20-002538 Benedict Theisen vs. Park Lane Condominium Owners Association, Inc. Et Al Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, September 25, 2020.

Summary: Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that Respondents committed a discriminatory housing practice against him because of his disability.

Petitioner, Benedict Theisen (Mr. Theisen or Petitioner), on the bas is 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.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

The Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR or Commission) and

the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

administer the Act. In October 2019, Petitioner filed a housing discrimination

complaint with HUD and FCHR. HUD and FCHR investigated the complaint; howe ver it was FCHR that attempted conciliation between the

parties. Following the unsuccessful attempt at conciliation, on May 20, 2020,

FCHR entered a Notice of Determination of No Cause (Notice). The Notice

was sent to Petitioner via certified mail, and pro vided, in part, the following:

Based on the evidence obtained during the

investigation, the FCHR has determined that

reasonable cause does not exist to believe that a

discriminatory housing practice has occurred. Accordingly, the above - referenced complaint is

hereby dismissed.

On June 1, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief (Petition) with

FCHR. In his Petition, Mr. Theisen alleged:

The Respondent alleges that I did not identify

reasons why I would not sign. However I did identify several reasons i n an email to their

manager, 9/17/19 [sic]

They granted approval a year before they started nit - picking and hairsplitting with “covenants” and

restrictions.

I had found a deal I could afford, they wait ed until

then to go all passive - aggressive and kill my deal

by scaring off the provider.

2 A ll references to Florida Stat utes are to the 2019 version, unless otherwise stated .

Raising objections at the end of a year is an

“unreasonable delay” [sic]

I can’t move because of the reverse mortgage [sic]

On June 3, 2020, FCHR referred the case to the Division requesting the

assignment of an administr ative law judge to conduct proceedings required

by law and to submit a recommended order to the Commission. Later that

same day an Initial Order was sent to the parties. On June 15, 2020, when no response to the Initial Order was received, the undersigned scheduled a video

teleconference hearing for July 22, 2020.

On July 9, 2020, Petitioner filed over 40 unnumbered proposed exhibits on

the D ivision docket. A Notice of Ex Parte Communication was issued as there

was no indication that Respondents were sent a copy of the proposed exhibits.

On July 13, 2020, the Association’s counsel (Mr. Olah) filed an Amended

Notice of Appearance, notifying all parties that he represented all three Respondents. That same day , a pre - hearing conference call was held, at

whic h time Petitioner’s counsel (Mr. Lord) entered his appearance and orally

requested a continuance. The hearing was rescheduled to August 25, 2020 ,

via Zoom Conference.

The hearing took place on August 25, 2020. Joint Exhibits 1 through 8

were received into evidence. Petitioner presented two witn esses: himself and

Brian Ball. Petitioner offered Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 8, which were

received into evidence without objection. Respondents presented one witness:

James Faix, the property manager for the As sociation who was an employee

of Polaris. Respondents ’ Exhibits 1 through 11, 13, 14, and 16 through 18

3

were received in evidence.

3 Respondent s ’ Exhibits 1, 3, and 16, through 18 were admitted over objections .

At the end of the hearing, a discussion ensued regarding whether the

transcript of the hearing would be ordered. The parties were advised that if a

transcript was ordered, their respective proposed recommended orders

(PROs) would be due ten days after the transcript was filed. The parties were

also advised that if no transcript was ordered, each party’s PRO was to be

filed no l ater than September 4, 2020. However, Petitioner’s counsel was

granted until the close of business, 5:00 p.m., on Thursday, August 27, 2020,

to confer with his client and provide a written status report on whether the

transcript would be ordered.

On Augu st 28, 2020, the undersigned issue an Order announcing that

Petitioner’s written status report had not been filed on August 27, 2020. The

parties were directed, if they chose to, to file their respective PRO s on or

before the close of business on Friday, S eptember 4, 2020. On September 4,

2020, Petitioner filed a “CONFIRMATION THAT HEARING TRANSCRIPT

NOT REQUESTED.”

The parties

4 timely submitted their PROs, 5 which have been duly

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. To the extent the

PR Os contained new facts or information that was not subject to cross -

examination during the hearing, those matters have been excluded from

consideration .

4 Petitioner directly emailed his “ORDER ON PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF”

(Petitioner’s PRO) to the under signed , w hich is inappropriate. The undersigned directed her

Judicial Assistant to have the document placed on the docket.

5 Neither PRO provided that it had been served on opposing counsel . A Notice of Ex Parte

Communication was issued for both submissions.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final

hearing the follo wing Findings of Fact are made:

1. 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. The isen’s health started declining, and he began taking his

Social Security retirement at age 62.

2. 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 poss ible. 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).

3. The Association is the managing body for th e 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.

4. James Faix is the manager for the Association. He holds a bachelor ’s

degree and has multiple certifications and licensures.

5. Polaris is a property management company that engaged Mr. Faix as

the Association’s manager.

6. Mr. Theisen, acting on his belief that his request for a chair lift 6 had

been approved by the Asso ciation, 7 received an estimate/invoice from Florida

Surgical Supply for the installation and removal of a chair lift at his Condo

6 Th e term chair lift and stair lift were used interchangeably throughout th e hearing and the

emails.

7 the chair lift in No evidence was introduced at hearing that the Association had “approved”

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.”

7. 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.

8. On Friday, September 13, 2019, Mr. Theisen sent an email to Mr. Faix,

which reiterated Mr. Theisen’s understanding of the Association’s

re quirements 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 sta ir 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 perma nent 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 t racking that all down for me. I

guess it was a year ago. I hope I thanked you then as well.

Regards,

Pete

9. 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]

10 . 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 ni ght.

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

1 1 . 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 shee ts 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, a re 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 thi s. 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.

1 2 . Mr. Theisen responded to Mr. Faix via another email that reit erated

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; c onfirmed there was a key switch; explained that the seat co uld 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 th at 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.

1 3 . Later on September 17, 2019, a five - page “COVENANT RUNNING

WITH THE LAND AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT” (Original

C ovenant) was emailed to Petitioner.

1 4 . The Original Covenant contained a lot of “legalese” phrases 8 and 14

specific clauses that both the Association and Petitioner had to agree upon.

For example, one “legalese” phrase was a recitation for the considerati on 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.”).

1 5 . 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 re st of it. I told you

that attorney was sneaky.

1 6 . 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. Petiti oner 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.

1 7 . In addition to seeking HUD information and guidance, Mr. Theisen

also arranged to consult w ith a legal aid attorney. Mr. Theisen could not get

an appointment until sometime in October 2019.

1 8 . Late on September 18, 2019, Mr. Theisen email ed Mr. Faix the

following:

It is killed. Because the provider had a temporary

over - stock of last year’s mo del (functionally and

cosmetically the same as the latest model) that I

8 Upon review of the Covenant, the first “W HEREAS” 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 draftin g , 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, p erhaps

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 boa rd always has a

majority despot composition. And that law firm caters to despots.

1 9 . 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 respond ed

via email that by postponing the deal, it was killed.

20 . 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 objectio ns.

2 1 . Mr. Theisen then filed his complaint with HUD and FCHR.

2 2 . 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.

2 3 . 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 accommod ation 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.

2 4 . 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.

25 . At some poin t 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

Coven ant). This Second Covenant was provided to Mr. Faix and Mr. Theisen

on or about January 23, 2020.

2 6 . Mr. Theisen shared his objections to the Second Covenant via an email

to FCH R . Mr. Theisen provided that this Second Covenant was an

improvement, but he could “not agree to numbers 2, 3, and 4.” Those sections

provided:

2. 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.

3. 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 wo rk, the work shall be

inspected and approved by the appropriate government agency having jurisdiction of the work.

4. 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.

2 7 . 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 compete nt evidence that permits, licenses , and inspections were

not necessary.

2 8 . 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 be came too costly for him.

2 9. 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.

30. 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 owner s 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.

3 1 . Generally, the condominium owners’ association is responsible for the

condominium’s assets as well as its operation in accordance with standards

estab lished 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 i nvolves 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.

3 2 . Although the undersigned was not provided with a copy of the Condo’s

Declaration or by - laws, Mr. Faix provided the requisi te 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 l ift, and approved it. The Association, via Mr. Faix ,

notified Mr. Theisen of the approval, and that an agreement was being

prepared for the future . T he C ove na nt was not a n unreasonable request , but

one for the viability of the C ondo. T here was an unfortuna te 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 approva l of the requested accommodation.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

3 3 . The Division has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject

matter of this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 , 120.57(1), and

760.35(3)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Y -

4.016(1) .

3 4 . The Act , codified in s ections 760.20 through 760.37, prohibits

discriminatory housing practices. A “discriminatory housing practice” means

an act that is unlawful pursuant to section 760.23(2), (8), and (9).

3 5 . Section 760.23( 2) provides:

(2) It is unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith,

because of race, color, national origin, sex ,

handicap, familial status, or religion.

3 6 . Section 760.23(8) and (9) further provide:

(8) It is unlawful to discriminate against any

person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale

or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of

services or fac ilities in connection with such

dwelling, because of a handicap of:

(a) That buyer or renter;

(b) A person residing in or intending to reside in

that dwelling after it is sold, rented, or made available; or

(c) Any person associated with the buyer or

re nter.

(9) For purposes of subsections (7) and (8),

discrimination includes:

(a) A refusal to permit, at the expense of the

handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by

such person if such modifications m ay be necessary

to afford such person full enjoyment of the

premises; or

(b) A refusal to make reasonable accommodations

in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use a nd enjoy a

dwelling.

3 7 . Section 760.34(5) provides:

(5) In any proceeding brought pursuant to this

section or s. 760.35, the burden of proof is on the

complainant.

3 8 . The Act is patterned after the Federal Fair Housing Act. Federal court

decisions int erpreting the Federal Fair Housing Act provide guidance in

determining whether a violation of the Act has occurred. Dornbach v. Holley ,

854 So. 2d 211, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Solodar v. Old Port Cove Lake Point

Tower Condo. Ass’n , 2013 U.S. Dist. LEX IS 10 4996, at 25 n.7 (S.D. Fla.

2013).

39 . A petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the

evidence that a respondent violated the Act by failing to provide a reasonable

accommodation for the petitioner’s disability. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban

Dev. v. Blackwell , 908 F.2d 864, 870 (11th Cir. 1990). Thus, Mr. Theisen has

the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondents violated the Act by discriminating against him based on his disability.

4 0 . The preponderance of the ev idence standard requires proof by “the

greater weight of the evidence, ” Black’s Law Dictionary , 1201 (7th ed. 1999),

or evidence that “more likely than not” tends to prove a certain proposition. See Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 289 n.1 (Fla. 2000).

4 1 . In evaluating fair housing, reasonable accommodation claims, courts

apply the burden - shifting analysis developed in McDonne l l Douglas

Corporation v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 - 4, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668

(1973). Under this approach, a petitioner must first establish a prima facie

case of discrimination. If the petitioner is successful in doing so, then the

burden shifts to the respondent to articulate a legitimate, non - discriminatory

reason for its action.

4 2 . If the respondent satisfies its burden, t he burden shifts back to the

petitioner, who must then prove that the legitimate reasons asserted by the

respondent are a mere pretext for discrimination. Secretary, HUD on behalf

of Herron v. Blackwell , 908 F.2d 864, 870 (11th Cir. 1990); Savanna Club

Wor ship Serv. v. Savanna Club Homeowners’ Ass’n , 456 F. Supp. 2d 1223,

1231 (S.D. Fla. 2005); Vassar v. Gulfbelt Props., L.L.C. , 2011 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 36241, at 8 - 11 (S.D. Ala. 2011).

4 3 . To establish a prima facie case of failure to provide a reasonable

acco mmodation under the Federal Fair Housing Act, a petitioner must

demonstrate that: (1) he or she suffered from a handicap; (2) a reasonable

accommodation was requested; (3) that such accommodation was necessary to

afford him or her an opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling and facilities;

and (4) the respondent refused to make the requested accommodation.

Solodar , 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104996, at 25 (S.D. Fla. 2013).

4 4 . Although Mr. Theisen satisfied the first, second, and third prongs

associated with es tablishing a prima facie case of failure to provide a

reasonable accommodation, he failed to satisfy the fourth prong because Respondents approved his request , and did not, as claimed, impose

unreasonable conditions to carry out the request.

4 5 . Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof that Respondents

discriminated against him based on his disability.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED that that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter

a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner Benedict

Theisen.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 25th day of September , 2020 , in Tallahassee,

Leon County, Florida.

L YNNE A. Q UIMBY - P ENNOCK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administ rative 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 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

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)

Ma rk W. Lord, Esquire

46 North Washington Boulevard , Suite 16 D

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 Ol ah, 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

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

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.