STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION RIVCO AT RINGLING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. Case No. 2012-00-4844 CRAIG R. SIEGEL, Respondent. / SUMMARY FINAL ORDER Statement of the Issue Whether Respondent s two dogs are a nuisance? Pertinent Procedural History On January 31, 2012, Rivco at Ringling Condominium Association, Inc. (Association) filed a Petition for Mandatory Non-Binding Arbitration alleging that Respondent Craig R. Siegel was in violation of Section 3.8 of the Declaration of Condominium, by maintaining [T]wo (2) large Boxer dogs that are not kept on leashes when allowed out of the Respondent s Unit, and have charged and attacked other dogs in the Condominium on at least four (4) documented occasions. On February 2, 2012, an Order Requiring Answer was entered. Respondent was duly served on February 4, 2012. On March 7, 2012, as Respondent had failed to file with the arbitrator an answer, motion or other communication, a Default was entered. On March 8, 2012, the Association filed Petitioner s Rebuttal to Respondent s Answer to Petition and attached a copy of Respondent s letter/answer which 1
Respondent delivered to the Association sometime prior to February 6, 2012. 1 On March 15, 2012, Respondent filed an undated letter to the arbitrator stating he was sending again his responses to the arbitration office. Respondent s answer states, in pertinent part, as follows: It has come to my attention that several owners of the building are frightened of my companions. My companions will be under my supervision and secured and on leashes 100% of the time until my foreclosure is complete. I will also continue to be extremely discreet and continue to walk my companions through the service elevators only. (I do not foresee being a resident past 2012.) At that point you will have your way, and I will be out of your jurisdiction forever. [emphasis in the original] Additionally, Respondent states I DECLARE MY DOGS SERVICE DOGS. [emphasis in the original] On March 26, 2012, an Order Vacating Entry of Default and Requiring Respondent to File Proof of Filing a Fair Housing Complaint was entered. As of the date of this Summary Final Order, Respondent has failed to file proof of a pending Fair Housing Complaint. In the Answer, Respondent admitted that he keeps two large boxer dogs in his unit and offered to seek out a non-aggressive and cordial meeting and re-introduction of Martha Schantz s dog and my dogs Additionally, Respondent admitted that the dogs had been unleashed on the Association s property. Furthermore, Respondent did not deny the Association s allegations that on at least four documented occasions that Respondents dogs had been unleashed on the Association s property and had responded aggressively to other unit owners dogs that were leashed. Other than the stricken Fair Housing defense, Respondent has raised no otherdefense to the petition. This Summary Final Order is entered pursuant to Rule 1 The Association attached a February 6, 2012 fax communication to counsel for the Association with a practically illegible copy of Respondent s letter with attachments relating to service animals. 2
61B-45.030, Florida Administrative Code, which requires the arbitrator to summarily enter a final order if no disputed issue of material fact exist. Findings of Fact 1. Rivo At Ringling Condominium Association, Inc. is the legal entity responsible for the operation of Rivo At Ringling Condminium. 2. Respondent is the owner of record of Unit 1007 located at 1771 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota, Florida 34236. 3. Respondent possesses in the unit and on the condominium property two large boxer dogs. 4. Respondent filed an Answer in which he admitted that he has permitted his dogs to be unleashed on the condominium property. 5. Respondent has alleged that he has a need for the dogs which is covered by state or federal fair housing discrimination law, hereinafter referred to as Fair Housing. 6. The arbitrator struck the Fair Housing defense from Respondent s answer, finding that the responsibility for deciding such claims does not lie in arbitration pursuant to Section 718.1255, Florida Statutes. 7. The arbitrator provided Respondent with an opportunity to pursue a Fair Housing discrimination complaint with the appropriate agency. As of the date of this Summary Final Order, Respondent has not filed proof of filing a Fair Housing complaint. 8. It is unrefuted that Respondent s dogs have acted aggressively toward other resident s dogs on at least four (4) occasions. a. On December 5, 2011, Respondent s dogs were not on leashes and cornered Martha Schantz s dog Lexi. 3
b. On December 16, 2011, Respondent s dogs acted aggressively towards Doreen Dziepak s dog, Oscar. c. On December 31, 2006, Respondent s dog attacked Beverly Kirk s Portuguese Water Dog, Rory. One of Respondent s dogs bit Rory, resulting in systemic sepsis, death of tissue and necessitating emergency surgery. d. Towards the end of December 2010, Respondent s dogs were not on leash when they cornered Judith Sargent with her two small dogs. 6. Section 13.8 of Article 13 of the Declaration of Condominium, as amended, states, in pertinent part, as follows: Pets. A Unit Owner may keep no more than two pets, which must be either dogs that do not weigh more than fifty (50) pounds each or domestic cats. No exotic pets shall be permitted. No pet shall be permitted to become a nuisance to Unit Owners or occupants of Units and all pet(s) are subject to removal from the Condominium at the discretion of the Board of Directors No dog or cat shall be permitted outside of its Owner s Unit unless attended by an adult on a leash No dog shall be of a dangerous disposition Conclusions of Law Rivo at Ringling Condominium is a condominium within the meaning of section 718.103, Florida Statutes. The undersigned has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this dispute pursuant to section 718.1255, Florida Statutes. Respondent, by his ownership of a unit at the condominium, is required to comply with all governing condominium documents. Respondent maintains two dogs in his unit. Section 13.8 of Article 13 of the Declaration of Condominium prohibits pets from becoming a nuisance to Unit Owners or occupants of units and requires that all dogs or cats, when outside the Owner s unit be on leash and attended by an adult. Respondent has admitted that he has permitted his dogs to be unleashed on the condominium property. Respondent has not denied or refuted that 4
at least on four (4) occasions Respondent s two dogs, while unleashed on the condominium property, have acted aggressively or attacked other dogs. Respondent has not denied or refuted that his dogs have been permitted unleashed on condominium property at various times for at least a six (6) year period. Considering the length of time Respondent has permitted his dogs to be unleashed on condominium property and the aggressiveness of the dogs on at least four (4) occasions, the arbitrator finds this is a sufficient basis to establish that Respondent s dogs constitute a nuisance on the condominium property. Typically, even though the Association requests the removal of a pet, when a lesser remedy can be ordered affording the relief necessary to cure the violation, the lesser remedy should be ordered. See Knecht v. Katz, 785 So. 2d 754, 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). However, in this case, Respondent, on at least four (4) occasions, over a significant period of time, one (1) of the occasions which resulted in dire consequences, 2 has failed to follow the Association s requirement that dogs be on a leash and attended. Therefore, considering the size of the dogs, the aggressiveness of the dogs and Respondent s prior lack of compliance with the leash requirement, even after almost killing another dog, it is unlikely that a less restrictive order such as requiring Respondent to leash and muzzle his dogs when outside his unit would cure the violation. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED: By 5:00 p.m. on May 31, 2012, Respondent shall permanently remove his two boxer dogs from the condominium property. 2 The December 31, 2006 attack of Aline Quint s Portuguese Water Dog by Respondent s dogs, resulted in the near death, emergency surgery and subsequent permanent injury of Ms. Quint s dog. 5
Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 16 th day of May, 2012, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Tonya S. Chavis, Arbitrator Department of Business and Professional Regulation Arbitration Section 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1029 Telephone: (850) 414-6867 Facsimile: (850) 487-0870 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 718.1255, Florida Statutes. As provided by section 718.1255, 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-45.048. Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Summary Final Order has been sent by U.S. Mail to the following persons this 16 th day of May, 2012: Telese B. McKay, Esquire FAX: 941-330-2233 McKay Law Firm, P.A. 2055 Wood Street Suite 120 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Craig R. Siegel 1771 Ringling Blvd., Unit 1007 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Tonya S. Chavis, Arbitrator 6