Findings Of Fact By application dated September 10, 1987, petitioner, John K. Whitaker, III, sought licensure as a real estate salesman by examination with respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). The application was received by the Division on September 14, 1987. Question six on the application requires the applicant to state whether he or she "has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Petitioner gave the following response: Yes. DUI and DWI 1981 and 1982. Upon further investigation by the Division, it learned that Whitaker had been arrested for a DUI in 1982 and that no arrest had occurred in 1981. However, it also learned that Whitaker had been arrested for the following incidents: March 17, 1984 - Arrest for resisting police officer with violence. April 17, 1984 - Arrest for forgery - possession of forged or altered driver's license August 31, 1984 - Burglary of a dwelling; adjudication withheld. August 31, 1984 - Grand larceny; adjudication withheld. August 31, 1984 - Arson; adjudication withheld. Armed with this new information, respondent advised petitioner by letter dated December 2, 1987 that his application had been denied. This decision was later reaffirmed by letter dated February 4, 1988 and cited respondent's "criminal record" as the basis for the agency's denial. That prompted this proceeding. Petitioner, who is now twenty-nine years old, is a December, 1982 graduate of Florida State University with a degree in economics. After graduation, he worked eight months as a stockbroker for Alan Bush Brokerage Company in West Palm Beach, Florida. In 1983 petitioner began receiving medical treatment for what he thought was depression. As a part of the treatment, he took an antidepressant drug. He later learned he had a manic-depressive condition, a more serious mental illness, and the antidepressant medication was actually aggravating this condition. Before his real illness was discovered, Whitaker experienced manic episodes which were manifested by grandiose ideas, slurred speech and extremely poor judgment. As a result, Whitaker was arrested in 1984 for the series of incidents enumerated in finding of fact 3. The first two charges were dismissed while adjudication of guilt was withheld as to the remaining three charges. For those latter charges, Whitaker was placed on five years' probation, or to and including August, 1989. Whitaker stated he did not intend to lie about these matters and did not list the 1984 arrests on his application because he thought that if a charge was dropped, or adjudication of guilt withheld, he did not have to disclose the matter. Since having his illness properly diagnosed in 1984, Whitaker has taken medication (lithium) to prevent the recurrence of the symptoms and sees a physician at least once a month. He must remain on medication for the rest of his life in order to control the illness. With the exception of one flare-up about a year ago, his condition has stabilized. After his arrests in 1984, Whitaker was hospitalized for a period of time and then moved into a halfway house. He now lives in his own apartment. He has held several jobs, including a food service job in a West Palm Beach hospital and a timeshare unit salesman for his uncle in California. Presently, he is employed in a public relations capacity for a consumer club in West Palm Beach. He eventually wants to enter the real estate business, and for this reason, desires a license. Because his mother is a broker-realtor in Palm Beach Gardens, he expects no difficulty in obtaining a real estate position. Petitioner presented the testimony of his mother, a retired business executive and a family friend who is also a real estate salesman. The mother described the nature of petitioner's illness while the retired executive recalled petitioner as having "industrious," self-motivating" and "honest" characteristics and being a terrific salesman. The family friend described petitioner's present conduct to be normal now that he had controlled his illness. Finally, a number of letters were offered by various local businessmen, including one from a professional golfer and businessman (Jack Nicklaus), a physician, a stockbroker and a financial planner. However, all letters predate petitioner's arrests and therefore are irrelevant to the issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of John K. Whitaker for licensure as a real estate salesman by examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of June 1988.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made. At all times material to this case the Respondent, Willie Whittington, was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CG C006966. At all times material to this case the Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for Whittington & Sons Builders, Inc. On May 15, 1987, Edwin W. Brown and Sandra J. Brown, husband and wife, contacted Respondent, in response to Respondent's advertising, to discuss the construction of a log house and an outbuilding on a lot owned by the Browns in Palm Beach County, Florida. The outbuilding was to be used as a combination garage and barn. During this initial meeting, the Browns described the project to Respondent. At the conclusion of the meeting on May 15, 1987, the Browns gave Respondent a $2,000.00 deposit to get started on the project. Respondent was to use that deposit to have plans drawn for the two buildings and to secure the necessary building permits. On June 23, 1987, Whittington & Sons Builders, Inc. entered into two contracts with the Browns, one for the house and the other for the outbuilding. Respondent signed both contracts on behalf of Whittington & Sons Builders, Inc. Both contracts were clear and unambiguous as to the work that was to be performed, as to the price that was to be paid for the work, and as to the schedules by which the construction draws would be made. The price for the house was set at $73,506.00. The price of the outbuilding was set at $11,665.00. Both contracts provided that construction would be completed within 130 days. On June 23, 1987, the Browns paid to Respondent the sum of $6,871.60 as required by the two contracts. Sandra Brown began keeping a log of her contacts with Respondent as of August 4, 1987, because she had experienced difficulty reaching Respondent by telephone and because no progress was being made on the project. Around August 4, 1987, Respondent told the Browns that he needed an additional $175.00 to pay to the architect to complete the plans. Because this was not provided for by their contracts, the Browns refused Respondent's request for this additional sum of money. On August 7, 1987, the Browns paid to Respondent the sum of $3,822.90 that Respondent was to use to order the logs. The building permits were not obtained until October 9, 1987. The permits were not obtained earlier than that date because Respondent did not diligently pursue his obligation to get the permits. As of early November 1987, the only work that had been done was the preparation of the lot for the foundation. On November 7, 1987, Respondent requested that the Browns advance him $5,000.00 so he could proceed with the construction. Respondent was financially unable to proceed because the Internal Revenue Service had garnished the account in which Respondent had placed the Browns' deposits. The Browns refused to advance Respondent this additional sum of money, but they remained willing to pay Respondent according to the draw schedules of the contracts. In December 1987 the Browns received a notice to owner form from Rinker Materials. In response to this notice, the Browns paid to Rinker Materials the sum of $2,664.77 and asked that no further materials be delivered on a credit basis to the job site. The Browns received a release of lien from Rinker Materials on December 28, 1987, for the materials Respondent had previously ordered on credit. In the middle of December 1987, the Browns learned that Respondent had neither ordered the logs for the construction nor determined the quantity of logs that would be required. On or about December 18, 1987, the foundation for the house was poured. Little work was done on the project between that date and January 4, 1988, the date Respondent told the Browns that his back was hurt and he could not work. The Browns filed a written complaint with the Palm Beach County Contractors Certification Board on January 8, 1988. As of January 13, 1988, Respondent was unable to account for the funds the Browns had deposited with him. At a meeting on January 19, 1988, among Respondent, the Browns, and a representative of Palm Beach County Contractors Certification Board, Respondent agreed to furnish receipts and an accounting of the construction funds by the next meeting on January 27, 1988. Respondent also agreed, during the meeting of January 19, 1988, to perform certain work on the project before the next meeting. At the next meeting, Respondent did not provide the Browns with receipts or with an accounting of the construction funds. Instead Respondent submitted a non-itemized bill in the amount of $18,131.20 for labor and materials supposedly expended by Respondent through January 27, 1988. The Browns refused to pay this bill. Respondent had worked only approximately 16 hours on the project between January 19 and January 27 and had not completed the additional work he had promised to have done January 27, 1988. The Browns fired Respondent and his company on January 27, 1988. At that time, Respondent had completed approximately 10% of the project `whereas it should have been approximately 60-70% completed. The delays by Respondent throughout his association with this project were not justified. After the Browns fired Respondent, they were forced to pay a materialman, MacMichael Lumber Company, to prevent the foreclosure of a lien against the property. This lien resulted because Respondent did not pay for certain materials he had ordered on credit before the Browns fired him. On February 4, 1988, Respondent agreed to repay the Browns the sum of $4,200.00. As of the date of the final hearing, Respondent owed the Browns $1,400.00. A subsequent contractor completed the project without undue delay in June 1988 for an additional $74,000. This price reflects changes the Browns made after the subsequent contractor began his work. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. The Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner against Respondent alleges, in pertinent part, the following: Respondent failed to perform in a reasonably timely manner, and or abandoned said job(s), in violation of 489.129(1)(m),(k). There was financial mismanagement and/or misconduct in connection with this matter, attributable either to Respondent directly, or to Respondent's failure to properly supervise, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(h) & (m), as generally exhibited by, but not limited to, the following: Subject double billed Customer on several occasions; failure to pay subcontractors and suppliers; and failure to buy materials. There was no allegation in the Administrative Complaint or evidence presented at hearing that Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary action. Respondent has been licensed as a certified general contractor by the State of Florida since 1973. Following receipt of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent denied the violations and timely requested a formal administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes and which imposes a fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,500 for such violation and which further finds Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes and which imposes a fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,500 for such violation so that the total fine to be imposed against Respondent is $3,000. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-0743 The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are addressed as follows. Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 27. Addressed in paragraph 3. 4-5. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraph 6. Rejected as being unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 9. Rejected as being subordinate to the conclusions reached. Addressed in paragraph 10. 14-15. Rejected as being subordinate to the conclusions reached. Addressed in paragraph 12. Addressed in paragraph 17. Rejected as being unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in paragraph 14. Addressed in paragraph 15. Addressed in paragraph 15. Addressed in paragraph 16. 22-26. Rejected as being subordinate to the conclusions reached. Addressed in paragraph 17. Addressed in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 23. Rejected as being subordinate to the conclusions reached. Addressed in paragraph 24. Rejected as being subordinate to the conclusions reached. Addressed in paragraph 22. 34-35. Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Willie Whittington 342 Walker Street Greenacres City, Florida 34974 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At the time of final hearing the Respondent, Myron Lewis, was the holder of State Certified General Contractor's Licenses as follows: Myron Lewis d/b/a Interior Concepts of Palm Beach, Number CG C005282; Myron Lewis d/b/a Whitten Corporation South, Number CG CA05282; and Myron Lewis d/b/a Custom Pools of the Palm Beaches, Inc. Number CG CB05282. Respondent was engaged in the business of building swimming pools in the Palm Beach area. In connection with that business the Respondent entered into contracts for the construction of pools with several individuals, including the following: James Riley; Michael Belmonti; Walter Beasley; Jose Dorribo; Gerald Gottner; James Overton; and Ronald Malcolm. With regard to the first six names listed above, Respondent had failed to complete the pool and perform according to the contract and, apparently, abandoned the project after accepting a major portion of the contract price agreed upon. With regard to the seventh name listed above, Respondent accepted an initial deposit of $680.00 for construction of a swimming pool but never performed any work and did not return the deposit. Some efforts were made by the Respondent to settle each of the claims against him and to that end there was submitted into evidence general releases from Malcolm, Riley and Belmonti each reciting that the general release was a settlement and compromise of disputed claims and that the payments are not to be construed as admission of liability on the part of Custom Pools of the Palm Beaches, Inc. and/or Myron Lewis. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3) With regard to the projects set forth in Paragraph 2 above, Respondent apparently terminated because of financial difficulties he and his company were in, none of which was the fault or responsibility of the persons for whom Respondent had contracted to build pools. More than ninety days had elapsed from the time of termination of the project by Respondent and this final hearing. All of these projects occurred prior to 1978. The Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board, by action taken on January 23, 1978, suspended Respondent's license until further notice. That suspension was the result of the termination of the projects set forth above. The evidence presented indicates that an unspecified amount of money paid Respondent for the construction of specific pools was actually used for other obligations of Respondent and such funds were not used for the prosecution or completion of the project for which they were paid.
Findings Of Fact A Backdrop to the Charges At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Tom F. Brewer, was a teacher at Crestwood Middle School (CMS) in Royal Palm Beach, Florida. He is employed by petitioner, The School Board of Palm Beach County (Board). Respondent, who is now fifty-four years old, is certified as a middle school teacher with a specialty in the area of mathematics. He has taught in the Palm Beach County school system since August, 1973 and has consistently received satisfactory evaluations. Most recently, he was assigned to CMS to teach mathematics to seventh and eighth graders. Since CMS is ten miles from his home, Brewer left for work each school day around 7:50 a.m. and returned around 4:20 p.m. In addition, until September, 1985 he spent two weekends a month at National Guard drills where he was the unit first sergeant. From November, 1982 until March, 1984 he worked on his other weekends as a security guard at a local country club. Forest Estates Drive in West Palm Beach, Florida is the focal point of this proceeding. In November, 1978 respondent moved into a home in the 300 block on Forest Estates Drive. Other residents on the street at that time were James H. Williams, Sandra Cownden and her daughter, Tina Luciano (Tina), Margaret Hill and her daughter and stepdaughter, Robin Mahoney (Robin) and Kim McKenna (Kim), and Hilda Barrett. Shortly after Brewer moved into the neighborhood, the Pecks moved in next door. Mr. Peck is a uniformed deputy sheriff with a marked patrol car. In 1982, Helen Happ moved with her family into a home on the same block. In 1985, Stephen Erickson moved into the home previously occupied by Hilda Barrett and which was directly across the street from Brewer. All of the above neighbors testified at final hearing or gave deposition testimony and are a part of this neighborhood drama. Some lived there only part of the time since 1978 while a few were neighbors for the entire nine year period. Respondent is divorced and lives by himself at his home on Forest Estates Drive. He has three grown children, a girl and two boys, living in the West Palm Beach area. The children, who are now 28, 26 and 25 years of age, regularly visited Brewer several times a week during the years in question. As might be expected, Brewer became reasonably acquainted with all of his neighbors since moving to Forest Estates Drive almost ten years ago. They became aware of the fact that he was a school teacher. The principal prosecution witness is Tina, who lived with her divorced mother two houses away from Brewer. Tina, who was born on March 16, 1969, was not bashful or shy, and at the age of nine, began going to Brewer's house when he first moved in the neighborhood. As she frequently did with other neighbors, Tina asked Brewer for money and favors. Brewer responded by giving Tina odd jobs to do around his house such as washing his car, mowing the yard or cleaning windows. Therefore, over the years it was not unusual to see Tina going to and from Brewer's house. As she grew older, Tina began using Brewer's telephone to call friends and to watch Brewer's widescreen television set which was wired for cable. It should be noted here that Tina has a reputation as being an untruthful person. Against this backdrop, respondent was arrested by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office in March, 1987 for contributing to the delinquency of a seventeen year old minor (Tina), a misdemeanor charge. He was subsequently acquitted after a three day jury trial in March, 1988. After learning that respondent had been arrested, the Board suspended Brewer without pay on November 17, 1987. This action was formalized by a petition for dismissal issued on December 3, 1987. Respondent has remained suspended without pay pending the outcome of this proceeding. As amended, the petition for dismissal alleges that on January 1, 1987 respondent "allowed two females, then 16 and 17 years old, to visit him at his home," that he "supplied and/or permitted the females to consume liquor in his home," and that he "requested and received back rubs from both females and requested sex from the 16 year old." In addition, the amended petition charges that respondent allowed "other males and females in the neighborhood" to visit his home "on a regular basis for the past nine (9) years" and "to drink alcohol in his presence," and that he "regularly loaned money to the neighborhood children and gave them rides to various locations in the vicinity," all without the knowledge or consent of the parents. Finally, it is alleged that in June, 1987 respondent "used profanity in the presence of a minor . . . and engaged in other inappropriate conversation." These allegations will be examined separately hereinafter in the order in which they are raised in the petition. The Criminal Arrest and Attendant Notoriety In March, 1987 respondent was arrested and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor. The charges stemmed from an incident that allegedly occurred on January 1, 1987 at Brewer's home and involved Tina, then seventeen years old, and her sixteen year old friend, Angie. After school resumed in January, 1987 Brewer reported to his principal that he was involved in a "run in with the law" on New Year's Day. This information was conveyed to the deputy Superintendent who advised that no action should be taken until "something official happened." For some reason, the school either failed to learn of Brewer's arrest in March or did nothing at that time. In any event, the arrest was eventually reported in articles published in a local newspaper on November 8 and 19, 1987. Brewer's three day trial in March, 1988 received even more widespread newspaper and television coverage. After the articles appeared in the local newspaper in November, 1987, the superintendent of schools was contacted by one parent whose child was a student in respondent's classroom. Other than this one contact, the Superintendent had no other personal knowledge of any parent concern over respondent's arrest. However, based upon his review of the matter, and having assumed the charges herein to be true, the superintendent concluded that the resulting notoriety attendant to respondent's arrest impaired his effectiveness as a teacher. He further opined that respondent is now vulnerable to accusations of similar improper behavior in the future, and he believes that parents would object if respondent was reassigned to the classroom. Also believing the charges to be true, several neighbors reported that they were concerned with respondent's behavior, and they did not wish their children to be around him. Finally, after the arrest became public, one witness in this proceeding was contacted by several CMS students inquiring about the charges. The January 1, 1987 Incident Angela (Angie) is a girlfriend of Tina who had just turned sixteen on December 18, 1986. At that time she was enrolled as a student at a local high school but was not attending classes. She was also on probation for burglary and grand theft and has a reputation of being an untruthful person. She stayed overnight with Tina on December 31, 1986 to celebrate the holiday, and the two spent New Year's Eve partying with friends until dawn. During the course of the evening Angela consumed a great deal of whiskey and got very drunk. The whiskey was bought for Angie by an undisclosed third party. On January 1, 1987 Tina and Angie spent most of the day at Tina's house with Tina's mother and grandparents. Around 5:00 or 5:30 p.m., the two went to Brewer's house so that Tina could use his telephone to call her boyfriend, Matt. Angie, who was recuperating from a substantial hangover, just wanted to stretch out on Brewer's couch. They found Brewer watching the football bowl games on television. Tina made several calls, including one to Matt, and another to Tommy, who had just broken up with Angie. After the calls were completed, Tina returned to her house to eat dinner. Angie remained on Brewer's couch, still nursing her hangover. After finishing her meal, Tina returned to Brewer's house. Angie then departed to Tina's house to shower and change clothes. Tina also returned to her home a short while later to see what was taking Angie so long. The two eventually returned to Brewer's house around 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. Tina then asked Brewer for a ride to pick up Matt and bring him back to her house. Brewer agreed and the two left leaving Angie watching television. When Tina, Brewer and Matt returned to Brewer's house around 8:00 p.m., they found Angie gone. According to Tina's mother, Angie returned to Tina's house while Tina and Brewer were gone and had left with two male friends. Not knowing this, Tina and Matt left Brewer's house to find Angie but returned about twenty minutes later, by now Brewer's twenty-six year old son, Chuck, had arrived to watch the Orange Bowl football game with his father. A while later, two male friends of Matt showed up at the doorstep and were invited in to watch television. Tina, Matt and his two friends stayed for about 45 minutes watching the football game and then left. Around 10:30 p.m. that evening, a disturbance occurred in the street in front of Tina's house. Brewer's next door neighbor, George Peck, III, who happens to be a uniformed deputy sheriff, observed a girl "screaming and crying" in the middle of the street. The girl (Angie) was with a young man. When the two would not tell him what was the matter, the deputy told the two to leave the neighborhood. In contrast to the testimony of both Tina and Angie that Angie was intoxicated that evening, the deputy did not detect any odor of alcohol on Angie's breath and she did not appear to be intoxicated. Further, the deputy's testimony that the above event occurred around 10:30 p.m. is accepted as being more credible than Angie's testimony that Peck spoke with her some two and one- half hours earlier. Another disturbance occurred in front of Tina's house around midnight involving Tina, Angie and several male teenagers. The police were called and an investigation was begun. As a result of accusations by Tina and Angie, Brewer was later arrested and charged with contributing to Tina's delinquency. At no time during the day or evening of January 1, 1987 did Brewer offer or furnish alcoholic beverages to Tina and Angela nor did the two girls consume alcoholic beverages at his home. He did not ask the girls to give him a back rub, engage in a sexual activity or make any improper overtures towards the girls. Testimony by Tina and Angela to the contrary is rejected as not being credible. Neighborhood Saint or Sinner? The amended complaint alleges that Tina, "along with other males and females in the neighborhood, under the age of 18, have visited Respondent at his home on a regular basis for the past nine (9) years," and that such minors were unchaperoned and consumed alcoholic beverages in his home. As to this allegation, the Board has stipulated that none of the minors were students from Crestwood Middle School. There were numerous confirmed visits by Tina to Brewer's house over the years. She was accompanied on several visits by Robin, who once lived on the street and later lived with Tina for a short time in 1984, and by Angie. In addition, Tina would sometimes bring a boyfriend or another girlfriend, including Theresa, Diane or Kim, who either lived for brief periods of time with Tina or who happened to be in the neighborhood to visit her. Neighbors on the street observed Tina and other similarly aged females visiting Brewer's house from time to time. Except for Robin, the neighbors could not identify the girls and were nonspecific as to the dates and frequency of such visits. None of the neighbors knew the purpose of the visits or what occurred once the visitors entered his home. Most did not know if the guest might be Brewer's daughter, a teenager during part of this period, and who visited him several times a week. While they suspected sinister motives on the part of Brewer, none had any proof of this. There is no competent, credible evidence that Brewer ever furnished alcoholic beverages to minors or allowed them to consume the same at his house. At hearing both Angie and Tina claimed that Brewer often either purchased beer for or gave it to their friend, Rob. However, this assertion was denied by Rob, and his testimony is deemed to be the most credible. Angie claimed that during the last few months of 1986 Brewer would frequently furnish her and Tina with wine coolers or beer. However, she later testified that, except for the January 1, 1987 incident, she never drank an alcoholic beverage at Brewer's home. Her testimony is not deemed to be credible. There was further testimony by neighbor Erickson that he saw a girl (who he did not know) leaving Brewer's house one day during the summer of 1986 carrying what he thought was a can of beer. He thought the girl carrying the can was accompanied by Tina. Erickson also occasionally saw persons of Tina's age leaving Brewer's house carrying brown paper bags. He did not know what the bags contained. Neighbor Barrett reported that in 1978, when she was thirteen, she frequently saw Tina and Robin, then nine years old or so, with sacks of beer and cigarettes after leaving Brewer's house. This testimony is rejected as being incredible. Neighbor Happ reported seeing Tina and a friend leaving Brewer's house around 7:30 a.m. one day and assumed they had spent the night. However, other testimony revealed that the two had actually spent the night at Tina's home before going to Brewer's house that morning. All other testimony in favor of the allegation has either been rejected as not being credible or has been disregarded since it is based solely on hearsay and rumor. Robin is one year older than Tina and once lived in Forest Estates Drive. She also lived with Tina for a few months in 1984. To avoid honoring a subpoena compelling her attendance at this hearing, Robin temporarily left the State of Florida. However, over objection of respondent, her deposition was received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 5. According to Robin's deposition, she and Tina visited Brewer's home when Robin was around fourteen or fifteen years of age and would drink beer given to them by Brewer. Claiming a lack of recollection, she was unable to give any other details concerning these incidents. Other allegations made by Robin were even more vague and distant. Tina's mother stated that around midnight one evening in 1985 she drove her car to Brewer's house (two doors away) to pick up Robin. Robin's statement as to why she needed a ride is either irrelevant to the charges or discredited. Robin's testimony was contradicted by Brewer who acknowledged that Robin and Tina came over a number of times in 1984 when Robin lived with Tina but only to watch cable TV. This testimony is accepted as being the most credible. It is accordingly found that at no time did Brewer ever offer or furnish alcoholic beverages to Robin or allow her to bring them into his home for consumption. Tina's many visits to Brewer's home are confirmed in the record. Indeed, she regularly visited Brewer's house from the time he moved into the neighborhood in 1978 through 1986. While Tina's mother permitted Tina and her friends to drink in her own home, testimony by Tina that she occasionally drank a beer or wine cooler at Brewer's home is rejected as not being credible. Giving Money and Rides to Neighborhood Children It is alleged that Brewer "regularly loaned money to the neighborhood children and gave them rides to various locations in the vicinity." Much of the testimony relating to this allegation comes from Tina who had a reputation for approaching any and all neighbors for "loans" or "rides." Indeed, practically every neighbor was aware of Tina's habits, and each had been approached by her for favors at one time or another. The other "neighborhood children" are not identified in the petition, but Brewer acknowledged that he occasionally transported not only Tina but also some of her friends. Except for Brewer's voluntary admission that he gave approximately $20 to Kim, a friend of Tina, during the last year, there is no evidence of any other "neighborhood children" receiving loans from Brewer. As to Kim, she is not a resident of the neighborhood, and her age and address are unknown. Brewer readily acknowledged that during recent years, he occasionally gave Tina a few dollars and bought her meals since he felt sorry for her, and she always appeared to be hungry and broke. Prior to that, he had also given her money for odd jobs around his house. He readily acknowledged that he gave her rides to or from various places since she had no transportation. This was because her mother refused to provide transportation once she dropped out of school. There were no sinister motives in providing this assistance since he thought of her as a daughter who had a very troubled childhood. Finally, while the mothers of both Tina and Robin disapproved of Brewer and instructed their daughters not to see him, they knew what Brewer was doing but never personally told Brewer to stop allowing their daughters into his home or, in the case of Tina, to stop giving her rides or occasional financial assistance. Using Profanity in the Presence of a Minor The amended complaint alleges that Brewer used profanity in the presence of a minor and engaged in "other inappropriate conversation." This charge stems from a visit by Tina to Brewer's home in June, 1987. Tina admitted that Brewer never used profanity in her presence prior to that visit. However, by June 25, 1987 Brewer had been charged with a misdemeanor and was extremely upset at Tina, who was responsible in part for police filing charges against him after the January 1, 1987 On incident. June 25 Tina briefly visited Brewer's home where the two discussed the criminal charges. Tina was told by Brewer that their conversation was being taped. A transcription of the conversation has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 4. Brewer proceeded to question Tina about the January 1 incident. During the course of the conversation Brewer used the words "bullshit," "dammit," "damn," and "shit." However, Tina was then an adult (eighteen years of age) and was not a student since, according to her mother, she had not "officially" attended school since she was thirteen. Miscellaneous Despite Tina's continued truancy from school, Brewer attempted to persuade Tina to stay in school and to obtain an education. However, if he spoke with her for any length of time on this subject, she would simply leave the room. She ignored all of his advice. Tina was observed driving Brewer's car around the block on one occasion when she was fifteen years old which was prior to her receiving a driver's license. However, it was done without Brewer's knowledge and consent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended petition for dismissal filed against respondent be dismissed, with prejudice, and that respondent be reinstated retroactive to November 17, 1987 with all attendant back pay. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 5th day of July, 1988.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's real estate license #0067819 should be suspended, or whether he should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jeffry G. Pearl, is a registered real estate salesman and was so registered at all times pertinent to this hearing. An Administrative Complaint was issued against him on June 27, 1979. An answer was filed on July 30, 1979, together with a Motion to Quash and a request for an administrative hearing. The Petitioner Commission forwarded the request to the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 7, 1979. The Motion to Quash was denied September 13, 1979, after review of the Memorandum of Law submitted. Prior to the beginning of the formal hearing, the Respondent re-argued the Motion to Quash, challenging inter alia the constitutionality of the statute under which the complaint was issued. The Motion was again denied. Count II of the previously filed Administrative Complaint was dropped upon an oral motion to amend by the petitioner Commission. On September 15, 1978, Respondent Pearl was arrested and charged with possession of controlled drugs, driving under the influence, and possession with intent to distribute, contrary to Sections 893.13 and 316.193, Florida Statutes. Respondent pleaded guilty on February 9, 1979, to possession of controlled substances [three (3) counts] and was convicted of the offenses on that date. The imposition of sentence was stayed and withheld, and he was placed on probation and released into the custody of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation for a term of five (5) years. The condition of probation was that he pay a fine of $5,000.00. The Respondent is now and has been on probation since February 9, 1979, and is subject to terms and conditions "to be set forth by further order of the court." Respondent Pearl admitted that on September 15, 1978, he was driving in Miami, Florida, and was arrested while under the influence of drugs. A large amount of cash and drugs was found in his automobile. The Respondent admitted that he had been addicted to drugs of all types, including marijuana and cocaine. After his arrest Respondent was imprisoned, but before his case came to trial he entered a hospital in Miami, Florida, and thereafter went to the Palm Beach Institute, a treatment center aligned with Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. He was discharged from the Palm Beach Institute in January of 1979, and has continued treatment on an outpatient basis. The Respondent stated that he has been drug-free since January of 1979, and that he started back to work with Miami Beach Realty on a full-time basis in April of 1979. Respondent Pearl presented as a witness Dr. Jose Almedia, a physician specializing in psychiatry. Dr. Almedia stated that the Respondent had not taken drugs of any kind to his knowledge from October of 1978, to September of 1979. He said that the Respondent is at present mentally clear, pleased with himself and his family, and that he is a completely different person from the time he first saw him in 1978. Dr. Almedia said that he believes the Respondent has turned his life around, and that since he has a job and goals the Respondent now has something for which to look forward. A second witness for Respondent Pearl was Melvin Black, an attorney specializing in criminal law. Mr. Black stated that the Respondent had originally been incarcerated for about a week, and that after he, as Respondent's attorney, had obtained a bond for the Respondent he became concerned not only with the criminal charges against the Respondent but also with his well-being. Black advised the presiding judge that Respondent Pearl was undergoing treatment, that he had voluntarily admitted himself for treatment, and the circuit judge had postponed the proceedings pending the completion of the treatment. Thereafter, about five (5) months later, a plea of guilty to the three (3) counts of possession of drugs was entered. Charges as to driving under the influence and possession with intent to distribute were not pressed. The probationary sentence and fine were the results of Respondent Pearl's conviction on the charges to which he had pleaded guilty. Certified copies of said conviction were entered into evidence. Respondent submitted a memorandum of law on December 7, 1979. The memorandum has been considered in the writing of this order. No memorandum was submitted by the Petitioner Board.
Recommendation Inasmuch as the Respondent, Jeffry G. Pearl, has embarked on a strenuous period of rehabilitation and appears to be successful at this point in time, it is recommended that his license be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this order, and that after the expiration of said suspension an investigation be made by the Petitioner Commission to determine whether such suspension should be extended. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Grimes, Esquire Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Scott T. Eber, Esquire 151 South East 14th Terrace Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue Whether Petitioner was subject to unlawful discrimination by Respondents in retaliation for exercising her rights under the Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes (2015).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Stacey Jern, is a former resident of a condominium development located in Titusville, Florida, which will be referred to herein as Camelot. At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner identified herself as residing in Kirkwood, Illinois. Respondent, Camelot Residence’s Association, Inc. (the Association), is an entity created by the developer and/or owners of property in Camelot. The Association is governed by a Board of Directors (Board) and has recorded covenants governing use of the property by current and future residents. Respondent, Charlie Kane, was at all times relevant hereto, the Association manager. Respondent, Greg Hunnicutt, was at all times relevant hereto, President of the Association. In 2013, while a tenant in Camelot, Petitioner filed a complaint with the FCHR alleging the Association discriminated against her on the basis of her disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (2013 Complaint). As to her disability, Petitioner testified that she has post-traumatic stress syndrome and anxiety disorder.2/ The 2013 Complaint was resolved by a No Cause determination issued by the FCHR in 2014. Petitioner did not exercise her right to an administrative hearing following the No Cause determination on the 2013 Complaint. Shortly after issuance of the No Cause determination, Petitioner left Camelot and moved out of state. While out of state, Petitioner reconnected with a friend, Brittany Walker, who was living with her grandfather in Melbourne, Florida. Ms. Walker was expecting a baby and wished to move out of her grandfather’s house. Petitioner and Ms. Walker planned to find a place to live together in Florida. Petitioner was going to provide child care for Ms. Walker’s baby. In 2015, Petitioner returned to Titusville, Florida. Petitioner needed a place to stay while searching for a rental to accommodate herself, Ms. Walker, and the baby. On or about January 5, 2015, Petitioner came to visit her friend Marcus Murillo, who was a tenant in Camelot. Mr. Murillo leased a one-bedroom unit. Petitioner brought very little personal property other than clothing with her to Mr. Murillo’s unit. Petitioner intended to stay only briefly. Petitioner did not apply to rent any property in Camelot, and upon questioning by the undersigned, emphatically denied any intent to lease property or reside in Camelot. Petitioner was not a resident of Camelot and did not intend to become a resident of Camelot. At all times pertinent hereto, Petitioner was Mr. Murillo’s guest. Mr. Murillo’s unit was not Petitioner’s residence. Mr. Murillo’s one-bedroom condominium unit was owned by Respondent, Greg Hunnicutt. Mr. Hunnicutt had knowledge of Petitioner’s 2013 Complaint against the Association. By all accounts, Petitioner had a hostile relationship with Mr. Hunnicutt when she was a tenant in Camelot. No details regarding the nature of the hostility were introduced in evidence. Mr. Kane became aware of Petitioner’s presence in Camelot by an unidentified “neighborhood watch volunteer” who so informed Mr. Kane. Mr. Kane contacted Mr. Hunnicutt and informed him that Petitioner was staying in Mr. Murillo’s unit. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hunnicutt called Mr. Murillo. Mr. Murillo testified that Mr. Hunnicutt inquired whether Petitioner was staying with him, and, when Mr. Murillo confirmed that fact, Mr. Hunnicutt told him Petitioner had to leave. Mr. Murillo testified that Mr. Hunnicutt stated something to the effect that Petitioner was “not the kind of person we need in Camelot.” Further, Mr. Murillo testified that Mr. Hunnicutt said to him “if you don’t like it, you can leave with her.” Petitioner left Camelot shortly thereafter. The Association did not hold a Board meeting in January 2015. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that Mr. Hunnicutt’s actions were taken at the direction of the Association, or that any member of the Board was aware of Mr. Hunnicutt’s request that Petitioner leave Camelot. Petitioner alleges that she incurred monetary damages because she was asked to leave Camelot before she had secured another place to rent. Petitioner seeks $15,432.00 in “actual monetary damages.”3/ Petitioner’s mother is a resident of Camelot. Petitioner also seeks an order prohibiting Respondents from harassing her should Petitioner visit her mother in the future.
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. 2015H0270. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Suzanne Van Wyk Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSotoBuilding 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) properly dismissed this matter for lack of jurisdiction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as a first-time home buyer, applied for and was pre-approved by Cendant Mortgage Corporation d/b/a/ Century 21 Mortgage for a mortgage loan. The loan, in the amount of $28,687.00, was to be insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). In February 2003, Respondent agreed to sell Petitioner his home. They agreed that Petitioner would pay Respondent $29,000.00 for the house. Respondent subsequently stated in writing that he agreed to sell his house to Petitioner for that amount. On March 5, 2003, Petitioner signed a form entitled No Brokerage Relationship Disclosure. The form made it clear that Century 21 Prime Property Resources, Inc., a local real estate agency, and its associates did not have a brokerage relationship with Petitioner. There is no evidence that the professional services of a licensed real estate agent was involved at all in this case. However, the local Century 21 real estate office gratuitously sent a few documents on Petitioner's behalf by facsimile transmission to Century 21 Mortgage in New Jersey. Respondent did not use the sales facilities or services of Century 21 for any purpose. On March 7, 2003, Cheryl Barnes, a certified appraiser, completed an appraisal of the property. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and/or FHA required the appraisal in order for Petitioner to receive the loan insured by FHA. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent was required to pay for the appraisal. In a letter dated March 10, 2003, Century 21 Mortgage advised Petitioner that the closing date was scheduled for April 16, 2003. The letter enclosed additional forms that Petitioner needed to complete in order to close the loan. The Housing Department, Division of Planning and Development, in Sumter County, Florida, sent Petitioner a letter dated March 19, 2003. The letter advised Petitioner that she was eligible for an award of Supplemental Household Income Protection funds to cover the down payment and closing costs on the loan. Subsequently, Respondent refused to sign any papers related to the sale of the house. The loan could not be closed without Respondent's cooperation. Petitioner had placed $250 in an escrow account with Century 21 Mortgage. The mortgage broker refunded all of the money in the escrow account to Petitioner after Respondent refused to sign any more paperwork. Finally, there is no evidence of the following: (a) that Respondent owned more than three single-family houses at any one time; (b) that Respondent sold more than one single- family home within any 24-month period; (c) that Respondent had an interest in the proceeds from the sale or rental of more than three single-family houses at any one time; and (d) the sale of the subject house did not involve the posting, mailing, or publication of any written notice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan M. Parker 3840 East County Road 478 Apartment D-30 Webster, Florida 33597 Paul Moore 2396 County Road 608 Bushnell, Florida 33513
The Issue Whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioner in the provision of housing, or services in connection therewith, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (“the Act”).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Pedro Tamayo, suffers from anxiety, depression, memory loss, and complex regional pain syndrome (“RPD”). Respondent, Avtec, is a residential construction contractor, doing business in Palm Bay, Florida. On November 10, 2018, Petitioner executed a Contract for Sale and Purchase (“Contract”) with Avtec to construct a residential structure on property owned by Petitioner on Raleigh Road Southeast in Palm Bay, Florida. The specific floor plan chosen by Petitioner was the Citation 4 Plus. Avtec executed the Contract on November 12, 2018. The Contract covers clearing of property for construction, materials and color selections by the buyer, and the buyer’s right to reverse the floor plan, among other terms. When Petitioner entered into the Contract, he simultaneously chose many of the options available to customize the Citation 4 Plus, such as impact windows, an exterior pedestrian door in the garage, and a front septic system. Among the options Petitioner chose was 36-inch (36”) doors for the master bedroom entrance, closet, and master bathroom entrance. Petitioner has no obvious physical disability and does not require use of a wheelchair or walker. Construction Setback The Contract does not address the construction setbacks from the property lines. Setbacks are governed by local government codes and Avtec is required to follow those codes. On November 30, 2018, Petitioner met with his sales agent, Sean McCarry, at the Avtec showroom, to discuss some of the options he had chosen for his new home. They specifically discussed plumbing issues for the master bathroom, 36” wide doors in the master bedroom, placement of the septic tank, the concrete culverts for the driveway, and a 45-foot (45’) setback of the home from the property line. While the standard setback for a home with a front septic tank is 38’ to 40’, Petitioner indicated he wanted to build an aluminum carport, which required additional setback footage. Respondent Amicucci stepped into the meeting with Petitioner and Mr. McCarry to address Petitioner’s request for mitered ends on the culvert pipe. Mr. Amicucci was not present when Petitioner requested a 45’ setback. Mr. McCarry verbally agreed to “take care of” the setback requested by Petitioner. Petitioner’s selection of 36” doorways for the master bedroom, and a front septic system were reduced to writing and included in the Contract, signed by both parties, as an Option to Sales Agreement. Petitioner executed five addenda to the Contract between November 30, 2018, and May 1, 2019, including optional upgrades and a modification to the design of the sidewalk. On July 23, 2019, Petitioner and Avtec executed a change order to include the mitered ends of the culvert pipe. No part of the Contract, any addenda thereto, or any change order, addresses Petitioner’s request for a 45’ setback. Section 28 of the Contract provides that “NO OTHER AGREEMENTS exist between the BUYER and SELLER except as set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be modified except by an instrument in writing executed by both BUYER and SELLER.” Section 29 of the Contract contains the following statement in red underlined text: No representative of Seller has authority to make any verbal statements that modify or change the terms or conditions of this contract. Buyer represents that buyer has read and understands this entire contract. Buyer also represents that buyer is not relying on any verbal statement, promise, or condition not specifically set forth in this contract. It is acknowledged that builder is relying on these representations and would not enter into this contract without this understanding. Section 20 of the Contract specifically provides, “Once the rough plumbing is installed, absolutely NO CHANGES will be allowed.” Petitioner’s new home was built 40’ from the property line, rather than 45’ as Petitioner requested. Sometime after the rough plumbing was installed and the foundation was poured, Petitioner complained to Avtec that his home was not built with a 45’ setback as promised by Mr. McCarry. On August 22, 2019, Avtec, through its Director of Corporate Development, responded in writing to Petitioner’s complaint. Avtec apologized that the home was not built to the setback he had communicated to Mr. McCarry, and referred to the Contract terms that exclude any verbal agreements. Avtec offered to release Petitioner from his contract, refund his deposit of $6,250, and give Petitioner $30,000 for the property after selling it to another buyer. On November 13, 2019, Petitioner signed a “Final Acceptance of Completion” of the construction of his home. Fill Dirt On March 8, 2019, Petitioner drove by the construction site and noted that the fill dirt being used was “contaminated” with tree branches and other material. He drove to the model home to discuss the issue with Mr. McCarry. Mr. McCarry contacted Mr. Amicucci, who agreed to meet Petitioner at the property to inspect the fill and address Petitioner’s concerns. Petitioner and Mr. Amicucci testified to two very different versions of the events at the construction site that day. Petitioner testified that, when Mr. Amicucci arrived, he got out of his vehicle, visibly upset, and raised his voice and cursed at Petitioner regarding his lack of knowledge of proper fill material. Petitioner testified, specifically that: I feared that [Mr. Amicucci] would physically attack me by his aggressive demeanor and I immediately froze. I could not comprehend how a paying customer could be treated this way by raising concerns for the foundation of my home. I am not a builder. [Mr. Amicucci] simply needed to explain the common practice of standard fill. Since March 8th, 2019, my quality of life has not been the same. I have severe anxiety due to the memories of that day and suffer constant nightmares. I feel as [sic] my life can be in danger and, therefore, live in a state of high alert. My daily life has been disrupted. Simply having to drive by Avtec showroom due to my normal routine routes triggers flashbacks of that day. Mr. Amicucci testified that when he arrived at the property, Petitioner was upset and aggressive toward him, demanding that the fill be removed from his property. Mr. Amicucci reassured Petitioner that the fill was all good soil and that it would be root-raked before it was spread for the foundation. Mr. Amicucci explained the root-raking process and the equipment used therefor. Nevertheless, Petitioner insisted that Mr. Amicucci go with him to another construction site to show him the type of fill he wanted used on his property. Mr. Amicucci accompanied Petitioner to the specific construction site, which was not an Avtec project, and Mr. Amicucci identified the fill being used there as a hard white shell material. Mr. Amicucci assured Petitioner that the brown sandy soil imported to his property would be better for the sod and plants Petitioner would be using to landscape the property. Mr. Amicucci testified that, at the end of the meeting, Petitioner extended his hand and said, “[l]ook, that all sounds good. I just want to start back over. Are we good?” Mr. Amicucci shook Petitioner’s hand and assured him that they “were good.” Mr. Amicucci’s testimony regarding the events that occurred on March 8, 2019, is accepted as more credible and reliable than Petitioner’s. Knowledge of Petitioner’s Disability Mr. Amicucci testified that he was not aware that Petitioner had any kind of disability until the Complaint was filed against him and Avtec. Petitioner testified that his disability was revealed to Mr. Amicucci on November 30, 2018, during a meeting at the Avtec showroom to discuss the various options selected by Petitioner when he signed the contract. Petitioner testified that Mr. Amicucci asked him what he did for a living and Petitioner told him that he was retired and disabled from the City of Hialeah. He testified that Mr. Amicucci was further on notice because Petitioner always wears a glove to improve circulation in his right hand and that he can hardly sign his name, which would have been apparent to Mr. Amicucci at the November 30, 2018 meeting. Finally, Petitioner alleges Mr. Amicucci should have been aware of his disability because he requested 36” ADA-compliant door widths for the master bedroom. Mr. Amicucci did not recall Petitioner telling him he was disabled or seeing Petitioner wearing a glove. He did recall seeing Petitioner wearing a sling of some sort and inquiring whether he had been injured. He recalled Petitioner telling him it was related to an old injury. Mr. Amicucci was not present for any discussion about the 36” doorways. Assuming, arguendo, that he was present for that discussion, a request for 36” doorways alone is not proof of a disability. Many buyers upgrade to larger doorways to accommodate larger furniture or in anticipation of needing a walker or wheelchair access in the future. Furthermore, requesting ADA-compliant doorways is irrelevant to Petitioner’s claim that he has emotional disabilities and chronic pain. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Amicucci knew of Petitioner’s disabilities of anxiety, depression, memory loss, and RPD. No other witness was offered on behalf of Avtec. There is no evidence to support a finding that Avtec had knowledge of Petitioner’s disability through any other employee.
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 Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice No. 202022149. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2020, 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 22nd day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Mike Amicucci Suite 3 590 Malabar Road Palm Bay, Florida 32909 Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Pedro Tamayo 987 Raleigh Road Southeast Palm Bay, Florida 32909 (eServed) Rebecca E. Rhoden, Esquire Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. 215 North Eola Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Lawrence F. Sietsma Avtec Homes, Inc. et al 2860 North Riverside Drive Indialantic, Florida 32903 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
