Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondents were licensed real estate salesmen in the State of Florida, with Mr. Blanc's license being 0406481 and Ms. Kirkland's license being 0399466. The Division of Real Estate is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of real estate in this state. In November, 1985, Mr. and Mrs. William A. McKie were owners of Week 43 in Unit 1 of a time share condominium located at the Anchorage Resort and Yacht Club in Key Largo, Florida. About that time, they received a card issued by the Florida Bay Club to visit a time share condominium there. Because they were somewhat disappointed in the condition of their Anchorage unit, they went to see the Florida Bay Club facility and met with Respondent Kirkland who took them on a tour of the facility and the model apartment. Mrs. McKie was quite impressed with it, but indicated she could not afford it, because she and her husband already owned a time share unit at the Anchorage. When told that, Ms. Kirkland introduced the McKies to Respondent Blanc, who in the course of his sales presentation, suggested that the McKies use their ownership at the Anchorage as a trade-in worth $4,000 off of the in excess of $11,000 price of the Florida Bay Club unit. The McKies agreed and signed certain documents incident to the purchase including a worksheet, purchase agreement, disclosure agreement, and settlement statement, all prepared by Respondent Blanc. The worksheet reflected that the unit being purchased by the McKies, Week 44 in Unit A-5, had a purchase price of $6,500 toward which the McKies made a down payment of $650 by three separate charges to their Master Card and Visa cards, two for $300 each and one for $50. This left a mortgage balance to be financed of $5,850 payable for 7 years at 15 1/2 percent with monthly payments of $114.54. No reference was made in the worksheet to a trade in of the Anchorage unit. The purchase agreement also signed by the McKies and by Respondent Kirkland for the Florida Bay Club reflects a purchase price of $6,500 with a down payment of $650. The truth in lending form reflects that the amount financed would be $5,850 at 15.5% resulting in a finance charge of $3,771.36 with a total monthly payment amount of $9,621.36 which, when added to the $650 deposit, showed a total sales price of $10,271.36. The settlement statement signed by the McKies reflects a sales price of $6,500 with a $650 deposit. At no place, on any of the documentation, is the $4,000 trade-in for the Anchorage unit reflected. As a part of the transaction and at the suggestion of Respondent Blanc, the McKies were to sign a quitclaim deed to him as the representative of the seller to receive credit for the $4,000 trade-in. The documents, except for the quitclaim deed, were signed by the McKies on their first visit to Florida Bay Club on November 17, 1985. Mrs. McKie does not recall either Respondent signing the documentation, but there is evidence that Ms. Kirkland signed the purchase agreement and the worksheet and Mr. Blanc approved the worksheet. Neither the disclosure statement, the settlement statement nor the quitclaim deed, which was prepared by Respondent, Blanc, and furnished to the McKies on their second visit, was signed by either Respondent. The McKies went back to Florida Bay Club approximately a week later to sign for the prize they had been notified they had won and to sign the quitclaim deed, which had not been ready for them on their first visit. Respondent Blanc explained what the quitclaim deed was for and according to both McKies, they would not have purchased the property at Florida Bay Club had they not been able to trade-in their Anchorage unit. They definitely could not afford to pay for both units, a fact which was repeatedly explained to Respondents on both visits. Mrs. McKie believed that when she signed the quitclaim deed to the Anchorage unit, she would no longer be responsible for making payments there and in fact, the McKies notified the Anchorage Resort Club that Respondent Blanc had assumed their Week at the Anchorage, a fact which was confirmed by the Anchorage to Mr. Blanc by letter dated February 13, 1986. It is further noted that on January 30, 1986, Ms. Berta, general manager of the Florida Bay Club, by letter of even date, notified Mr. Blanc who was no longer an employee of Florida Bay, that the McKies' payment book, invoices for taxes due on the Anchorage property, and the quitclaim deed were being forwarded to him as evidence of the change of ownership of the Anchorage Resort unit from the McKies to Respondent Blanc. In this letter, Blanc was requested to notify the Anchorage of the change so the McKies would not be dunned for continuing payments. At the closing of the Florida Bay unit, when Mrs. McKie and her husband signed the quitclaim deed, Respondent Blanc told her she would continue to get payment notices from the Anchorage while the transfer was being processed, but she should bring those payment notices to him at the Florida Bay Club and he would take care of them. When Mrs. McKie received the first notice, she brought it to the Florida Bay Club to give to Mr. Blanc, but he was no longer located there. On this visit, she spoke to Ms. Berta, who advised her that the Florida Bay Club did not take trades. Ms. Berta called Respondent Blanc at his new place of business by phone in Mrs. McKie's presence and Respondent indicated at that time that he would buy the Anchorage unit himself and assume the payments. As a result, Mrs. McKie sent the delinquent notices to him at his new place of business, Gulf Stream Manor. In the meantime, she continued to make her new payments at the Florida Bay Club. Notwithstanding Respondent Blanc's agreement to assume payments, Mrs. McKie continued to receive mortgage payment delinquent notices from the bank for the Anchorage unit. During later negotiations with the bank regarding this, Mrs. McKie was told that she would still be responsible for making the payments even if Respondent Blanc took over and didn't pay and as a result, in order to relieve herself from this impending burden, she made arrangements to pay off the entire amount due for the Anchorage unit. After that she made several efforts to get Respondent Blanc to pay her back for the amount paid. Respondent Blanc agreed to make the payments and said he would pay the taxes on the unit, but he never reimbursed the McKies for any of the amount they had to pay. The McKies now own the Anchorage unit and have worked out a settlement agreement with the Florida Bay Club to get out of the responsibility for the unit there. Review of the quitclaim deed in question, prepared by Respondent Blanc and signed by the McKies, reflects that the McKies are both the grantors and grantees of the property and that Respondent Blanc's name nowhere appears on the document. It is of no force and effect. Respondent contends that when the McKies indicated they were unable to purchase a new unit since they still had a prior unit to pay for, relying on his understanding that the marketing organization selling the Florida Bay Club units had in the past taken a unit in trade, he discussed the matter with his supervisor who advised that he could offer up to $4,000 in trade on the unit. In order to do this, Respondent Blanc had to price the new unit at $10,500 and credit the McKies with $4,000. However, none of the documentation shows this was ever done. At no place on any of the documentations is the $4,000 trade-in referenced. It is clear the offer of a trade-in was a sham to induce the McKies to purchase a unit at Florida Bay Club. Ms. Berta, who was manager at Florida Bay Club at the time in question, indicated that no trade-ins were ever taken by the club. The prior trade-in referenced by Mr. Blanc was a unit which was completely paid for as opposed the McKies' which still had a substantial outstanding balance on it. Respondent Kirkland who was not a party to any of the negotiations subsequent to her initial interview with the McKies indicates that she "probably" quoted the McKies a price of $10,500. When Mrs. McKie indicated that they could not afford such a high price, she turned them over to Mr. Blanc who thereafter handled the entire transaction. Respondent Blanc tells a somewhat different story about the reaction of the McKies when his failure to assume responsibility for the trade-in unit at the Anchorage Bay Club came to light. He indicates that it was never intended that he would take title to this unit at first. The trade in was to be absorbed by the marketing company, Resort Sales International, for whom he worked, and he assumed, when he left the following week to go to a different facility, the company would follow through with its agreement to assume the McKie's Week at the Anchorage. He was quite surprised, he contends, to learn that this had not been done and since he wanted a unit in the Key Largo area anyway, he agreed to then assume it personally after first offering Mrs. McKie the opportunity to back out of the purchase. When she said that she wanted to be at Florida Bay Club, he was sent the payment books and the deed. He called the bank to notify them that he was going to assume responsibility for the loan, but the bank would give him no information regarding it and the bank official, Ms. Brown, was adamant in her representation that the McKies could not quitclaim deed the property to him. No reason was given for this, however. Mr. Blanc claims he made a series of telephone calls between January 30 and March 31, 1986, in an attempt to straighten out the difficulty involved. These included sixteen calls to Ms. Berta, eight calls to his former supervisor at Resort Sales, four calls to the Anchorage, three calls to the bank and three calls to Mrs. McKie. Mrs. McKie denies receiving calls from the Respondent and contends that her numerous calls to him remained unanswered. In a call he made after she paid off the loan on the Anchorage and settled with Florida Bay Club for approximately $2,183, Mrs. McKie advised Blanc to forget about it, that they were tired of messing with him and with the property. As a result, he admittedly gave up and did and heard nothing more regarding the property until he was contacted by a DPR investigator. On January 30, 1988, Mr. Blanc offered to buy Mrs. McKie's unit at the Anchorage for $2,900 which was exactly the amount owed on the property when she paid it off. She refused to accept that offer since she had paid $6,800 for the unit initially.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Sandra Kirkland be dismissed and that Respondent Blanc's license as a real estate salesman in Florida be suspended for six months. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 19th day of April, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esquire Darlene F. Keller Department of Professional Acting Executive Director Regulation DPR, Division of Real Estate Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Sandra S. Kirkland Post Office Box 9264 Panama City, Florida 32407 John G. Blanc 17501 West Highway 98 Panama City, Florida 32407
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent committed violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school psychologist. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a member of the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) Bargaining Unit. At all times material to this case, Respondent was receiving benefits under a valid claim for Workers' Compensation benefits arising from an accident on January 7, 2000. In conjunction with investigations as to Respondent's eligibility for Workers' Compensation benefits, video surveillance of Respondent's activities was conducted on several occasions. At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, Dr. Laakso worked for Petitioner as a school psychologist in Area 3, and was assigned to Palm Beach Lakes High School, Forest Hill High School, and Conniston Middle School. His immediate supervisor was Mary Kate Boyle, the Area 3 Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Team Leader. On January 7, 2000, Dr. Laakso was working in his car while parked in the Palm Beach Lakes High School parking lot, and when exiting the car, hit his head on the door jamb causing a compression of his spine. He then received a second injury to his back while pulling psychological testing kits out of his car. Dr. Laakso submitted this injury to Petitioner as a workers' compensation injury, and it was covered as such. Christopher Brown, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon and one of Dr. Laakso's workers' compensation physicians, treated Dr. Laakso. On February 8, 2000, Dr. Brown placed Dr. Laakso on a "no-work" status. Dr. Laakso suffers from cervical spinal stenosis, which is a narrowing of the spinal canal. Because Dr. Laakso had underlying spinal stenosis secondary to arthritis, combined with disc herniations, his orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Brown, diagnosed Dr. Laakso's stenosis as severe. Also on February 8, 2000, Ms. Boyle held an investigative meeting with Respondent and his then-attorney, Stephen Fried, to discuss Respondent's continued absences since January 7, 2000 (the date of Respondent's workers' compensation injury) and his work status. In a letter to Dr. Laakso dated February 9, 2000, Ms. Boyle explained what her expectations were with regard to Respondent's absence and work status. On February 9, 2000, Dr. Laakso requested unpaid sick leave for January 11, 2000 to May 31, 2000, which the School Board granted. In March of 2000, Dr. Laakso was released back to light duty work, with restrictions. Some of the physical restrictions placed on Dr. Laakso's activities included no overhead use of the right upper extremity and no heavy use of the right upper extremity greater than 5 pounds. In addition, Dr. Laakso was told to be careful and to try not to hurt himself. Dr. Brown also imposed a 10 mile driving restriction on Dr. Laakso because Dr. Brown believed Dr. Laakso's spinal stenosis placed him at increased risk if he hit his head or was in a car accident. Dr. Laakso argued against the driving restriction because he was capable of driving and believed that the restriction would "mess things up" if he was unable to use his car. Dr. Laakso neither asked for the driving restriction nor represented that he needed the restriction.4 Dr. Laakso conveyed the driving restrictions to both Ms. Boyle and Linda Meyers in Risk Management. On March 21, 2000, Dr. Laakso was given a light duty placement in which he was assigned to Atlantic High School watching the school's security cameras. This assignment was for Dr. Laakso's regularly scheduled 7.5 hours a day, and was within the physical and driving restrictions imposed by Dr. Brown. While on light duty assignment at Atlantic High School, Dr. Laakso reported to Assistant Principal, Marshall Bellin. Dr. Laakso also submitted his time sheets to Mr. Bellin for Mr. Bellin's verification and signature. After Mr. Bellin signed the light duty time sheets, Dr. Laakso faxed them to Ms. Boyle for payroll purposes. Around this time period, in approximately April of 2000, the third party administrator, FARA, who handles the School Board's Workers' Compensation claims, hired private investigator Richard Mains to conduct surveillance of Dr. Laakso. Mains observed Dr. Laakso at various times from April 3, 2000 through October 2, 2000. Mains documented Respondent's driving to and from his Matlacha home and the activities in which he engaged while there. Mains did not know whether Dr. Laakso was taking pain or anti-inflammatory medication, or whether Dr. Laakso was under the influence of these types of medications at the times Mains observed him. On May 17, 2000, Ms. Boyle held another investigative meeting regarding Respondent's absences while on light duty. The minutes from that meeting indicate that Ms. Boyle expressed her concern to Dr. Laakso regarding his absences, discussed his light duty assignment at Atlantic High School, and directed him to call her beeper if he was going to be absent. He was also directed to provide a doctor's note if he was absent. Dr. Laakso remained in the light duty assignment at Atlantic High School for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year. On Wednesday, August 9, 2000, the first day of the 2000-2001 school year, Dr. Laakso again reported to Atlantic High School to resume his light duty placement. On August 15, 2000, Marshall Bellin signed Respondent's light duty sign-in sheet, which covered Dr. Laakso's work attendance for August 9, 10, 11, and 14, 2000. Around August 14 or 15, 2000, Dr. Laakso received verbal notification that because his driving restriction had been lifted, he was being taken off light duty assignment and was to report to Area 3. Prior to this verbal notification, Dr. Laakso had not been advised by his physicians that his driving restriction had been lifted. However, he subsequently learned through someone at the Risk Management Department that, in fact, the driving restriction had been lifted. Upon hearing the news, Dr. Laakso contacted Dr. Brown. When he went to see Dr. Brown, Dr. Brown explained to Respondent that the Board had sent him a questionnaire asking whether he believed that Dr. Laakso could drive a car as opposed to whether he should drive a car. Dr. Brown further explained that he responded that Dr. Laakso could drive a car, but felt he had made a mistake as he felt it was still dangerous for Dr. Laakso to drive. Accordingly, on August 17, 2000, Dr. Brown reinstated Dr. Laakso's driving restriction of no more than 10 minutes. On August 17, 2000, Dr. Laakso sent a memo to Ms. Boyle indicating that his driving restriction had been reinstated. A copy of the note from Dr. Brown was attached to this memo. Because of her continuing concern regarding Respondent's absences, on October 2, 2000, Ms. Boyle held another "investigative meeting" regarding Dr. Laakso's absences. This meeting resulted in Boyle's issuing Dr. Laakso a written reprimand for unacceptable and unexcused absences, failure to call in intended absences as required, and insubordination. The written reprimand specifically addressed Dr. Laakso's absences on August 9, 10, 11, 22, and September 20, 27, 28, and 29. Ms. Boyle believed her issuance of the written reprimand dated October 2, 2000, was consistent with the progressive discipline policy. At the time that Ms. Boyle wrote the reprimand, she also notified the District's Professional Standards Department and requested a formal investigation of Respondent's absences. Ms. Boyle then contacted Ray Miller in Professional Standards to be sure that she was following appropriate procedure. In October of 2000, Ray Miller received Respondent's case for investigation, and the investigation was assigned case number 101. Specifically, Miller investigated allegations involving Respondent's misuse of leave, unauthorized absence, failure to call in and report absences as required, and insubordination for the time period of January 2000 through December 2000. At the time of his interview with Respondent, Miller had a surveillance video and a report of Respondent's activities for April of 2000. Respondent neither denied that he was the subject of the video nor that he failed to report and call in his absences. Shortly before December 4, 2000, Miller signed off on the investigative report for case number 101, and on December 4, 2000, Paul Lachance issued a letter to Dr. Laakso indicating that the investigation was complete, and that a determination of probable cause had been made. The investigative report was then reviewed by the Case Management Review Committee to determine whether there was just cause to recommend discipline and, if so, provide a discipline recommendation. The Committee found just cause and recommended Dr. Laakso's termination. A number of meetings were held in December 2000 with representatives of Petitioner, Dr. Laakso, and his then- attorney, Mr. Fried. As a result of these meetings, an informal settlement was reached; Dr. Laakso's employment was not terminated, but rather he was transferred to the Area 1 ESE office. By a letter to the file dated January 8, 2001, Paul Lachance, Director of Professional Standards, administratively closed case number 01-101 against Dr. Laakso with "no action." While assigned to Area 1, Dr. Laakso was under the supervision of Area 1 ESE Team Leader, Paul Sayrs. As supervisor, Mr. Sayrs was responsible for keeping track of Respondent's attendance. Accordingly, Sayrs directed Respondent to call and notify secretary Judy Fabris if he was going to be absent, who in turn would notify Mr. Sayrs. While assigned to Area 1, Dr. Laakso missed work for several days in January and February 2001, and was also out for most of March and April 2001. On April 4, 2001, Mr. Sayrs sent Dr. Laakso a letter listing the dates of his absences and directing him to submit a doctor's note for the dates listed, as well as for any future absences. The next day, April 5, 2001, Mr. Sayrs sent another letter to Dr. Laakso advising him he was currently absent without approved leave. Mr. Sayrs advised Respondent further that due to an absence of correspondence from Respondent, Mr. Sayrs would assume Respondent had decided to discontinue working for Petitioner and Respondent's name would be submitted to the School Board for acceptance of Respondent's resignation. Dr. Laakso immediately contacted Dr. Sachs regarding Mr. Sayrs' request for medical documentation, but was unable to get an appointment with Dr. Sachs until April 20th. However, prior to his April 20th appointment, Dr. Laakso forwarded to Dr. Sachs a copy of the District's letter, which indicated he would be terminated if he did not provide the requested documentation prior to his appointment on April 20th. In response, Dr. Sachs accounted for Dr. Laakso's absences, noting they were due to his symptoms and cervical condition. Additionally, Dr. Laakso followed through by faxing his Request for Leave of Absence without Pay form with his signature, dated April 18, 2001, directly to Dr. Sachs for his signature. The leave was ultimately granted retroactive to March 8, 2001, prior to Dr. Laakso's being terminated by the District. On April 18, 2001, Dr. Laakso sent a handwritten note to Dan McGrath explaining his absences. Dr. Laakso attached to his note to Mr. McGrath two documents from Dr. Sachs, one dated April 15, 2001, and the other dated April 6, 2000. On May 18, 2001, Paul Sayrs evaluated Dr. Laakso's performance. The evaluation sheet indicated that Dr. Laakso was "presently on a medical leave of absence." Dr. Laakso has a second home in Matlacha, located on the other side of Cape Coral. Matlacha is located in the Fort Myers area and is approximately 150 miles from the West Palm Beach area, roughly a three-hour trip using country roads. Because he had not been feeling well, Dr. Laakso had not been taking care of his property in Matlacha. As a result, he received notices from the county telling him he needed to clear up the property or face a potential daily fine of $225. Specifically, the county informed Dr. Laakso that he needed to mow the grass, move a boat, register a pickup truck, and park the truck somewhere where it was not in open view. He asked for an extension in which to do these things, which was granted. However, the county advised Dr. Laakso that if he did not get the work done by the date established, the daily fine would be imposed. Although while at his Matlacha home Dr. Laakso did work outside of the restrictions imposed on him by his physician, he could work for 20 or 30 minutes and then go inside and rest, unlike when he was at work for the School Board, which required he work a full eight-hour day. While he was on his Matlacha property, he continued his daily swimming as part of his physical therapy, which he had discussed with, and received approval for, from Dr. Brown. At no time did Dr. Laakso attempt to hide the fact that he drove to the Matlacha property or that he worked in his yard while there. In fact, he disclosed this information when deposed in his workers' compensation case, and he discussed it with his doctor. While the doctor did not give Dr. Laakso permission for this type of conduct, Dr. Laakso did discuss it with him.5 Following the closing of the first investigation numbered 101, the office of Professional Standards received a memo from Diane Howard, Director of Risk Management, dated January 9, 2001. Ms. Howard was requesting a reinvestigation of Dr. Laakso's absences. In response to this memo, Miller did not interview Respondent, but instead viewed surveillance videotapes from August 11 through October 1 or 2, 2000. In addition to the videos, Miller reviewed memos from Nancy Patrick, Mary Kate Boyle, and Paul Sayrs. Miller testified that the difference between this investigation and the previous one was that it involved a different period of time, both for the videos and regarding issues of Respondent's attendance in January, February, and March of 2001. The allegations against Respondent for this investigation were that he was obtaining leave due to sickness or illness and that he was performing actions that were inconsistent with his alleged illness or sickness. This second investigation followed the same pattern as the first and was sent to the Committee for review. The Committee again recommended Dr. Laakso's termination. Dr. Laakso timely requested an administrative hearing, and these proceedings followed. The collective bargaining agreement describes procedures for discipline of employees, including this: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. The collective bargaining agreement also requires progressive discipline (reprimand through dismissal) . . . [e]xcept in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the district or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in this case dismissing all charges in the Administrative Compliant, reinstating Respondent to his position of employment with the School Board, and providing Respondent with such back pay and attendant benefits as are authorized by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 21st day of November, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners' Motions for Attorney's Fees should be granted, and if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of counsel, the papers filed herein, and the underlying record made a part of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this attorney's fees dispute, Petitioners, Anderson Columbia Company, Inc. (Anderson Columbia) (Case No. 00-0754F), Panhandle Land & Timber Company, Inc. (Panhandle Land) (Case No. 00-0755F), Support Terminals Operating Partnership, L.P. (Support Terminals) (Case No. 00-0756F), Commodores Point Terminal Corporation (Commodores Point) (Case No. 00-0757F), and Olan B. Ward, Sr., Martha P. Ward, Anthony Taranto, Antoinette Taranto, J.V. Gander Distributors, Inc., J.V. Gander, Jr., and Three Rivers Properties, Inc. (the Ward group) (Case No. 00-0828F), have requested the award of attorney's fees and costs incurred in successfully challenging proposed Rule 18-21.019(1), Florida Administrative Code, a rule administered by Respondent, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board). In general terms, the proposed rule essentially authorized the Board, through the use of a qualified disclaimer, to reclaim sovereign submerged lands which had previously been conveyed to the upland owners by virtue of their having filled in, bulkheaded, or permanently improved the submerged lands. The underlying actions were assigned Case Nos. 98- 1764RP, 98-1866RP, 98-2045RP, and 98-2046RP, and an evidentiary hearing on the rule challenge was held on May 21, 1998. That proceeding culminated in the issuance of a Final Order in Support Terminals Operating Partnership, L.P. et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 21 F.A.L.R. 3844 (Div. Admin. Hrngs., Aug. 8, 1998), which determined that, except for one challenged provision, the proposed rule was valid. Thereafter, in the case of Anderson Columbia Company, Inc. et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 748 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), the court reversed the order below and determined that the rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners then filed their motions. Fees and Costs There are eleven Petitioners seeking reimbursement of fees and costs. In its motion, Anderson Columbia seeks reimbursement of attorney's fees "up to the $15,000 cap allowed by statute" while Panhandle Land seeks identical relief. In their similarly worded motions, Support Terminals and Commodores Point each seek fees "up to the $15,000 cap allowed by statute." Finally, the Ward group collectively seeks $9,117.00 in attorney's fees and $139.77 in costs. In the Joint Stipulations of Fact filed by the parties, the Board has agreed that the rate and hours for all Petitioners "were reasonable." As to all Petitioners except the Ward group, the Board has further agreed that each of their costs to challenge the rule exceeded $15,000.00. It has also agreed that even though they were not contained in the motions, requests for costs by Support Terminals, Commodores Point, Anderson Columbia, and Panhandle Land in the amounts of $1,143.22, $1,143.22, $1,933.07, and $1,933.07, respectively, were "reasonable." Finally, the Board has agreed that the request for costs by the Ward group in the amount of $139.77 is "reasonable." Despite the stipulation, and in the event it does not prevail on the merits of these cases, the Board contends that the four claimants in Case Nos. 00-754F, 00-755F, 00-0756F, and 00- 757F should be reimbursed only on a per case basis, and not per client, or $7,500.00 apiece, on the theory that they were sharing counsel, and the discrepancy between the amount of fees requested by the Ward group (made up of seven Petitioners) and the higher fees requested by the other Petitioners "is difficult to understand and justify." If this theory is accepted, it would mean that Support Terminals and Commodores Point would share a single $15,000.00 fee, while Anderson Columbia and Panhandle Land would do the same. Support Terminals and Commodores Point were unrelated clients who happened to choose the same counsel; they were not a "shared venture." Each brought a different perspective to the case since Commodores Point had already received a disclaimer with no reversionary interest while Support Terminals received one with a reversionary interest on June 26, 1997. The latter event ultimately precipitated this matter and led to the proposed rulemaking. Likewise, in the case of Anderson Columbia and Panhandle Land, one was a landowner while the other was a tenant, and they also happened to choose the same attorney to represent them. For the sake of convenience and economy, the underlying cases were consolidated and the matters joined for hearing. Substantial Justification From a factual basis, the Board contends several factors should be taken into account in determining whether it was substantially justified in proposing the challenged rule. First, the Board points out that its members are mainly lay persons, and they relied in good faith on the legal advice of the Board's staff and remarks made by the Attorney General during the course of the meeting at which the Board issued a disclaimer to Support Terminals. Therefore, the Board argues that it should be insulated from liability since it was relying on the advice of counsel. If this were true, though, an agency that relied on legal advice could never be held responsible for a decision which lacked substantial justification. The Board also relies upon the fact that it has a constitutional duty to protect the sovereign lands held in the public trust for the use and benefit of the public. Because lands may be disclaimed under the Butler Act only if they fully meet the requirements of the grant, and these questions involve complex policy considerations, the Board argues that the complexity and difficulty of this task militate against an award of fees. While its mission is indisputably important, however, the Board is no different than other state agencies who likewise are charged with the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. The Board further relies on the fact that the rule was never intended to affect title to Petitioners' lands, and all Petitioners had legal recourse to file a suit to quiet title in circuit court. As the appellate court noted, however, the effect of the rule was direct and immediate, and through the issuance of a disclaimer with the objectionable language, it created a reversionary interest in the State and made private lands subject to public use. During the final hearing in the underlying proceedings, the then Director of State Lands vigorously supported the proposed rule as being in the best interests of the State and consistent with the "inalienable" Public Trust. However, he was unaware of any Florida court decision which supported the Board's views, and he could cite no specific statutory guidance for the Board's actions. The Director also acknowledged that the statutory authority for the rule (Section 253.129, Florida Statutes) simply directed the Board to issue disclaimers, and it made no mention of the right of the Board to reclaim submerged lands through the issuance of a qualified disclaimer. In short, while the Board could articulate a theory for its rule, it had very little, if any, basis in Florida statutory or common law or judicial precedent to support that theory. Although Board counsel has ably argued that the law on the Butler Act was archaic, confusing, and conflicting in many respects, the rule challenge case ultimately turned on a single issue, that is, whether the Riparian Rights Act of 1856 and the Butler Act of 1921 granted to upland or riparian owners fee simple title to the adjacent submerged lands which were filled in, bulkheaded, or permanently improved. In other words, the ultimate issue was whether the Board's position was "inconsistent with the . . . the concept of fee simple title." Anderson Columbia at 1066. On this issue, the court held that the State could not through rulemaking "seek to reserve ownership interests by issuing less than an unqualified or unconditional disclaimer to riparian lands which meet the statutory requirements." Id. at 1067. Thus, with no supporting case law or precedent to support its view on that point, there was little room for confusion or doubt on the part of the Board. E. Special Circumstances In terms of special circumstances that would make an award of fees unjust, the Board first contends that the proposed rule was never intended to "harm anyone," and that none of Petitioners were actually harmed. But the substantial interests of each Petitioner were clearly affected by the proposed rules, and the appellate court concluded that the rule would result in an unconstitutional forfeiture of property. The Board also contends that because it must make proprietary decisions affecting the public trust, it should be given wide latitude in rulemaking. It further points out that the Board must engage in the difficult task of balancing the interests of the public with private rights, and that when it infringes on the private rights of others, as it did here, it should not be penalized for erring on the side of the public. As previously noted, however, all state agencies have worthy governmental responsibilities, but this in itself does not insulate an agency from sanctions. As an additional special circumstance, the Board points out that many of the provisions within the proposed rule were not challenged and were therefore valid. In this case, several subsections were admittedly unchallenged, but the offending provisions which form the crux of the rule were invalidated. Finally, the Board reasons that any moneys paid in fees and costs will diminish the amount of money to be spent on public lands. It is unlikely, however, that any state agency has funds set aside for the payment of attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes (1999).
The Issue Whether Respondent, PHCSA,1 discriminated against Petitioner, Lawrence Rose, based on his gender in violation of section 760.08, Florida Statutes (2019), 2 when it restricted his access to its tennis courts. 1 Respondent, PHCSA, is the Palm Harbor Community Services Agency. 2 All references to the Florida Statutes and administrative rules are to the 2019 versions unless stated otherwise.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a male senior citizen who has used PHCSA's tennis courts in the past and wishes to continue to use those tennis courts. PHCSA is a taxing district created by Pinellas County to oversee recreational areas and libraries, including Putnam Park. Putnam Park, which is located in Palm Harbor, Florida, has two tennis courts that can be reserved for a fee. If the courts are not reserved, they are open to the public on a first-come basis for free. There are no policies or procedures that restrict the use of a PHCSA facility, including the tennis courts, based on a person's sex. If the courts are wet due to weather or from adjacent irrigation sprinklers, they are closed until the surface is dry and it is safe to play. When closed for safety reasons, the courts are unavailable to everyone, male and female. Additionally, PHCSA staff edges and mows the area around the tennis courts and blows any debris off the courts. This maintenance generally occurs on Mondays. During the summer, PHCSA operates a tennis camp for youth. The camp runs Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., for eight to ten weeks. Both tennis courts are unavailable for public use during the time the camp is in session, but are available for rental or public use after camp hours. In June 2018, Petitioner complained to PHCSA that the courts were not available during the time of the summer camp and that the tennis courts were being used to generate revenue. PHCSA informed Petitioner he could use the courts on the days of the summer camp any time after 2:00 p.m., and that revenue from rentals was used to maintain PHCSA facilities. Petitioner acknowledged that the courts were available after 2:00 p.m. but complained that by then it was too hot to play. He also conceded that no one, regardless of gender, was allowed to use the courts (other than the camp attendees) during the tennis camp's hours of operation. Johnny Angel, a male tennis instructor, has a contract with PHCSA to rent one tennis court during certain time blocks for private tennis lessons. During these lessons, Mr. Angel only utilizes one tennis court, leaving the other court available for rental or public use. Petitioner complained that he did not like to play on the available court during Mr. Angel's lessons because there is no barrier to stop stray balls that inevitably come onto the available court from Mr. Angel's students. Petitioner also complained to PHCSA about delays in unlocking Putnam Park on certain occasions, preventing him from using the tennis court. On these occasions, no one was able to use the tennis courts, male or female. Edward Hooker, a crew leader for the PHCSA, testified that he has had multiple encounters with Petitioner since 2017. Mr. Hooker described Petitioner as "very rude," "boisterous," and "aggressive" during these encounters. In one incident, Petitioner called Mr. Hooker "a liar" and claimed staff did not blow off the courts. The most recent incident between Mr. Hooker and Petitioner occurred on September 10, 2018. On this date, Petitioner arrived at Putnam Park but was unable to use the courts because the gate was locked; he had to wait 40 minutes. Once open and shortly after Petitioner began playing tennis, Mr. Hooker began mowing the area around the tennis courts. Petitioner admits he asked Mr. Hooker to blow off the courts, but denies yelling or using profanity. Mr. Hooker testified that he informed Petitioner that the courts were closed because they were wet and that the courts would be blown off after the mowing was finished. Mr. Hooker claims that at some point during this encounter Petitioner yelled at him and used profanity. Mr. Hooker's version of the incident is more credible than Petitioner's version. Regardless, Mr. Hooker reported the incident to his supervisor, Erica Lynford, the Director of PHCSA Parks and Recreation. Ms. Lynford testified that she had previously received complaints from three different PHCSA staff members of similar incidents with Petitioner. Ms. Lynford investigated Mr. Hooker's September 10 complaint by asking another staff member, Jake Pullen, for his account of the incident. She also restricted Mr. Hooker and Mr. Pullen from working at Putnam Park. Based on her investigation, Ms. Lynford determined that Petitioner used a "posturing nature and loud voice" toward Mr. Hooker and other PHCSA staff. She decided Petitioner's behavior warranted a trespass warning. On September 11, 2018, Petitioner returned to the tennis courts with Curt Baker, a male senior citizen. Ms. Lynford contacted the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) to issue the trespass warning. Once the PCSO arrived, Ms. Lynford told Petitioner and Mr. Baker they were no longer allowed on the Putnam Park tennis courts. It was explained to Petitioner and Mr. Baker that if they returned to the tennis courts they would be subject to arrest. Subsequently, Mr. Baker requested that the trespass warning against him be lifted. PHCSA granted his request and Mr. Baker is now allowed to play on the tennis courts. Petitioner presented no evidence that the trespass warning was based on his gender, or that PHCSA treated women in a preferential manner.
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 Lawrence Rose's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Andrew J. Salzman, Esquire Unice Salzman, P.A. 1815 Little Road Trinity, Florida 34655 S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Lawrence Rose 4787 Klosterman Oaks Boulevard Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents committed an act of discrimination based upon familial status against Petitioners in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own Unit L-105 at The Collins, located at 6917 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33141. Petitioners have a three-year-old daughter who resides with them and claim membership, for purposes of alleging discrimination under the Florida Fair Housing Act, in the class of familial status. Petitioners have exclusive use of their private patio, a limited common element, adjacent to their ground floor unit, subject to the terms and conditions, as well as the rules of the Association. This patio is in close proximity to the Association’s ungated common swimming pool. Unlike most of the condominiums on floors above the pool area, Petitioners’ unit does not have a glass protective barrier on their patio, or any barrier whatsoever installed outside their unit by the Association. All of the units located above Petitioners’ unit that have balconies that are raised from the pool’s surface in heights varying between the second floor and many floors above, without a glass barrier at the end of the balconies, would have a significant and dangerous drop to the pool level for anyone stepping over the edge. Petitioners owned Unit L-105 for 13 years before having a daughter, now three years old, which changed their status to familial for the past three years. Petitioners sought to have the Association allow them to install a glass barrier between their patio and the ungated pool in order to end their claim of discrimination based upon familial status and protect their daughter from accidentally falling into the pool if left unattended on the patio. Respondents refused to install or allow the installation of a glass barrier on Petitioners’ patio, citing that it would not conform with the rules and regulations of the condominium association concerning the common elements of the condominium. Petitioners installed what they called a “temporary” fence around their patio. The fence involved the drilling of holes into the concrete surface of the pool deck and installing posts and netting into the holes to create a fencelike barrier. Claiming this was not approved and not in conformance with the rules and regulations for the common elements of the condominium, the Association brought in workers who removed the fence, the posts, and filled in the holes that had been drilled into the concrete. The Association billed Petitioners $1,200 for having the removal and repair work done for the unapproved installation of the fence. At some point, after the fencing had been removed, Petitioners moved out of their condominium unit, but remain the owners of it. At the time of the hearing, Petitioners had pending in circuit court an action regarding the pool fence. No further details were given regarding the nature of the action and relief sought. Mr. Riveiro testified that he and his wife are willing to bear the cost, including any needed permits, parts, labor, and inspections for installing a temporary fence that will protect their daughter from accidentally falling into the pool. Mr. Blanco, the Association’s board president, who has served on the board of the Association for 15 or more years, testified that, during his tenure, the board has never discriminated against persons for any reason, including based upon their familial status. Respondents offered several solutions to Petitioners, including allowing a temporary fence that could be easily removed, but did not involve drilling holes in the common area of the pool deck. According to the local code enforcement officials, all that is required for garden or pool level doors that open to an “ungated pool” are door alarms to alert the occupants when the door is opened from inside or out. Mr. Riveiro testified that he could not use door alarms and keep his doors open to enjoy the breeze and fresh air because, after a time, the alarms sounded to remind the occupants the door has been left open. Because of this, Petitioners were not satisfied with setting up an internal fence that would keep their daughter from running out the door. An internal fence was superfluous since always keeping the doors closed avoids the need for a fence, but restricts Petitioners full use and enjoyment of their unit. If the residents wanted fences to be installed on the pool level, they would have to be uniform in design and function. Because this would be considered a material alteration to the common elements, 75 percent of the unit owners would have to vote in favor of such a change. A material alteration to the common elements was neither requested by Petitioners nor voted upon by the Association’s unit owners upon request from any individual, family, or the Association board itself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondents not liable for housing discrimination and dismissing Petitioners’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Darrin Gursky, Esquire Gursky Ragan, P.A. 141 Northeast 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Fernando Riveiro 14838 Southwest 35th Street Davie, Florida 33331 Mayelin Perez 4495 Southwest 67th Terrace, No. 207 Davie, Florida 33314
Findings Of Fact Peter P. Sedler, at all times material to the complaint, has been licensed as a real estate broker, holding license 0079017. He was last licensed as a broker c/o Marshall & Sedler, Inc., 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Marshall & Sedler, Inc., at all times relevant to the complaint, had been registered as a Florida real estate broker, holding license 0250511, its last licensed address was 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Peter P. Sedler was the qualifying broker and officer for Marshall & Sedler, Inc. On about July 3, 1987, Tom Teixeira was employed as a salesman by Cartier Realty, of 11852 42nd Road North, Royal Palm Beach, Florida. Cartier Realty had solicited, through a direct mailing, listings for property in the Royal Palm Beach area. Ms. Mary Myers, an older woman of about 70 years of age, responded to the advertisement, and gave Mr. Teixeira an open listing for real property which she owned. While Mr. Teixeira placed a Cartier Realty "For Sale" sign on the property, the sign was somehow removed shortly thereafter, and no party dealing with Ms. Myers during the months of July, August and September of 1987 would have been placed on notice that Cartier Realty had any listing on the property. Mr. Sedler had nothing to do with the disappearance of the sign. Ms. Myers had originally acquired the property from her daughter. Long before Ms. Myers gave a listing to Cartier Realty, William Kemp and his wife Gina DiPace Kemp had told Ms. Myers that they were interested in purchasing the property, which is adjacent to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Kemp. When Mr. and Mrs. Kemp first contacted Ms. Myers, she had wanted to keep the property, in the belief that she might eventually convey it back to her daughter. Mr. Teixeira brought to Ms. Myers an offer from David R. and Maureen C. Rose to purchase the land for $11,900. Ms. Myers did not accept that offer, but the Roses accepted Ms. Myers' counteroffer on July 24, 1987, to sell it for $12,300. The sale was contingent upon the buyers obtaining financing; they applied for a loan, and ordered both an appraisal and a survey. The closing was to be held by September 1, 1987. (Contract, paragraph VI.) The closing date passed, without the buyers obtaining the necessary financing, so the contract was no longer effective. On about September 8, 1987, Mr. Teixeira attempted to contact Ms. Myers. He had obtained no written extension of the contract but hoped the sale might yet close. Ms. Myers told Teixeira that she was still willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose. In the meantime, Mr. and Mrs. Kemp became aware that Ms. Myers wanted to sell the property, because they noticed Mr. and Mrs. Rose coming to look at the land, and had engaged them in conversation. Ms. Kemp then contacted Ms. Myers to remind her that they were still willing to purchase the property, and also to say that they would offer more than the current offer on the property. On about September 11, 1987, Ms. Kemp contacted Cartier Realty to say that she also wished to make an offer on the Myers' lot. For a reason which was never adequately explained at the hearing, Teixeira, who should have been working on behalf of the seller, refused to take the offer, even though it was for a higher price. After this rebuff by Teixeira, Ms. Kemp contacted Marshall & Sedler, Inc., in order to try to find a broker who would convey their offer to Ms. Myers and spoke with Patricia Marshall, Ms. Marshall referred her to her partner, Peter Sedler. The Kemps told Sedler that Ms. Myers had told them that she had received a $9,000 offer on the lot. Why Ms. Myers told the Kemps that the Rose offer was $9,000 is not clear, for the actual offer had been $12,300, but Sedler did not know this. There was no listing of the lot in the local board of realtors multiple listing service book, and Mr. Sedler found the address of Ms. Myers through the public records. Mr. Sedler knew from his conversations with Ms. Kemp that Cartier Realty had some involvement with an offer on the property. He called Cartier Realty and tried to speak with the broker handling the matter. He spoke with a man named Tom, who he thought was a brother of the owner of Cartier Realty, Pete Cartier. Mr. Sedler actually talked with Tom Teixeira. Sedler believed he was dealt with rudely by Teixeira, who had hung up on him. Sedler then called Pete Cartier directly to find out whether there was an outstanding contract on the property, and Cartier told Sedler that he would call Sedler back. When Cartier called Sedler, Cartier warned Sedler that he should stay out of the deal. Mr. Sedler became suspicious about Cartier Realty's failure to bring a higher offer to the attention of the seller, and on September 16, 1987, filed a complaint against Tom Cartier with the Lake Worth Board of Realtors. Mr. Sedler then traveled to Pompano Beach to meet with Ms. Myers at her home, and brought with him a contract for sale and purchase of the property, already signed by the Kemps and dated September 14, 1987. While at the door, Ms. Myers asked Peter Sedler if he was "Tom." Ms. Myers knew that she had been dealing with a "Tom" at Cartier Realty, but all her dealings were on the phone, and she did not know what Tom Teixeira looked like. Sedler replied "Yes, but you can call me Pete." Sedler merely intended the comment as humor. At that time Sedler gave Ms. Myers his pink business card and specifically identified himself as Pete Sedler of Marshall & Sedler, Inc. Mr. Sedler asked Ms. Myers if she had any paperwork, such as the prior contract for the sale of the lot which had expired on September 1, 1987, but she did not. While Sedler was with Ms. Myers, she agreed to sell the property to the Kemps for $12,500 and signed the Kemp contract. The Kemps had put the purchase price of $12,500 into the Marshall & Sedler escrow account. Three days later, on September 18, 1987, Mr. Sedler, in the company of his wife Bonnie, presented a post-dated check to Ms. Myers in the amount of $11,020, the net amount due to Ms. Myers for the lot, based on the purchase price of $12,500. When they met this second time he introduced himself again as Pete Sedler and offered Ms. Myers his card for a second time. The post-dated check was conditioned by an endorsement making it good upon a determination that the title to the lot was good. A quit claim deed to Mr. and Mrs. Kemp was executed by Ms. Myers and witnessed by Bonnie Sedler. The post-dated check was given to Ms. Myers because she was about to leave on vacation. The check was given as a sort of security for good title, in return for the quit claim deed which closed the transaction. Mr. Sedler had structured the transaction in this way because he was concerned that someone at Cartier Realty might also attempt to purchase the property from Ms. Myers on behalf of one of their clients. At that time, Mr. Sedler held the reasonable belief that no other party had a subsisting contract to purchase the property from Ms. Myers. Sedler had no reason to believe the Roses would or could pay more for the property than the Kemps offered. Ms. Myers knew that Tom Teixeira from the Cartier realty firm represented a distinct business entity from Marshall & Sedler or Pete Sedler. After a title search showed that Ms. Myers had clear title to the property, the check which Mr. Sedler had given to Ms. Myers on September 18, 1987, with the restrictive endorsement was replaced. Later Mr. and Mrs. Rose tried to close their purchase, but found they could not. Ms. Myers had failed to inform them of the sale she made to the Kemps through Mr. Sedler. Mr. Teixeira, in retribution, filed an ethics complaint about Mr. Sedler with the West Palm Beach Board of Realtors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Peter P. Sedler and Marshall & Sedler, Inc., be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 14th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6183 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1. Rejected as unnecessary. 2 and 3. Adopted in Finding 1. 4 - 6. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Implicit in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Implicit in Finding 6. This does not mean that the contract subsisted, however. Rejected. Ms. Myers was willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose after the contract expired, but she was not under any obligation to do so. Adopted in Finding 7. Rejected, because there was no pending contract. Teixeira never obtained a written extension of the closing date and Ms. Myers was free to sell elsewhere. Rejected. No one could have truthfully told Sedler there was a pending contract. None existed. Rejected, because Mr. Sedler had no reason to believe that there was a subsisting contract for the sale of the property; there was none. Admission number 20 is not to the contrary. Adopted in Findings 10 and 11. Rejected. See, Findings 9 and 10. Rejected as unpersuasive. Rejected as cumulative to Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frank W. Weathers, Esquire Frank W. Weathers, P.A. Post Office Box 3967 Lantana, Florida 33465-3967 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondents engaged in a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Caribe Co-Operative Club Apartments, Inc. (Caribe Club), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation and a co-operative association that owns the apartment complex at issue in this proceeding located in Lake Worth, Florida. There are twenty-one apartments in the Caribe Club. The apartments constituting the Caribe Club are subject to duly-enacted bylaws and to a form proprietary lease. These documents govern the management of the co-operative association and specify the terms and conditions of each tenancy. An existing lease cannot be transferred until the transaction has been approved by the stockholders of the Caribe Club. If the transaction is approved, the prospective lessee is required to purchase a share of stock in the cooperative association and execute the form proprietary lease. The existing lessee and the proposed transferee are required to apply to the board of directors for approval of the proposed transaction. The board is then required to convene a meeting of the stockholders, at which the proposed transaction is discussed and the prospective lessee may be interviewed. Thereafter, a vote by secret ballot is taken, with each apartment having one vote. A two-thirds affirmative vote of the stockholders voting at the meeting is required for approval of the proposed transaction. Petitioner agreed to purchase the apartment at the Caribe Club owned by Phyllis McAuliffe for the sum of $13,500. As required by the bylaws of the Caribe Club, Petitioner and Ms. McAuliffe requested approval of the proposed transfer and Petitioner submitted her personal financial information in addition to the application. For approximately a year before she decided to purchase the McAuliffe lease, Respondent lived in the Caribe Club apartment leased by Quentin Mason, her boyfriend. After she and Ms. McAuliffe had come to terms, but before she submitted her request for approval to the board of directors, Petitioner painted and cleaned the McAuliffe apartment. In addition, she replaced a door. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Caribe Club had a president, two vice-presidents, a secretary, and a treasurer. These officers constituted the board of directors. Francis A. Phillip, Jr., the president of the Caribe Club, reviewed Petitioner's application and her supporting financial information. As required by the bylaws, Mr. Phillip called a special meeting of the stockholders for January 22, 1996, to consider the application. After her financial information was determined to be in order, Petitioner was briefly interviewed and then excused from the meeting. The only discussion of the proposed transfer consisted of Fernand Roy making a statement against the transaction and Mr. Mason giving a response. The proposed transaction was rejected by the vote by secret ballot that followed. Of the twelve voting stockholders at the meeting, seven voted against the transaction and five voted in favor. To the knowledge of the witnesses who testified, this was the first occasion that a prospective transfer had been rejected. The following stockholders were present at the meeting: Mr. and Mrs. Brooks (with one vote), Mr. Mason, Mr. and Mrs. Todd (with one vote), Mrs. Knutson, Mrs. Loomis, Mrs. Mack, Mrs. Senn, Mrs. Lambert, Mrs. Tognacci, Mr. Phillip, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Roy. At the formal hearing, there was competent evidence as to how five stockholders voted and the reasons of those who voted against the transaction. Mr. Mason and Mr. Reed voted for the transaction. Mr. Roy, Ms. Senn, and Mr. Phillip voted against the transaction. The Petitioner did not establish by competent evidence how the other individual stockholders voted or the reason for their votes. 1/ Fernand Roy participated in the stockholder meeting as a voting stockholder. Mr. Roy and Petitioner's boyfriend, Mr. Mason, had a long-standing feud. Mr. Roy did not want Petitioner to become a stockholder because she would then be able to support Mr. Mason's positions on various issues pertaining to management of the Caribe Club. Florence Senn participated in the stockholder meeting as a voting stockholder. Ms. Senn voted against the proposed transaction because she did not like the fact that Petitioner and Mr. Mason had been living together without the benefit of marriage. Ms. Senn did not discuss her position on the matter with anyone prior to the vote being taken. Ms. Senn told Petitioner before the vote was taken that if the stockholders rejected her application it would be because she was Mr. Mason's girlfriend. Ms. Senn was of the opinion following the vote that most of the stockholders who voted against the transaction did so because they did not like Mr. Mason. Mr. Phillip participated in the stockholder meeting as the presiding officer and as a voting stockholder. Mr. Phillip voted against the proposed transaction because he believed that Petitioner's entering the McAuliffe unit to paint, clean, and make repairs before the stockholders had approved the transaction evidenced an unwillingness on her part to comply with the bylaws and rules and regulations of the Caribe Club. Mr. Phillip testified that he had told Petitioner not to work in the apartment before the transaction was approved, but that she did so anyway. Before the meeting, Mr. Phillip mentioned to one or two other stockholders that Petitioner was working on the McAuliffe apartment, but he did not discuss his position on the transaction with anyone prior to the vote being taken. The evidence did not establish that any stockholder voted against the proposed transaction based on Petitioner's age, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion. 2/
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 dismissing Petitioner's discriminatory housing complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of May, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, T L Consultants, Inc., is a corporation which manages health care facilities. Vettraino Associates Investment Company owns 90 percent of T L Consultants and Grace LaRocca owns the other 10 percent. Vettraino Associates Investment Company is owned in trust by the children of Henry Vettraino, Sr., who set up the trust. Louis Vettraino, son of Henry Vettraino, Sr., is one of the individual trustholders of Vettraino Associates Investment Company and acts as president of T L Consultants, Inc. Grace LaRocca acts as vice president of T L Consultants. In 1980, W. S. Samford, Residential Services Director for District 8 of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was overseeing the implementation of the cluster concept to initiate and aid in the development of Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR's) in his district. At the request of his supervisor, Mr. Samford returned a call from a Mr. Bundschu. Mr. Bundschu, who dealt in real estate and was involved in the construction company of Bundschu, Bundschu, Kraft and Vettraino, knew of the need for ICF/MR's and indicated he had some Michigan investors who were interested in starting up such a facility. Through Mr. Bundschu, Mr. Samford met with Louis Vettraino and Henry Vettraino, Sr., who indicated that they were interested in building and operating an ICF/MR. Subsequently, Louis Vettraino contacted Maurice Reisman concerning ownership of the facility. Mr. Reisman indicated he would be interested in owning such a facility and, together with Grace LaRocca and Louis Vettraino, he met with Mr. Samford to discuss the application for a certificate of need (CON). Prior to applying for a CON or construction of the facility, it was understood by all of the parties that Henry Vettraino's construction company would build the facility and lease it to Maurice Reisman who would contract with T L Consultants for management services. Louis Vettraino was aware from the beginning that a management firm could not own a facility and charge a fee. He acknowledged that the management firm had sought out the owner instead of the owner seeking out a management firm in the open market. Concerned about the propriety of the management structure which was contemplated, Mr. Reisman wrote Mr. Samford in February of 1981 and asked for a determination by HRS as to whether the proposal met the guidelines for reimbursement. In response to his inquiry, Mr. Reisman was notified that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services considered the structure to illustrate a "control" situation, subject to reimbursement limitations. In applying for the CON for the facility, Maurice Reisman relied heavily on the financial backing of Henry Vettraino, Sr. Although Mr. Reisman was applying for a CON for a 1.2 million dollar facility (later increased to 2.7 million dollars), he had only $142,000 in assets. To qualify for the CON, the assets of Henry, Sr., and Jennette Vettraino were included in both the original and amended CON applications. In the minutes of the Lee County Industrial Authority monthly meeting dated June 10, 1982, the bond issue for financing the facility is referred to as the "Vettraino bond issue." It was noted in the CON application that T L Consultants would be the management firm. The CON application was not prepared by Mr. Reisman, but by Grace LaRocca as Operations Director. Ms. LaRocca, a principal in T L Consultants, indicated in the CON application that she was on the Board of Directors of Sandy Park Rehabilitation Center, the corporation that Mr. Reisman formed to own the facility. In addition, when application was made for an amended CON, the request for expedited review listed T L Consultants as a Principal Party in the application. While waiting for the new facility to be built, Mr. Reisman and T L Consultants entered into an agreement to temporarily occupy the existing state facility. Concerned about his responsibilities, Mr. Reisman contacted Mr. Samford for clarification of the agreement. Mr. Samford indicated that although it seemed that Mr. Reisman was not in direct "financial interest" and control of the management firm, as holder of the CON, he was responsible for performance in meeting licensure requirements. This was a separate issue from the question of control for reimbursement purposes and was not a change in the Department's position on that issue. Notwithstanding the original opinion of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Mr. Reisman made application to the Medicaid Cost Reimbursement Unit (Medicaid) for reimbursement of management fees to be charged by T L Consultants. Mr. Reisman reiterated the fact that T L Consultants had contacted him and acknowledged that he had not sought competitive bids for management services. A proposed management agreement was submitted to Medicaid but was rejected because it had no termination clause. When a new management contract was submitted , the management fee had jumped from 7.5 percent to 10 percent without explanation. In submitting proof of Sandy Park's financial ability to Medicaid, a $100,000 line of credit from Lee County Bank was indicated. Investigation into that line of credit revealed that Henry Vettraino, Sr., had co-signed the loan for Maurice Reisman. These facts, along with the fact that Maurice Reisman had never previously owned a nursing home, the fact that T L Consultants had arranged the entire operation, and the facts surrounding the financing and involvement of Henry Vettraino, Sr., resulted in the denial of the management fees by Medicaid.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that management fees over and above the actual costs of services to T L Consultants, Inc. be allowed for reimbursement by Medicaid to Sandy Park Rehabilitation Center. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Fitzgerald, Esquire Sandra J. Frank, Esquire Fitzgerald, Hodgman, Kazul, Rutledge, Cawthorne & King 1000 First Federal Building Detroit, Michigan 48226 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Lakeshore Club of Polk County Homeowners Association (Lakeshore Club), violated the Florida Fair Housing Act, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2010).1/
Findings Of Fact Since 2004, Mr. Cosme has been a resident and homeowner in the Lakeshore Club of Polk County. He is of Hispanic descent with a national origin of Puerto Rico. Lakeshore Club is a homeowners' association located in Lakeland, Florida. A majority of the residents are Hispanic and of Puerto Rican origin. Ms. Jewell-Sanford, at all times relevant to the complaint, was the manager of Lakeshore Club. The record shows instances in 2005 and 2006 when Ms. Jewell-Sanford had directed that Spanish not be spoken in the homeowners’ association office. The record shows that, in 2005 an "English only" sign was posted and removed. Further, it was not disputed that, in 2006 Mr. Cosme had been asked by Ms. Jewell-Sanford to leave the office because he had been speaking Spanish to one of the office secretaries. In March 2010, Mr. Cosme went to the Lakeshore Club’s office to pick-up some papers. When Mr. Cosme entered the office, he walked past the receptionist to go to the back of the office. Ms. Jewell-Sanford told Mr. Cosme that he could not walk to the back of the office, because the office had rules. Mr. Cosme felt that action by Ms. Jewell-Sanford had been disrespectful to him. Ms. Horneck, the current president of the Lakeshore Club Board of Directors, credibly testified that Ms. Jewell- Sanford spoke little, if any, to Hispanic members of the homeowners’ association. On December 1, 2009, Lakeshore Club sent Mr. Cosme the following letter: Dear Mr. Cosme: This comes in reply to your "packet" of complaint that was given to the Board of Directors against our Association Manager, Elizabeth Jewell. Our attorney and management consultant both feel this is hearsay and opinion. The past boards were in disagreement with you on this issue as well as a majority of the currently seated board. We have been advised that should you continue in your harassment of any member of the association, its directors, agents or employees, the Board of Directors will be well advised to seek legal remedies up to and including injunctive relief. We regret that you have chosen to make this step necessary after coming to the agreement that the President of the Association handle these issues and it is our desire that we work things out peacefully from this point forward. Mr. Cosme felt this letter was threatening, because he feared that the homeowners’ association would seek to eject him from the community based on the terms "injunctive relief" contained in the letter. Ms. Horneck credibly testified that she had initialed the letter and that it was her intent that the parties get together and work out any problem. Mr. Cosme did not offer into evidence the information packet that he had provided the Board of Directors, which prompted the December 1, 2009, letter. Further, Mr. Cosme did not bring forward any evidence to show that Lakeshore Club had taken any action to deprive him of his home or any part of the community, or that it had taken any action against him. Ms. Jewell-Sanford had left her job as manager in April 2010.
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 7th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 7th day of July, 2011.
