18-002381 Rental Asset Mgmt Of Florida, Llc C/O Ronnie Portee vs. Mhc Windmill Manor, Llc Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, July 13, 2018.

Summary: Rental Asset Mgt did not prove Windmill Manor discriminated in housing on account of race or disability by refusing to lease a mobile home lot to it. Windmill Manor did not rent to business entities.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RENTAL ASSET MGMT OF FLORIDA,

LLC , C/O RONNIE PORTEE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 18 - 2381

MHC WINDMILL MANOR, LLC,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A dministrative Law Judge John D. C. Newton, II, of the

Division of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing

in this case on June 1 , 2018 , in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ronnie Portee

Rental Asset Man agement of Florida, LLC

Post Office B ox 21043

Brandenton, Florida 34204

For Respondent: J. Allen B obo, Esquire

Jody Gabel, Esquire

Lutz, Bobo & Telfair, P.A.

2 Nor th Tamiami Trail

Sarasota, Florida 34236

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Did Respondent, MHC Windmill Manor, LLC (Windmill Manor) ,

discriminate against Petitioner, Rental Asset M ana g e m ent of

Florida, LLC (Rental Asset), in violation of section 76 0.23(1),

Florida Statutes (2017 ? ) 1/

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 16, 2017, Ronnie Portee filed a complaint of

discrimination in housing on behalf of his Limited Liability

Company ( LLC ) , Rental Asset, with the Florida Commission on Human

Relations (Commi ssion). The complaint alleged that Windmill

Manor discriminated against Rental Asset , by refusing to rent it

a mobile home lot on account of the race of Ronnie Portee and

prospective resident William Portee , and on account of William

PorteeÓs disability. The Commission issued its Notice of

Determination of No Cause. Ronnie Portee filed a P etition for

R elief with the Commission on behalf of Rental Asset . On May 10,

2018 , the Commission referred the Petition to the Division of

Administrative Hearings. Th e undersigned conducted the final

hearing on June 1, 2018.

Ronnie Portee testified on behalf of Rental Asset. Rental

AssetÓs Exhibits 1, 2, 4C, 4D, and 5 through 9 were admitted into

ev idence. Windmill Manor presented the testimony of Stanley

Martin and Aaron Schattler. Windmill ManorÓs Exhibits 1

through 4, 6 through 9, 11, 12, and 16 were admitted into

evidence.

A transcript of the hearing was filed. The parties filed

proposed recommended orders . They have been considered in

preparation of this R ec ommended O rder.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. Ronnie Portee is a member of a racial minor ity who

wished to rent a mobile home lot in Windmill Manor to provide

housing for his disabled brother, William Portee. William Portee

is also a member of a racial minority. Ronnie Portee planned to

rent the lot using his LLC, Rental Asset, to lease a lot at

Windmill Manor for a mobile home that he purchased. He intended

for William Portee to occupy the mobile home.

2. Windmill Manor is a c ommunity a ssociation that manage s a

mobile home park also known as Windmill Manor . Equity Lifestyle

Properties, Inc. (ELS) , owns Windmill Manor and the lo ts in

Windmill Manor.

3. Rental Asset purchased a mobile home from All Aces

Realty, Inc. T he mobile home was already on a lot in Windmill

Manor. Ronnie Portee intended for William Portee to live in the

mobile home once Rental Asset lease d the lot . All Aces Realty,

Inc. , did not lease the mobile homeÓs lot from Windmill Manor.

4. Windmill Manor only leases to natural persons. W indmill

Manor does not lease to business entities. Windmill Manor

maintains this policy because the limited liability of business

entities , such as an LLC, would limit Windmill Manor Ós ability to

obtain payment from tenants in default.

5. Windmill Manor requires lease applicants to provide a

driverÓs license to verify the ir identity and to ensure that

Windmill Manor meets its obligations under the Ð 55 - plus

exemption Ñ to the Florida Fair Housing Act. Windmill Manor also

requires a pplicants to submit a re sidency form used to conduct a

criminal background and a credit history check. For the criminal

background check and the credit history check to be processed, an

applicant must submit his or her date of birth and social

security number. Windmill ManorÓs computer system generates

leases from the approved residency application . Occupants who

will live on the property but do not sign the lease are only

screened through a criminal background check.

6. Ronnie Portee attempted to submit a Windmill Manor

res idency application for Rental Asset. Windmill Manor was

unable to process the application because Windmill ManorÓs system

requires an applicantÓs date of birth and social security number

to conduct its background check. So, Ronnie Portee completed the

re sidency application using his name and personal information .

7. Ronnie Portee passed the criminal background and credit

history check.

8. Ronnie Portee submitted an application for William

Portee only as an occupant on the lease d property . William

P ortee passed the criminal background check required for

occupants.

9. Ronnie Porte e wanted Rental Asset to lease the lot from

Windmill Manor because he did not want to be personally obligated

under the lease.

10. Windmill ManorÓs system could not gener ate the lease

under the name of Rental Asset because the system generates

leases from processed residency applications.

11. Windmill Manor informed Ronnie Portee of its policy

against leasing to business entities. Windmill Manor offered to

make an exce ption to the policy and allow Rental Asset to lease a

lot if Ronnie Portee signed a guarantee for the lease. Ronnie

Portee rejected the offer. Windmill Manor also offered to lease

the lot to Ronnie Portee instead of Rental Asset. Ronnie Portee

refused t his offer t oo.

12. Ronnie Portee tried to put the lease under his

brotherÓs name. However, William Portee had not completed a

residency application . C onsequently , he had not been screened

through the prerequisite credit history check . Therefore, he

co uld not lease the lot .

13. Windmill Manor did not lease the property to Ronnie

Portee . It also did not provide him with the lease agreement and

other documents when he requested them .

14. In spite of not having a lease, Ronnie Portee moved his

broth er into the mobile home. Ronnie Portee submitted a rent

payment from Rental Asset to Windmill Manor on J uly 1, 2017.

Windmill Manor returned the money . Not long afterwards, Windmill

Manor began an eviction proceeding against Rental Asset .

15. Windmill Manor leases lots to members of racial

minorities. Windmill Manor, in accordance with its policy, does

not lease to business entities, al though ELS owns some mobile

homes in Windmill Manor.

16. Ronnie Portee asserts that Windmill Manor discriminated

ag ainst him and William Portee because of their race and

discriminated against William Portee because of his disability by

refusing to rent to Rental Asset.

17 . Ronnie Portee believes that Windmill Manor treated him

differently during the application proc ess once he provided his

and his brotherÓs driverÓs licenses, which identified them as

members of a racial minority. Ronnie Portee also believes that

Windmill Manor rents property to other business entities and t hat

Windmill Manor discriminated against Re ntal Asset because the

owner was a racial minority. The evidence does not support these

beliefs . Among other things, there is no evidence of the race of

the principals for the business entities Ronnie Portee claims

rented lots at Windmill Manor.

CONCLUS IONS OF LAW

18 . Rental Asset brings its complaint under FloridaÓs Fair

Housing Act (Fair Housing Act), s ections 760.20 through 760.37 ,

Florida Statutes . Rental Asset alleges that Windmill Manor

engaged in a discriminatory housing practice by r efusing to lease

it property because Rental Asset was a minority owned business

and because of the race and disability of William Portee . Rental

Asset bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the

evidence that Windmill Manor violated the Fair Housing Act. See

§§ 760.34(5) and 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

1 9 . Section 760.23(2), makes it unlawful to discriminate

against anyone in the sale or rental of housing because of, among

other things, race or disability .

20 . The Florida Legislature modeled the Fair Hous ing Act

after the United States Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

Therefore, interpretation of the federal law , by federal courts ,

is instructive and persuasive in applying FloridaÓs Fair Housing

Act. Dornbach v. Holley , 854 So. 2d 211 , 213 (Fla. 2d DC A 2002).

21 . The three - part burden of proof analysis developed in

McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S. Ct.

1817 , 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973) , as applied in Sec etary , United

States Department of Housing and Urban Dev elopment ex rel . Herr on

v. Blackwell , 908 F.2d 864 (11th Cir. 1990) , is useful in this

case.

2 2 . First, the petitioner must prove a prima facie case of

discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Second, if

the petitioner establishes a prima facie case, the burden s hifts

to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for its action. Third, if the defendant satisfies the

burden, the p etitioner can prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that the legitimate reasons asserted by the defendant

are p r etextual . Id .

2 3 . Rental Asset did not establish a prima facie case. It

established that Rental Asset is a minority - owned business .

However, Rental Asset did not prove that it was qualified to rent

a lot in Windmill Manor.

2 4 . Rental Asset ad vanced a circumstantial evidence theory

based upon Ronnie PorteeÓs belief that Windmill Manor leased lots

to business entities owned by white persons. The evidence does

not prove this.

25. In addition, Windmill Manor tried to accommodate Ronnie

Portee an d would have rented the lot to Rental Asset if he had

personally guaranteed the lease.

26. The facts do not support Rental Asset Ós claim of

discrimination.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human

Relations issue a final order denying the Petition for Relief of

Rental Asset M ana g e m en t , LLC, of Florida.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1 3 th day of July , 2018 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II

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 o f the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 13 th day of July, 2018 .

ENDNOTE

1/ All citations to the Florida Statutes are to the 2017

codification unless otherwise noted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

Ronnie Portee

Rental Asset Management of Florida, LLC

Post Office Box 21043

Bradenton, Florida 34204

(eServed)

J. Allen Bobo, Esquire

Lutz, Bobo & Telfair, P.A.

2 North Tami ami Trail

Sarasota, Florida 34236

(eServed)

Jody B. Gabel, Esquire

Lutz, Bobo & Telfair, P.A.

2 North Tamiami Trail

Sarasota, Florida 34236

(eServed)

Stanley L. Martin, Esquire

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.

5100 West Lemon Street

Tampa, Florida 33 609

(eServed)

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.