The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her religion or national origin in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Tal Simhoni ("Simhoni"), a Jewish woman who identifies the State of Israel as her place of national origin, at all times relevant to this action owned Unit No. 212 in Mimo on the Beach I Condominium (the "Condominium"), which is located in Miami Beach, Florida. She purchased this unit in 2009 and a second apartment (Unit No. 203) in 2010. Simhoni has resided at the Condominium on occasion but her primary residence, at least as of the final hearing, was in New York City. The Condominium is a relatively small community consisting of two buildings comprising 28 units. Respondent Mimo on the Beach I Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association"), a Florida nonprofit corporation, is the entity responsible for operating and managing the Condominium and, specifically, the common elements of the Condominium property. Governing the Association is a Board of Directors (the "Board"), a representative body whose three members, called "directors," are elected by the unit owners. Simhoni served on the Board for nearly seven years. From July 2010 until April 2011, she held the office of vice- president, and from April 2011 until June 1, 2017, Simhoni was the president of the Board. Simhoni's term as president was cut short when, in May 2017, she and the other two directors then serving with her on the Board were recalled by a majority vote of the Condominium's owners. The Association, while still under the control of the putatively recalled directors, rejected the vote and petitioned the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes ("DBPR"), for arbitration of the dispute. By Summary Final Order dated June 1, 2017, DBPR upheld the recall vote and ordered that Simhoni, Marisel Santana, and Carmen Duarte be removed from office, effective immediately. The run-up to the recall vote entailed a campaign of sorts to unseat Simhoni, which, as might be expected, caused friction between neighbors. Without getting into details that aren't important here, it is fair to say that, generally speaking, the bloc opposed to Simhoni believed that she had poorly managed the Condominium, especially in connection with the use of Association funds. Some of Simhoni's critics were not shy about voicing their opinions in this regard, which—— understandably——led to hard feelings. Simhoni vehemently disputes the charges of her critics and, clearly, has not gotten over her recall election defeat, which she blames on false, unfair, and anti-Semitic accusations against her. This is a case of alleged housing discrimination brought under Florida's Fair Housing Act (the "Act"). Specifically, Simhoni is traveling under section 760.23(2), Florida Statutes, which makes it "unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion." (Emphasis added). The applicable law will be discussed in greater detail below. The purpose of this brief, prefatory mention of the Act is to provide context for the findings of fact that follow. The principal goal of section 760.23(2) is to prohibit the denial of access to housing based on discriminatory animus. Simhoni, however, was not denied access to housing. She is, in fact, a homeowner. Contrary to what some might intuit, the Act is not an all-purpose anti-discrimination law or civility code; it does not purport to police personal disputes, quarrels, and feuds between neighbors, even ugly ones tinged with, e.g., racial or religious hostility. To the extent the Act authorizes charges based on alleged post-acquisition discrimination, such charges must involve the complete denial of services or facilities that are available in common to all owners as a term or condition of ownership——the right to use common areas, for example, pursuant to a declaration of condominium. Moreover, the denial of access to common services or facilities logically must result from the actions of a person or persons, or an entity, that exercises de facto or de jure control over access to the services or facilities in question. This is important because, while Simhoni believes that she was subjected to anti-Semitic slurs during her tenure as Board president, the fact is that her unfriendly neighbors——none of whom then held an office on the Board——were in no position to (and in fact did not) deny Simhoni access to common services and facilities under the Association's control, even if their opposition to her presidency were motivated by discriminatory animus (which wasn't proved). As president of the Board, Simhoni wound up on the receiving end of some uncivil and insensitive comments, and a few of her neighbors seem strongly to dislike her. Simhoni was hurt by this. That impolite, even mean, comments are not actionable as unlawful housing discrimination under section 760.23(2) is no stamp of approval; it merely reflects the relatively limited scope of the Act. Simhoni has organized her allegations of discrimination under six categories. Most of these allegations do not implicate or involve the denial of common services or facilities, and thus would not be sufficient to establish liability under the Act, even if true. For that reason, it is not necessary to make findings of fact to the granular level of detail at which the charges were made. The Mastercard Dispute. As Board president, Simhoni obtained a credit card for the Association, which she used for paying common expenses and other Association obligations such as repair costs. In applying for the card, Simhoni signed an agreement with the issuer to personally guarantee payment of the Association's account. It is unclear whether Simhoni's actions in procuring this credit card were undertaken in accordance with the Condominium's By-Laws, but there is no evidence suggesting that Simhoni was forced, encouraged, or even asked to co-sign the Association's credit agreement; she seems, rather, to have volunteered. Simhoni claims that she used personal funds to pay down the credit card balance, essentially lending money to the Association. She alleges that the Association has failed to reimburse her for these expenditures, and she attributes this nonpayment to anti-Semitism. There appears to be some dispute regarding how much money, if any, the Association actually owes Simhoni for common expenses. The merits of her claim for repayment are not relevant in this proceeding, however, because there is insufficient persuasive evidence in the record to support a finding that the Association has withheld payment based on Simhoni's religion or national origin. Equally, if not more important, is the fact that Simhoni's alleged right to reimbursement is not a housing "service" or "facility" available in common to the Condominium's owners and residents. Nonpayment of the alleged debt might constitute a breach of contract or support other causes of action at law or in equity, but these would belong to Simhoni as a creditor of the Association, not as an owner of the Condominium. In short, the Association's alleged nonpayment of the alleged debt might give Simhoni good legal grounds to sue the Association for, e.g., breach of contract or money had and received——but not for housing discrimination. The Estoppel Certificate. On September 20, 2017, when she was under contract to sell Unit No. 212, Simhoni submitted a written request to the Association for an estoppel certificate, pursuant to section 718.116(8), Florida Statutes. By statute, the Association was obligated to issue the certificate within ten business days——by October 4, 2017, in this instance. Id. The failure to timely issue an estoppel letter results in forfeiture of the right to charge a fee for preparing and delivering the certificate. § 718.116(8)(d), Fla. Stat. The Association missed the deadline, issuing the certificate one-week late, on October 11, 2017; it paid the prescribed statutory penalty for this tardiness, refunding the preparation fee to Simhoni as required. Simhoni attributes the delay to anti-Semitism. It is debatable whether the issuance of an estoppel letter is the kind of housing "service" whose deprivation, if based on religion, national origin, or another protected criterion, would support a claim for unlawful discrimination under the Act. The undersigned will assume for argument's sake that it is such a service. Simhoni's claim nonetheless fails because (i) the very statute that imposes the deadline recognizes that it will not always be met and provides a penalty for noncompliance, which the Association paid; (ii) a brief delay in the issuance of an estoppel letter is not tantamount to the complete deprivation thereof; and (iii) there is, at any rate, insufficient persuasive evidence that the minimal delay in issuing Simhoni a certificate was the result of discriminatory animus. Pest Control. Pest control is not a service that the Association is required to provide but, rather, one that may be provided at the discretion of the Board. During Simhoni's tenure as Board president, apparently at her urging, the Association arranged for a pest control service to treat all of the units for roaches, as a common expense, and the apartments were sprayed on a regular basis. If the exterminator were unable to enter a unit because, e.g., the resident was not at home when he arrived, a locksmith would be summoned to open the door, and the owner would be billed individually for this extra service. After Simhoni and her fellow directors were recalled, the new Board decided, as a cost-control measure, to discontinue the pest control service, allowing the existing contract to expire without renewal. Owners were notified that, during the phaseout, the practice of calling a locksmith would cease. If no one were home when the pest control operator showed up, the unit would not be sprayed, unless the owner had left a key with the Association or made arrangements for someone else to open his door for the exterminator. By this time, Simhoni's principal residence, as mentioned, was in New York. Although she knew that the locksmith option was no longer available, Simhoni failed to take steps to ensure that the pest control operator would have access to her apartment when she wasn't there. Consequently, Simhoni's unit was not sprayed on some (or perhaps any) occasions during the phaseout. Simhoni blames anti-Semitism for the missed pest control visits, but the greater weight of the evidence fails to support this charge. Simhoni was treated the same as everyone else in connection with the pest control service. Moreover, Simhoni was not completely deprived of access to pest control, which would have been provided to her if she had simply made arrangements to permit access to her unit. Short-term Rentals. Article XVII of the Condominium's Declaration of Condominium ("Declaration"), titled Occupancy and Use Restrictions, specifically regulates leases. Section 17.8 of the Declaration provides, among other things, that the Association must approve all leases of units in the Condominium, which leases may not be for a term of less than one year. In other words, the Declaration prohibits short-term, or vacation, rentals, which are typically for periods of days or weeks. Short-term rentals can be lucrative for owners, especially in places such as Miami Beach that attract tourists who might be interested in alternatives to traditional hotel lodgings. On the flip side, however, short-term rental activity is not necessarily welcomed by neighboring residents, who tend to regard transients as being insufficiently invested in preserving the peace, quiet, and tidy appearance of the neighborhood. At the Condominium, the question of whether or not to permit short-term rentals has divided the owners into competing camps. Simhoni is in favor of allowing short-term rentals. Accordingly, while she was Board president, the Association did not enforce the Declaration's prohibition of this activity. (It is possible, but not clear, that the Association was turning a blind eye to short-term rentals even before Simhoni became a director.) This laissez-faire approach did not sit well with everyone; indeed, dissatisfaction with short-term rentals provided at least some of the fuel for the ultimately successful recall effort that cost Simhoni her seat on the Board. After Simhoni and the rest of her Board were removed, the new directors announced their intent to enforce the Declaration's ban on short-term rentals. Simhoni alleges that the crackdown on short-term rentals was an act of religion-based housing discrimination. Her reasoning in this regard is difficult to follow, but the gist of it seems to be that the Association is selectively enforcing the ban so that only Simhoni and other Jewish owners are being forced to stop engaging in short-term rental activity; that the prohibition is having a disparate impact on Jewish owners; or that some owners are harassing Simhoni by making complaints about her to the City of Miami Beach in hopes that the City will impose fines against her for violating municipal restrictions on short-term rentals. The undersigned recognizes that a neutral policy such as the prohibition of short-term rentals conceivably could be enforced in a discriminatory manner, thus giving rise to a meritorious charge under the Act. Here, however, the evidence simply does not support Simhoni's contentions. There is insufficient evidence of disparate impact, disparate treatment, selective enforcement, harassment, or discriminatory animus in connection with the Association's restoration of the short-term rental ban. To the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Association is trying to stop short-term rentals at the Condominium for a perfectly legitimate reason, namely that a majority of the owners want section 17.8 of the Declaration to be given full force and effect. The Feud with Flores. Simhoni identifies Mr. and Ms. Flores as the worst of her antagonists among her neighbors. As advocates of the recall, these two were fierce critics of Simhoni. The Floreses reported Simhoni to the City of Miami Beach for engaging in short-term rentals without the required business tax receipt, in violation of the municipal code. At a code enforcement hearing, Mr. Flores gave Simhoni the finger. None of this, however, amounts to housing discrimination because the Floreses' actions did not completely deprive Simhoni of common facilities or services, even if such actions were motivated by anti-Semitism, which the greater weight of the evidence fails to establish. Indeed, there is no persuasive evidence that the Floreses ever had such control over the Condominium's facilities or services that they could have denied Simhoni access to them. Simhoni argues in her proposed recommended order, apparently for the first time, that the Floreses' conduct created a "hostile housing environment." Putting aside the legal problems with this belatedly raised theory, the Floreses' conduct was not sufficiently severe and pervasive, as a matter of fact, to support a "hostile environment" claim. Nor is there sufficient persuasive evidence in the record to support a finding that the Floreses acted in concert with the Board to harass Simhoni, or that the Board acquiesced to the Floreses' conduct. Roof Repairs. Simhoni alleges that the Association failed to repair the area of the roof over her unit, which she claims was damaged in Hurricane Irma, and that the Association has refused to make certain repairs inside her unit, which she asserts sustained interior water damage as a result of roof leaks. Simhoni asserts that, using Association funds, the Association not only repaired other portions of the roof, but also fixed interior damages similar to hers, for the benefit of non-Jewish owners. The greater weight of the persuasive evidence shows, however, that the roof over Simhoni's unit is not damaged, and that the Association never instructed the roofing contractor not to make needed repairs. Simhoni, in short, was not denied the service of roof repairs. As for the alleged damage to Simhoni's unit, section 7.1 of the Declaration provides that repairs to the interior of a unit are to be performed by the owner at the owner's sole cost and expense. The evidence fails to establish that the interior damage of which Simhoni complains falls outside of her duty to repair. Because this is a housing discrimination case, and not a legal or administrative proceeding to enforce the terms of the Declaration, it is neither necessary, nor would it be appropriate, for the undersigned to adjudicate fully the question of whether the Association is obligated to repair Simhoni's unit as a common expense. Here, it is sufficient to find (and it is found) that section 7.1 of the Declaration affords the Association a legitimate, nonpretextual, nondiscriminatory reason to refuse, as it has, to perform the interior repairs that Simhoni has demanded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding the Association not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Simhoni no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondents, 820 Third Street, Inc., a condominium, The Wall Management Corp., and Royal Management Group, LLC (“Respondents”), discriminated against Petitioner, Allen Kaplan (“Petitioner”), in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of his race, disability, or religion, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations for Petitioner’s disability, in violation of Florida’s Fair Housing Act (“FHA”); and, if so, the relief that is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact This case involves a small, two-story condominium complex (total of 14 units), located in Miami Beach, Florida. The condominium community is governed by an association, which in turn, is governed by a board of directors. Petitioner is a white Jewish male who is disabled. In December 2017, Petitioner purchased Unit 1, a first-floor unit located at Respondents’ condominium complex. Petitioner is the only resident owner at Respondents’ condominium complex. All other units are occupied by renters. In 2018, Petitioner vacated his unit allegedly due to mold and water intrusion emanating from the unit above his. Due to water intrusion and other problems at the condominium complex, the City of Miami Beach cited the association with numerous building code violations, including violations pertaining to plumbing and the installation of doors and windows that were not hurricane impact windows and doors, and required all new windows and doors be installed in each unit. On Friday, June 15, 2018, at 3:27 p.m., the board of directors of the association sent an email to all unit owners advising of a mandatory emergency meeting the next day, Saturday, June 16, 2018, at 11:00 a.m., to discuss a special assessment and strategy to create a master permit for all building violations and reduce contractor costs for the repairs. The emergency meeting was scheduled in direct response to the City of Miami Beach Building Department’s threat to revoke the certificate of occupancy due to the numerous building code violations. On Friday, June 15, 2018, at 3:28 p.m., the board of directors of the association sent another email to all unit owners stating: “Failure to comply with this request will prompt the City of Miami Beach to vacate the building, causing the renters to move out next Friday June 22nd.” Petitioner, an ordained Rabbi and devout Orthodox Jew, testified that his religious beliefs prohibit him from receiving an email on the Sabbath unless the email is necessary to save a human life. Observing the Sabbath is a Jewish commandment. Petitioner contends he was subjected to religious discrimination by the association because of emails sent to him on the Sabbath. The emails sent by the association to Petitioner on Friday, June 15, 2018, were not sent to him on the Sabbath. On June 15, 2018, at 3:38 p.m., Petitioner responded to the emails, stating: “Due to the mold, leaks, danger, and demolished nature of my unit, I was forced to move out. I am over 50 miles away.” Petitioner further stated: “For religious observance of the Sabbath, I am unable to attend.” Petitioner requested that the meeting be rescheduled for Sunday, so that he could attend “or make living arrangements for my Service Animals & me to be accommodated, so I can attend.” On Saturday, June 16, 2018, at 7:22 a.m., during the Sabbath, the property manager, Alda Wetzel, responded to Petitioner’s email, informing Petitioner that “[a]n owner that lives out of state is sending a representative and you could do the same.” Petitioner did not attend the June 16, 2018, meeting or send a representative to the meeting. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged he did not suffer any adverse consequences for his failure to attend the meeting. At hearing, Petitioner testified he received an additional four or five emails and a posted notice on his door on the Sabbath. However, he acknowledged that none of these emails or the posting required him to take any action on the Sabbath. In addition, Petitioner acknowledges in his proposed recommended order that an association board member is a Jew. In June 2019, the association entered into a contract with a private window installation company to remove and replace the windows and doors in each of the units with hurricane impact windows and doors. Due to the nature of the work, the contractor required access to each unit. By October 2020, Petitioner had moved back into his unit. On October 4, 2020, Petitioner sent an email to Respondent, The Wall Management, Corp., requesting that, due to his disabilities, he be given assistance in moving and replacing furnishings and window treatments for the impact windows and door installations. Petitioner further requested “proof that CDC guidelines are being followed for anyone entering my home, to prevent me from being exposed to the coronavirus,” and “proof that anyone attempting to enter my home (for whatever reason, related to the impact Windows and Doors) has a recent (less than 1 week) written & verifiable test result of having been tested for COVID-19 and that the test is Negative.” In response, Petitioner was advised that Respondent, The Wall Management, Corp., was not involved in the contract for the window and door replacement, and that the “project is being Managed by the Board.” On October 6, 2020, an association board member, Angela Lopez (“Ms. Lopez”), emailed Petitioner stating that the window installation company could answer all his questions. Ms. Lopez offered to coordinate a conference call between Petitioner and the window installation company to address Petitioner’s requests. Ms. Lopez also reminded Petitioner that he needed to sign a Global Release of Liability form, required by the window installation company before it would enter Petitioner’s unit to perform the work. Petitioner refused the association’s offer to have a conversation with the window installation company and refused to sign the release required by the window installation company. The window installation company sent notices to all residents stating the measures it was taking to follow CDC guidelines. The association attempted to coordinate with Petitioner to complete the window installation in a manner that adequately addressed his concerns. However, Petitioner refused any reasonable accommodations and refused to provide the window installation company access to his unit. Petitioner alleges he was discriminated against based on his race because Respondents sent out official notices by email only in Spanish. Petitioner requested that all condominium business be conducted in the English language. The association did not send any notices to residents only in Spanish. Rather, all notices were sent in English and Spanish, and some residents responded to the original email only in Spanish. In support of his race discrimination claim, Petitioner offered into evidence a video of an association board meeting, during which he asserts the board members spoke only in Spanish. However, a review of the video reflects that a meeting to elect members of the board of directors was held on September 30, 2021. From the time a quorum was announced at the beginning of the meeting, and throughout the entire remainder of the meeting during which time Petitioner was present and participated, the meeting was conducted entirely in English. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that when he logged onto the call, everyone was speaking English. In sum, Petitioner failed to present persuasive and credible evidence that Respondents discriminated against him based on his race, a disability, or his religion, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Allen David Kaplan, pro se 820 Third Street, Apartment 1 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 For Respondents: Nicholas M. Nash, II, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400 Miami, Florida 33256
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2022, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2022. 1 In his proposed recommended order, Petitioner argues he was also the victim of retaliation in violation of section 760.37. However, Petitioner failed to allege a claim of retaliation in his charge of discrimination and petition for relief, failed to seek amendment of his petition for relief to raise such a claim, and failed to raise such a claim at hearing. Accordingly, any such claim has been waived. Buade v. Terra Group, LLC, 259 So. 3d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). Even if such a claim was not waived, to prevail on a claim of retaliation under section 760.37, Petitioner must establish that Respondents “coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with” his enjoyment of a housing right after the exercise of rights granted under the FHA. Petitioner failed to present persuasive and credible evidence to support such a claim. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen David Kaplan 820 Third Street, Apartment 1 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Leonard Wilder, Esquire Bakalar & Associates 12470 West Atlantic Boulevard Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Raul E. Salas, Esquire Nicholas M. Nash, II, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400 Miami, Florida 33256 Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful discrimination in the provision of services or facilities in connection with her dwelling based on her race or handicap, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 51-year-old black female who relocated to Leesburg, Florida, from Port Chester, New York, in February 2012. Respondent, Richman Property Services, Inc., is the corporate owner/manager of Laurel Oaks Apartments (Laurel Oaks) located at 131 Bayou Circle in Leesburg, Florida. Amy Lewis is the Community Manager of Laurel Oaks. Petitioner rented a two-bedroom apartment unit from Respondent from February 24, 2012, until she moved to Orlando, Florida, on December 3, 2012. Petitioner?s daughter, Sushon Dillard, occupied the apartment with Petitioner during her tenancy at Laurel Oaks. Petitioner spoke with Ms. Lewis via telephone to inquire regarding the availability of a unit at Laurel Oaks while Petitioner was still residing out of state. Petitioner applied for tenancy at Laurel Oaks by faxing her application to Ms. Lewis. Petitioner?s application was accompanied by a copy of her award letter documenting Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments as proof of income. On February 24, 2012, Petitioner signed a lease for Laurel Oaks unit #103, paid a security deposit, and moved into the unit. Petitioner has a current clinical diagnosis of “schizophrenia, paranoid.” She also claims to be diagnosed bi- polar with Tourrete?s Syndrome. While Petitioner presented no documentation of the additional diagnosis, her testimony on this issue is credible and is accepted by the undersigned. Petitioner was first hospitalized for treatment of an unspecified mental illness at Bellevue Hospital in New York in 1982. She apparently lived without significant incident for the next 26 years. Petitioner had a “breakdown” in 2008, while living in Arizona, and another “breakdown” that same year in New York, for which she was hospitalized at Greenwich Hospital in Connecticut, and later transferred to Stamford Hospital in Connecticut. Petitioner reports that since April 2008, she has “spent time in numerous mental institutions in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland and New York.” Petitioner?s most recent incident occurred in August 2012, while she was living at Laurel Oaks. She was taken by police to a local facility named “Life Stream” where she was treated for a number of days, then returned home to her apartment at Laurel Oaks with her daughter. Petitioner appeared calm and controlled at the final hearing. She testified that she is taking her medications and doing very well. Petitioner claims that when she moved into the unit at Laurel Oaks, it was not cleaned, was “infested with dead roaches,” and the washing machine was filthy. Petitioner?s daughter testified there were dead roaches even in the dishwasher. Petitioner also bases her allegation of discrimination on Respondent?s accusation in April 2012, that Petitioner had not paid a $300 security deposit prior to occupying her apartment. When Petitioner paid her April rent, Trifonia Bradley, an employee in the office at Laurel Oaks, informed Petitioner she still owed a $300 security deposit. Petitioner responded that she had paid the deposit on February 24, 2012. Although the evidence was not clear as to the specific date, Petitioner later met with Ms. Bradley and brought in her receipt showing the $300 had been paid in February. After that meeting, Petitioner received a phone call from Ms. Lewis apologizing for the error and stating something to the effect of “we are all good.” Petitioner believes Respondent was attempting to take advantage of her disability and trick her into paying the deposit again. At final hearing, Petitioner and her daughter presented evidence and testimony regarding additional alleged discriminatory acts by Respondent. Petitioner alleged that someone employed by, or otherwise acting on behalf of Respondent, sabotaged her automobile; harassed her by requesting her daughter fill out a separate rental application in order to live with her; harassed Petitioner about her request for accommodation based on her disability and claimed she had not demonstrated that she was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act; threatened to tow away her car because it was inoperable; and stole money from her apartment. Each of these additional alleged acts occurred after September 21, 2012, the date on which FCHR issued its determination of no cause, and was not investigated by FCHR. Petitioner is intelligent and articulate. Her exhibits were well-organized and contained copious documentation of the alleged discriminatory acts occurring after September 21, 2012. Her documentation included correspondence with Laurel Oaks? management, notices which were posted on the apartment door, copies of numerous forms and applications, and a police report. In contrast, Petitioner offered no tangible evidence regarding the condition of the property upon occupancy other than her testimony, which was not persuasive. She introduced no photographs, no written complaint, and no correspondence with the manager or other employees of Laurel Oaks regarding the condition of the apartment. In fact, she offered no evidence that she brought the condition of the unit to the attention of Laurel Oaks? management. Given the totality of the evidence, including the demeanor of the Petitioner and Ms. Dillard, the undersigned finds that either the unit was not unclean or Petitioner did not bring the condition of the unit to the attention of Laurel Oaks upon occupying the unit. Further, the undersigned finds that Laurel Oaks erroneously requested the security deposit in April 2012, and corrected the error after reviewing Petitioner?s documentation. The mistake was not an act of discrimination based either on race or disability.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2012H0289. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Suzanne Van Wyk Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by failing to reasonably accommodate her handicap, in violation of Florida?s Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of Unit No. 710 (“Unit”) in the Sixth Moorings Condominium, located in Miami, Florida. Petitioner lived there for approximately 11 years. She is not currently living in the Unit. Respondent is the condominium association responsible for the operation and management of the Sixth Moorings Condominium. In early 2010, Petitioner suffered a stroke and underwent heart surgery. It is undisputed that as a result of her illness, Petitioner is “handicapped” for purposes of the Fair Housing Act.4/ Petitioner spent several months in hospitals and nursing homes recovering from her stroke and surgeries. When she was released from these facilities, she did not resume living in the Unit. She testified that this was because she could not go up a curb or steps, and because the condominium?s elevator frequently was out of order.5/ She moved into a ground floor apartment a few blocks away from the Sixth Moorings Condominium. Petitioner is not able to perform many basic tasks, such as grocery shopping, driving, cleaning her apartment, taking out the garbage, or retrieving her mail. Consequently, she decided to invite her nephew, Charles Alsberg, to move into the Unit, where he would be only a few minutes away from the apartment in which she was residing, and thus could serve as her caretaker. Alsberg moved into the Unit in or around August 2010. Petitioner did not reside in the Unit with Alsberg. She testified that even though he is a family member, she would not live in the Unit with him because she is “an elderly woman from a different generation and [she] would not live with a young man unless he was [her] biological son.” In late 2010, Respondent?s President, John Koble, contacted Petitioner about Alsberg living in her Unit. Petitioner asked Koble to allow Alsberg to reside in the Unit so that he could serve as her caretaker, but Koble told her that because she was not residing there, Alsberg was considered an unauthorized guest in violation of the condominium?s restrictive covenants, and that he therefore must move out. Nonetheless, Alsberg continued to reside in the Unit for several more months, until he became ill and was hospitalized. Following his release in August 2011, Alsberg returned to live in the Unit. At this point, Respondent——this time, through counsel——sent Petitioner a letter stating that she was violating the restrictive covenant prohibiting unauthorized guests, and demanding that Alsberg vacate the unit. On September 13, 2011, Petitioner?s attorney sent a response letter requesting that, due to restrictions on Alsberg?s activity as a result of his illness, he be allowed to remain in the Unit for approximately 60 days. By correspondence dated September 15, 2011, Respondent agreed to allow Alsberg to remain in the Unit through November 12, 2011. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that Respondent granted her request to allow Alsberg to stay there during his recuperation. Notwithstanding this agreement, Alsberg did not vacate the Unit until sometime in early 2012, several months after the November 12, 2011 deadline. During this time, Respondent sent numerous pieces of correspondence that Petitioner characterized as “harassing” and “threatening,” regarding enforcement of the condominium?s covenants and rules. Alsberg finally vacated the Unit after Respondent sent a “final notice” letter. Currently, Alsberg is residing in an apartment approximately four blocks from Petitioner?s apartment and is serving as her caretaker. Koble testified that he was sympathetic to Petitioner?s circumstances, but it was imperative that Respondent consistently enforce the restrictive covenants for the benefit of all unit owners. Koble noted that other unit owners also wanted to allow unauthorized guests to live in their units, and that if Respondent relaxed enforcement of the covenant for Petitioner, it would be forced to do so for others. The undersigned credits this testimony. Koble also testified, credibly, that if Petitioner were residing in her unit, Respondent would have granted an accommodation of the covenant to allow Alsberg to live there for the purpose of serving as her caretaker.6/ The evidence establishes that Petitioner did not request any accommodation from Respondent that was necessary for her equal opportunity to use and enjoy the Unit; rather, the purpose of Petitioner?s request that Respondent not enforce the restrictive covenant against her was to enable her nephew to live in the Unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding no unlawful discrimination by Respondent and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2012, 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 29th day of May, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Assad F. Malaty, discriminated against Petitioners, Dr. James E. Townsend and his niece, Contessa Idleburg (formerly, Ms. Rogers), in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act and, if so, the appropriate remedy therefor.
Findings Of Fact Based on the weight of the credible evidence, Dr. Townsend has a qualifying handicap under the FFHA. He suffered a stroke in May 2014, upon which the requested modifications and accommodations were based. The stroke substantially limited one or more major life activities, given his need for using a wheelchair and walker. § 760.22(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Mr. Malaty conceded as much at the hearing.3/ Based on the weight of the credible evidence, Ms. Idleburg has a qualifying handicap under the FFHA. She has a shunt to drain fluid from her brain, has received Supplemental Social Security Income since at least 2014, and also has used a walker. That said, the evidence is undisputed that Petitioners requested the modifications and accommodations solely to assist Dr. Townsend after he suffered the stroke. Thus, Ms. Idleburg’s handicap is not relevant to the claims at issue. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, Petitioners informed Mr. Malaty in May 2014 that Dr. Townsend suffered a stroke and requested that he make several modifications to the Unit, including handrails in the bathroom, and handrails and a ramp at the front door, and to accommodate them by assigning them a parking spot outside the Unit. There is no dispute that the requested modifications and accommodation were never made. Importantly, however, the evidence does not establish that Petitioners’ renewed those requests again before they filed complaints with the Department of Justice in late 2016 and HUD in early 2017.4/ Although Dr. Townsend reminded Mr. Malaty in a December 2016 letter that he had failed to make the requested the modifications, the undersigned finds that letter to be more in the nature of a response to Mr. Malaty’s threat of eviction rather than a renewed request to accommodate them. The weight of the credible evidence also confirms that Petitioners never offered to pay for the handrails, ramp, or signage for the requested parking spot. Indeed, Dr. Townsend testified that he believed Mr. Malaty was responsible for making such modifications as the owner of the Unit. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the undersigned finds that Mr. Malaty did not evict Petitioners because of their handicaps or their requests for modifications or an accommodation. Mr. Malaty initially threatened to evict them for failing to pay rent in January 2013, reducing their rent in September and December 2016, and failing to take care of the lawn as required in the lease. It had been three years since Petitioners requested the modifications and accommodation due to Dr. Townsend’s stroke and they did not re-raise those issues again until after Mr. Malaty threatened to evict them for failing to pay the rent. The evidence also is clear that Petitioners could have avoided eviction by paying the missed rent by December 29, 2016. But, they failed to do so and then did not pay their rent in January 2017, which ultimately led to Mr. Malaty filing the eviction action.
Conclusions For Petitioners: James E. Townsend, Sr., pro se Contessa Idleburg, pro se Apartment 2101 140 Aida Street Lakeland, Florida 33805 For Respondent: Charlann Jackson Sanders, Esquire Law Office of Charlann Jackson Sanders 2225 East Edgewood Drive, Suite 8 Lakeland, Florida 33803
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioners’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO 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 19th day of December, 2019.
