STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

Transcription

1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION The Victoria Condominium Association of Dunedin, Inc., Petitioner, v. Case No Todd Ramquist and Melinda McKinsey, Respondents. / SUMMARY FINAL ORDER On April 30, 2013, The Victoria Condominium Association of Dunedin, Inc. (the Association) filed a petition for mandatory non-binding arbitration naming as Respondents Todd Ramquist and Any Unknown Occupant in Possession. The Petition alleged that Respondent Ramquist is the owner of Unit #18 within the condominium. By Order entered on May 3, 2013, the Association was directed to file an Amended Petition that named the tenant, and the Association complied on May 6, 2013, naming Respondent Melinda McKinsey as the tenant in the unit. The Declaration of Condominium, Article 39, section 39.11, as amended in October 2012, allows unit owners and approved tenants to keep domestic pets in the unit, where domestic pets include only one cat under a certain weight and certain birds. Reptiles, fish, rodents and any other type of animal are explicitly prohibited. The petition alleges Respondents are maintaining a dog within the unit in violation of this 1

2 provision of the Declaration. The website of the Clerk of Court for Pinellas County, Florida, shows Respondent Ramquist took title to the unit in February, On May 29, 2013, Respondent Ramquist filed an Answer. In response to the Statement of Facts in the petition, the Answer states, in pertinent part, ESA support information was sent to mgmt. co. and Victoria Condo Board. In pertinent part, the Defenses in the Answer state, Current animal in violation is ESA. The arbitrator takes ESA to mean emotional support animal. The Answer does not deny that Respondents are keeping a dog in the unit. With the Answer, Respondent Ramquist filed a copy of a letter sent by counsel for the Association addressed to Respondent McKinsey and dated May 1, In pertinent part, the letter states: We are in receipt of the prescription from your physician that you provided to the Association. Please note, the prescription provided is insufficient to establish your need for a service or support animal accommodation. Please be advised that the Board has reviewed the request, and is reserving making a determination at this time. This letter should not be construed as an approval or denial of the request, but rather a request by the Board for additional information. Pursuant to the prevailing law in this kind of matter, the Board is requesting additional information from a medical professional regarding your disability, and how a dog is medically necessary to help aid or alleviate the symptoms of your disability.... The Association is requesting that this information be provided within fifteen (15) days of the date of this correspondence. Please be advised that the Association will not make a final determination on your request for variance until the information has been provided. At the bottom of the copy of the May 1, 2013 letter filed by Respondent Ramquist with the Answer are the following hand-printed words, MELINDAS [sic] DR [sic] SAID THIS 2

3 REQUEST VIOLATES HIPA [sic] LAW. There is no indication who authored these handprinted words, but presumably, they were written by Respondent Ramquist. When service was not obtained on Respondent McKinsey by certified mail, an Order Requiring Service was entered on June 6, 2013, requiring the Association to serve Respondent McKinsey personally. On June 22, 2013, the Association filed a Return of Service showing Respondent McKinsey was served on June 18, When Respondent McKinsey did not file an Answer, motion or any other paper, a Default was entered against her. As of the date of the Order entered herein, Respondent McKinsey has not responded to the Default. On August 6, 2013, the Association filed a Motion to Strike those parts of Respondent Ramquist s Answer relating to Respondent McKinsey s need for an emotional support animal. The Association argues that Respondent Ramquist is not an attorney, and therefore, cannot argue on her behalf, and that Respondent Ramquist has not personally requested an accommodation for an emotional support animal. From these arguments, the Association concludes that Respondent Ramquist has no standing with regard to Respondent McKinsey s need for an emotional support animal. With the August 6, 2013 Motion to Strike, the Association also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Respondent Ramquist alleges as a defense that Current animal in violation is ESA, i.e., an emotional support animal. Although Respondent McKinsey did not file a response to the Petition, it is clear from the Association s May 1, 2013 letter to her that the Association is aware that Respondent McKinsey is seeking an emotional support 3

4 animal accommodation under state or federal housing discrimination law, hereinafter referred to as Fair Housing. Regardless of which Respondent is seeking the accommodation under the circumstances of this case, the responsibility for deciding such claims of state or federal housing discrimination law does not lie in arbitration pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes. Deerfield Beach Gardens Condo. Ass n v. Ramkalawan, Arb. Case No , Order (Sept. 4, 2009). Therefore, on August 8, 2013, an Order was entered striking the defense that Respondent Melinda McKinsey has a need for the dog that is covered by state or federal Fair Housing law. The Order required at least one of the Respondents to file proof, no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 23, 2013, that a Fair Housing discrimination complaint is pending before the appropriate Fair Housing agency. The Order further provided that upon proof of a pending Fair Housing discrimination complaint, this arbitration case would be abated until the Fair Housing complaint is resolved, and if Respondents failed to timely file proof of a pending Fair Housing complaint, then this case would proceed based upon the remaining issues set forth in the pleadings. As of the date of the Order entered herein, Respondents have not filed any response to the August 8, 2013 Order. Therefore, Respondents are found to be in violation of Article 39, section 39.11, as amended in October 2012, by maintaining a dog within the unit. Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: Within 30 days of the date of this final order, Respondents permanently shall remove from the unit the dog Respondents are maintaining in violation of Article 39, 4

5 section 39.11, of the Declaration, as amended, and shall comply with such provision at all times in the future. DONE AND ORDERED this 9 th day of October, 2013, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Glenn Lang, Arbitrator Department of Business and Professional Regulation Arbitration Section 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida Phone (850) ; FAX: (850) Trial de novo and Attorney s Fees This decision shall be binding on the parties unless a complaint for trial de novo is filed in accordance with section , Florida Statutes. As provided by section , Florida Statutes, the prevailing party in this proceeding is entitled to have the other party pay reasonable costs and attorney s fees. Any such request must be filed in accordance with Fla. Admin. Code R. 61B Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing final order has been sent by facsimile, where available, and by U.S. Mail to the following persons on this 9 th day of October 2013: Daniel J. Greenberg, Esq. Joseph R. Cianfrone, P.A Bayshore Boulevard Suite A Dunedin, Florida Facsimile: Attorneys for Petitioner Todd Ramquist rd St. N. Safety Harbor, Florida Respondent Melinda McKinsey 1101 Victoria Drive #18 Dunedin, Florida Respondent Glenn Lang, Arbitrator 5