The Issue Whether the Petitioner, American Amateur Mixed Martial Arts, (AAMMA or Petitioner) is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact AAMMA is a not-for-profit corporation, incorporated under the laws of Florida. It has no full-time employees and utilizes volunteers to conduct its business. Evidence in the record as to AAMMA’s net worth throughout its existence and at the time the case was initiated by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, State Boxing Commission (Department), demonstrated that AAMMA sustains itself through personal donations from members and fees from a variety of registrations. Evidence further demonstrated that the association was very small with few members and registrations. In fact, AAMMA uses a home gym located on property owned by founders and members Larry and Alice Downs to operate a mixed martial arts/boxing and training school. Mr. Downs’ plumbing business and the Downs’ residence are also located on this property. There was no evidence of the value of the home gym. Additionally, there was no evidence that demonstrated that AAMMA has any ownership interest in the home gym owned by the Downs’ or in any training equipment associated with that gym. More importantly, there was no substantially credible evidence that demonstrated AAMMA was not a separate entity from any of the Downs’ interests or that any of the Downs’ finances should be included in the net worth of AAMMA. On the other hand, the testimony, while not specific, was sufficient to infer that AAMMA’s net worth is well below the $2,000,000.00 threshold for a business to be considered a small business for purposes of section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Moreover, as indicated earlier, AAMMA has no full-time employees. Based on these facts, AAMMA is a small business as defined under section 57.111. The underlying action in this case was initiated by the Department when it filed an Amended Administrative Complaint against AAMMA in DOAH Case No. 12-0142.2/ Additionally, after a lengthy multi-day hearing during which both sides vigorously litigated their side of the case and after both parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders in the matter, AAMMA was the prevailing party in DOAH Case No. 12-0142. In case 12-0142, the Amended Administrative Complaint was based on evidence that was obtained through investigation by the Department both before and after the filing of the Administrative Complaints in the related DOAH Case No. 11-5102.3/ The amended complaint in case 12-0142 alleged in Count I that Respondent allowed minors under the age of 18 to engage in mixed martial arts (MMA) matches on January 28, 2011; February 26, 2011; May 6, 2011; July 16, 2011; and August 3, 2011, in violation of sections 548.006(4), and 548.071(1), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61K1- 1.0031(1)(c), by failing to enforce the ISKA Overview as Respondent’s minimum health and safety standards and engaging in unprofessional conduct. The ISKA Overview contained age limits for participants in amateur MMA matches. The evidence in the underlying case demonstrated that AAMMA allowed athletes under the age of 18 years to participate in MMA matches on the dates alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Clearly, such evidence constitutes a reasonable basis in fact for which the Department may proceed with an administrative action. The Department alleged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent was aware of, and allowed, amateur fighters to compete outside the appropriate weight class on July 16, 2011, in violation of sections 548.006(4) and 548.071(1) Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61K1-1.0031(1)(c), by failing to enforce the health and safety standards in Respondent’s Rules and ISKA Overview Guidelines, specifically regarding weight classes, as well as, engaging in unprofessional or unethical conduct. Again, the evidence presented in DOAH Case No. 12-0142 showed that Robert Birge, a heavyweight, and Travis Grooms, a super heavyweight, competed against each other at the July 16, 2011, event with a weight difference of 61 pounds. Again, there was a reasonable basis in fact for the Department to proceed with an administrative action. The Department alleged in Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent misled American Legion Post #75 into signing a letter that incorrectly stated the American Legion was the sole sponsor of Respondent’s May 6, 2011, amateur event, thereby violating section 548.071(4), by engaging in unprofessional or unethical conduct. The Department’s evidence showed that Alice Downs, Larry Downs, Jr., and his secretary had access to AAMMA’s letterhead. While the evidence eventually showed that the event held on May 6, 2011, was not sponsored by AAMMA or the American Legion, the Department’s evidence clearly established that the letter to the Department attempting to exempt the May 6, 2011, event from regulation was on AAMMA’s letterhead. From these facts, it was reasonable for the Department to conclude that the letter came from AAMMA at the time it initiated the underlying action and was an attempt to mislead the American Legion into signing the letter in order to gain an exemption under the statutes for the May 6 event. Given these facts, there was a reasonable basis for the Department to proceed with an administrative action. In conjunction with the factual basis of the underlying administrative action, the Department’s legal position in that action was based on its authority to regulate amateur sanctioning organizations and the rules the boxing commission had promulgated under the authority granted to it in chapter 548, Florida Statutes. Ultimately, AAMMA prevailed because the rules of the boxing commission were so vague that they could not be enforced against AAMMA based on the law governing enforcement of such rules. However, the Department, at the initiation of the underlying proceeding and throughout this process, had reasonable legal arguments which it posited to support its interpretation that the ISKA Overview contained the health and safety standards AAMMA was required to follow and that the Department was required to enforce. The fact that the Department did not prevail in its legal position does not support a finding that its position did not have a reasonable legal basis. Given these facts, the Department had a reasonable basis in law to proceed with an administrative action against AAMMA. Finally, the undersigned has reviewed the affidavit as to Attorney’s Fees and Costs filed on September 23, 2013, and the corrections thereto, and finds the fees and costs contained therein to be reasonable. However, since the Department was substantially justified in initiating the underlying proceeding in this action, Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees or costs in this matter.
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 61D-11.001(8) and (13), 61D-11.002(1), 61D-11.005(2) and (9), and 61D- 11.027(1)(b), (1)(e), (2)(a) and (2)(b), are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner, Calder Race Course, Inc., a Florida Corporation, is a pari-mutuel permitholder permitted and licensed by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division) pursuant to Chapter 550 and Section 849.086, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Dania Jai Alai, a division of The Aragon Group, a Florida Corporation, is a pari-mutuel permitholder permitted and licensed by the Division pursuant to Chapter 550, and Section 849.086, Florida Statutes. As cardroom operators, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11 governs the activities of Petitioners in the operation of their respective cardrooms, pursuant to their cardroom licenses at their pari-mutuel facilities. The challenged rules have the effect of directly regulating the operation of Petitioners' cardrooms. Petitioners are substantially affected by the challenged rules and have standing to bring this rule challenge. A tournament is a series of games. Multi-table tournaments eliminate players until there are only enough remaining players to play at one table before the tournament concludes. Tournaments which consist of nine players at a single table, often referred to as mini-tournaments, are commonly used by Florida Native-American cardrooms as a form of poker tournament play. Pari-mutuel pools, operated by pari-mutuel permitholders and the rules regulating pari-mutuel wagering, currently allow jackpots. Facts based upon the evidence of record History of the Rules The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, is the state agency responsible for administering Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, and regulating the operation of cardrooms in the state. In 1996, the Florida Legislature created Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, authorizing cardrooms to be located at licensed pari-mutuel facilities. § 20, Chap. 96-364, Laws of Florida. In response to this legislation, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11 was adopted, governing the operation of cardrooms at pari-mutuel facilities. Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2003 by Section 4, Chapter 2003-295, Laws of Florida. Of particular significance to this case, the 2003 amendments eliminated a $10.00 limit on winnings and imposed a $2.00 bet limitation, with a maximum of three raises per round of betting. In response to this legislation, the Division began the process of amending Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11. During this rule amendment process, the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) sent two letters to the Division expressing concerns with respect to provisions of the proposed rules regarding the Division's approval of authorized games and lack of criteria for such approval, a requirement for submission of a form, the Division's authority to approve a series of games (tournaments), and the Division's authority to prohibit jackpots. As part of the rule adoption process, the Division responded to these letters and informed JAPC that the Division was filing a Notice of Change regarding certain adjustments to the proposed rules. As part of the rule adoption process, the Division also conducted a rule development workshop on September 16, 2003, and a public hearing on January 7, 2004. The amendments were adopted May 9, 2004. Some of these rules amendments are the subject matter of the instant proceeding. Concerns of the Division Royal Logan is the chief operations officer for the Division. He has held that position for a total of approximately ten years. He was a member of a committee established in the Division as part of the process of amending Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11 as a result of the 2003 amendments. According to Mr. Logan, the committee was concerned with several issues including compliance with the legislative intent of strict regulation of gambling, the Division's manpower in regulating cardrooms, and tax reporting concerns relating to auditing. More specifically, the Division was concerned that jackpots and re-buys have the potential of violating the $2.00 bet and raise limitations, the potential opportunity for collusion in single-game tournaments, and pose difficulties for accurate tax reporting. The Division does not have a group of employees specifically devoted to cardrooms. The Division has employees designated as chief inspectors at racetracks. The chief inspector has many duties including monitoring cardrooms to ensure compliance with statutes and rules. Monitoring cardroom compliance comprises no more than 10 to 12 percent of their time, as that person is the primary licensing official at the site. Not all racetracks have chief inspectors. The Game of Poker Poker is a card game using a single deck of 52 cards. Poker consists of a ranking system. The person holding the highest-ranking hand at the end of the game wins the pot. The traditional ranking system consists of the highest-ranking hand to the lowest. Hoyle’s Modern Encyclopedia of Card Games, by Walter B. Gibson, April 1974 Edition, contains an accurate description of the traditional ranking system in poker. Stanley Sludikoff is an expert in the game of poker, the rules of the game, and how poker is played in the United States. Mr. Sludikoff considers Hoyle's not to be the most authoritative book on the game of poker and that it applies primarily to home games as opposed to games played in gamerooms. Hoyle's does not address the subjects of tournaments or jackpots. Because Hoyle's contains an accurate description of the traditional ranking system in poker, the undersigned is not persuaded that the reference to Hoyle's in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-11.002(1) is inappropriate or arbitrary. In Mr. Sludikoff's opinion, tournaments are appealing because there is a low fixed risk with the potential for higher gain. They allow participants to build up to a higher limit game and potentially win entry into larger tournaments, such as the World Series of Poker. Single table tournaments are common in the United States in both large and small properties. Multi-table tournaments eliminate players until there are only enough remaining players to play at one table before the tournament concludes. Regular (non- tournament) games are played at single tables. According to Mr. Logan, the Division determined that the entry fee for a tournament should be calculated based upon the $2.00, three-raise limitation. The Division determined that "re-buys" are not consistent with the wagering limitations of Section 849.086, Florida Statutes. In Mr. Sludikoff's opinion, when the rules of the tournament allow, a re-buy is available to all players during a specified period of time. The rules are set by the cardroom operators, and each player in a tournament is aware of the ability to re-buy, how much the re-buys cost, and when it may be exercised. Re-buys are not the same thing as re-entering a tournament because participants are not permitted to re-buy unless he or she is a participant in the tournament at the time such re-buy is made available. A participant is not out of a tournament unless he or she is out of chips and there is no re-buy available to such participant. Allowing players to re-buy additional chips is a common practice in poker tournaments. Re-buys are easily recorded as a type of revenue received, thereby not presenting an accounting or auditing problem. Mr. Sludikoff's opinion in this regard persuades the undersigned that the agency's rationale regarding the entry fee and re-buy limitations are not supported by the necessary facts and are arbitrary. Most cardrooms in the United States have jackpots. Florida's statutory limitation of a $2.00 bet and raise limitation is a restrictive form of wagering. Under this limitation, the most that a participant can bet is $8.00 in any round. "Pari-mutuel" is a French term meaning wagering among ourselves, in that the participants are not wagering against the "house." Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, characterizes games authorized pursuant to that section to be "pari-mutuel style" games. Playing a game in a non-banking manner means that the "house", the cardroom operator, does not participate in the game at all and that the game participants are not playing against the house.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Helen T. Cook, (formerly Griffin), started working for the Respondent, St. Petersburg Motor Club as Personnel Director on May 15, 1979. In that capacity, she reported to the Chief Executive Officer who was, at the time, Mr. James Hendry. Mrs. Cook remained as Personnel Director until August, 1984, when she was promoted to the position of Managing Director for Personnel, and made a part of senior management. As the Managing Director for Personnel, she was the senior personnel officer within the organization and was required, among other duties, to interview applicants for employment; counsel employees and conduct exit interviews; implement approved company policies; research employee benefits and administer them; serve on the pension committee responding to the Board of Directors; work out personnel solutions with supervisors and employees; maintain legal personnel files on all staff; and represent the Club on all compliance hearings regarding worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, and equal employment opportunity. She reported to the Executive Vice President of the Club. When Mrs. Cook first went to work for the Club, the organization had no rule regarding nepotism. However, in August, 1984, in order to correct a situation then existing involving numerous instances of nepotism among Club employees, the Board of Directors promulgated a rule which was implemented in January, 1985 and which prohibited employment of individuals related to Club employees. When the rule was enacted, incumbent employees related to other employees were grandfathered, but non-related incumbent employees who later married other Club employees were to be covered by the policy. At the time of it's implementation, Mrs. Cook opposed it. Mrs. Cook's husband, Richard, was already employed by the Club when she was hired. They were not married at the time. Mr. Cook was Director of the Club's service center and in her job as director of personnel, she presented potential future employees to him for hire. Mr. Cook was not in her direct line of authority. He worked for the Managing Director of Services, Mr. Schatzman. At the time the problem here came about, Mrs. Cook was the Managing Director of Personnel and on a parallel with her husband's boss. Mrs. Cook and Mr. Cook started dating in April, 1985, approximately one month after the death of his wife. Mrs. Cook immediately notified the Club management of this fact. In her opinion, management seemed delighted because of their affection for both parties. No one attempted to dissuade them from continuing the relationship, nor did anyone ever suggest that the relationship was detrimental to the Club. In her opinion, the matter was so well handled that no one could tell they were dating. Mr. and Mrs. Cook were married on July 14, 1985. At the time, both parties knew that the policy against nepotism was in effect. In June, 1985, before the marriage, Mrs. Cook informed Mr. White, then either Executive Vice President or President and Chief Executive, of their plans. He asked her to hold up on any action while the Board looked into the policy to see if it would be applied to her. Nonetheless, they married and after the marriage she again approached Mr. White, to determine if the anti-nepotism policy would apply to her. At this time, she hoped he could convince the Board to make an exception to the policy for the Cooks. He asked her to hold off on any resignation action to allow the Board to look into the policy in an effort to determine if it was legal and if it would be applied to her. There was never any question in Mrs. Cook's mind that if the rule were to be enforced against them, she, not her husband, would submit a resignation and she informed Mr. White of this prior to the final decision the Board to invoke the policy. A special meeting of the Board was held on November 14, 1985 at which the Board decided that the policy would be applied and enforced in this case. Mr. White was not present at this Board meeting but was informed of it either that day or the next morning by Mr. Harris, Vice Chairman of the Board. That same day, or the next day, Mr. White informed Mrs. Cook of the Board's decision. He appeared to be upset by it and so was she. However, she suggested to Mr. White that a memorandum be sent out by him to advise employes of her departure and the reason therefor. This memo was dated November 20, 1985. The minutes of the Board meeting of November 19, 1985 reflect Mrs. Cook had already elected to resign. Consequently, it is found she was advised of the Board's decision on or before November 19, 1985. Her complaint of discrimination was filed with the Commission on May 19 1986, no less than 181 days after she received notice of the action complained of. Her resignation was effective in January, 1986. From the time she and her husband started dating the relationship, Mrs. Cook believes, never created any problem for the Club. She would not have left her employment but for the Club's policy. In her opinion, problems could have been avoided by taking her out of the loop relating to actions regarding her husband. This would not, however, have avoided the appearance of impropriety, regardless that no actual impropriety existed. In her position as Managing Director of Personnel, Mrs. Cook had access to all personnel files for the more then 300 employees of the Club. She was a policy maker and a member of the top management team. She was aware of all employees' salaries and evaluations and attended evaluation meetings with the Chief Executive Officer and managing directors concerning the evaluations of all directors under them. Though she did not rate any personnel except those who were in her immediate division, nor did she have any say on salaries outside her division, she was aware of them and was a part of the management team which controlled the day to day operation of the Club. Managing directors got together at least twice a day in informal meetings to discuss Club business and at those meetings, such things as evaluations, assignments, and promotions were discussed. Therefore, though she did not rate or direct her husband, she could have had a substantial impact on his career by virtue of her relationship with other managing directors. This is not to say, however, and it must be recognized, that there was any evidence that at any time Mrs. Cook interfered in her husband's career. By her own admission, however, she was a valuable employee and her position was sensitive. On December 31, 1984, prior to her marriage, she executed an Employment at Will statement which acknowledged that her employment could be terminated by either herself or the employer at any time. When Mr. White first learned that the Cooks had developed a personal relationship, it presented no problem for him. He did not believe it would be detrimental to the Club and, in fact, he received no complaints about it from anyone. He was aware of the Club's policy regarding nepotism. When he first became aware of the policy, he requested that the Board reconsider its decision because he felt that it might be illegal. Nonetheless, at no time did he bring the matter up with the Cooks because, to his knowledge, Mrs. Cook was fully aware of it nor did he indicate to her that the Board would not apply it to her. He believed, however, that both Mr. and Mrs. Cook should be allowed to remain as employees even after their marriage and made that recommendation to the Board. Nonetheless, the Board chose to implement the policy. According to Mr. Gregory, a member of the Club's Board, because of a situation regarding the former president, Mr. Henry's hiring of several family members under circumstances incompatible with good morale and discipline within the Club staff, and because of the growing number of Club employees married to other Club employees, (approximately 45 employees were involved), the Board implemented the rule against nepotism. A committee had discussed several alternatives before recommending the anti-nepotism policy and the Board was unanimously in favor of its implementation except for Mr. Henry who, at the time, was still on the Board. When the Board was made aware that the Cooks intended to marry, members were concerned because of Mrs. Cook's position and the image that might be created in the eyes of other employees. As a result, the Board felt compelled, as a business necessity, to enforce the policy notwithstanding Mr. White's urging that Mrs. Cook be kept on because of her value to the Club. The decision to invoke the rule was made reluctantly. It was acknowledged she was a good and valuable employee. However, because of the circumstances, and because of Mrs. Cook's position as Managing Director of Personnel, the Board felt compelled to enforce it. Had it not been for the sensitivity of Mrs. Cook's position, and given Mr. White's desire to keep her, the Board might have been able to look at the situation differently. Under the circumstances, however, it could do nothing else. The decision in no way reflected Board dissatisfaction with Mrs. Cook's performance or any animosity toward her or her husband. The problem was that her position, when considered against the apparent potential for abuse, was the most sensitive of all jobs related to Club personnel. This factor differentiated her situation from other situations involving nepotism and necessitated her departure. This was an appropriate decision under the facts of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Florida Commission of Human Relations dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2095 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the last sentence which has not been proven but is a matter of opinion. Accepted. Accepted as indicating a perception for possibility of abuse, not that Mrs. Cook was guilty of any breach of trust. Accepted and incorporated herein. For the Respondent: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not controlling. 4 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the testimony quoted which is not a Finding of Fact but a recitation of testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not being a proper Finding of Fact relative to the issues of fact herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire 1724 East 7th Avenue Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Michael K. Houtz, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1441 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-1441 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Margaret Agerton, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 =================================================================
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 The issues for disposition in this case are whether proposed rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, which consist of the repeal of said rules, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes; and whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering’s (Respondent), failure to prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs constituted a material failure to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in chapter 120.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes, and cardrooms pursuant to section 849.086, Florida Statutes. Each Petitioner currently holds a permit and license under chapter 550 to conduct pari-mutuel wagering and a license under section 849.086 to conduct cardroom operations. Petitioners offer designated player games at their respective cardrooms. The rules proposed for repeal, rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), relate to the play of designated player games. Rule 61D-11.001(17) provides that “‘[d]esignated player’ means the player identified by the button as the player in the dealer position.” Rule 61D-11.002(5) provides that: Card games that utilize a designated player that covers other players’ potential wagers shall be governed by the cardroom operator’s house rules. The house rules shall: Establish uniform requirements to be a designated player; Ensure that the dealer button rotates around the table in a clockwise fashion on a hand to hand basis to provide each player desiring to be the designated player an equal opportunity to participate as the designated player; and Not require the designated player to cover all potential wagers. Both rules were adopted on July 21, 2014. Both rules list sections 550.0251(12), and 849.086(4) and (11) as rulemaking authority, and section 849.086 as the law implemented. Designated Player Games A designated player game is a subset of traditional poker games in which a designated player plays his or her hand against each other player at the table, instead of all players competing against each other. The term “designated player game” is used synonymously with “player banked games.”3/ However, a designated player is not a cardroom operator. In traditional “pool” poker games, each player bets into a central pool, with the winning hand(s) among all of the players collecting from the pool of bets, minus the cardroom rake. In designated player games, each player at the table makes an individual bet, and compares their hand against the designated player’s hand. If the player’s hand is better than the designated player’s hand, then the designated player pays the player from the designated player’s stack of chips. If the designated player’s hand is better than the player’s hand, then the designated player collects the player’s wager. At an eight- seat table, it is as though there are seven separate “player versus designated player” games. Designated player games were first played at the Ebro (Washington County Kennel Club) cardroom in 2011. The game, known as “double hand poker,” was demonstrated to Respondent, and subsequently approved for play. Though the internal control that describes the rules of game play was not offered in evidence, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the game used a designated player. After Respondent’s approval of Ebro’s double hand poker, Respondent entered an order rescinding its approval due to concerns that the use of a designated player resulted in the establishment of a banking game. That decision was challenged, and subsequently withdrawn, with the result being that “Ebro may immediately resume play of Double Hand Poker as approved by the division.” In 2012, the Palm Beach Kennel Club cardroom began offering “tree card poker” with a designated player. Although tree card poker had been approved by Respondent, the designated player element had not. Thus, since the game was not being played in accordance with the approved internal control, it was unauthorized. Respondent investigated the playing of tree card poker at Palm Beach Kennel Club. A video demonstration was provided that showed two hands of tree card poker being played with a designated player. The video depicted a single designated player playing his hand against each other player at the table, and paying or collecting wagers based on each individual hand. After having reviewed the demonstration video, Respondent ultimately determined that the use of a designated player did not violate the prohibition against banking games as defined. The Adoption of the Designated Player Rules As requests for approval of internal controls for games using designated players became more common, Respondent determined that it should adopt a rule to establish the parameters under which designated player games would be authorized. On December 16, 2013, after having taken public comment at a series of rulemaking workshops, Respondent published proposed rule 61D-11.002(5) which provided as follows: 61D-11.002 Cardroom Games. * * * Card games that utilize a designated player that covers other players’ wagers shall: Allow for only one designated player during any single hand; Not require the designated player to cover all wagers that could be made by the other players in the game; Not allow other players to cover wagers to achieve winnings that the designated player could have won had he or she covered the same wagers; Not allow or require a player to buy in for a different amount than any other player in the game in order to participate as the designated player; and Rotate a button or other object to designate which player is the designated player. The button or other object shall rotate clockwise around the table to give each player the opportunity to participate as the designated player. On February 14, 2014, a challenge to the proposed rule was filed that objected to restrictions on the manner in which designated player games could be conducted. The rule challenge hearing was continued, and the case placed in abeyance pending negotiations between the parties. On March 14, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice of Change to the proposed rule 61D-11.002, which added the following provisions to proposed rule 61D-11.002: The designated player shall: Cover the table minimum for each participating player; and Pay each player an amount above the table minimum equal to their pro rata share of the pot in the event the designated player cannot cover all wagers. A public hearing on the changes to the proposed rule was held on May 8, 2014. As to the designated player provisions of the proposed rule, Respondent received the following comment: [I]f we could modify this . . . taking the existing paragraph 5 and come up with three new criteria, one being uniform requirements for a designated player included within the house rules; allowing for the dealer button to rotate on a hand-by-hand basis for qualified designated players; also, not requiring the designated player to cover all potential wagers, but nonetheless allowing the house rules to set a designated minimum buy-in amount or just a chip count. I think if we had those particular parameters, we would allow the preservation of this game to continue in its current fashion . . . . And . . . we’re going to avoid [] any argument that the department has somehow created a banked card game, because the biggest thing here is that we’re not requiring that the designated player meet all the theoretical payouts of the game. On May 19, 2014, written comments were submitted on behalf of several pari-mutuel facilities. Those comments included proposed language that is identical to the rule that was ultimately adopted, and included the following: Multiple jurisdictions have determined a key element to banked card games is the house requiring all wagers be covered. We propose this language to distinguish between lawful games and impermissible banked games. On June 9, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice of Change that adopted the industry’s proposed language, and changed proposed rule 61D-11.002 to its present form. On June 13, 2014, the challenge to proposed rule 61D-11.002(5) was voluntarily dismissed, and the case was closed. On July 21, 2014, rule 61D-11.002(5) became effective. There can be little doubt that Respondent understood that it was, by its adoption of rule 61D-11.002(5), recognizing player banked games in which a designated player plays his or her hand against each other player at the table. The rule is substantial evidence that, as of the date of adoption, Respondent had determined that designated player games did not violate the prohibition against “banking games” as that term is defined in section 849.086. Internal Controls Over the course of several years, beginning generally in 2011 and extending well into 2015, Respondent was presented with internal controls from cardrooms around the state for playing designated player games. Internal controls are required before a particular game may be offered, and describe the rules of the game and the wagering requirements. The internal controls submitted by the Jacksonville Kennel Club; the Daytona Beach Kennel Club; the West Flagler Associates/Magic City Poker Room; and the Naples/Ft. Myers Greyhound Track Cardroom, described games in which designated players played their hand against those of the other players at the table, and paid and collected wagers from the designated player’s chip stack based on the rank of the designated player’s hand against the individual players. The games described did not involve pooled wagers, and clearly described player banked games. Respondent approved the internal controls for each of the four facilities. The process of approving internal controls occasionally included the submission of video demonstrations of the games described in the internal controls for which approval was being sought. Approval of internal controls was never done without the review and assent of Respondent’s legal department or the division director. With regard to the rules of the designated player games that underwent review and approval by Respondent, “all of them are about the same, few differences.” From 2011 through mid-2015, Respondent approved internal controls for playing one-card poker, two-card poker, three-card poker, Florida Hold ‘Em, and Pai Gow poker using designated players at numerous cardroom facilities. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent was aware of the fact that, for at least several facilities, “eligible” designated players were required to meet minimum financial criteria, which ranged from a minimum of $20,000 in chips, up to $100,000 in chips. In the case of the Daytona Beach Kennel Club cardroom, internal controls called for a designated player to submit an application, agree to a background check, and submit a deposit of $100,000. Respondent approved those internal controls. DBPR Training In August 2015, Mr. Taylor was invited by the Bestbet cardroom in Jacksonville4/ to participate in a training session it was offering for its employees. Mr. Taylor is an investigator for Respondent, and visited the pari-mutuel facilities at least once per week. Mr. Taylor was invited by the facility to get an overview of how the cardroom games that had been approved by Respondent, including designated player games, were played. The games that were the subject of the training were substantially similar to those depicted in the April 2012 training video, and those he had observed during his weekly inspections. The designated player games for which training was provided had been approved by Respondent. In September 2015, training in designated player games was provided at Respondent’s Tallahassee offices to several of its employees. Mr. Taylor perceived the training “as an overview to give us an idea of what we are going to see.” Neither Mr. Taylor nor any other participant in the training offered any suggestion that the training was being provided in anticipation of a shift in Respondent’s practice of approving the internal controls for designated player games. Current Rulemaking On September 23, 2014, Respondent published a Notice of Development of Rulemaking. The notice cited 15 of the 30 subsections of chapter 61D-11 as being the subject areas affected by the notice, and provided that “[t]he purpose and effect of the proposed rulemaking will be to address issues discovered in the implementation and practical application of cardroom rules adopted on July 21, 2014.” There is nothing in the notice to suggest that Respondent had modified its position on designated player games, and its continued approval of institutional controls approving such games is strong evidence that it had not. On August 4, 2015, Respondent published a Notice of Meeting/Workshop Hearing for a rule workshop to be held on August 18, 2015. The Notice listed each rule in chapter 61D-11 as the “general subject matter to be considered,” including those related to games of dominos. Respondent asserted that it had “posted a version of amended cardroom rules that included the [repeal of rule 61D-11.005] on its website,” though such was not published, nor did Respondent provide a record citation in support of its assertion. On October 29, 2015, Respondent published its proposed amendments to chapter 61D-11. Rule 61D-11.001(17), which defines the term “designated player” as “the player identified by the button as the player in the dealer position,” was proposed for repeal. Rule 61D-11.002(5), as set forth above, which had established the standards for designated player games, was proposed for repeal. Rule 61D-11.005 was proposed for amendment to add subsection (9), which provided that “[p]layer banked games, established by the house, are prohibited.” On December 2, 2015, the Division held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. During the public hearing, Mr. Zachem made it clear that the intent of the proposed amendments was to change the Division’s long-standing and consistently applied construction of section 849.086 as allowing designated player games to one of prohibiting designated player games, and in that regard stated that: The rules pertaining to designated player games are now going to be correlated with the statute that is the prohibition against designated player games. The statute does not allow designated player games. There has to be a specific authorization for a type of game in statute, and there is none in 849.086 pertaining to designated player games . . . . When some of these definitions in other areas were created, I don’t think that the concept of what these games could even become was fathomed by the division. Given the process by which internal controls for designated player games were approved by Respondent, including written descriptions and video demonstrations of play, the suggestion that Respondent could not “fathom” the effect of its rules and decisions is not accepted. On December 11, 2015, Petitioners individually filed petitions challenging the validity of the proposed rules. The cases were consolidated and ultimately placed into abeyance pending efforts to resolve the issues in dispute. Agency Action Concurrent with Rulemaking After the December 2015 public hearing, and prior to the adoption of any amendments to chapter 61D-11, Respondent filed a series of administrative complaints against cardrooms offering designated player games. Those administrative complaints were very broadly worded, and reflected Respondent’s newly-developed position that designated player games constituted “a banking game or a game not specifically authorized by Section 849.086, Florida Statutes.” In that regard, Mr. Zachem testified that a cardroom could have been operating in full compliance with its Respondent-approved internal controls and still have been the subject of an administrative complaint.5/ The position of Respondent was made clear by Mr. Zachem’s statement that if a cardroom has an approved designated player game “where a banker is using their table, their dealer, their facility they [the cardroom] are establishing a bank.”6/ Thus, there can be little doubt that Respondent now construes section 849.086 to mean that player banked games constitute prohibited “banking games” because, by allowing the player banked game in its facility, the cardroom “establishes” a bank against which participants play. After the December public hearing, Ms. Helms was instructed that she was to no longer approve internal controls if they included provisions regarding designated players. That blanket instruction came with no conditions. Since that instruction, the internal controls for at least one facility have been disapproved, despite their being “about the same” as internal controls that had been previously approved for other facilities. Ms. Helms testified that after the December 2015 rule hearing, “things kind of turned around” with regard to Respondent’s position on designated player games. She then rethought her selection of words, stating instead that “things changed.” Given the totality of the evidence in this case, Ms. Helms’ statement that the position of Respondent towards designated player games “turned around” is the more accurate descriptor. Notice of Change On January 15, 2016, the Division published a Notice of Change/Withdrawal of proposed rules. Through the issuance of this notice, the Division withdrew proposed rule 61D-11.005(9). The proposed repeal of rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5) remained unchanged. Since that notice of change, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Respondent has stopped approving internal controls that propose the offering of designated player games, and has continued to take action against facilities that offer designated player games. Respondent’s statements and actions, including those made in the course of this proceeding, demonstrate that Respondent intends the repeal of rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), to effectuate the prohibition of designated player games despite the withdrawal of proposed rule 61D-11.005(9). Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative When it proposed the subject amendments to rule 61D-11 on October 29, 2014, Respondent had not prepared a statement of estimated regulatory costs. Rather, the notice of proposed rule provided that: The agency has determined that this rule will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the agency. The agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of estimated regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: the economic review conducted by the agency. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding the statement of estimated regulatory costs, or to provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice. On November 19, 2015, in conjunction with the rulemaking process described above, a number of licensed cardroom operators, including some of the Petitioners, timely submitted a good faith proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative (“LCRA”) to the proposed amendments to chapter 61D-11 that would have the effect of prohibiting designated player games, citing not only the creation of rule 61D-11.005(9), but the repeal of rule 61D-11.002(5). A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the LCRA indicated that the rule was likely to directly or indirectly increase regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. The LCRA, as described in the letter of transmittal, also concluded that regulatory costs could be reduced by not adopting the proposed rule amendments, thus maintaining Respondent’s previous long-standing interpretation of section 849.086, and thereby accomplishing the statutory objectives. Respondent employed no statisticians or economists, and there was no evidence to suggest that any such persons were retained to review the LCRA. Though Mr. Zachem did not “claim to be an expert in statistics,” he felt qualified to conclude that the LCRA was “a bit of a challenging representation.” Thus, Respondent simply concluded, with no explanation or support, that “the numbers that we received were unreliable.” Respondent did not prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs or otherwise respond to the LCRA. Respondent argues that its abandonment of proposed rule 61D-11.005(9), which was the more explicit expression of its intent to prohibit designated player games, made the LCRA inapplicable to the rule as it was proposed for amendment after the January 15, 2016, notice of change. That argument is undercut by the fact that Respondent did not amend its statement of estimated regulatory costs as a result of the change in the proposed rule. Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that Respondent, by its decision to disapprove internal controls that included designated player games, and its enforcement actions taken against cardrooms offering designated player games, specifically intended the amendments repealing the designated player standards to have the effect of prohibiting designated player games. Thus, despite the elimination of the specific prohibition on designated player games, there was no substantive effect of the change. Therefore, the LCRA remained an accurate expression of Petitioners’ estimated regulatory costs of the proposed rule. Ultimate Findings Respondent has taken the position that the repeal of rule 61D-11.005(9) was undertaken “[f]or clarity with the industry.” That position is simply untenable. Rather, Respondent has taken an activity that it previously found to be legal and authorized and, by repealing the rule and simply being silent on its effect, determined that activity to be prohibited. By so doing, Respondent has left it to “the industry” to decipher the meaning and effect of a statute that is, quite obviously, ambiguous and in need of the interpretive guidance that has been and should be provided by rule. The evidence is conclusive that, by its repeal of rule 61D-11.002(5), Respondent simply changed its mind as to whether playing with a designated player constituted the establishment of a prohibited banking game.7/ It previously determined that such games were lawful under the terms of section 849.086; it has now determined they are not. Though there is substantial evidence to suggest that the reason for the change was related to the renegotiation of the Seminole Compact, the reason is not important. What is important is that Respondent has taken divergent views of the statute in a manner that has substantially affected the interests of Petitioners. For Respondent to suggest that its repeal of the rules is a clarification, a simplification, or a reflection of the unambiguous terms of the statute, and that Petitioners should just tailor their actions to the statute without any interpretive guidance from Respondent, works contrary to the role of government to provide meaningful and understandable standards for the regulation of business in Florida. Respondent cannot, with little more than a wave and well-wishes, expect regulated businesses to expose themselves to liability through their actions under a statute that is open to more than one interpretation, when the agency itself has found it problematic to decipher the statute under which it exercises its regulatory authority.
The Issue The Administrative Complaint, as amended, in this case alleges that Respondent engaged in or permitted gambling activity on the licensed premises in violation of Sections 849.14 and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The issue for resolution is whether that violation occurred and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for issuing licenses permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages in Florida and is responsible for enforcing the beverage laws, Chapters 561-568, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a Florida corporation holding alcoholic beverage license number 15-00185, series 4COP, which authorizes it to sell alcoholic beverages at retail at the licensed premises, Bottoms Up Bar, located at 8400 US-1, South, Micco, in Brevard County, Florida. Lynette Tummolo is the president of Bottoms Up Bar, Inc. Ms. Tummolo's first bar was a restaurant and liquor bar in Palm Bay, Florida: Duke's Place. She and Robert Bench owned the bar as 50/50 partners. Duke's Place was moved to a new location after a hurricane and in August 1996, Ms. Tummolo and Mr. Bench sold their license to David Oliver. In March 1997, Ms. Tummolo started another business, a beer and wine bar, which opened in Micco, Florida. The Articles of Incorporation dated February 19, 1997, and filed with the Secretary of State for Bottoms Up Bar, Inc., list the incorporator as Lynette Tummolo, and the members of the board of directors as Lynette Tummolo and Robert Bench. The most recent annual report, dated March 23, 1998, and filed with the Secretary of State, reflects that Lynette Tummolo and Robert Bench are both directors of the corporation. In June 1997, after David Oliver defaulted on his payments for the license, Lynette Tummolo purchased back the liquor license and had it transferred to Bottoms Up Bar, Inc. Ms. Tummolo applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) and had approved, a transfer of the liquor license and change of location to Bottoms Up Bar in Micco. The application submitted by Ms. Tummolo lists herself as president and 60% stockholder, Robert Bench as secretary and 40% stockholder, herself as treasurer, and Robert Bench as director. A personal questionnaire form for Robert Bench is attached to Ms. Tummolo's application. This form states that Mr. Bench is the director/manager of Bottoms Up Bar and that he was investing no funds in the business. At the hearing in this proceeding, Ms. Tummolo stated that Robert Bench was not an owner or officer of the corporation Bottoms Up Bar, Inc., but the only reason she put him on the application form was that a staff person from DABT told her that she had to put officers of the corporation and had to show a percentage of stock. Ms. Tummolo's testimony is inconsistent with her sworn affidavit at the end of the form. The testimony is also inconsistent with any established policy of DABT. Ann (Annie) Raftery works as manager of Captain Hiram's, a restaurant and lounge in Sebastian, Florida, near Micco. She regularly patronizes Bottoms Up Bar and is a friend of Robert Bench. She also sometimes helps clean up at Bottoms Up Bar after closing. In January 1998, Ms. Raftery decided on her own to start a football pool for the Super Bowl. She drew the grid and collected $20 for each square on the grid representing a wager. Individuals placing a wager wrote their names or some identification on the square they selected. Ms. Raftery carried the grid sheet around with her on a plastic clip-board. On the Friday night before Super Bowl Sunday 1998, Annie Raftery arrived at Bottoms Up Bar around 10:30 p.m. She handed the football pool sheet on the plastic clip-board, for safekeeping, to Robert Bench, who was working as bartender. He stashed it behind the bar for her. On that same Friday, January 23, 1998, in response to a complaint, Sergeant Sam Brewer (at that time, a DABT special agent) commenced an undercover investigation of Bottoms Up Bar. Late that evening he and other agents entered the bar, mingled with the crowd, played darts, and socialized. At one point, Special Agent Brewer asked an individual whether she knew of any pools for the upcoming Super Bowl football game. She responded that he would have to talk to "the boss" and pointed out Robert Bench behind the bar. Agent Brewer then sat at the bar and started talking to Mr. Bench. During the course of the conversation, Mr. Bench reached next to the cash register behind the bar and handed a plastic clip-board with the football pool sheet to a female patron sitting at the bar. This individual looked at it and handed it to another woman, later identified as Annie Raftery. Annie Raftery then gave the clip-board to Lynette Tummolo. Agent Brewer asked Robert Bench about the pool and Bench replied that it belonged to Captain Hiram's. Mr. Bench then got Ms. Raftery and directed her to Agent Brewer. Agent Brewer conversed with Ms. Raftery about the pool. She had the clip-board again and explained how to place a wager. Agent Brewer selected a square and put the name, Steve B., on the grid and paid Ms. Raftery $20. She told him she would be at Captain Hiram's or Bottoms Up Bar on Sunday, and he left, as it was closing time. Agent Brewer returned on Sunday, around half-time of the Super Bowl. He approached Mr. Bench at the bar and asked where he could see the football pool sheet to check his numbers. Mr. Bench replied that they had copies, but Ms. Raftery had the original and pointed her out at the end of the bar. Ms. Raftery showed Agent Brewer the pool sheet and he confirmed that it was the one he had marked earlier. He then made a covert telephone call to the other agents waiting outside. They, and assisting officers of the sheriff's office, arrested Mr. Bench and Ms. Raftery. They retrieved $1,200 from Ms. Raftery's car and $440 from her home. The remainder of the $2,000 she collected had already been paid out for the first quarter of the game. Ms. Tummolo is at Bottoms Up Bar every night, seven nights a week. She remembers Friday, January 23, 1998, was particularly busy. At the hearing she described a plastic clip- board kept at the bar with a sheet on which the bartenders must record the liquor they remove from the back stockroom. Ms. Tummolo insists that if she had been seen with a clip-board, it would have been the liquor record and not a football pool. Agent Brewer saw Ms. Tummolo with the football pool, however, the night he placed his wager. Bottoms Up Bar does not participate in the Responsible Vendors Program. Ms. Tummolo meets regularly with her bartenders and, at least since the Super Bowl Sunday event, she reminds them that gambling in any form is not tolerated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and 849.14, Florida Statutes, and assessing a penalty of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Winokur, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joe Teague Caruso, Esquire 800 East Merritt Boulevard Merritt Island, Florida 32954-1271 Richard Boyd, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
