20-003800 Charles And Andrea Abraham vs. Sandy Cove 3 Association, Inc., Et. Al. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, February 10, 2021.

Summary: Petitioners failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were subject to unlawful discrimination on the basis of their national origin in violation of Florida?s Fair Housing Act.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

C HARLES A ND A NDREA A BRAHAM ,

Petitioner s ,

vs. Case No. 20 - 3800

S ANDY C OVE 3 A SSOCIATION , I NC ., E T .

A L .,

Respondent s .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

The final hearing in this matter was conducted before J. Bruce Culpepper,

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings,

pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (20 20 ), 1 on

January 19, 2021 , by Zoom video conference, from Tallahassee , Florida.

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Robert Braland, Qualified Representative

4413 Claybrooke Drive

Lothian, Maryland 20711

For Respondent: Paul Edward Olah, Esquire

Law Offices of Wells Olah, P.A.

1800 Second Street, Suite 808

Sarasota , Florida 3 4236

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

Whether Petitioners, Cha rles a nd Andrea Abraham , were subject to a

discriminatory housing practice by Respondent , Sandy Cove 3 Association,

Inc., based on their national origin, i n violation of Florida ' s Fair Housing Act.

1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (20 20 ), unless otherwise noted.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On November 12, 2019 , Petitioners f iled a Housing Discrimination

Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the

" Commission " ) alleging that Respondent, Sandy Cove 3 Association, Inc. (the

" Association " ), violated the Florida Fair Housing Act ( " FHA " ) by

discriminating against them, based on their national origin ( Hungarian ) .

On August 11 , 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Determination

notif ying Petitioners that reasonable cause did not exist to believe that the

Association c ommitted a discriminatory housing practice.

On August 17 , 2020, Petitioners filed a Petition for Relief with the

Commission alleging a discriminatory housing practice. The Commission

transmitted the Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings to

conduct a chapter 120 evidentiary hearing.

Th e final hearing was held on January 19, 2021. At the final hearing,

Charles Abraham testified on behalf of Petitioners. Petitioner s also offered

the testimony of Robert DeForge. Petitioners ' Exhibits 2, 8, 10, 13, and 27

through 30 were admitted into evide nce. The Association offered the

testimony of John Meuschke. Association Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 10, and 21 were

admitted into evidence.

A court reporter recorded the final hearing. Neither party requested a

transcript. At the close of the hearing, the parties were advised of a ten - day

timeframe following the hearing to file po st - hearing submittals. Both parties

timely filed post - hearing submittals , which were duly considered in preparing

this Recommended Order.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

1. Sandy Cove 3 ( " Sandy Cove " ) is a small development of condominiums

located in Sarasota, F lorida . Sandy Cove was built in 1973 and consists of 16

units. Sandy Cove is governed and operated by the Association.

2 . Petitioners own a two - bedroom condominium in Sandy Cove.

Petitioners pu rchased their unit (#220) in 2009. They primarily use their

condominium as rental property. At the final hearing, Petitioner Charles

Abraham testified that he and his wife, Andrea , reside primarily in Maryland

and Hungary.

3 . The focus of this dispute cent ers on a corkscrew of copper water pipes

that runs from the top of the water heater in Petitioners ' condominium into

the primary water pipes within the unit ' s walls. This matter specifically

concerns who should pay to replace these pipes. Each party believ es that the

other side should bear the costs. In their initial housing discrimination

complaint filed with the Commission, Petitioners attribute the Association ' s

refusal to rep lace the copper pipes in t h e i r condominium to discrimination

based on their nat ional origin (Hungarian).

4. At the final hearing, Mr. Abraham testified that, sometime in 2016,

Petitioners noticed that the water pipes connected to their water heater were

beginning to show ominous signs of age and wear. The bends and joints of

several pipe sections had turned green and were developing a buildup of

corrosion. Petitioners felt that the pipes were a " disaster " waiting to happen.

5. Mr. Abraham stated that initially he attempted to repair the pipes

himself by applying glue to several conne ctions. However, because he noticed

a small amount of water leakage " from time to time, " he believed that the

pipes were in real danger of cracking or popping open.

6. In 2018, Petitioners turned to the Association for assistance in fixing

the potential pl umbing problem. On November 28, 2018, Petitioners wrote

the Association requesting it to repair their pipes. Thereafter, according to

Mr. Abraham, the parties exchanged " around 100 emails " discussing how the

pipes should be fixed, and who should pay for th e repairs.

7. Eventually, in the summer of 2019, Sandy Cove management contacted

Daniel ' s Plumbing Service to inspect Petitioners ' plumbing situation. On

July 29, 2019, a plumber from Daniel ' s Plumbing Service examined

Petitioners ' water heater and the pip es attached to it. Following his

inspection, the plumber wrote on the service invoice:

Arrived and found corrosion on copper adapters to

water heater. Water heater is 30 gallon electric

that is 19 years old. Water heater should be

replaced. Relief valve is 1/2 " which should be

changed to 3/4 " . Gate valve to water heater is no

good and also needs to be replaced. No leaks at this

time.

The plumber then added:

Notes - Dylan from management said to pick up - no

further work is to be done at this time. He said

wor k that is to be done is homeowners

responsibility.

8. Mr. Abraham testified that, after the plumbing inspection, the

Association informed him that the pipes located inside his condominium were

his responsibility as the unit owner, not the Association ' s re sponsibility .

Mr. Abraham declared that the Association has refused to pay to replace the

copper pipes in his unit.

9. Mr. Abraham claimed that the Association ' s response was contrary to

what he had seen and heard regarding the water pipes in other units. He

insisted that the Association has paid to replace pipes for other condominium

owners within Sandy Cove. Mr. Abraham specifically believed that in 2016,

the Association repaired or replaced pipes with similar issues in units 115,

116, 117, 215, and 216.

10. To support his position, Mr. Abraham relayed that, in 2017 , the

Association collected a special assessment from every unit owner specifically

to cover the plumbing issues at Sandy Cove. Mr. Abraham recounted that he

personally paid the Association $2 ,100. Consequently, Petitioners were quite

frustrated that, after paying the Association several thousand dollars

specifically for Sandy Cove plumbing problems, the Association refused his

request for assistance to fix his own copper pipes.

11. Seeking to confirm the necessary repairs, Petitioners hired two

additional plumbers to inspect the water pipes in their unit. A plumber from

Michael Douglas Plumbers visited Petitioners ' condominium on September 9,

2020, and documented the following:

Proposal to replace copper piping in water heater

closet (very corroded and recommend replacing)

* * *

All piping from wall to water heater to be in PEX

with new ballvalves

Water heater is 20 yrs old 30 gal low (30 amp

breaker) recommended replacement.

* * *

Replacement will cost È $1511.76 È this price

includes replacing pipes as well.

12. Petitioner s also introduced the testimony of Robert DeForge, the

current Operations Manager for Daniels Plumbing Service. Mr. DeForge was

not the plumber who inspected Pe titioners ' water heater in July 2019.

However, as a Master Plumber with over 30 years of plumbing experience, he

credibly expounded on the description written on the July 29, 2019, invoice.

13. Mr. DeForge explained that copper pipes are no longer favored within

the plumbing industry. Instead, the current industry standard is to use PVC

pipes (polyvinyl chloride Ï a synthetic plastic) for cold water pipes and CPVC

pipes for hot water (CPVC is designed to handle a hotter temperature range).

14. Regarding t he status of Petitioners ' pipes, Mr. DeForge confirmed that

copper pipes can corrode over time. Following his review of a photograph of

Petitioners ' copper pipes and water heater, Mr. DeForge opined that the

corrosion about which Petitioners complain did n ot result from a water leak,

but is due to electrolysis from metal on metal contact (galvanized pipe to

copper pipe). Mr. DeForge further remarked that corrosion can lead to water

leaks, which will require the pipes to be replaced. At that point, if Petiti oners

are experiencing leaking pipes, Mr. DeForge would recommend that the

current copper pipes be replaced with PVC/CPVC pipes.

15. Mr. DeForge also commented that a pipe replacement job would likely

increase the size of the pipes connected to the water h eater. The 1/2 " copper

pipes currently attached to Petitioners ' water heater would be replaced with

3/4 " PVC/CPVC pipes. Mr. DeForge added that the pipes could be replaced

without having to displace Petitioners ' current water heater. The procedure

would re quire an adapter to connect the 3/4 " PVC pipe to the 1/2 " relief valve

affixed atop the existing water heater.

16. Addressing the cost of the plumbing services to rectify the problem,

Mr. DeForge testified that simply replacing the pipes above the water h eater

will cost about $150. To replace everything (new pipes and new water

heater), the plumbing services would cost approximately $1,000 to $1,200.

17. Mr. Abraham expressed that Petitioners ' ultimate goal is to have the

Association pay to replaced the co pper pipes in his unit. Regarding the water

heater, Mr. Abraham stated that he understands that the old water heater is

his responsibility as the unit owner. Therefore, Petitioners are prepared to

bear that expense. That being said, Mr. Abraham asserts tha t the water

heater is functioning perfectly fine at present. Therefore, the only problem

that needs to be remedied at this moment is the condition of the aging copper

pipes. In doing so, however, Mr. Abraham added that the current plumbing

situation is com plicated by the fact that, to install new PVC/CPVC pipes, the

relief valve connecting the water heater to the (new) pipes should be replaced.

And, if the relief valve must be replaced, then Mr. Abraham asserts that the

water heater should be replaced, as w ell. Mr. Abraham estimates that the

entire service job will cost between $1,500 and $2,000.

18. John Meuschke testified on behalf of the Association. Mr. Meuschke

currently serves as president of the Association ' s board of directors, a position

he has he ld for over 11 years. He also owns a unit in Sandy Cove.

19 . Mr. Meuschke stated that, generally, the Association assumes all

financial responsibility for maintaining and repairing the " common elements "

within Sandy Cove. Mr. Meuschke explained that the " c ommon elements "

consist of everything outside the individual condominium units. Conversely,

the individual owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair costs

for issues occurring inside their units ' walls.

20 . Regarding Petitioners ' specific compl aint, Mr. Meuschke recounted

that the Association received Petitioners ' 2018 correspondence regarding a

water leak in their unit. Mr. Meuschke advised , however, that the

Association declined to pay for the requested repairs because the copper pipes

which P etitioners sought to replace were located inside Petitioners ' unit,

directly above the water heater to be precise. Accordingly, Mr. Meuschke

contended that Petitioners were responsible for any costs associated with the

pipes ' repair or replacement.

21. Co nversely, Mr. Meuschke stated that if the water pipes were leaking

inside the walls that divide the separate units, the Association would have

assumed financial responsibility for any plumbing costs. Because the

inspection by Daniels Plumbing Service revea led, " n o leaks at this time , "

however, Mr. Meuschke asserted that nothing indicated that the Association

should pay for any repairs involving Petitioners ' copper pipes. Further,

replacing a unit ' s water heater is the sole responsibility of each condominium

owner , because it too is located within the confines of an individual unit at

Sandy Cove.

22. To support the Association ' s position, Mr. Meuschke referenced the

Declaration of Condominium of Sandy Cove 3 (the " Declaration " ). In

determining who is financ ially responsib le for repairs, Mr. Meuschke pointed

to Article 6, entitled Maintenance, Alteration and Improvement, which

provides:

6.2) By the Association . The Association shall

maintain, repair and replace at the Association ' s

expense:

(a) All portions of a Unit, except interior surfaces,

contributing to the support of the Unit, which

portions shall include but not be limited to load -

bearing columns and load - bearing walls.

(b) All È plumbing, È and other facilities for the

furnishing of utility services contained in the

portions of a Unit maintained by the Association,

and all such facilities contained within a Unit that

service part or parts of the Condominium other

than the Unit within which contained.

* * *

6.3) By the Unit Owner . The responsibili ty of the

Unit Owner shall be as follows:

(a) To maintain, repair, and replace, at his expense,

all portions of his Unit except portions to be

maintained, repaired and replaced by the

Association. Such shall be done without disturbing

the rights of other Unit Owners.

* * *

6.5) Common Elements, By the Association . The

maintenance and operation of the common

elements shall be the responsibility of the

Association as a common expense.

Mr. Meuschke pithily explained that a unit owner owns everything from the

paint on the Unit ' s walls inward, and the Association is responsible for

everything from the walls out.

23. Mr. Meuschke also voiced that the Association collects a monthly

assessment from each condominium owner in Sandy Cove. This money is

designated for the Association ' s annual operating budget. The assessments

also pay for the upkeep of the Sandy Cove " common elements, " as well as any

necessary repairs of the same.

24. Mr. Meuschke relayed that occasionally the Association imposes a

special assessm ent against the unit owners to generate additional funds for

the Association ' s operating budget. Pertinent to Petitioners ' dispute, in

March 2017, the Association levied an additional charge on all Sandy Cove

condominiums. Mr. Meuschke confirmed that owner s of one - bedroom units

were assessed in the amount of $1,908 , and two - bedroom units (including

Petitioners) were tasked to pay an additional $2,100. The purpose of the

Special Assessment was to replenish the Association ' s reserves, as well as

pay for sever al unexpected plumbing issues.

25 . Mr. Meuschke explained that the se plumbing issues concerned the

original cast iron pipes that ran within the walls between the units. Several

of these pipes had deteriorated and burst causing a number of active leaks.

Be cause the cast iron pipes were not located inside the individual units, the

Association considered them " common elements " and assumed the

repair/replacement costs as an Association responsibility. None of the special

assessment funds, however, were designa ted for repair s to Petitioners ' unit or

to pipes inside any other unit.

26 . To conclude, Mr. Meuschke steadfastly refuted Petitioners ' allegation

that the Association ' s decision regarding Petitioners ' request for plumbing

repairs w as unfair. He specificall y rejected Petitioners ' claim that the

Association took any action against Petitioners , or denied them services,

based on their national origin. On the contrary, Mr. Meuschke asserted that

the Association would have made the same decision regarding any uni t

owners ' request to replace the copper pipes above the water heater located

inside the boundaries of their condominium. Mr. Meuschke maintained that

the Association ' s common and consistent practice has been to only pay to

repair plumbing issues located in the Sandy Cove " common elements. "

Mr. Meuschke maintained that the Association has never paid to replace

pipes or repair plumbing problems that have occurred inside an individual

unit. Instead, the unit owner has always been responsible for that repair or

maintenance activity. Petitioners offered no evidence to prove otherwise.

27 . Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the

preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the Association

discriminated against Petitioners based on t heir national origin. Accordingly,

Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that the Association

committed unlawful discrimination in violation of the FHA .

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

28 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

parties and subject matter of this cause pursuant to sections 120.569,

120.57(1), and 760.35(3)(b), Florida Statutes. See also Fla. Admin. Code

R. 60Y - 4.016.

29 . Petitioners bring this action alleging that the Association

discriminated against them in viol ation of the FHA. Petitioners specifically

assert that the Association treated them differently based on their national

origin (Hungarian).

30 . The FHA is codified in sections 760.20 through 760.37 and makes it

unlawful to discriminate against any person in the provision of services in

connection with a dwelling because of national origin. Section 760.23

specifically states, in pertinent part:

(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,

disability, familial status, or religion.

31 . The FHA is patterned after the Federal Fair Housing Act found in

42 U.S.C. § 36 01, et seq. Discrimination covered under the FHA is the same

discrimination prohibited under the Federal Fair Housing Act. Savanna Club

Worship Serv. v. Savanna Club Homeowners ' Ass ' n , 456 F. Supp. 2d 1223,

1224 n.1 (S.D. Fla. 2005); see also Loren v. Sass er , 309 F.3d 1296, 1300 n.9

(11th Cir. 2002); and Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass ' n , 765 F.3d

1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2014)( " The [Federal Fair Housing Act] and the Florida

Fair Housing Act are substantively identical, and therefore the same legal

an alysis applies to each. " ). Accordingly, federal case law involving housing

discrimination is instructive in applying and interpreting the FHA. Dornbach

v. Holley , 854 So. 2d 211, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

32 . Specifically regarding the subject matter of Pet itioners ' claim, the

statutory language in section 760.23 is very similar to that found in its

federal counterpart in 42 U.S.C. § 3604( b ). 2

33 . To establish a claim under the FHA, the burden of proof is on the

complainant. § 760.34(5), Fla. Stat.; see als o Sec ' y, U.S. Dep ' t of Hous. &

Urban Dev. ex rel. Herron v. Blackwell , 908 F.2d 864, 870 (11th Cir. 1990);

and Dep ' t of Banking & Fin., Div. of Sec. & Investor Prot. v. Osborne Stern &

Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla. 1996)( " The general rule is that a party

asserting the affirmative of an issue has the burden of presenting evidence as

to that issue. " ).

2 The pertinent language i n 42 U.S.C. § 3604 makes it unlawful :

(b) 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, religion, sex, familial status, or national

origin.

34 . The preponderance of the evidence standard is applicable to this

matter. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

35 . Discrimination may be proven through direct, stati stical, or

circumstantial evidence. Valenzuela v. GlobeGround N. Am., LLC , 18 So. 3d

17, 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, would

prove the existence of discriminatory intent behind the decision without any

inference or p resumption. Denney v. City of Albany , 247 F.3d 1172, 1182

(11th Cir. 2001); see also Holifield v. Reno , 115 F.3d 1555, 1561 (11th Cir.

1997). Courts have held that "' only the most blatant remarks, whose intent

could be nothing other than to discriminate .. . ' will constitute direct evidence

of discrimination. " Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc. , 196 F.3d

1354, 1358 - 59 (11th Cir. 1999). In contrast, " [e]vidence that only suggests

discrimination or that is subject to more than one interpretation does not

constitute direct evidence. " Saweress v. Ivey , 354 F. Supp. 3d 1288, 1301

(M.D. Fla. 2019) .

36 . Petitioners presented no direct evidence of housing discrimination by

the Association. No evidence and testimony establish, without any inference,

that the Association intentionally refused to assume the cost of the plumbing

repairs in Petitioners ' condominium because of Petitioners ' national origin.

37 . Where there is no direct evidence of discrimination, fair housing cases

are analyzed under the three - part, burden - shifting framework set forth in

McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and Texas

Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248 (1981). See

Blackwell , 908 F.2d at 870; and Savanna Club , 456 F. Supp. 2d at 1231 - 32.

3 8 . Under this three - part test, Petitioner s have the initial burden of

establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of

unlawful discrimination. McDonnell Douglas , 411 U.S. at 802; Burke - Fowler

v. Orange Cty. , 447 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11t h Cir. 2006); and Valenzuela , 18

So. 3d at 22.

39 . Adapted to the facts in this case, for Petitioners to establish a prima

facie case of housing discrimination based on their national origin, they must

prove that: (1) they are an aggrieved party; (2) they suffered an injury

because of the alleged discrimination; and (3) based on their national origin,

they were denied the provision of services protected by the FHA, which were

available to other homeowners. Savanna Club , 456 F. Supp. 2d at 1232.

40 . Demonst rating a prima facie case is not difficult, but only requires

Petitioners " to establish facts adequate to permit an inference of

discrimination. " Holifield , 115 F.3d at 1562. However, the failure to satisfy

any of the prima facie elements is fatal to a dis crimination complaint, and the

factfinder is not required to continue under the burden - shifting framework or

reach the issue of pretext. Mitchell v. Young , -- So.3d -- , 45 Fla. L. Weekly

D2194 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 14, 2020); Higdon v. Jackson , 393 F.3d 1211, 1219

(11th Cir. 2004).

41 . If Petitioners prove a prima facie case, they create a presumption of

discrimination. At that point, the burden shifts to the Association to

articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Burdine , 450

U.S. a t 255; s ee also Blackwell , 908 F.2d at 870; Savanna Club , 456 F. Supp.

2d at 1231 - 32. The reason for the Association ' s decision should be clear,

reasonably specific, and worthy of credence. See Dep ' t of Corr. v. Chandler ,

582 So. 2d 1183, 1186 (Fla. 1st DC A 1991). The burden on the Association is

one of production, not persuasion, to demonstrate to the factfinder that its

action was nondiscriminatory. Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc. , 376 F.3d 1079,

1087 (11th Cir. 2004). This burden of production is " exceedin gly light. "

Holifield , 115 F.3d at 1564.

42 . Finally, if the Association meets its burden, the presumption of

discrimination disappears. The burden then shifts back to Petitioners to

prove that the Association ' s proffered reason was not its true reason but

merely a " pretext " for discrimination. Combs v. Plantation Patterns , 106 F.3d

1519, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997); Valenzuela , 18 So. 3d at 25.

43 . In order to satisfy this final step in the process, Petitioners must show

" either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more

likely motivated [the Association] or indirectly by showing that [the

Association ' s ] proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. " Burdine , 450

U.S. 248, 256, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1095. Petitioners must prove that the reason s

articulated were false and that the discrimination was the real reason for the

action. City of Miami v. Hervis , 65 So. 3d 1110, 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA

2011)(citing St. Mary ' s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502, 515, 113 S. Ct.

2742, 2751 (1993) , 509 U.S. at 51 5)( " [A] reason cannot be proved to be ' a

pretext for discrimination ' unless it is shown both that the reason was false,

and that discrimination was the real reason. " ).

44 . Despite the shifting burdens of proof, " the ultimate burden of

persuading the trier of fact that the [Respondents] intentionally

discriminated against the [Petitioners] remains at all times with the

[Petitioners]. " Burdine , 450 U.S. at 253; Valenzuela , 18 So. 3d at 22.

45 . Turning to the facts found in this matter, Petitioners did not mee t

their burden of proving that the Association discriminated against them

based on their national origin. In terms of Petitioners ' prima facie case,

Petitioners satisfactorily established the first two prongs. Petitioners proved

that they are an " aggrieved party " in that the Association denied their

request to bear the costs of replacing the copper pipes in their unit.

Petitioners also demonstrated that they suffered an injury in that they have

incurred expenses in their efforts to address their plumbing is sues.

Petitioners also established that the pipes in their unit are degrading and

will need to be replaced in the future.

46 . Regarding the third prong, however, Petitioners ' discrimination claim

must fail because they have not sufficiently shown that th e reason the

Association refused to pay for their plumbing repairs was based on their

national origin. The evidence in the record does not contain the

circumstantial evidence necessary to support Petitioners ' allegations that the

Association denied their r equest to replace their copper pipes because they

are from the country of Hungary. Neither the witness testimony elicited, nor

the documentary evidence produced, demonstrates that the Association made

any decisions or declined to take any action based on P etitioners ' country of

origin.

47 . Moreover, even assuming arguendo that Petitioners proved a prima

facie case of discrimination based on Petitioners ' national origin, the

Association articulated a legitimate non - discriminatory reason for the

adverse actio n about which Petitioners complain. As discussed above, the

Association ' s burden to refute Petitioners ' prima facie case is light. The

Association met this burden by providing credible testimony that the

Association determined that the copper pipes at issu e were not a " common

element " for which the Association is responsible. On the contrary, because

the necessary repairs will occur within the boundaries of Petitioners '

condominium, the Association (Mr. Meuschke) persuasively argued that the

pipes are Petit ioners ' responsibility , as the unit owners , to maintain or

replace. 3 Mr. Meuschke further cogently testified that the Association has not

provided the specific plumbing services Petitioners seek to other unit owners

in Sandy Cove.

48 . Completing the McDonn ell Douglas burden - shifting analysis,

Petitioners did not prove that the Association ' s stated reason for refusing to

replace Petitioners ' copper pipes was not its true reason, but was merely a

" pretext " for unlawful discrimination based on their national o rigin. The

evidentiary record does not support a finding or conclusion that the

Association ' s explanation was false, implausible, inconsistent, or not worthy

of credence. As persuasively attested by Mr. Meuschke, the Association ' s

decision not to pay to fi x Petitioners ' plumbing problem was based on its

3 Further, Mr. DeForge credibly testified that the (green) corrosion which Mr. Abraham

described resulted from the metal on metal contact in the pipes situated above the water

heater, not from a possible water leak in the pipes running through the walls of Petitioners Ô

unit (i.e., the Ñ common elements Ò ).

determination that the copper pipes Petitioners desire to replace are not the

Association ' s financial responsibi lity . Mr. Meuschke credibly asserted that

the Association ' s actions were based on its governing policy that the

individual owners of Sandy Cove condominiums are responsible for repairing

the pipes and fixtures located inside their units, not the fact that Petitioners

are from Hungary. Mr. Meuschke ' s testimony is supported by the language in

the Asso ciation ' s Declaration detailing the Association ' s obligation to only

maintain the " common elements. "

49 . In sum, Petitioners ' FHA complaint consists of a broad assertion that

the Association ' s decision was based on Petitioners ' national origin. The

evide nce and testimony adduced during the final hearing, however, does not,

either directly or circumstantially, link Petitioners ' frustration with actual

discrimination. 4 On the contrary, the Association presented a credible and

persuasive explanation for its position that the copper pipes at issue are

Petitioners ' responsibility as the unit owners. No evidence shows that the

Association was motivated to take some action against Petitioners based on a

discriminatory animus. Consequently, Petitioners failed to m eet their

ultimate burden of proving that the Association committed a discriminatory

housing practice.

R ECOMMENDATION

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

R ECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a

final order determining that Respondent, Sandy Cove 3 Association, Inc., did

not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioners and

dismissing their Petition for Relief.

4 See, e.g., Gooden v. Internal Rev. Serv. , 679 Fed. Appx. 958, 966 (11th Cir. 2017) ( Ñ [G] eneral

allegations, based on mere speculation and hunches, in no way establ ish that any alleged

[discriminatory activity] was race - , gender - , or disability based. Ò ).

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 10th day of February , 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

J. B RUCE C ULPEPPER

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 10th day of February , 2021 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Charles Abraham Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Andrea Abraham Florida Commission on Human Relations

Post Office Box 162 4075 Esplanade Way , Room 110

Highland, Maryland 20777 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

Brett Stolson Paul Edward Olah, Esquire

Argus Property Management, Inc. Law Offices of Wells Olah, P.A.

2477 Stickney Point Road , Suite 118A 1800 Second Street , Suite 808

Sarasota, Florida 34231 Sarasota, Florida 34236

Robert Braland Cheyanne Costilla, Gen eral Co unsel

4413 Claybrooke Drive Florida Commission on Human Relations

Lothian, Mar yland 20711 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

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.