the outstanding obligation due Calder was paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Subsection 550.105(6), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and imposing, as a penalty for such violation, an administrative fine of $300.00, a 30-day suspension, and exclusion from all pari-mutuel facilities in the state for the period of suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 9th day of March, 1999.
Conclusions This matter came on for determination by the Department upon Respondent’s submission of a Motion to Dismiss as Moot, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this ON day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ie ulje Baker, Chief ureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this _L2Myday of March, 2012 VWakins Vinagelk Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Yicense Administrator Filed March 13, 2012 7:31 AM Division of Administrative Hearings NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within 30 days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jdc Copies furnished: John W. Forehand, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 J. Andrew Bertron, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough, LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carolyn K. Peterson, entered a drawing held by Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), on September 12, 1984, for priority entitlement to apply for one of thirteen new quota alcoholic beverage licenses to be issued for Seminole County. Peterson initially was not successful, having been ranked 15. Later, three applicants selected in the September 12 1984, drawing failed to qualify or file a proper application. By letter dated January 25,1985, the Division notified Peterson that her ranking now entitled her to apply For licensure. The January 25, 1985, letter informed Peterson "you must file a full and com- plete application within 45 days of the date of this letter pur- suant to Rule 7A-2.17, Florida Administrative Rule." The letter also notified Peterson: "Failure to file your complete application within such 45 day period will be deemed a waiver of your right to file for the new quota license." The Division consistently follows Rule 7A-2.17. On February 4, 1985, Peterson and her husband went to the Division's Orlando office to inquire concerning application for licensure. Peterson's husband, who had experience in applying for quota alcoholic beverage licenses, inquired whether it was necessary to jump through the procedural hoop of having a location selected and reflected in the application only to put the resulting license in escrow while seeking a more suitable license location within 180 days. The Division's representative, former employee Carolyn Thompson, responded that applicants no longer had to jump through that procedural hoop but could leave the designation of the location of the license blank on the initial application so long as a suitable location was selected and the application updated within 180 days. Thompson partially typed the application forms for Peterson, duplicated them so that Peterson could file the completed application in duplicate as required, and kept a copy for the Division's files. Thompson also gave Peterson, and kept a copy of, an instruction form for completion of Peterson's application. Thompson did not explicitly tell Peterson or her husband that Peterson could file the completed application after the expiration of the 45 day time limit. The Petersons confused the 45-day deadline for filing a full and complete application with the 180-day deadline for obtaining an appropriate location and zoning approval. As a result, the Petersons misunderstood and believed that the application was not required to be completed and filed within 45 days. After the February 4, 1985 meeting, the Petersons inquired about the process of finding a suitable location with suitable zoning. Meanwhile, they let the 45-day time limit ex- pire without filing a full and complete application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, deny the application of Petitioner, Carolyn K. Peterson, for a quota alcoholic beverage license. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Carolyn K. Peterson 797 Pinetree Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX To the extent Petitioner's written final argument contains proposed findings of fact, they are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and the Findings of Fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact 1 through 5 are accepted, but 4 is subordinate and 5 is unnecessary.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by June C. McKinney, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Respondent’s Notice of Withdrawal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Polaris Sales, Inc., and Broward Motorsports of Palm Beach, LLC d/b/a Broward Motorsports to sell low-speed vehicles manufactured by Polaris Industries, Inc., (GEM) at 2300 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, (Palm Beach County), Florida 33409. Filed December 10, 2012 1:21 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this ( | day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Buréati of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed in the official records of the Division of Motorist Services i rf Hol prcembe, 2012 Naini Vinayak, Dealer Yicense Administre'" NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jdc Copies furnished: A. Edward Quinton, Esquire Adams, Quinton and Paretti, P.A. Brickell Bayview Center 80 Southwest 8" Street, Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33130 equinton@adamsquinton.com Michael W. Malone Polaris Sales, Inc. 2100 Highway 55 Medina, Minnesota 55340-9770 Sam Nehme Broward Motorsports of Palm Beach, LLC 4760 Sunkist Way Cooper City, Florida 33330 Marc Osheroff Broward Motorsports of Palm Beach, LLC 13600 Stirling Road Southwest Ranches, Florida 33330 Jonathan Brennen Butler, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jonathan.butler@akerman.com June C. McKinney Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to issuance of an occupational license, pursuant to section 550.105, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, John A. Short, is an applicant for a general individual occupational license, pursuant to section 550.105(2)(a), which would authorize him to work as a blacksmith and farrier at licensed pari-mutuel facilities in Florida.4/ Respondent is the state agency charged with issuing occupational licenses to employees of pari-mutuel wagering facilities in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 550. Petitioner's Application for Occupational License and Waiver On December 11, 2017,5/ Petitioner filed with Respondent DBPR PMW-3120, Individual Occupational License Application, seeking to obtain a pari-mutuel wagering general individual occupational license. Also on December 11, 2017, Petitioner filed DBPR PMW-1380, Request for Waiver, seeking a waiver, pursuant to section 550.105(5)(c) and rule 61D—5.006, of disqualification from occupational licensure under section 550.105(5)(b) on the basis of a felony conviction. In his license application filed on December 11, 2017, Petitioner disclosed that he had a prior felony conviction that was adjudicated on September 22, 1998, in Jefferson County, Kentucky.6/ Subsequently, on March 5, 2018, Petitioner filed an amended application page on which he disclosed two other criminal offenses: receiving stolen property, and possession of marijuana. Both of these offenses, which were misdemeanors, were adjudicated on November 24, 1991, in Kentucky. On June 13, 2018, Petitioner participated in a waiver interview conducted by Respondent, as required under rule 61D-5.006. At the interview, Petitioner disclosed that he had several other criminal convictions, some of which had not been listed on his license application. In the Denial Letter, Respondent notified Petitioner that it was denying his application on the basis of his felony conviction for third degree assault on a police officer and his failure to disclose all of his convictions on his license application. Respondent also notified Petitioner that it was denying his request for a waiver. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing As noted above, Petitioner is a blacksmith and farrier, and he currently works in that trade in Florida, where he now resides full time. Specifically, Petitioner works with Marshall Hudson, also a blacksmith and farrier, who is a subcontractor to the Wellington Equestrian Federation at Equestrian Sport Productions in Wellington, Florida. Petitioner has worked with Hudson for four or five seasons, shoeing horses of many different breeds, including thoroughbreds, quarter horses, standardbreds, walking horses, saddlebreds, and carriage horses, at the barns, showgrounds, and other venues at which the horses are located. The competent, credible evidence establishes that Petitioner is, or has been, licensed by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission as a blacksmith and farrier over a period of several years,7/ with the exception of a short period in 2016 during which his license had lapsed. Pursuant to his Kentucky occupational license, Petitioner is, or has been, authorized to conduct his trade at licensed racing facilities in Kentucky, including Churchill Downs and other tracks. Petitioner credibly testified——and no countervailing evidence was presented——that he has never been subject to licensure discipline during the entire time he has been licensed in Kentucky. Petitioner's Criminal Offenses At the final hearing, Petitioner was forthright regarding his criminal record. He testified that he had been convicted of third degree assault on a police officer, a felony, in Jefferson County, Kentucky in 1998,8/ and credibly explained the circumstances surrounding that conviction. His account of that incident provided at the final hearing is consistent with that provided in his June 13, 2018, waiver interview.9/ Petitioner also readily acknowledged that he had been convicted of numerous misdemeanor offenses, some of which have been expunged from his criminal record. These include theft by deception, receiving stolen property, shoplifting, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of marijuana, driving under the influence, and several traffic—related offenses. With the exception of the possession of marijuana and some traffic—related offenses, Petitioner's criminal offenses were committed during the 1990s. His most recent arrest was in 2011, for misdemeanor possession of marijuana, which was resolved by paying a $150.00 fine. Since then, Petitioner has not been convicted of any crimes.10/ There was no evidence presented showing that Petitioner has ever engaged in criminal activity regarding pari— mutuel wagering, gambling, bookmaking, cruelty to animals, or that is a capital offense.11/ Evidence Regarding Petitioner's Character Hudson testified regarding Petitioner's character. He attested that Petitioner is a good person who has a talent for working with horses. He has never known Petitioner to have a conflict with any owner, rider, or veterinarian in connection with any of the horses that Petitioner has worked with over the years. At the final hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that in 2016, he engaged in pari-mutuel work for a short period of time in Kentucky without being licensed. Petitioner's Kentucky Horse Racing Commission occupational license had lapsed while he was not working in—state. He renewed it later that year, but during the time his license had lapsed, he occasionally worked at Churchill Downs in order to make enough money to apply for a new occupational license. On those occasions, he rode into the facility in the truck of another racetrack employee who was licensed, and no one questioned his presence because they knew him from having previously worked there, while he was licensed. He acknowledged that he knew he was legally required to hold a license to gain access to the backside of pari-mutuel racetracks in Kentucky, but testified that it was commonplace for unlicensed persons to work in the backside at Churchill Downs, except on large racing event days. No evidence was presented that Petitioner has ever accessed the backside of, or engaged in activities requiring occupational licensure at, pari-mutuel facilities in Florida while not being licensed to do so.12/ Findings of Ultimate Fact Petitioner's Felony Conviction As discussed above, Petitioner readily acknowledged that he was convicted of third degree assault on a police officer, a felony, in Kentucky in 1998. Respondent is authorized, pursuant to section 550.105(5)(b), to deny Petitioner's application for an occupational license on the basis of his felony conviction. Waiver of Disqualification from Licensure Section 550.105(5)(c) authorizes Respondent to waive licensure disqualification under section 550.105(5)(b) if "the applicant establishes that she or he is of good moral character, that she or he has been rehabilitated, and that the crime she or he was convicted of is not related to pari—mutuel wagering and is not a capital offense." As discussed above, there is no evidence showing that Petitioner has been convicted of any crime involving pari—mutuel wagering or that is a capital offense. Therefore, the question becomes whether the preponderance of the evidence shows that Petitioner is rehabilitated and of good moral character such that, pursuant to section 550.105(5)(c) and rule 61D—5.006, he is entitled to a waiver from licensure disqualification. The question whether a person is rehabilitated from his or her criminal conviction primarily focuses on the person's behavior subsequent to committing the offense, rather than focusing solely——or even primarily——on whether the person committed the offenses.13/ As discussed above, Petitioner was forthright in acknowledging that he had committed numerous criminal offenses in the past——one of them a serious felony that, pursuant to statute, has effectively excluded him from obtaining an occupational license. This is his only felony offense, and was committed over 20 years ago. Although Petitioner committed several offenses subsequent to his 1998 felony conviction, they were misdemeanors, the majority of which were committed in the 1990s and many of which subsequently have been expunged from his record. His most recent offense, misdemeanor possession of marijuana, for which he paid a small fine to resolve, occurred in 2011, some eight years ago. There is no evidence that he has engaged in criminal behavior since then. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner is rehabilitated from his 1998 felony in Kentucky, which is the basis on which Respondent has proposed to deny his occupational license application. See J.D. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 114 So. 3d 1127, 1131 (whether an applicant is rehabilitated is an issue of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact). Marshall Hudson, a colleague with whom Petitioner has worked for a few years now, vouched for Petitioner's character. Petitioner testified, credibly, that he has never had any "problems" associated with his work as a blacksmith and farrier. Respondent presented no evidence to the contrary. Petitioner admitted to working without a license in the backside of Churchill Downs in Kentucky for a short time, approximately three years ago. The evidence establishes that he did so because he needed the work in order to make enough money to apply for an occupational license, since his had lapsed while he had not been working in—state. Under these circumstances, it is understandable that Petitioner would accept the opportunity to make money that would enable him apply for an occupational license that would allow him to legally practice his trade. Once Petitioner had earned enough money to obtain an occupational license, he did so. It is further noted that there was no evidence presented that Petitioner has since engaged in the unlicensed practice of his trade in Kentucky or in any other state. The evidence also does not show that Petitioner has ever engaged in the unlicensed practice of his trade at licensed pari—mutuel facilities in Florida. Importantly, too, no evidence was presented showing that Petitioner has ever engaged in conduct involving gambling, bookmaking, or cruelty to animals, and none of his criminal offenses involved pari—mutuel wagering——conduct that would rightfully raise significant concerns as to whether he should be licensed. Based on these considerations, the undersigned determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner is of good moral character for purposes of obtaining a waiver, pursuant to section 550.105(5)(c) and rule 61D—5.006. See Albert v. Fla. Dep't of Law Enf., 573 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(except where a specific provision of statute has categorically——i.e., absolutely and without qualification—— disqualified an applicant from consideration for licensure, the question of what constitutes "good moral character" is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact).14/ Failure to Disclose Criminal History Respondent proposes to deny Petitioner's application on the basis that he did not disclose his entire criminal history, as required by the "Background Information" section of the occupational license application form. The evidence establishes that Petitioner did not disclose his entire criminal history on the application form filed on December 11, 2017, as supplemented on March 5, 2018. However, this is a de novo proceeding designed to formulate agency action, not review action taken earlier and preliminarily. As such, Petitioner was entitled to present, at the final hearing in this proceeding, information regarding his criminal history additional to that provided in his application. At the final hearing, in response to Respondent's questioning in its case in chief, Petitioner testified regarding each criminal offense he had committed. Petitioner's testimony regarding his complete criminal history at the de novo final hearing in this proceeding satisfies the requirement in the occupational license application Background Information section, that his complete criminal history be disclosed. Accordingly, failure to disclose his criminal history is not a basis for denying his application pursuant to section 559.791.
Conclusions For Petitioner: John A. Short, pro se 3701 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 109 West Palm Beach, Florida 33426 For Respondent: James A. Lewis, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399—2202
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent is entitled to a refund of license fees and late penalties.
Findings Of Fact On September 6, 1988, a lien on License No. 68-01319, Series 4-COP, was recorded with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Respondent). The named lienholder was Francis D. Sawyer (Petitioner). Framay, Inc., d/b/a Thirsty Parrot was the holder of License No. 68-01319. On May 21, 1990, an administrative action was filed by the Respondent against Framay, Inc., d/b/a Thirsty Parrot. The administrative action, alleged that Framay failed to maintain the license in an active status. Framay never requested a hearing and a Final Order was entered on September 25, 1990, revoking License No. 68-01319. On November 8, 1990, the Respondent filed a Notice to Show Cause alleging failure to comply with the terms of the September 25, 1990 Final Order. On May 6, 1991, a second Final Order was entered revoking License No. 68-01319. In February 1992, the Respondent was contacted by attorney Stanley Chapman as counsel to Petitioner, Sawyer. Petitioner claimed that the Respondent had failed to provide him a point of entry as lienholder to foreclose his lien, and sought to have the license "reinstated in escrow" in order to allow him to proceed in foreclosure. After some discussion, the Respondent agreed to cooperate with Petitioner's efforts to foreclose by not opposing a summary judgement motion filed by Petitioner. Normally, foreclosure of a lien on a revoked license is permitted only when the lienholder brings an action within 12 days of an order or revocation. Even though the time had expired, the Division nonetheless permitted Sawyer to foreclose on the license because Sawyer had a legitimate claim and the Division's interests would not be adversely affected by ignoring the 12 day time frame. In August 1992, Petitioner, through his attorney Stanley Chapman, filed a complaint to foreclose his lienholder's interest in the license. Framay, Inc., d/b/a Thirsty Parrot, Wayne F. Sawyer and the Division were named as defendants. The Petitioner foreclosed on License No. 68-01319 and a Final Judgment of Foreclosure and Transfer of Beverage License was entered on January 27, 1993. Upon the entry of foreclosure, Petitioner, as required by the Respondent, filed an application for the delinquent renewal of License No. 68- 01319. The delinquent renewal of the license required that past due license fees totalling $5,512.50 for the years 1990-1991, 1991-1992, and 1992-1993 be paid to activate the license. Petitioner requested that the Respondent waive the payment of delinquent annual license fees and penalties which the Respondent was seeking prior to issuing the license to any transferee. The Respondent denied the request to waive applicable fees and required payment of delinquent renewal fees in the amount of $5,512.50. Petitioner paid the fee under protest, claiming that the fee was not applicable to this transaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly,
