The Issue The issue is whether Granada Lakes Development Corporation should be fined for alleged violations of the Florida Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact General Findings Pertaining to the Condominium Granada Lakes Adult RV Resort Condominium is located in Fort Myers, Florida. It consists of 151 units; about 70 have been sold. It was to be developed in three phases. Each Unit is a parcel upon which the purchaser may place a dwelling unit. Granada Lakes Development Corporation is the developer of the condominium. The declaration of condominium for Granada Lakes Adult RV Resort Condominium was recorded in the public records of Lee County on March 11, 1982. The Respondents did not include in the original declaration of condominium which submitted Phase I to condominium ownership the time period within which Phases II and III would be completed. The developer owned all condominium units during 1982. Sale contracts for the first units were executed in 1982. The first sales did not close until early 1983. No units have been offered for sale at the Granada Lakes Adult RV Resort Condominium for approximately eighteen months preceding the day of the hearing. Respondents ceased to be the developer of Granada Lakes RV Resort Condominium at the end of July 1985. Granada Lakes Development Corporation was involuntarily dissolved by the Department of State on about November 1, 1985. Distribution of Statements of Receipts and Expenses for 1983 and 1984 Morgan Lloyd closed the purchase of his unit in February 1983. He served as treasurer for the condominium association from February 1983 until approximately February 1984. Mr. Lloyd prepared a financial statement showing receipts and expenditures for the calendar year 1983. Although this statement is for calendar year 1983, the association's fiscal year for 1983 ended October 31, 1983. The statement of income and expenses for the year 1983 was prepared more than 60 days after the close of the fiscal year. The account balance was determined as of December 31, 1983, so the statement had to have been prepared after that date. It was distributed to unit owners at the first annual meeting of the unit owners, which occurred on February 23, 1984. (This disregards, for the moment, the unit owners meeting held by the developer when it was the sole owner of the units, see Finding of Fact 15, post.) The annual financial report of the association for, fiscal year 1984 was not distributed earlier than March 1985. Proposed Budgets for 1982 through 1984 Proposed annual budgets for the years 1982 and 1983 had been prepared by the developer and were distributed with the prospects for the condominium units. The proposed budget for 1982 (which was included in the prospectus) contained as line item 13 for operating expenses a reserve account for roof replacement, equipment replacement, building painting and pavement resurfacing. It called for an annual reserve funded by all 151 units of $3,415. Copies of the 1985 proposed annual budget of common expenses were mailed to unit owners 13 days prior to the meeting at which the 1985 budget was to be considered. Reserves After the developer began conveying out units in 1983, there was never a meeting of the condominium association at which the membership voted to waive or reduce the funding of reserves shown in the estimated budget in the prospectus of $1.88 per condominium unit per month. These reserve monies were placed in the reserve account quarterly as they were paid by unit owners. The developer did not pay any reserves in 1983 or 1984 for units owned by the developer because, in the developers view, those payments were not due under the resolution passed during the January 5, 1983 membership meeting of Granada Lakes Adult RV Resort Condominium Association, Inc. That meeting had been held at a time when the developer owned all of the units that made up the association. The meeting occurred after distribution of the prospectus, which disclosed the reserve account and showed all units contributing to the payment of common operating expenses, including reserves. That resolution states: the President of the Association then brought up for consideration the proposal by the developer, Granada Lakes Development Corporation, that it guarantee the maintenance fee during the two-year period commencing January 5, 1983. Upon a motion duly made and adopted, the Association agreed that in lieu of the developer paying its maintenance assessments on unsold units that the developer could and did agree to guarantee that for the two-year period stated above the maintenance fee charge to unit owners other than the developer would not exceed the [sic] $31.61 per month and that any shortage that might be incurred in the maintenance of the Association during such period shall be covered by the developer. Such agreement was accepted by all concerned, including the Development Corporation, which is as of the time of this meeting the sole unit owner in the Condominium. The matter of the reserves was also discussed and the Development Corporation, as sole unit owner, agreed with the association to the waiver of the funding of reserves for the same two year period. Based on the payment of $1.88 per unit per month the amount of money which should be in the reserve account from the date of recording of the declaration of condominium until the date the respondent was no longer the developer is $11,554. As of July 1985 the reserve account contained $3,227.35, having a deficit of $8,326.65. Since units began to be sold, there have been no withdrawals made from the reserve account. Mr. Sharp, the president of the developer, testified that he spent approximately the $2,400 for reserve-type expenses but had sought no reimbursement from the reserve account because he wanted the reserve account going. No receipts verifying such expenditures were introduced into evidence. This attempt to offset developer expenses against amounts the developer should have paid into the reserve account of the Association is rejected as unpersuasive. Association Records While he served as Association treasurer, Morgan Lloyd asked on several occasions to see the bills for Association expenses. Mr. Sharp would only tell him the amount of the association's bills, and refused to let Mr. Lloyd see the original bills.
Recommendation A civil penalty for each violation the condominium act, not to exceed $5,000.00 per offense may be imposed under section 718.501(1)(d)4., Florida Statutes (1983). The Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes may also take affirmative action to carry out the purposes of Chapter 718. Section 718.501(1)(3)2., Florida Statutes (1983). Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: For its multiple violations of the condominium act, Granada Lakes Development Corporation shall pay to the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes within thirty (30) days of the entry of a final order civil penalty in the total amount of $5,000.00 by certified check payable to the director of the Division. Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a final order the developer shall pay to the Granada Lakes Adult RV Resort Condominium Association the sum of $8,276.65 representing its liability for reserves from the recording of the date of a. declaration of condominium through July 1985. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY,JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin H. Conner, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Norman A. Hartman, Esquire GOETZ & HARTMAN Post office Box 6844 Fort Myers, Florida 33911-6844 Granada Lakes Development Corporation C/O All America RV Sales U.S. 41 South Box 806S, Route 13 Fort Myers, Florida 33908 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-100 Thomas A. Bell, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner l(a). Covered in Finding of Fact 2. l(b). Covered in Finding of Fact 13. l(c). Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 2(a). Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 3(a). Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3(b). Sentence 1, covered in Finding of Fact 3. Sentence 2, covered in Finding of Fact 7. 3(c). Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 3(d). Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. 3(e). Covered in Finding of Fact 9. 3(f). Covered in Finding of Fact 9. 3(g). Covered in Finding of Fact 10. 3(h). To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 5. The date on which witnesses moved into the condominium prior to the date they closed the purchases of their unit is irrelevant. 3(i). Rejected as recitations of testimony, not proposed findings of fact, also irrelevant. 3(j). Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence I find more credible, i.e., that an owners meeting was held by the developer on January 5, 1983. 3(k). Sentence 1, covered in Finding of Fact 11. Sentences 2 and 3, rejected as irrelevant. 3(1). Covered in Finding of Fact 18. 3(m). Generally rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Covered, however, in Finding of Fact 14. 3(n). Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 3(o). Covered in Finding of Fact 15. 3(p). Covered in Finding of Fact 16. 3(q). Covered in Finding of Fact 17. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. No ruling necessary. 2(A). Evidence that meetings of unit owners were held in 1982 and 1983 have been accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 15. 2(B). Rejected because there is no evidence that for fiscal or calendar year 1982 the reserve requirement had been waived. The only evidence of any meeting of the condominium association in 1982, joint exhibit 5(a) does not show any waiver of reserve requirements for that year. It is inconceivable that the developer, at a meeting where it is the sole owner of all units, may waive reserve requirements when the budget distributed with the prospectus to potential purchasers shows reserves in the estimated operating budget it distributed. See joint exhibit 1. The resolution recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Condominium Association of January 5, 1983, which purports to waive funding of reserves for two years is ineffective for the reasons discussed in Conclusions of Law 7. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND MOBILE HOMES DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND MOBILE HOMES, Petitioner, DBR DOCKET NO. 85224MVC DOAH CASE NO. 85-4267 GRANADA LAKES DEVELOPMENT CORP., d/b/a GRANADA LAKES ADULT RV RESORT CONDOMINIUM, Respondent. /
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of The Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate action that should be taken by the Petitioner. Petitioner contends that the Respondent participated in board of directors' meetings regarding the Golden Lakes Village condominium, without first posting notice of the meetings and without maintaining minutes of the meetings as required by the provisions of The Condominium Act. Respondent denies the allegations.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Planned Communities, Inc., is the developer of a condominium known as Golden Lakes Village, Phase B. The affairs of Golden Lakes Village are administered by a board of directors that is controlled by the developer. There are three members of the board. Two are selected by the developer, and one by unit owners within the condominium. The bylaws of the condominium provide that meetings of the board of directors shall be open to all unit owners and that notice of meetings shall be posted conspicuously at the condominium property forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. The bylaws provide that a quorum of the directors means a majority of the entire board. The bylaws require that minutes of all meetings of the board of directors be kept. The condominium association maintains a minutes book. There are minutes from nine board of directors' meetings since 1979. Four of these meetings had as their purpose consideration of proposed budgets. Four were organizational meetings to elect officers. One was a special meeting called to consider a proposal to engage the services of a management company. Minutes were not kept for any other meetings of the board of directors that were conducted from 1979 until the present, neither was there any posting to advise unit owners of these meetings in advance. There were numerous meetings of the Board of Directors of Golden Lakes Village, Phase B, other than those that were properly noticed and for which minutes were taken. During these meetings, matters affecting the condominium were discussed. Many of the meetings were conducted on a very informal basis when the unit owners' representative on the board contacted one of the developer's representatives and asked for a meeting. Among the matters discussed were repairs to facilities, additional facilities, budget, and the like. It does not appear that business was conducted in this manner so as to hide the meetings from unit owners. Rather, the purpose appears to have been to conduct operations in a simple manner and to allow the unit owners' representative on the board ready access to the developer's representatives. While the motives of the developer do not appear to have been bad ones, conducting the meetings without first posting notice and without keeping minutes violated the provisions of the condominium bylaws.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner River Trails is the developer of a condominium community in Palm Beach County known as River Walk. River Walk is contiguous to and immediately adjacent to 2600 feet of South Florida Water Management District (hereinafter "SFWMD") property bordering Canal C-18 in Palm Beach County. The right- of-way adjacent to C-18 as well as the bottom of C-18 is owned by SFWMD. C-18 is not in an area designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. As required by Section 403.813(2), Florida Statutes, River Trails sought and obtained on January 12, 1984, a permit from the SFWMD to construct a dock and boat ramp in Canal C-18. The permit conveyed no property rights to River Trails. On October 12, 1984, River Trails asked DER to confirm that River Trails' proposed boat ramp qualified for an exemption pursuant to Section 403.813(2)(c), Florida Statutes. By letter dated December 20, 1984, DER informed River Trails that the proposed boat ramp did qualify for the exemption and, therefore did not require any permit from DER. On October 18, 1984, River Trails asked DER to confirm that River Trails' proposed dock of 1,000 square feet or less qualified for an exemption from DER's permitting authority pursuant to Section 403.813(2)(b), Florida Statutes. However, on November 30, 1984, DER informed River Trails that its proposed dock did not qualify for the exemption because there was already an existing dock on SFWMD property on Canal C-18. As authority for its position, DER cited the following sentence in DER Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), Florida Administrative Code: "A private dock is a single pier at a parcel of property." On the 2600 feet of SFWMD-owned right-of-way contiguous to River Trails, there are presently no docks. On SFWMD-owned right-of-way east of River Trails, between River Trails and the southwest fork of the Loxahatchee River, there are two docks approximately 300 feet apart located in front of single-family residences. DER contends all contiguous property owned by an individual, group or entity, including a water management district, constitutes a "parcel of property" and accordingly does not recognize River Trails' claim to an exemption because of the existence of these docks. Prior to River Trails' request that DER confirm River Trails' right to an exemption, DER had not interpreted water management district-owned right-of-ways to be a "parcel of property" within the meaning of Rule 17- 4.04(9)(c). In the past, the SFWMD has permitted numerous docks of less than 1,000 square feet on SFWMD-owned right- of-ways. Copies of these permits were routinely forwarded to DER. While these docks were and are on right-of-ways which DER now defines as a "parcel" within the meaning of Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), DER has not required permits for these docks. The DER employees who interpret the rule in question as part of their duties and whose depositions were introduced at hearing do not agree on the configuration which constitutes a single pier, on the degree of ownership or control required over a parcel of property by an applicant for an exemption, or on the definition of a parcel of property. DER has failed to adequately explain its deviation from past agency practice in interpreting SFWMD right-of- way as a parcel of property. But for DER's new interpretation of the term "parcel of property" found in Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), Florida Administrative Code, River Trails' proposed dock meets the statutory and rule requirements for an exemption from obtaining a permit from DER.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of discrimination based on her race, sex or handicap in leasing her apartment from Respondents in violation of Sections 804d and 804f of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988 and the Florida Fair Housing Act and Section 760.23(2)(4), Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white female with a mental impairment. As such, she is a member of a protected class. Boardwalk Apartments (Boardwalk) is a large apartment complex owned by Blackwater Housing Corporation (Blackwater) and managed by Progressive Management of Milton, Inc. (Progressive). Boardwalk leases 6 apartments to Lakeview Center. Neither Blackwater, Progressive nor Boardwalk had any substantial contact with Petitioner. Nor were any of these Respondents involved in the lease arrangement Petitioner had with Lakeview Center. Because of this lack of involvement, Blackwater, Progressive and Boardwalk were dismissed as parties at the close of Petitioner’s case in chief. Lakeview Center leases its Boardwalk Apartments to its clients who qualify for services in its Independent Living Program. In order to qualify to lease an apartment under the Independent Living Program, a person must have a major mental illness and be homeless. The program is a therapeutic program with a housing component that is intended to help homeless, mentally-ill clients of Lakeview learn and attain independent living skills. If a person qualifies for the program, he or she enters into a contract and a lease with Lakeview Center that requires the tenant to clean and maintain the apartment he or she leases. All the apartments at Boardwalk could be leased to two clients at one time. During the time relevant to this proceeding, the Lakeview apartments at the Boardwalk Apartment complex were leased to six tenants. Like Petitioner, all six tenants were female, White, and had a mental disability. In fact, the only tenants that Lakeview can provide housing to under its Independent Living Program are homeless individuals with a mental impairment. On November 7, 2008, Petitioner applied to rent a unit through the Lakeview Center Independent Living Program and was accepted. She entered into the standard contract and lease used by Lakeview Center in its Independent Living Program. As with all of Lakeview’s tenants, the contract required Petitioner to clean and maintain the apartment. The apartment at the Boardwalk Apartment complex assigned to Petitioner was newly renovated and relatively clean. One other Lakeview client was living in the apartment. Petitioner did not provide any credible evidence to support that the apartment was filthy or that she was given or held to different terms and conditions than other residents of the Independent Living Program based on her race, sex, color or disability. Indeed, her roommate lived in the apartment under the same terms and conditions that Petitioner lived in the apartment. Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding any of the other tenants’ terms and/or conditions relative to their apartments. Petitioner, simply, did not like the condition of her apartment, refused to clean the apartment and, the next day, declined to stay in the apartment. Petitioner’s other complaint was that she did not like the way she was treated by Mr. Baldwin, who coordinates Lakeview’s Independent Living Program. She thought he was extremely rude to her. However, there was no evidence that demonstrated Petitioner was treated differently than any of the other Lakeview clients in the Independent Living Program with whom Mr. Baldwin works. Given the lack of evidence in this case and the fact that all of Lakeview’s tenants at the Boardwalk apartments were mentally handicapped and the same race and sex as Petitioner, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of her race, sex or handicap. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon 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 of Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Walters 112 Bartow Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32507 Sterling Baldwin, B.A. Lakeview Center 1813 North J Street, Building L Pensacola, Florida 32501 Dan D’Onofrio Blackwater Housing Corporation, Progressive Management of Milton, Inc. And Boardwalk Apartments 205 Brooks Street, Southeast, Suite 305 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this licensing dispute, Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District), has proposed to deny an application of Petitioner, Everglades Surveying Joint Venture (Everglades), for certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE) under the District's Supplier Diversity & Outreach Program (Program). If the application is approved, Petitioner would be listed on the District's contract solicitation and vendor lists as a minority contractor. In its proposed agency action, as later amended, the District contends that the application should be denied because: the minority owner fails to meet the criteria in Rule 40E-7.653(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code; the documents provided by Petitioner "do not support that the day- to-day operations are controlled by the minority applicant, nor is there evidence that the minority applicant possesses the authority to direct the management and policy of the business"; the minority business does not meet the size standard of a small business as required by Section 288.703, Florida Statutes; and the minority owner does not possess the necessary license to qualify the firm in its area of specialty as required by Rule 40E-7.653(5), Florida Administrative Code. In simpler terms, the District has contended that Petitioner's application is deficient in the areas of "management and control, the size standards[,] and the licensure." Petitioner disputes these allegations and contends that it meets all criteria for certification. As to the remaining requirements for certification in Rule 40E-7.653(4), (7), (8), and (9), Florida Administrative Code, the parties have stipulated that all of these criteria have been satisfied. The Minority Owner's Corporate Structure Ray J. Berryman, an Asian-Pacific American, is the minority owner seeking certification. Mr. Berryman is a professional engineer who has been in the engineering and surveying business for almost forty years. After working with other engineering firms for over a decade, in 1975 he started his own firm in California. At that time, the firm was known as Berryman & Stevenson, but its name was later changed to BSI Consultants, and then to Berryman & Henigar, Inc. The firm provides civil engineering and surveying services to public agencies on the West Coast. In 1994, Mr. Berryman acquired a Florida corporation known as Henigar & Ray, Inc., which was engaged in the business of providing surveying and civil engineering services. Although the company initially operated under the name of Henigar & Ray, Inc., doing business as Berryman & Henigar, in 1998 Mr. Berryman changed its name to Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (BHI), the same name as the California corporation. Mr. Berryman serves as director, chief executive officer, and operating manager of BHI. The firm's headquarters are in Orlando, and it has branch offices in Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Tampa, Ocala, and West Palm Beach. In March 1994, Mr. Berryman formed a Nevada holding company known as Berryman & Henigar Enterprises (BHE), in which he owns 77.5 percent of the stock and serves as chairman of the board and chief executive officer. BHE owns all of the stock in Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (the California corporation); Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (the Florida corporation); Employment Systems, Inc., a "staff easing company" incorporated in California in 1992; BHE Technical Staffing, a Nevada corporation; and Therapy Network, a Nevada corporation. However, BHE Technical Staffing and Therapy Network are no longer in business. Consolidated financial statements are issued for all of the companies. BHE was formed for the purpose of serving as a vehicle "to allow a relationship to exist" between the Florida and California corporations. After BHE was formed, Mr. Berryman changed the name of both the Florida and California firms (Henigar & Ray, Inc., and BSI Consultants, respectively) to Berryman & Henigar, Inc., one a Florida corporation, the other a California corporation, so that he could have "the strength, if you will, of both companies with a similar name." Except for a few administrative personnel, BHE has no other employees and it performs no professional services. Besides being the owner of BHE and the wholly-owned subsidiaries named above, Mr. Berryman also is a majority owner of at least one affiliated company known as GovPartner, a California firm providing "e-Government solutions for cities, courts, and governmental agencies." Whether Mr. Berryman controls other affiliated companies was not disclosed at hearing. Other MBE Certifications In June 1996, or before the District had a rule on MBE certifications, Henigar & Ray, Inc., doing business as Berryman & Henigar, applied with the District for certification as a MBE to provide civil engineering, surveying, environmental sciences, and construction management services. The application was approved, and a one-year certification was issued. The District then changed from a one-year to a three-year certification, and after an application for recertification was filed in 1997, Henigar & Ray, Inc., was reissued a certification that expired in 2000. By then, the District had adopted a rule which required, among other things, that the minority owner have a professional license in all fields in which the certification was granted. Through what the District calls an "error" or oversight, it failed to note that Mr. Berryman did not hold a professional surveyor's license, and it erroneously continued to certify BHI in the area of surveying. On August 26, 1999, the firm was given "graduated" status, which meant that it was no longer eligible for continued participation in the District's Program as a prime contractor due to the business having a net worth of more than $3 million and/or an average net income of $2 million after federal taxes for the preceding two years. However, the firm could still be counted (as a subcontractor) towards a prime contractor's goal attainment. In November 2000, the firm, then known as BHI, again applied for recertification as a registered vendor. The application was approved on March 1, 2001, for another three-year period, this time in the areas of surveying, civil engineering, and construction management. Whether BHI is still in the graduated status is not known. Besides holding MBE status with the District, BHI has been certified as a MBE with several local governments in Florida, including the City of Tampa, City of Orlando, Tampa Port Authority, and Orange County. Copies of BHI's applications filed with those governmental entities have been made a part of this record. The Joint Venture As an Asian-Pacific American, Mr. Berryman qualifies for minority status. Although not disclosed by the parties, but presumably because BHI has graduated status, and cannot serve as a prime contractor, or because its certification as a MBE in surveying may be taken away, Mr. Berryman desires to become a District MBE through another legal entity and provide surveying services as a prime contractor on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP) now being undertaken by the District. Before filing his application, Mr. Berryman considered three options: filing as a corporation, a partnership, or a joint venture. He chose a joint venture since it gives the entity "the ability to have control outside of a corporate board." According to Mr. Berryman, even though the joint venture is theoretically controlled by a control board, under the make-up of the venture established here, that board can only represent "what Berryman & Henigar, Inc. commands and requires it to represent." Mr. Berryman also desired to have other members in the joint venture who would "provide a unique geographical location for projects being performed by [CERP]," and thus enhance its "probability of obtaining work through the District as a minority." To this end, Everglades was formed as a joint venture pursuant to a Joint Venture Agreement (Agreement) executed on October 12, 2001. So that Everglades would have a "formidable surveying company that would be able to win work," its members included BHI; GCY, Inc. (GCY), a Florida corporation providing surveying services; Jeffrey C. Cooner and Associates, Inc. (Cooner), a Florida corporation providing surveying services; and Southern Mapping Technology, Inc. (Southern Mapping), a Florida surveying corporation. According to the Agreement, the ownership of the joint venture is as follows: BHI - 51 percent GCY - 16.33 percent Cooner - 16.33 percent Southern Mapping - 16.33 percent Mr. Berryman opted for BHI to have 51 percent ownership in the joint venture so that he would control the entity. At the same time, however, he desired to give the other participants as much ownership as possible without giving up control. The Agreement establishes a Board of Control (Board) which has the responsibility and authority for the conduct and management of Everglades to approve and execute contracts, formulate and determine the policies of Everglades, approve consultants and subcontractor agreements, approve budgets and schedules, determine the allocation of work among members of Everglades, and decide all other matters necessary to its operations. After the joint venture's formation, five individuals were appointed to the Board: Mark A. Stokes and Steve Sharpe, both BHI employees appointed by Mr. Berryman; George C. Young, Jr., of GCY; Jeffrey C. Cooner of Cooner; and James S. Richmond of Southern Mapping. All members of the Board are non-minorities. In response to the District's proposed denial of the application, in May or June 2002, or six or seven months after it was filed, Mr. Berryman assumed a seat on the Board, replacing Mr. Sharpe.1 However, because of a District policy that no amendments to an application will be considered after the application is filed, the District has not taken into account this change in the Board's membership. Petitioner has not challenged the use of that policy. Paragraph 4.3 of the Agreement provides that the Board "shall reach decisions by simple majority vote of total votes cast. BHI shall cast 51 votes; GCY shall cast 16 votes; Cooner shall cast 16 votes; and Southern Mapping shall cast 16 votes." Thus, BHI has ultimate control over all of Everglades' decisions. At the same time, however, there is nothing in the Agreement which says that the Board must consult with Mr. Berryman, and obtain his approval, before a decision is taken. Rule 40E-7.653(5) Criteria Paragraph (5) of the rule requires, among other things, that the applicant establish that the minority owner "possess[es] the authority to control and exercise dominant control over the management and daily operations of the business." The District contends that Mr. Berryman does not exercise such control since he does not sit on the Board, Mr. Stokes and Mr. Sharpe, both non-minorities, are the individuals who actually cast votes on behalf of BHI, and nothing in the Agreement requires Mr. Stokes and Mr. Sharpe to consult with Mr. Berryman before they make a decision. In reality, Mr. Berryman has absolute control over all of the decisions made by Mr. Stokes, who occupies one of the two BHI seats on the Board. This was confirmed by Mr. Stokes at the hearing and was not contradicted. Even if Mr. Sharpe (who has been replaced by Mr. Berryman) were still on the Board, he would be subject to the same constraints. This is because Mr. Berryman has made it clear that he would quickly replace any BHI Board member who did not vote in accordance with his wishes. Since BHI (and Mr. Berryman) effectively controls the joint venture through 51 percent of the Board's voting power, it is found that the minority owner exercises dominant control over the management and daily operations of the joint venture, as contemplated by the rule. Rule 40E-7.653(6) Criteria Subparagraphs (6)(c) and (d) of the rule require that the applicant establish that "the net worth of the business concern, together with its affiliates, does not exceed five (5) million [dollars]," and that it "employs two- hundred (200) or fewer permanent, full-time employees," respectively. In determining the net worth, the same rule provides that the District shall "consider the most recent federal tax returns or annual financial statements for the business." After concerns were raised by the District over BHI's net worth and number of permanent employees, BHI filed a letter with the District on April 2, 2002, indicating that it had 118 full-time employees and a negative net worth of $1,460,176.00. On June 6, 2002, its counsel also filed an affidavit by BHE's Controller, together with consolidated financial reports for the year ending March 29, 2002, reflecting a negative net worth of $1,293,435 for BHE and all of its subsidiaries, including BHI. Counsel also provided an affidavit by the BHE Benefits Coordinator listing 96 full-time BHI employees as of May 17, 2002. In separate documents submitted earlier by the other joint venture participants, the net worth and number of permanent, full-time employees of each of those participants were as follows: GCY - $553,000.00 and 25 employees as of November 30, 2001; Cooner - $300,000.00 and 8 employees as of December 31, 2001; and Southern Mapping - $527,000.00 and 6 employees as of December 31, 2001. While the fiscal years of the participants are not identical, collectively these figures produce a total positive net worth of all Everglades members (including BHE, the parent of BHI) of $86,565.00 and less than 200 full-time employees at or about the date the application was filed. Despite this showing by Everglades that it met the net worth and size thresholds for a MBE, over the past two years BHI has made a number of filings with the District and other governmental entities which caused the District to doubt the veracity of the numbers submitted by Everglades and to ultimately deny the application. For example, in its application for recertification filed with the District in November 2000, BHI reflected that it then had a positive net worth of $1,013,790.00 and 305 full-time employees. In a Statement of Intent to Perform as a MBE Subcontractor dated October 23, 2001, BHI indicated that its net worth was $1,012,979.00 and that it employed 102 permanent employees. Almost identical numbers were shown in other filings made with the District on November 1, 2001, April 18, 2002, May 24, 2002, and May 31, 2002. However, in a Statement of Intent to Perform as a MBE Subcontractor executed by a BHI corporate officer (Mr. Stokes) on June 18, 2002, and filed with the District, the net worth of BHI was shown as $4,106,000.00 and the number of permanent, full-time employees was given as 350. Assuming these latter figures are accurate, Everglades would have a total net worth exceeding $5 million and more than 200 full-time, permanent employees, both of which exceed the thresholds permitted by the rule. In addition, on April 3, 2000, BHI filed certification documents with Orange County reflecting that it had 305 full-time employees and a positive net worth of $123,415.00. Identical figures were reflected in a filing made with the City of Tampa on April 3, 2002. In contrast, in a MBE certification filing made with the City of Orlando on May 20, 2002, which included net worth and number of employees for the latest three-year period, BHI represented that it had 97 employees in the years 2000, 2001, and 2002, and that its net worth for those years was a negative $898,676.00, a negative $1,376,645.00, and a negative $1,586,216.00, respectively. To add to the confusion, in an undated document filed with the City of Tampa, BHI indicated that it had 345 full-time employees and 35 part-time employees. However, in a June 12, 2002, filing with the Tampa Port Authority, BHI indicated that it had 116 full-time employees and a negative net worth of $1,586,216.00. Mr. Berryman conceded that the different filings were "embarrassing" and confusing, and he attributed them to mistakes by careless or untrained in-house personnel. As to the document reflecting a net worth of BHI in excess of $4 million, it was established that a secretary erroneously filled out the document and Mr. Stokes hurriedly signed it without verifying the numbers. Mr. Berryman also maintained that the numbers submitted by BHI to the District in the April 2, 2002, letter, as supported by the financial reports and affidavits filed on June 6, 2002, are the most accurate reflection of its net worth and number of employees. This assertion is accepted since all of the filings over the years (except the one on June 18, 2002) have consistently indicated that the net worth of BHI is far less than the $5 million threshold. Moreover, the more credible evidence supports a finding that the number of permanent, full-time employees of BHI and the other joint venture participants is less than 200. Based on these considerations, it is found that Everglades meets the net worth and employee thresholds prescribed by the rule. Professional Licensure Requirement Rule 40E-7.653(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the minority owner (Mr. Berryman) seeking certification "be the license holder, or the professional license holder" in the specialty for which certification is sought. Here, Everglades seeks to provide surveying services. The application filed with the District identified five BHI individuals who had professional surveying licenses which authorized the work, all non-minorities. Mr. Berryman was not identified as being one of them. The rule itself is clear and unambiguous and requires no interpretation. Since its adoption in late 1996, the District has consistently construed it to mean just what it says -- that in order for a minority owner to be certified, the owner must have a professional license in the area being certified. This interpretation of the rule was not shown to be unreasonable or clearly erroneous. Therefore, because Everglades intends to provide surveying services, Mr. Berryman, as the minority owner, must hold a surveyor's license under Chapter 472, Florida Statutes, in order to qualify as a MBE. While it is true that Mr. Berryman is a registered professional engineer (under Chapter 471, Florida Statutes) in the State of Florida (as well as 3 other states), and he can perform almost all of the surveying services under his engineering license,2 he does not hold a Florida surveyor's license, as required by the rule. While this result may seem unfair and based on highly technical grounds, it is consistent with the plain requirements of the rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the application of Everglades Surveying Joint Venture for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of September, 2002.
The Issue Whether Respondents, Park Lane Condominium Owners Association, Jim Faix, and Polaris Property Management, Inc.,1 discriminated against 1 Respondents will collectively be referred to as Respondents, but Park Lane Condominium Owners Association will be referred to as the Association, and Polaris Property Management, Inc., will be referred to as Polaris. Jim Faix will be referred to as Mr. Faix. Petitioner, Benedict Theisen (Mr. Theisen or Petitioner), on the basis of Mr. Theisen’s disability in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (the Act), sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2019),2 and, if so, the relief to which Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a 75 year-old male who resides in a second floor condominium unit located at 2155 Wood Street, Sarasota, Florida. Mr. Theisen has lived in his condominium unit for over 29 years. Beginning at age 59, Mr. Theisen’s health started declining, and he began taking his Social Security retirement at age 62. Mr. Theisen experiences shortness of breath and considerable pain in his feet and legs when walking or climbing stairs. He uses a motorized scooter when possible. Mr. Theisen has an unrebutted diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Mr. Theisen has a physical handicap as defined by the Act, section 760.22(7)(a). The Association is the managing body for the Park Lane Condominium (Condo), which is a 49 unit condominium located at 2155 Wood Street, Sarasota, Florida. The Condo was originally built as an apartment complex in the late 1950s, and converted to condominium ownership in 1979. James Faix is the manager for the Association. He holds a bachelor’s degree and has multiple certifications and licensures. Polaris is a property management company that engaged Mr. Faix as the Association’s manager. Mr. Theisen, acting on his belief that his request for a chair lift6 had been approved by the Association,7 received an estimate/invoice from Florida Surgical Supply for the installation and removal of a chair lift at his Condo 6 The term chair lift and stair lift were used interchangeably throughout the hearing and the emails. 7 No evidence was introduced at hearing that the Association had “approved” the chair lift in 2018. There was testimony that in the fall of 2018, Mr. Theisen and Mr. Faix discussed what requirements the Association (or Board) “would approve” for a chair lift. Mr. Theisen testified that he did not speak directly with any Board member about the stair lift. for $1,500.00. The “Delivery Day/Date” on the estimate/invoice was handwritten: “9/13/19.” Bryan Ball, the owner of Florida Surgical Supply, testified that he has been in business for 36 years, and has installed a number of chair lifts. He is not a licensed contractor, but has a Sarasota County business license, tax identification number, and liability insurance. Mr. Ball met Mr. Theisen through the church they attend, and Mr. Ball agreed to provide Mr. Theisen with a chair lift at cost. On Friday, September 13, 2019, Mr. Theisen sent an email to Mr. Faix, which reiterated Mr. Theisen’s understanding of the Association’s requirements for his reasonable accommodation of a stair lift: Hi Jim, Recalling your explanation of the board’s requirements in regard to their reasonable accommodation of a stair lift to wit: I [Mr. Theisen] must pay for the stair lift myself and the stair lift must be removed upon my death or permanent departure from my unit. Attached is the doctor’s prescription which is also being provided to the installer. The installer company has agreed to remove the stair lift upon my death or permanent departure from my unit. .. I do not have an exact figure for the electrical usage but it isn’t much. If it can be calculated that amount could be added to my monthly condo fee. I suppose the power supply will have that information printed on it. Thanks for your tracking that all down for me. I guess it was a year ago. I hope I thanked you then as well. Regards, Pete The “doctor’s prescription” from S. Lexow, M.D., provided, in pertinent part: Theisen, Pete Date: 9-12-19 ? Stair lift. Dx- Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (E13.42) [Dr. Lexow’s signature] Mr. Faix responded to Mr. Theisen via email later that same day. Mr. Faix’s response provided: Pete, I wish I would have had this in time for the board meeting last night. I’ll send it off to the board now and maybe I can get their consent. Will let you know as soon as I can. Stay tuned. ... Jim On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, Mr. Faix emailed Mr. Theisen the following: Pete, The stair lift has been approved. OK to proceed. They are putting together an agreement for you to sign regarding paying for the installation, continued maintenance, removal once you’re no longer using it, and restoring the lobby to its original condition after removal. These are the things we talked about, but well [sic] need to put in writing for the future. I’ll let you know when I get it and we can get together to sign it. In the meantime, I would like to create a file on this. Can you have your installer send me some technical data sheets on the product, and some drawings on how this will be installed and maybe some pictures if available I’m curious to know which side of the staircase it will be installed: along the wall or along the rail? It doesn’t matter, but I’m just curious. BTW, are you getting some sort of key switch installed? Is there a way to prevent others from using or abusing it? I would be concerned with the Association’s liability if an unauthorized person used it and injured themselves. Please ask your installer about this. He’s probably addressed this issue before. I’ve never been involved with a stair lift installation and it’s rather fascinating. Best regards, Jim Faix Polaris Property Management, Inc. Mr. Theisen responded to Mr. Faix via another email that reiterated his position that he would be okay with the agreement if it complied with the HUD guidelines. Mr. Theisen included in this email that: he had forwarded Mr. Faix’s request to the installer; confirmed there was a key switch; explained that the seat could be installed on either side of the stair well, and the seat and arms folded up to take up very little room; and stated that the installer paints the ends of the rails with high visibility paint so people could see them. Lastly, Mr. Theisen suggested that once the chair lift was installed there might be other residents who would want to use the lift, and they should plan for that issue. Later on September 17, 2019, a five-page “COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT” (Original Covenant) was emailed to Petitioner. The Original Covenant contained a lot of “legalese” phrases8 and 14 specific clauses that both the Association and Petitioner had to agree upon. For example, one “legalese” phrase was a recitation for the consideration for the agreement clause, (“NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the permission and approval by the Board to allow the Owner to undertake and maintain the requested Improvement, and for other good and valuable consideration.”). Even later on September 17, 2019, Mr. Theisen’s reaction was emailed to Mr. Faix: That is ridiculous. The agreement is that the installer put it in and remove it when I die or move and I pay for it. No $10, no insurance, no hairsplitting none of all the rest of it. I told you that attorney was sneaky. Mr. Theisen provided another email to Mr. Faix which provided: “No $10, no insurance, no hairsplitting,” but Mr. Theisen did not elaborate on what else was “ridiculous” about the Original Covenant. Petitioner sent Mr. Faix another email stating that he (Mr. Theisen) was turning the Original Covenant over to “HUD,” and if HUD told Petitioner to sign it, he would. In addition to seeking HUD information and guidance, Mr. Theisen also arranged to consult with a legal aid attorney. Mr. Theisen could not get an appointment until sometime in October 2019. Late on September 18, 2019, Mr. Theisen emailed Mr. Faix the following: It is killed. Because the provider had a temporary over-stock of last year’s model (functionally and cosmetically the same as the latest model) that I 8 Upon review of the Covenant, the first “WHEREAS” clause provided that Mr. Theisen had requested permission to “install a motorized chair lift on the exterior of the building containing” his unit. Based on the oral descriptions and pictures entered in evidence, this was an obvious error in drafting, as the stairwell was within the lobby of the building. would have been able to take advantage of. About half price. I could afford it at that price. By the time the lawyers get done muddying the waters that will be over for a long time, perhaps forever. During season they will sell them out and have back-orders. Killed the deal. If the government websites are to be believed, the lawyers are wrong. Not just wrong, but deliberately wrong – they have to know what the government policy is. I have had business with that firm before, on another controversy with the Wood Street board. I don’t understand why the government doesn’t crack down on them, and/or crack down on the board. Maybe they have “friends”.[sic] I don’t blame you. I know the board always has a majority despot composition. And that law firm caters to despots. Mr. Theisen and Mr. Faix exchanged a number of emails between September 17 and October 1, 2019, regarding the Original Covenant and the legal aid appointment Mr. Theisen requested. Mr. Theisen emailed Mr. Faix that his legal aid appointment was scheduled for October. Mr. Theisen subsequently told the installer that the deal was killed. When Mr. Faix offered that the deal was not killed, just postponed, Mr. Theisen responded via email that by postponing the deal, it was killed. After his October 9, 2019, appointment with a legal aid attorney, Mr. Theisen repeated to Mr. Faix that the Original Covenant was “over- lawyered,” but did not provide specifics as to his objections. Mr. Theisen then filed his complaint with HUD and FCHR. In mid-October, Mr. Faix responded to an inquiry from HUD on behalf of the Condo, Polaris, and himself regarding the chair lift issue. Mr. Faix’s HUD response and his credible testimony confirmed that at the time of the HUD response, Mr. Theisen’s requested accommodation had been approved, but that Mr. Theisen objected to the Original Covenant. The outstanding problem was that the Condo, Polaris, and Mr. Faix did not know which provisions of the Original Covenant Mr. Theisen found objectionable. In late October, Mr. Faix, as the managing agent for the Condo and on behalf of Polaris, responded to a similar inquiry from FCHR. Mr. Faix again provided that Mr. Theisen’s requested accommodation had been approved, but that Mr. Theisen objected to the Original Covenant. Mr. Faix offered that Respondents were willing to work with Mr. Theisen, but were not aware of the exact objections that he held. Further, Mr. Faix indicated Respondents would participate in a conciliation attempt. At hearing (roughly 11 months after the Original Covenant was provided), Mr. Theisen verbalized his objections with the Original Covenant as the $10.00 consideration and paragraphs 3 through 7. At some point between October and January, FCHR provided Petitioner’s objections to Respondents. As a result of being told what the objections were, the Original Covenant was reduced from a five-page document to a one-page document, known as the Covenant (Second Covenant). This Second Covenant was provided to Mr. Faix and Mr. Theisen on or about January 23, 2020. Mr. Theisen shared his objections to the Second Covenant via an email to FCHR. Mr. Theisen provided that this Second Covenant was an improvement, but he could “not agree to numbers 2, 3, and 4.” Those sections provided: The Owner will hire an installer to install a motorized chair lift on the interior of the building containing Unit B-4 who is licensed and insured for furnishing such work and only such installer may furnish such work. Prior to commencing such work, the Owner or installer shall obtain any required building permits from the City of Sarasota or Sarasota County, as applicable, to allow for such work to proceed. Upon completion of such work, the work shall be inspected and approved by the appropriate government agency having jurisdiction of the work. At least two (2) business days before commencing such work, the Owner or installer shall furnish the Association, through its management, evidence that the installer is licensed and insured for furnishing such work, a copy of any permit issued for the work, the make and model of all equipment to be installed, the mechanical mounting and electric hookup, power requirements, and the scheduled installation and repair dates and times. Mr. Theisen objected to the requirement that the installer be licensed and insured, because the chair lift was going to be installed by a mechanic, who according to Mr. Theisen did not need to be certified. Mr. Theisen repeatedly testified that no building permits were necessary, and there was no need for the completed work to be inspected or approved by an appropriate government agency. Other than his self-serving testimony, Mr. Theisen did not provide competent evidence that permits, licenses, and inspections were not necessary. Mr. Ball testified he provided the $1,500.00 installation invoice offer to Petitioner in September 2019, but “pulled out” of the invoice offer in January 2020, when the project became too costly for him. Mr. Theisen notified Mr. Faix at least two times after receiving approval that the chair lift installation was “killed.” However, both parties attempted to come to a positive resolution. The term “condominium” is a form of real property ownership created pursuant to chapter 718, Florida Statutes. A condominium is comprised entirely of a collection of units and common areas along with the land upon which it sits. Units may be owned by one or more persons and those unit owners own a pro rata share of all the common elements. Each unit owner has exclusive ownership or rights to their unit’s interior space. Each unit owner also owns an undivided interest with the other unit owners in the common elements, which interest cannot be separated from the unit. Those common elements are controlled by a condominium owners’ association. Generally, the condominium owners’ association is responsible for the condominium’s assets as well as its operation in accordance with standards established by state and federal law, local ordinances, and the governing documents upon which the entity itself was created. This includes the repair and maintenance of the common areas, including the building(s) exterior. The condominium owners’ association involves a commitment to all the owners to make decisions on behalf of all owners. One of a condominium owners’ association’s goals is to ensure that the facility’s common elements are kept in a reasonable condition for everyone’s use. It is common practice to use covenants running with the land to allow unit owners to make improvements to the common elements within reason. Although the undersigned was not provided with a copy of the Condo’s Declaration or by-laws, Mr. Faix provided the requisite insight with respect to the Association. In this instance, there are 49 units in the Condo. The Association is composed of five elected volunteer members. The Association received Mr. Theisen’s request for a reasonable accommodation, the installation of a stair lift, and approved it. The Association, via Mr. Faix, notified Mr. Theisen of the approval, and that an agreement was being prepared for the future. The Covenant was not an unreasonable request, but one for the viability of the Condo. There was an unfortunate breakdown in communication and lengthy delay between Mr. Theisen and the Association over his objections to that agreement, caused in large part by Mr. Theisen’s refusal to identify his specific objections. This does not negate the Association’s approval of the requested accommodation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner Benedict Theisen. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 25th day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Benedict Peter Theisen Pete Theisen 2155 Wood Street B 4 Sarasota, Florida 34237 (eServed) Mark W. Lord, Esquire 46 North Washington Boulevard, Suite 16D Sarasota, Florida 34236 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Paul Edward Olah, Esquire Law Offices of Wells Olah, P.A. 1800 Second Street, Suite 808 Sarasota, Florida 34236 (eServed) Jim Faix Park Lane Condominium Association No. 376 8437 Tuttle Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34243
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the Florida Fair Housing Act as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a 59-year-old male, alleges that he is a disabled and non-violent person, who was "illegally" evicted from an apartment unit in the Lakeside Apartment complex. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondents, Stephen McCormick and Scott Leonard (Lakeside Apartment Management or Respondents) were the owner and manager, respectively, of Lakeside Apartments. On August 9, 2005, Petitioner submitted a Rental Application and Information Release Form for Lakeside Apartments located at 4715 Land O'Lakes Boulevard, Land O'Lakes, Florida. On the application, Petitioner indicated that he would be the only person living in the apartment. Petitioner also noted that his dog would also be occupying the apartment. Petitioner's application did not indicate that he had any disability. However, at the time he submitted his rental application, he told the owner or manager of Lakeside Apartments that he had a mental disability. Petitioner's application was approved, and, on March 12, 2006, he moved into a one bedroom apartment on the second floor of Lakeside Apartments. The apartment that Petitioner occupied provided him with a "lake view." On or about June 2007, Petitioner was involved in a car accident. Two or three months later, Petitioner was involved in a second accident. In or about the fall of 2007, after the car accident, Petitioner requested that the manager assign him a first-floor apartment due to the problem with his ankles, presumably sustained in the car accident. This was an oral, not written request. At the time he made the oral request, and at no time thereafter, did Petitioner provide documentation of any type of disability, including one related to problems with his ankles. Moreover, Petitioner failed to provide a medical certification from a physician verifying that Petitioner's requested accommodation (i.e., assign him to a first-floor apartment) was necessary for his disability. The management of Lakeside Apartments began eviction proceedings against Petitioner in or about the spring of 2008. An order was issued on May 28, 2008. Petitioner moved out of Lakeside Apartments on or about May 31, 2008. The eviction action against Petitioner was initiated after Petitioner repeatedly exhibited inappropriate and disruptive behavior on the Lakeside Apartment property, as well violated the terms of his lease. Petitioner's conduct included the following: (1) driving on the Lakeside Apartment property while intoxicated; (2) calling "911" 17 times for no reason between April 1 through 9, 2008, resulting in the police being dispatched to the property; and (3) being disrespectful and causing disturbances with other tenants. Numerous tenants complained to Lakeside Apartment Management about Petitioner's inappropriate conduct on the property, including his drinking and being loud and disruptive. Petitioner violated the terms of his lease by having three unauthorized people living in his apartment unit. Even after eviction proceedings were underway, Petitioner was arrested for spitting on another tenant. In another incident, Petitioner's dog bit the manager at the Lakeside Apartment complex. Both of these incidents occurred on the Lakeside Apartment complex premises. After being evicted, Petitioner requested that Lakeside Apartment Management return his $400.00 security deposit. Lakeside Apartment Management refused to return Petitioner's $400.00 due to the condition of the apartment when Petitioner moved out. Upon inspecting the apartment unit after Petitioner moved, management found that the apartment had been damaged (i.e., holes in the walls) and was not cleaned. Petitioner failed to establish that his eviction was for any reason other than his disruptive and inappropriate conduct on the Lakeside Apartment premises. Moreover, Petitioner failed to establish that the Lakeside Apartment management's refusal to return $400.00 of his security deposit was for any reason other than the condition of the apartment unit when Petitioner moved out.
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 Petitioner's Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 5th day of March, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Lake Waldena Resort is a mobile home park as defined by Section 723.003(6), Florida Statutes. It is located at Route 4, Box 300, Silver Springs, Florida 32688. The mobile home park is subject to regulation pursuant to Section 723.002(1), Florida Statutes. That law is administered by the Petitioner. All Respondents are mobile home park owners as defined by Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes. The Hilgemans are park owners and have been at all relevant times for this dispute. At the times relevant to the inquiry Pat Montgomery was the park operator, which equates to park owner under the terms of the statute. Pat Montgomery concluded her affiliation with Lake Waldena Resort in May 1989. Pat Montgomery, as the park operator, who had been employed by Donald L. Hilgeman, collected the rent from the mobile homeowners who had lots within the park. She attended any problems that the mobile homeowners confronted her with. She ordered supplies for the operation of the mobile home park. She sold mobile homes for use in the park and ordered them for sale. She was involved with the provision of carports and screen rooms associated with mobile homes in the park. She was responsible for the payroll and basically everything that transpired in the day-to- day operations in the mobile home park. The Hilgemans had limited affiliation with the park. Mr. Hilgeman was involved with doing physical labor at the park and was Montgomery's employer. On July 26, 1988, a notice of lot rental increase was mailed to all tenants in the Lake Waldena Resort Mobile Home Park. This notice was provided in accordance with Rule 7D-32.002(1), Florida Administrative Code. The basis for this increase was associated with the economic pressures on the park owner brought about by increases in real estate taxes, insurance costs, sanitation fees, other fees payable to the Petitioner, and wage increases. An exemplar of the form notice which had been sent out to each mobile home owner may be seen in Respondents' Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. All notices were dispatched by U.S. Mail. As contemplated by Rule 7D-32.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, official notice was considered to have been made within five days of July 26, 1988, which corresponded to July 31, 1988. A meeting within 30 days of the provision of notice as described in Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, would equate to August 30, 1988. The proposed lot increase was from $78 to $88. At the time of notification of the lot increase Lloyd Carter was the vice president of the homeowners' association at Lake Waldena Resort. He was residing in the mobile home park. Gordon Gibson was the president of the homeowner's association who, at the moment of the lot increase, was residing in Minden, Ontario, Canada. Mr. Carter picked up a copy of the notice of lot rental increase from the office at the mobile home park shortly after the notice had been prepared on July 26, 1988. He then called Mr. Gibson in Canada and explained the particulars of that notice. At that time, Mr. Carter stated no concerns to Mr. Gibson about the notice of lot rental increase. He merely informed Mr. Gibson of the pendency of the lot rental increase. Under ordinary circumstances the' expected time for delivery of mail dispatched from the United States to Canada was in the neighborhood of five to seven days; however, in August 1988, the Canadians were undergoing a postal strike which delayed matters. Nonetheless, Mr. Gibson received his copy of the notice and on August 4, 1988, he wrote Mr. Hilgeman. A copy of that correspondence may be seen as Respondents' Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence. Mr. Gibson informed Mr. Hilgeman in that correspondence that he wished to have a meeting to discuss the lot rental increase. The meeting would be attended by a committee of not more than four persons under the direction of Mr. Carter. He asked that the meeting be held at a convenient time prior to August 26, 1988. The basis for Mr. Gibson's action in which he requested a meeting with the park owner was through the process of discussion with his board of directors in independent conversations in which it was decided that a meeting was desired. A meeting to discuss the reasons for the lot rental increase was not held before August 26, 1988, or before August 30, 1988. When Mr. Gibson sent his August 4, 1988 correspondence he was aware of the problems of the postal strike in Canada and the delay that this might promote in the receipt of his letter by the park owner. He had not instructed Mr. Carter to make any contact with the park owner prior to the park owner's receipt of the correspondence which outlined the fact of Mr. Carter's duties as chairman of the committee. The return receipt correspondence from Gibson to Hilgeman dated August 4, 1988, was received by, Pat Montgomery in mid August 1988. By correspondence of August 22, 1988, addressed from Mr. Hilgeman to Mr. Gibson, a copy of which may be seen as Respondents' Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, Mr. Hilgeman demanded of Mr. Gibson that he confirm that a majority of the Lake Waldena residents had in fact selected Mr. Gibson to represent them. Reference is made in that letter to section 723.078(2)(b), Florida Statutes, having to do with the requirements for bylaws in homeowners' associations. This request of Mr. Gibson is not a prerogative of Mr. Hilgeman as park owner in dealing with the issue of the conduct of the meeting. Nor is it available to Mr. Hilgeman to remind Mr. Gibson that he had to comply Section 723.037(1), Florida Statutes or Section 723.076(1), Florida Statutes. To the extent that those provisions have any relevance to the homeowners' association, the former pertains to standing to challenge increases in such things as the lot rental amount through the homeowners' association, something that the park owner is not called upon to advise the homeowners' association about. This question of standing does not enter in to the matter of the ability to represent mobile home owners at a meeting pursuant to Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, for purposes of discussing the lot rental increase. Likewise, the latter statutory reference that describes the idea of incorporation of a homeowners' association and the need to notify the park owner is not associated with the meeting to discuss the purposes of the lot rental increase. On the other hand, when Mr. Hilgeman referred to Rules 7D-32.003(1) and 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, those are provisions which have some significance in considering the matter of a meeting to discuss a lot rental increase. Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Codes, states: If requested to do so by the park owner or subdivision developer, the committee shall certify that it has been selected as described Rule 7D-32.003, Florida Administrative Code. The certification shall include a certificate of all members of the committee attesting to its proper formation under the statute in these rules. Significantly, that provision does not describe the relationship of such a request to the obligation of the park owner to meet within 30 days of notice of lot rental increase as contemplated by Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. None of the principals, given the statutory scheme and rules that were designed to effectuate the purposes of the statute, could have reasonably understood on what terms the park owner was entitled to make this request taking into account the complications of corresponding back and forth between the United States and Canada in the midst of a mail strike, the consequence of which made it unlikely that the meeting would take place on or before August 30, 1988. In the conclusions of law a discussion is made of the effect of the request for certification and whether it tolls the time for conducting the informational session to discuss the reasons for the lot rental increase. The envelope for the August 22, 1988 correspondence was stamped in the United States on August 23, 1988, in Bradenton, Florida. It also bears a date of August 29, 1988, which is seen as a part of the verification of receipt of that letter in Canada. Mr. Gibson received the Hilgeman correspondence of August 22, 1988 on August 29, 1988. Mr. Carter also received a copy of the August 22, 1988 correspondence by Mr. Hilgeman and had a discussion with Mr. Hilgeman about that letter sometime around August 23 or August 24, 1988. That conversation took place in the mobile home park. This did not lead to the resolution of the certification request made by Mr. Hilgeman to the homeowners' association. It was left to Mr. Gibson to take care of the response to the request for certification. In the conversation being described, between Hilgeman and Carter, Carter made it known that he intended to complain to the Petitioner about the park owner not meeting with the homeowners' committee within 30 days of notice. A complaint was made as may be seen in a copy of that complaint which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. That complaint was sent out on August 26, 1988. The basis for the homeowners' association complaining to the Petitioner was related to their concern that they preserve their right to have the meeting even if it transpired beyond the 30 days contemplated in the statute. Notwithstanding the complaint's existence, Mr. Gibson went forward with his attempts to try to satisfy Mr. Hilgeman concerning certification and did so with the assistance of Victor Davis a member of the board of directors of the homeowners' association. Mr. Gibson's attitude about this was to the effect that the request by Mr. Hilgeman was a legitimate request that should be complied with. A discussion had also been held between Carter and Hilgeman on August 18, 1988, in which Mr. Hilgeman gave advance notice of the fact that he needed several questions answered and that there would be a delay in the meeting. The indication was made that a letter would be sent to Mr. Gibson to have those questions answered. That eventuated in the August 22, 1988 correspondence from Hilgeman to Gibson. Upon making these matters known to Mr. Carter on August 18, 1988, Mr. Carter's only remark was that this would be "fine." On September 9, 1988, a letter was written from Ralph B. Murray, Jr., Specialist Enforcement Section, Bureau of Mobile Homes within the Petitioner's department which was sent to Mr. Hilgeman reminding him of the necessity to respond to allegations that had been made by the Lake Waldena Resort Homeowners' Association concerning the claim that Mr. Hilgeman had refused to meet with those mobile homeowners in the statutorily prescribed time as announced at Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. On September 13, 1988, by correspondence, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence, Mr. Hilgeman offered his reply. He tells Mr. Murray that he is not sure whether the homeowners' association is legitimate and that they had not responded to his August 22, 1988 correspondence to Mr. Gibson which he enclosed in his letter to Mr. Murray. He spoke of delays in the mailing time for mail coming from Canada. He makes mention of the fact of having informed Mr. Carter that the manager, who was Ms. Montgomery was on vacation and would not return until August 30, 1988. In fact, Ms. Montgomery was not available to meet with the homeowners' association in the period August 18 through August 30, 1988. This would not have relieved Mr. Hilgeman of the necessity to meet with the homeowners' association on or before August 30, 1988, had they complied with his request for certification prior to that date. They did not. Compliance with the certification process was achieved by correspondence of September 12, 1988 from Gibson to Hilgeman in which he sets out the explanation of certification of the credentials of the homeowners' association to form a committee and meet with the park owner. That was received by the park owner on September 19, 1988, in the person of Pat Montgomery. A copy of this correspondence and the certification of receipt may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. After receipt of the information concerning the certification of the homeowners' association committee, Mr. Hilgeman sent a letter to Mr. Carter on September 29, 1988, to establish a meeting. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 13 admitted into evidence. It outlines the fact that Mr. Hilgeman is sufficiently satisfied concerning the certification to have the meeting and offers a meeting prior to October 4, 1988 or after October 9, 1988, and invites Mr. Carter to consult with Pat Montgomery to establish a mutually convenient time for the meeting. A meeting was held between Mr. Murray and Mr. Hilgeman in October, 1988, in which a discussion ensued concerning whether or not Mr. Hilgeman himself would meet with the homeowners' committee. Mr. Hilgeman held firm in his attitude that his manager Pat Montgomery would be available to meet with the homeowners' committee, but that Mr. Hilgeman would not be meeting with them. As explained in the correspondence of October 14, 1988, addressed from Mr. Carter to Mr. Murray, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 14 admitted into evidence, contact was made between Carter and Montgomery and Carter was told on October 11, 1988 that a meeting would be held at 10:00 a.m. on October 14, 1988, between Montgomery and the committee. She was told by Carter that this meeting would not be acceptable unless Mr. Hilgeman was in attendance. Based upon conversations with Mr. Murray, the homeowners' association had been persuaded that it was only appropriate to meet with Mr. Hilgeman. Consequently, by this logic it was not appropriate to meet with Ms. Montgomery. A copy of this correspondence of August 14, 1988 was made available to Mr. Hilgeman. On June 7, 1989, the Petitioner brought an action against the Respondent and he sought a formal hearing which was conducted on February 22, 1990. Prior to that hearing the homeowners did have their meeting with Mr. Hilgeman on November 14, 1989, in which they were made aware of the reasons for the lot rental increase. The homeowners accepted the explanation and the idea of the increase and do not desire to pursue the present complaint against the Respondents. When Mr. Hilgeman sought certification of the credentials of the committee assigned by the homeowners association he was acting in good faith. In addition, he was entitled to look to Pat Montgomery as park operator and by consequence park owner under the definition of Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes, to speak for him in the course of the meeting to discuss the lot rental increase. The misconception of the committee of mobile home owners concerning the necessity to meet with Mr. Hilgeman and not with his park operator, as fostered by the remarks of Mr. Murray, who lead those mobile homeowners to believe that they could only meet with Mr. Hilgeman, caused a delay in arranging the meeting. Mr. Hilgeman should not be hold accountable for that delay.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered that dismisses these actions against the Respondents. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 18th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-4100 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1-9 are subordinate to facts found. Although Paragraph 10 is an accurate portrayal of the meeting of August 24, 1988 between Mr. Carter and Mr. Hilgeman, it should be stated that any meeting to discuss lot rental increase was contingent upon the response to the certification request made by Mr. Hilgeman and replied to by Mr. Gibson on a date beyond the 30 day period. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 13, whatever Mr. Hilgeman perceptions would be about the role of Ms. Montgomery, whether she was considered to be the same as an attorney representing or in some other capacity, in law she was a park owner and entitled to act in behalf of the park owners at the meeting. Concerning Paragraph 14, the effect of failing to respond to the request for certification within the 30 day period was tantamount to a waiver or agreement to meet at a time later. Paragraph 15 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 16, to the extent this paragraph suggests that the length of the meeting or breadth of detail in the explanation made by Mr. Hilgeman was inadequate, that idea is rejected in that sufficient explanation was given to comply with the requirements of law. The comments in Paragraph 17 are not relevant. The accommodation that was made between counsel was not a necessary arrangement to mitigate the circumstance in an instance where Respondent Donald L. Hilgeman had violated Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. This meeting was beneficial to the homeowners and park owners alike, but came at this late date based upon the failure of the homeowners to meet with Pat Montgomery over a year earlier. Respondents' Facts Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution to the dispute. Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of those two sentences that come before the last sentence in that paragraph. Paragraphs 4 and 5 and all sentences save the last of Paragraph 6 are subordinate to facts found. That sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 7 through 11 with the exception of the second sentence in Paragraph 11 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is misleading in that it intimates that Mr. Carter was derelict in his duties to make contact with Mr. Hilgeman to establish a meeting; however, the contacts that were made were in accordance with the expectations of Mr. Hilgeman and Mr. Gibson who were controlling the timing of that meeting. Paragraphs 14 through 16 with the exception of the last sentence to Paragraph 16 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence to Paragraph 16 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 17 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence which is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence which is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute. Paragraph 21 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute and is an inaccurate portrayal of the requirements of law as to gaining the approval of the majority of homeowners before representing them in the course of a meeting to discuss lot rental increases. Paragraphs 22 through 25 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 David D. Eastman, Esquire Parker, Skelding, Labasky & Corry Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Susan C. Marvin Pamela Leslie Assistants General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL, 32399-1007
The Issue Whether Respondent, Lake Bentley Shores, Inc. (Respondent), engaged in unlawful housing discrimination in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female who, at all times material to the allegations of this case, resided in a first floor condominium, Unit A-3, in Lake Bentley Shores. The legal owner of Unit A-3, Lake Bentley Shores, is Jose Anglada (Mr. Anglada). Mr. Anglada employed CDC Properties of Central Florida, LLC (CDC), to manage his unit. CDC was responsible for the day- to-day management of the unit and collected rent payments due to the unit owner. In contrast, A1A Property Management (A1A) was the on-site property manager for the Lake Bentley Shores condominium community. The Lake Bentley Shores condominium community was governed by Respondent, a condominium association organized under the laws of Florida. In addition to retaining a management firm to address the daily workings of the condominium property, Respondent also retained U. S. Security Associates, Inc. to provide night-time security services for the condominium community. The security company reported to A1A daily regarding security issues. At all times material to the allegations of this case, U. S. Security Associates, Inc. employed Mr. Goodkind and assigned him to the Lake Bentley Shores condominium property. Mr. Goodkind was not Respondent’s employee. Mr. Goodkind was not A1A’s employee. Mr. Goodkind was not CDC’s employee. All leasing arrangements between Petitioner and the Unit A-3 owner were handled by CDC. Any complaints regarding the unit were to be made to CDC. Petitioner never filed a written complaint to Respondent regarding the offensive or inappropriate behavior toward her committed by Mr. Goodkind. On January 10, 2012, Petitioner made a verbal complaint to Steve Allen, A1A’s on-site manager, regarding Mr. Goodkind’s alleged sexual harassment toward Petitioner. Mr. Allen took action to notify U. S. Security Associates, Inc. Mr. Goodkind was immediately removed from the Lake Bentley Shores assignment. Thereafter, Petitioner made no written or verbal complaints regarding sexual harassment to Respondent, A1A, or CDC. Lake Bentley Shores comprises of 160 condominium units. Some of the units, like Unit A-3, share a wall with a utility/storage closet. Such closets house water heaters. Water heaters must be inspected regularly to assure no leakage. Historically, leaking water heaters were a maintenance issue at the condominium property. Although Respondent has rules and regulations regarding resident conduct on the Lake Bentley Shores property, it delegates the routine operation of the condominium property to A1A. At all times material to the allegations of this case, A1A directed U. S. Security Associates, Inc. (through its night-time security employee) to assure noise levels during the night-time hours were appropriate, to regularly “walk” the Lake Bentley Shores property to assure the safety of residents, and to observe and report any suspicious activity. Included in the areas to “walk” were the utility/storage closets previously described. Thus, it was common for Mr. Goodkind to enter the closets, walk around the buildings, observe the parking areas, and to listen for noises to assure the tranquility of the property. Excessive noise from any unit was not acceptable. Prior to the allegations of this case, Mr. Goodkind worked as a security guard at the Lake Bentley Shores property for approximately four years. During that time he established himself as a conscientious enforcer of the noise regulations, he kept a log of vehicles entering and exiting the property, and made efforts to reduce vandalism or theft. Mr. Goodkind did not sexually harass Petitioner. At no time did Mr. Goodkind peer into Petitioner’s windows, peep through any hole, or follow Petitioner except in the manner appropriate for the performance of his routine duties as a security officer. Mr. Goodkind did, however, confront a resident or guest of Unit A-3 to seek reduction in the noise level emanating from the unit. CDC initiated eviction proceedings against Petitioner due to failure to pay rent and damage to Unit A-3. Respondent had no involvement in the eviction. A1A had no involvement with or connection to the eviction other than a report made to CDC that gave notice of a broken window visible from the exterior of the unit. Petitioner eventually moved out of Unit A-3 after reaching an agreement with CDC. Petitioner presented no credible evidence that Mr. Goodkind harassed her in any manner. Mr. Goodkind did not interfere with Petitioner’s enjoyment of her residence. Petitioner presented no credible evidence that Respondent harassed her in any manner or suffered any damages as a result of such alleged behavior. Respondent did not interfere with Petitioner’s enjoyment of her residence. Petitioner presented no credible evidence that A1A as Respondent’s agent harassed her in any manner. A1A did not interfere with Petitioner’s enjoyment of her residence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful housing practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing her complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 28th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard L. Bradford, Esquire Bradford and Bradford, P.A. Suite 196 150 East Bloomingdale Avenue Brandon, Florida 33511 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William E. Roberts, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. One Lake Morton Drive Post Office Box 3 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Miller, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. One Lake Morton Drive Post Office Box 3 Lakeland, Florida 33802
