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 SCOT BENNETT, Petitioner, v. Case No AQUARIUS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent. / FINAL ORDER Pursuant to notice, the undersigned arbitrator convened a formal hearing in this case on March 12, The parties were duly noticed of the proceeding by a prehearing order entered on February 22, During the hearing, the parties presented the testimony of witnesses and tendered documents into evidence. The parties requested and were granted permission to submit proposed final orders. This order is entered after consideration of the complete record in this matter. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: For Respondent: Steven K. Schwartz, Esquire Biscayne Boulevard Aventura, Florida Gary S. Phillips, Esquire Presidential Circle, Suite 375 S 4000 Hollywood Boulevard Aentura, Florida

2 Pertinent Procedural History On September 28, 2009, Petitioner, Scot Bennett, filed a Mandatory Non-Binding Arbitration Form Petition-Recall Dispute, naming the Aquarius Condominium Association, Inc. ( Association ), as respondent. Petitioner alleges the Association is in violation of Article XIV of the Declaration of Condominium, relating to the use of common elements by unit owners, by restricting Petitioner from using a common element conference room for business purposes. On November 12, 2009, the Association filed an answer and affirmative defenses. On November 16, 2009, a Default was entered. 1 On November 19, 2009, a Notice of Case Management Conference was entered. On November 25, 2009, Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate Default. On December 3, 2009, a telephonic case management conference was held and an Order Vacating the Entry of Default and Order after Case Management Conference was entered. On December 18, 2009, Petitioner filed Petitioner s Memorandum of Law, Affidavit of Scot Bennett Supporting Memorandum of Law and Supplemental Information Relating to Affidavit. On December 30, 2009, an Order Requiring Proof was entered, requiring Petitioner to file proof of written approval by the board for Petitioner s use of the conference room for business purposes. On January 11, 2010, Petitioner filed a Response to Order Requiring Proof. Upon review of the entire file, this order is entered. 1 The Association s Answer was not in the arbitrator s file at the time the Default was entered. 2

3 Statement of Issues The issues in this case are: 1. Whether the Association improperly denied Petitioner use of the common element conference room for business purposes. 2. Whether the Association is estopped from precluding Respondent from using a common element conference room for business purposes. Findings of Fact 1. The Petitioner is the owner of unit S-302, Aquarius Condominium and a member of the Aquarius Condominium Association, Inc. 2. The Aquarius Condominium Association, Inc., is the legal entity responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Aquarius Condominium, a condominium subject to chapter 718, Florida Statutes. 3. It is undisputed that from January or February 2005 until mid-2008, Petitioner has been using the Aquarius Condominium conference room on Saturdays to meet with residents and non-resident clients. 4. In 2007, the Association approved the Petitioner s used the conference room for charitable purposes. 5. In 2008, Petitioner used the conference room to do homework with his son. 6. Petitioner has not been denied the use of the conference room to do homework with his son. 3

4 7. It is undisputed that on-going Yoga/Pilates classes are conducted for the residents, their families, and personal guests on Monday evenings in the condominium s card room and that the instructor, a unit owner, is paid $40 per class for her services. 8. It is undisputed that Petitioner has advertised his professional services as a certified public accountant in the Association s newsletter. 9. It is undisputed that unit owners have been permitted to use the conference room for occasional unit-owner household sales, i.e. yard sales. 10. It is undisputed that the Association denied Petitioner continued use of the common element conference room for business purposes beginning in At the final hearing, the following individuals testified for the Petitioner: Scot Bennett, Petitioner; Mena Lewis, former property manager; Ariel Parrado, former property manager; and Celal Colak, penthouse 8 south unit owner. 12. At the final hearing, the following individuals testified for the Association: Steve Feldman, board member; Harry Smith, unit owner since 1985; and Rosemarie Graham, Association bookkeeper. 13. Petitioner gave the following testimony: a. In 2001 he requested from Harry Smith, a member of the board in 2001 and the board member that conducted the unit owner orientations, permission to use the conference room on Saturday to meet with a client. b. That Mr. Smith granted him permission to use it anytime the board isn t using it. 14. Mena Lewis, former property manager from 2004 to July 2005 gave the following testimony: 4

5 a. She discussed with Mr. Smith, Mr. Bennett s request to use the conference room for business. b. Mr. Smith and Paul Simpter used the conference room for business purposes. c. Yoga classes and charity events are held in the conference room. 15. Ariel Parrado, former property manager from September 2005 to September 2007 gave the following testimony: a. Board was aware of Petitioner s use of the room. b. She never provided the board any written memo s regarding Petitioner s use of the room. c. Doesn t see anything wrong with Petitioner using the room for business. 16. Celal Colak, penthouse unit owner 8 south, testified as follows: a. He purchased his unit from Harry Smith in b. Harry Smith conducted his orientation and informed him that the room was available for use by residents. c. Petitioner is his tax professional and he has met with him in the conference room. 17. Steve Feldman, a current and past board member testified as follows: a. The issue was brought before the board in 2008 and the board decided that a for-profit business should not be run from the conference room. b. The yoga class is open to residents, their family members, and personal guests. 5

6 18. Harry Smith, a member of the board in 2001 and the board member that conducted the unit owner orientations gave the following testimony: a. He did not give Petitioner permission to use the conference room for business purposes. b. He did not have authority to authorize the use of the conference room for such purposes because he was just one member of the board. c. He did not conduct any business in the conference room. d. He did conduct business with his son at the restaurant located on the Association property. e. Another resident Mark was denied permission to install computer equipment in the conference room to conduct business. 19. Rosemarie Graham, Association bookkeeper for the past 14 years gave the following testimony: a. She interacts with the residents on a regular basis. b. The unofficial policy of the board for the past fourteen years was to limit the use of the conference room to board meetings and workshops. c. Association collects rent from beauty parlor, restaurant when open, and cascade room rental for parties (collects deposit and fee as required by rules and regulations). d. Some charities are permitted to use room free of charge. e. Yoga class is conducted by a unit owner. 6

7 20. At no time did Petitioner obtain permission, oral or written, from the Association s board of directors to regularly use the conference room to meet with clients in order to conduct his accounting business. as follows: 21. Article VII of the Declaration of Condominium, provides as follows: The COMMON PROPERTY shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be subject to a perpetual non-exclusive easement in favor of all of the owners of PRIVATE DWELLINGS in the CONDOMINIUM for their use and the use of their immediate families, guests and invitees, for all proper and normal purposes, and for the furnishing of services and facilities for which the same are reasonably intended, for the enjoyment of said owners of PRIVATE DWELLINGS. 22. Article IX of the Declaration of Condominium, provides as follows: Recognizing that the proper use of a PRIVATE DWELLING by any owner or owners is dependent upon the use and enjoyment of the COMMON PROPERTY in common with the owners of all other PRIVATE DWELLINGS, and that it is in the interest of all owners of PRIVATE DWELLINGS that the ownership of the COMMON PROPERTY be retained in common by the owners of PRIVATE DWELLINGS in the CONDOMINIUM, it is declared that the percentage of the undivided interest in the COMMON PROPERTY appurtenant to each PRIVATE DWELLING shall remain undivided and no owner of any PRIVATE DWELLING shall bring or have any right to bring any action for partition or division. 23. Article XII of the Declaration of Condominium, provides, in pertinent part, In the administration of the operation and management of THE CONDOMINIUM, said ASSOCIATION shall have and is hereby granted the authority and power to enforce the provisions of this Declaration of Condominium promulgate and enforce such rules and regulations governing the use of the PRIVATE DWELLINGS, COMMON PROPERTY and LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY as the Board of Directors of the ASSOCIATION may deem to be in the best interest of the CONDOMINIUM. 7

8 24. Article XIII of the Declaration of Condominium, provides as follows: Each PRIVATE DWELLING is hereby restricted to residential use by the owners thereof, their immediate families, guests and invitees. 25. Article XIV of the Declaration of Condominium, provides as follows: Subject to the provisions hereinabove set forth in Articles XI, the use of COMMON PROPERTY by the owner or owners of all PRIVATE DWELLINGS, and all other parties authorized to use the same, and the use of LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY by the owner or owners entitled to use the same, shall be at all times subject to reasonable rules and regulations as may be prescribed and established governing such use, or which may hereafter be prescribed and established by the ASSOCIATION. 26. Article XXXXII of the Declaration of Condominium, provides as follows: The term Private Dwelling Unit also includes any other condominium parcels located within the condominium and which are not defined as common property or limited common property. For example, the same may include a coffee shop, sundry shop, beauty salon and other rooms and spaces of a similar nature. All of such rooms are referred to in Exhibit D as service area. All of such parcels shall not be restricted in use to residential purposes but may be used for non-residential purposes. In all other respects including transfer and sale of such condominium parcels, the same shall be bound by all of the terms and provisions of this Declaration of Condominium, except all of such service areas shall not be obligated for the payment of any assessments for maintenance, management, or operation of the condominium. 27. Aquarius House Manual of Rules & Procedures (Revised, 2006), the section titled PUBLIC ROOMS, provides as follows: The Public Rooms and areas of the building are intended for the exclusive use and pleasure of the owners and their personal guests. Public rooms and areas are defined as the Cascade Room, Lobby, Card-Room, Game Room and any other similar rooms or areas that may be created 8

9 hereafter. The use of such areas for special events is restricted and governed by the following regulations: 1. Management shall personally grant or withhold permission to use these rooms and areas. Any such arrangements must be made with Management well in advance of the planned event, and except for nonprofit organizations, shall be subject to a $50 usage fee. 2. No event shall be conducted to which the general public or any persons not personally known to the sponsoring owner are invited. 3. It will be the responsibility of the party who engages a room to leave it in a clean and orderly condition. There will be a charge for Management assistance in preparing for a party or for any necessary cleaning required by the Management. Management requires a refundable deposit of $50.00 against any damage and/or cleanup. 4. If these rooms are to be maintained in the manner you would desire when using them, it is necessary to have the cooperation not only of those reserving the rooms, but also of those in attendance at such functions. 5. The reserving unit owner must assume all liability as to the persons and all Association property used in the event. 28. Non-residential condominium parcels of the condominium property designated as service areas include a beauty salon and a restaurant. Service areas are not common elements to the unit owners. 29. The Cascade Room, Lobby, Card-Room, Game Room c are identified in the Declaration of Condominium as common elements, as designated by Exhibit D to the Declaration of Condominium. 30. The restaurant and beauty salon areas are identified in Article XXXXII of the Declaration of Condominium, as Non-Residential Condominium Parcels. 9

10 Conclusions of Law Waiver or Estoppel The arbitrator has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to section , Florida Statutes. Aquarius Condominium Association Inc. is a condominium within the meaning of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The undersigned has jurisdiction over the parties and of the subject matter of this dispute, pursuant to section , Florida Statutes. Petitioner, a Certified Public Accountant, alleges the following: 1. A board member granted him permission in or about December 2004 to use an Aquarius Condominium conference room on Saturdays to meet with clients; 2. From January or February 2005 until mid-to-late 2008, Petitioner used the conference room to meet with clients; 3. In 2007, Petitioner used the room for a charitable event; 4. In 2008, Petitioner used the room to do homework with his son; and 5. In mid-to-late 2008, Respondent denied Petitioner s use of the conference room for business purposes. As proof of approval or waiver by the board which would estoppe the board from denying his use of the conference room on a frequent and on-going basis to meet with clients, Petitioner alleges that the association has permitted sales of household goods by residents and charitable activities to take place in the conference room and has permitted a yoga class to be conducted in the card room. Petitioner also alleges that his advertising of his accounting services in the association newsletter along with the Association s approval of the commercial operation of a restaurant and beauty salon in the service areas are evidence of the association s arbitrary enforcement of the residential requirement for use of the association s conference rooms. Finally, Petitioner alleges that the Association s use of the word invitee is ambiguous and that his clients are invitees such 10

11 that he is entitled to use the conference room on a frequent and on-going basis to meet with them. 1. Non-residential Condominium Parcels Restaurant and Beauty Salon Petitioner s ownership of a private dwelling designated for residential purposes and his access to the condominium s common element conference room(s) is subject to the limitations of the rules and regulations of the board, pursuant to the Declaration of Condominium and governing documents adopted pursuant thereto. The Declaration of Condominium has created two categories of private dwelling units, a residential category and a service category for the non-residential condominium parcels. The restaurant and salon are located in what is designated by the condominium s governing documents as Exhibit D service areas. Article XXXXII of the Declaration of Condominium, defines service areas as private dwelling units which are not defined as common elements or limited common elements. The units identified as service areas are not subject to the residential restrictions of the association. They are also not obligated to pay assessments for maintenance, management, or operation of the condominium. The restaurant and salon units are located in the service area of the condominium for business purposes and are authorized to operate their businesses in the service-designated areas. Accordingly, Petitioner s use of the common element conference rooms to conduct business on a frequent and regular basis with his clients is not analogous to the operation of a business located in the service section of the condominium, as identified in the Declaration of Condominium. 11

12 2. Use of Common Element Conference Room(s) by Residents Petitioner alleges the association s application of the rules and procedures governing the common element conference room(s) and game rooms to permit certain usage of the rooms by residents and for charitable events, while denying him use of the rooms for his business purposes, is arbitrary enforcement of the rules. It is uncontroverted that the association permits the following activities to be conducted in the conference room(s): yoga classes for the residents, family members and personal guests; sales of household goods and antiques; a place for Petitioner to do homework with his son; and charitable organizations, including Petitioner s Tax Amnesty program. a. Yoga Class The yoga class is a class offered by the association for the benefit of the residents, their families, and their personal guests. While the instructor is paid $40 per class and the class is limited to condominium residents, their families and their personal guests. Accordingly, an association which allows a conference room to be used by the residents for a yoga class and provides a yoga instructor for this activity is not analogous to a CPA who desires to use the conference room on an on a frequent and regular basis in order to meet his clients. Accordingly, the Association s allowance of a weekly yoga class taught by a unit owner and limited to the residents, family members and their personal guests does not establish that the association has acted in an arbitrary manner towards Petitioner by denying him permission to meet with clients on a frequent and regular basis in the conference room. 12

13 b. Unit Owner Household Sales Petitioner alleges that sales of household goods and antiques by unit owners are permitted by the association to be conducted in the conference room(s). An occasional unit owner household sale held in the association s conference room(s) is not comparable to regularly utilizing the conference room(s) to conduct business with clients. Unlike Petitioner s clients, the primary shoppers and browsers of such sales held by a resident or residents will typically be other residents of the condominium community. Accordingly, such sales are not comparable to Petitioner s desired use of the conference room(s) on a regular basis to conduct business with his clients on a frequent and regular basis. c. Charitable Organizations Petitioner alleges that the association has allowed use of the room(s) for charitable purposes and has admitted that the association has permitted him to use the room(s) for his charitable program. However, Petitioner s meetings with his clients are not a charitable activity and his business-related non-charitable activities are conducted on a frequent and regular basis are not comparable to an occasional charitable event. Additionally, as Petitioner admits, the association has permitted his use of the conference room(s) for his charitable activities, such as his Tax Amnesty Program. Clearly the association has not acted arbitrarily towards Petitioner in denying him permission to meet with clients on a frequent and regular basis in the conference room. d. Advertising in the Association s Newsletter It is undisputed that the Petitioner has paid the Association a fee to advertise his business in the Association s regularly published newsletter. However, Petitioner has not 13

14 established how mere advertisement in the Association s newsletter of his professional services constitutes approval or consent by the Association for his use the common element conference room on a frequent and on-going basis to meet with clients. 3. Estoppel Petitioner alleges that in a discussion with a board member in 2004, a board member, Harry Smith, gave him permission to use the conference room on Saturdays, when the board was not meeting. Based upon that discussion, Petitioner asserts that the Association is estopped from denying him the use of the conference room for business purposes. The elements of estoppel are: (1) a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later asserted position; (2) reasonable reliance on that representation; and (3) a change in position to his detriment by the party claiming the estoppel by the representation and reliance. Enegren v. Marathon Country Club Condominium Association, Inc., 525 So.2d 488, 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The representation must be a formal one from the association, and not an informal one from an employee of the association. Cypress Bend Condominium I Assoc., Inc., Arb. Case No , Arbitration Final Order (May 19, 1997). (Approval of building manager is not sufficient representation for installation of non-conforming tile floor on which unit owner could rely for estoppel). In the case at hand, it is undisputed that Petitioner began using the conference room sometime in 2004 to meet with clients. Petitioner alleges that Harry Smith, a board member at that time, granted him verbal permission to use the conference room, whenever the board is not meeting. At hearing Mr. Smith testified that he did not grant 14

15 Petitioner permission to use the conference room to meet with clients and that he did not have the authority to grant such permission. Nothing in Petitioner s pleadings or testimony establishes that such a general question and a casual response thereto establishes a representation by the Association. It is well established arbitration case law that it is not reasonable to rely on permission of a single board member does not have the power to bind the Association when association approval is required. See Simon v. High Point of Delray West Condominium Association, Section II, Inc., Arb. Case No , Summary Final Order (April 3, 1995)(the arbitrator held that where unit owners had obtained the verbal approval of one board member to place blocks in front of the unit, such approval is insufficient pursuant to the condominium documents which require written approval from the board; a single director has no power to act in a representative capacity for the corporation on matters for which a vote of the directors is required.) Regardless, Petitioner s recollection of his conversation with Mr. Smith regarding the use of the conference room is insufficient to establish that he was seeking board approval to use the conference room to meet with clients on a frequent and on-going basis. Even supposing that Petitioner did disclose his plans to Mr. Smith in great detail, Mr. Smith, by testimony and by prior arbitration case law did not have the authority to grant such permission to Petitioner and, therefore, any reliance by Petitioner on Mr. Smith s alleged approval was not reasonable. Additionally, Petitioner alleges prior non-association business use of the conference room by prior board members, Harry Smith and Paul Simter in Mr. Smith denied usage of the room for such purposes. While such activities may have occurred in 2004, it is clear that the 2006 revision of the manual adopted by the board, limits the use of the 15

16 conference room to specified activities, requires the payment of deposits and fees for specified activities and does not authorize the use of the common element conference room for frequent and on-going business activities. 4. Invitees Petitioner alleges that the use of the term of invitee is ambiguous and that meeting with clients is permitted under the covenant of permitting residential purposes. Petitioner relies on Moore v. Stevens, 106 So. 901, 904 (Fla. 1925), where the Court was called upon to determine whether a covenant permitting residential purposes only was violated where the homeowner, in addition to living within the residence, utilized the house as a place to offer voice lessons. The court stated: The covenant under which appellee claims the right to injunctive relief is the one which provides that appellant's property is to be used for residence purposes only. There is no ambiguity in the quoted expression, nor doubt as to its meaning, when considered in the light of the entire transaction in which it was used and its component words are accorded their ordinary, well-understood meaning. The word residence is one of multiple meanings, but the context in which it is used in this instance clearly indicates its meaning to be a dwelling house where a person lives in settled abode. The word, in this instance, relates solely to the use or mode of occupancy to which the property may be put. The word only is a limiting term which qualifies the word with which it is grammatically connected. As here employed it is synonymous with the word solely, or the equivalent of the phrase and nothing else. *** Instances are not lacking in which other courts have held or intimated that property restricted to use for residence purposes, so long as it is in good faith used for such, may be also used to a minor extent for the transaction of some classes of business or the following of some professional pursuits so long as the latter use is in fact casual, infrequent, or unobtrusive and results in neither appreciable damage to neighboring property nor inconvenience, annoyance, or 16

17 discomfort to neighboring residents. This view, however, further requires such additional use to be so reasonably incidental to the prescribed use and such a nominal or inconsequential harmony with the purpose of the parties in the making of the covenants, and without material injury to the neighborhood. [Id. at 904] [Citations omitted] (Emphasis added). In Thompson v. Squibb, 183 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966), the court relied upon the earlier definition of residential purpose announced in Moore v. Stevens to conclude that use of the property as a roadway violated the subdivision restriction requiring use of the property for residential purposes only. However, the court again reiterated the exception to the rule discussed in Moore v. Stevens to the effect that the property may be used to a minor extent for the transaction of other pursuits so long as such use was unobtrusive and results in no appreciable damage to neighboring property nor inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort to neighboring residents. Id. at Conclusion In the case at hand, Petitioner seeks not occasional and infrequent meetings with his business invitees in his unit, but an order requiring the association allow Petitioner and other unit owners to use the conference room(s) for business purposes on a regular basis, the result being that Petitioner s use would neither be casual nor infrequent. There is no ambiguity as to Article XXXXII of the Declaration of Condominium, which clearly differentiates between residential and non-residential units. Petitioner, as an owner of a residential unit is entitled to reasonable access to the association s conference room(s) for non-business purposes, subject to the rules of the association. Petitioner s ownership of a residential unit does not grant him the authority to utilize the common elements conference room(s) for business purposes. 17

18 Selective Enforcement While the arbitrator recognizes that selective enforcement is an affirmative defense, Petitioner has raised it consistently in this case and so it will be addressed. Petitioner alleges selective enforcement of the Association s rules relating to the use of the common element conference room and produced two examples of alleged selective enforcement: 1) that two prior board members, Harry Smith and Paul Simpter, used the conference room to meet with bankers for non-association related business purposes in 2004; and 2) the resident instructor of weekly yoga class held in the card room is paid. Selective enforcement will succeed if it can be established that the board failed to enforce the documents in other instances sufficiently similar to the case at hand as to warrant the conclusion that to permit the enforcement in the case at hand would be discriminatory, unfair, or unequal. Oceanside Plaza Condominium Association, Inc. v. Salussolia, Arb. Case No , Order Striking Certain Defenses (September 4, 1996). 1. Prior Board Members Petitioner s example of prior board members Smith and Simpter using the conference room to meet with bankers in 2004 is not persuasive in this case. The Association is seeking enforcement of the 2006 Amended Rules and Procedures as they relate to the section titled, Public Rooms. Whether or not these board members met with outside bankers for non-association related business, is not contemporaneous to Petitioner s use of the room from the time the rules were amended in 2006 to the time Petitioner was denied used of the room in Additionally, Petitioner has failed to establish that these board members meeting a few times in 2004 with outside bankers 18

19 is sufficiently similar to Petitioner s activities of meeting with clients, both residents and not, for various time periods on a frequent and on-going basis. 2. Yoga Class Petitioner s suggestion that the yoga class is an example of selective enforcement is not persuasive in this case. As stated previously, the yoga class conducted in the common element card room is limited to residents, family members and personal friends. The class meets for a specific and limited time once a week and is offered for the benefit of the residents. The fact that the class pays a small remuneration ($40 per week for the class) to the instructor who is a resident of the condominium is not sufficiently similar to Petitioner meeting clients, at multiple times for various periods throughout the week. Petitioner s use of the conference room for business purposes on a frequent and on-going basis is not sufficiently similar to the onsite yoga class to establish selective enforcement. 3. Conclusion Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the 2004 actions of prior board members or the use of the room by residents for yoga class are sufficient similar to Petitioner s activities. Accordingly, Petitioner s allegation fails. Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: As Petitioner s claims of waiver, estoppel, and selective enforcement have been rejected and given Petitioner s admission to the violation of conducting business on a frequent and on-going basis in the limited element conference room is a violation of the 2006 Amended Rules and Procedures, Petitioner is ordered to immediately CEASE and 19

20 DESIST his use of the common element areas to meet with his business clients for purposes related to his business. Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 9 th day of July, 2010, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Tonya S. Chavis, Arbitrator Department of Business and Professional Regulation Arbitration Section 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida Telephone: FAX: RIGHT TO 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 Rule 61B , F.A.C. Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing final order on default has been sent by U.S. Mail to the following persons on this 9 th day of July, 2010: Steven K. Schwartz, Esquire Biscayne Blvd. Aventura, Florida Jeffrey S. Berlowitz, Esquire 4000 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 375-S Hollywood, Florida Tonya S. Chavis, Arbitrator 20