FINAL ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Florida upon the complaint of Estate of Glenda S. Bethel d/b/a Bethel Farms (Bethel Farms) against Naples Landscape Services, Inc., (Naples Landscape) and .tEtna Casualty & Surety Company (.tEtna) under Florida's Agricultural License and Bond Law, sections 604.15-604.34, Florida Statutes.
On September 20, 1994, Petitioner, Bethel Farms, a producer of agricultural products as defined by section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes, filed a complaint to collect $9,418 (later amended to $9,178.80) for sod sold to Respondent, Naples Landscape, a licensed dealer in agricultural products. Respondent's license for the time in question was supported by a bond, as required by section 604.20, Florida Statutes, written by .tEtna in the amount of $16,000. Initially, neither Respondent filed a written response to the claim.
The Department entered an Order on January 25, 1995, adjudicating the amount of
Filed June 1, 2009 2:19 PM Division of Administrative Hearings.
indebtedness and ordering Naples Landscape to pay Bethel Farms the total amount of the claim,
$9,178.80. On February 3, 1995, .i£tna filed a motion to set aside the Department's order and requested a hearing. The Department referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for an administrative proceeding pursuant to the provisions of section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
An administrative hearing was held on May 5, 1995, in Arcadia, Florida, before DOAH
Hearing Officer William R. Cave. Testimony and documentary evidence were received by the respective parties, and on June 9, 1995, the hearing officer rendered his Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. The hearing officer recommended that the Department enter a final order against the Respondent for $8,672 (the total claim less the amount representing sales tax). Respondents Naples Landscape and .i£tna filed written exceptions to the Recommended Order.
DISCUSSION
It is well established that a hearing officer's findings of fact may not be discarded by the reviewing agency unless they are "not based on competent substantial evidence." Section 120.57(l)(b)10; Venetian Shores Home & Prop. Own. v. Ruzakawski, 336 So.2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Section 120.57(l)(b)10 sets the standard for review of a recommended order as follows:
The agency may adopt the recommended order as the final order of the agency. The agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law and interpretation of administrative rules in the recommended order. The Agency may not reject or modify the findings of fact, including findings of fact that form the basis for an agency statement, unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent
substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law.
When the factual issues are susceptible of ordinary methods of proof, or when concerning those facts the agency does not claim special insight or expertise, the hearing officers's findings of fact take precedence. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
As pronounced by the court in Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985):
It is the hearing officer's function to consider all the evidence presented, resolve conflicts, judge credibility of witnesses, draw permissible inferences from the evidence, and reach ultimate findings of fact based on competent substantial evidence. [citation omitted] If, as is often the case, the evidence presented supports two inconsistent findings, it is the hearing officer's role to decide the issue one way or the other. The agency may not reject the hearing officer's finding unless there is no competent, substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred. The agency is not authorized to weigh the evidence presented, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to fit its desired ultimate conclusion.
RULING ON EXCEPTIONS
Exception of Naples Landscape to Findings and Conclusions Nos. 8, 9, and 14:
Respondents, in their exceptions to the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraphs 8, 9, and 14 of the Recommended Order, merely argue the weight of the evidence. From a review of the testimony we cannot say that the hearing officer's findings are not supported by competent substantial evidence. An agency cannot change the findings of the hearing officer if the recommended order and the findings thereunder are supported by substantial competent evidence and the proceedings did not depart from the essential requirements of law. Schumacher v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 611 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1992); Munch v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 592 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.1st DCA 1992); Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); School Bd. of Leon County v. Hargis, 400 So.2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); AFL-CIO Local 1010 v. Anderson, 401 So.2d 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). A legal conclusion which follows necessarily from a factual finding cannot be rejected if there is substantial competent evidence to support it. Berger
v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., Dentistry, 653 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
The hearing officer is required to weigh conflicting evidence, and determine the facts. If the facts are uncontroverted the assignment is uncomplicated; however, when the facts are in dispute--when one side asserts one set of facts and the other side asserts the opposite--the hearing officer's must painstakingly and conscientiously determine the truth. He is the only impartial observer at the hearing; it is his responsibility to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, review the documentary evidence, and make a decision. In the instant case the hearing officer chose not to believe the testimony of the representatives of Naples Landscape and found that Respondent failed to establish that the sod was contaminated or that, if it was, there was insufficient notice of the defect given to Bethel Farms. There is evidence in the record to support these findings. 1 The findings cannot be overturned even if we were to reach a different conclusion as trier of the facts.
1 Competent substantial evidence on which to base finding of fact "need not be enough to support the finding but there must be some competent evidence supporting or corroborating the incompetent evidence upon which a finding is bottomed. It is the evidence, not the competent evidence, that must be substantial." Florida Administrative Practice, Second Edition, Section 2.44 [citing Schwartz, Administrative Law, 340 (1976) and De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912 (Fla 1957)].
Exception of Naples Landscape to Conclusion of Law No. 16:
The gravamen of this exception is that the hearing officer failed to recognized that section
604.20(1), Florida Statutes, does not allow for the recovery of amounts for which agricultural products are bought. Respondents' argument is base upon that portion of the act that requires dealers in agricultural products to post a bond to secure the payment to producers of the "proceeds of all agricultural products handled or purchased by such dealer." Respondents claims that the term "proceeds" is limited to the definition contained in section 679.306, Florida Statutes. Chapter 679, Florida Statutes, is that part of the Uniform Commercial Code dealing with secured transactions and provides that "'[p]roceeds' includes whatever is received upon the sale, exchange, collection, or other disposition of collateral or proceeds. 11
Respondents reasons that because the sum sought by this action had not been received, the claim was not for "proceeds" and , therefore, not authorized by the statute. This is specious reasoning for several reasons. First, the definitions contained in chapter 679, Florida Statutes, are limited to transactions intended to create a security interest in personal property or to sales of accounts or chattel paper--not to sales of agricultural products. Section 679.102, Florida Statutes. The general rule of statutory construction is that the definition contained in one act establishes meaning appearing in that same act, or to such extent as may be expressly indicated- not to every chapter contained in the codification of Florida Statutes. 2A SINGER, SUTHERLAND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, § 47.07, at 151-152. Section 679.306 is not applicable to chapter 604.
Also, a definition stating what a term "includes, 11 as it does in 679.306, is a extension of the ordinary meaning, not an expression of limitation. '"Includes' is more susceptible to
extension of meaning by construction than where the definition declares what a term 'means.'" Id at 152. Further, a definition cannot be applied which was not in existence on the effective date of the law. Id at 35 (Supp. 1993). Chapter 604 was enacted in 1941, 24 years prior to the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Most importantly, if we accept Respondents' reasoning, no one could ever bring a claim against a dealer for unpaid agricultural products because unpaid means not received, and, if not received, then it is not a claim for proceeds. This is a Catch 22 and contrary to the spirit and intent of the law. Reading the bond provision in context with the entire act, it is apparent that the legislature did not intend so limited a definition. Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, supports a much broader meaning. No definition will be applied that yields an absurd result and destroys the basic purpose of the law which contains the word. Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1986)
Using the same argument, Respondents claim that the bond executed by Respondents deviated from the statute because it secured the payment of all agricultural products bought from producers instead of the "proceeds" of the transaction. Adopting Respondents' logic, a bond securing "proceeds" of a sale would be tantamount to securing that which has already been paid
-another absurdity. We find no material deviation in the bond language from that authorized in the statute. The bond does not provide coverage in excess of the minimum statutory requirements; it is a statutory bond. Fla. Keys Comm. College v. Ins. Co. of North America, 456 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Respondents also claim that the DOAH Initial Order form containing language directing the parties to discuss settlement is somehow ambiguous and alters the requirement of the surety
to make payment of the bond directly to the Department for distribution as required under section 604.21, Florida Statutes. We note that the surety has made an unauthorized disbursement directly to another claimant under the same bond; this is contrarly to the statutory scheme and is illegal. Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes.
Based on the standard of review permitted we hold that there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the hearing officer. Upon consideration of the foregoing and being otherwise fully advised in the premises,
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
The Department adopts the hearing officer's findings of fact contained in the Recommended Order.
The Department rejects the hearing officer's conclusion of law contained in paragraph 15 of the Recommended Order regarding the recoverability of sales tax. Sales tax is an inseparable part of the purchase price and recoverable under the bond. See, section 212.07(2), Florida Statutes. The remaining conclusions of law are adopted.
The exceptions of Naples Landscape and lEtna are denied.
Respondent Naples Landscape shall pay Petitioner, Bethel Farms, $9,178.80 within 15 days of the filing of this Final Order.
4. Should Naples Landscape fail to timely pay such sum, demand for payment shall be made upon lEtna Casualty & Surety Company, the surety underwriting the bond. Proceeds therefrom to be held for distribution pursuant to the provisions of Florida law.
REVIEW
Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to seek
review of this Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a petition or notice of appeal with the Clerk, 515 Mayo Building, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800, and a copy of the same
with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of rendition of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED this ;}i day of &ly , 1995.
BOB CRAWFORD
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE
Assistant Commissioner Florida Department of Agric
and Consumer Services
FILED with the Clerk, this day of
Copies furnished to:
C. William Allen, Esq. Allen.& Meirose, P.A.
Attorney for Naples Landscape and JEtna 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, Florida 33609
William Nugent Qualified Representative Bethel Farms
3244 N.W. Pearce Street Arcadia, Florida 33821
, 1995.
,vi
Ag cy Clerk.
Brenda Hyatt, Chief
Bureau of License and Bond
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Black Building #2
545 East Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308
State of Florida
Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675 • SunCom: 278-9675
Sharyn L. Smith
Director
Ann Cole
Clerk
June 9, 1995
Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Dear Commissioner Crawford:
Enclosed is the Recommended Order in the above referenced case along with the transcript of the proceeding. Also, enclosed are Respondents' exhibits 1 through 13. Petitioner did not offer any exhibits. A copy of this letter will serve to notify the parties that my Recommended Order is being mailed to you on this date.
Please furnish tbe Division of Administrative Hearings with a copy of the Final Order rendered in this proceeding so that our files will be complete.
Sincerely,
Hearing
WRC
cc: William Nugent, Qualified Representative
C. Stephen Allen, Esquire Richard Tritschler, Esquire Brenda Hyatt
0115
,<'!'
....,,...................
State of Florida
The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675 • SunCom: 278-9675
Sharyn L. Smith
Director
Ann Cole
Clerk
June 9, 1995
Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
RE: Estate of Glenda S. Bethel, d/b/a Bethel Farms v.
Naples Landscape Services, Inc. and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, as Surety, Case No. 95-0702A
Dear Commissioner Crawford:
Enclosed is the Recommended Order in the above referenced case along with the transcript of the proceeding. Also, enclosed are Respondents' exhibits 1 through 13. Petitioner did not offer any exhibits. A copy of this letter will serve to notify the parties that my Recommended Order is being mailed to you on this date.
Please furnish the Division of Administrative Hearings with a copy of the Final Order rendered in this proceeding so that' our files will be complete.
Sincerely,
u//.// 6' '/ ,/r/J./,:cJ ;-
WILLIAM R. CAVE
Hearing Officer
WRC
cc: William Nugent, Qualified Representative
C. Stephen Allen, Esquire Richard Tritschler, Esquire Brenda Hyatt
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ESTATE OF GLENDA S. BETHEL, )
D/B/A BETHEL FARMS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon due notice, William R. Cave, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings held a formal hearing in this matter on May 2, 1995, in Arcadia, Florida.
APPEARANCE
For Petitioner:
For Respondents:
William Nugent
Qualified Representative 3244 Northwest Pearce Street Arcadia, Florida 33821
C. Stephen Allen, Esquire Allen and Meirose, P.A. Suite 340, One Urban Centre 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Should the Petitioner Estate of Glenda S. Bethel, d/b/a Bethel Farms (Bethel Farms), under the provisions of Sections
through 604.34, Florida Statutes, be allowed to recover the full amount ($9,178.80) alleged in its Amended Complaint to be owed to Bethel Farms by Naples Landscape Services, Inc. (Naples)?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated November 22, 1994, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) advised Respondent Naples and Respondent Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, as Surety (Aetna) that Bethel Farms had filed an Amended Complaint and the Respondents had the right to file an Answer and request a hearing in the matter. The Respondents did not answer the complaint or request a hearing on the matter within the prescribed time. On January 25, 1995, after the Respondent failed to timely answer the complaint or timely request a hearing, the Department issued an order wherein Naples was ordered to pay Bethel Farms the amount of the claim within fifteen (15) days of the order becoming final. Prior to the order becoming final, Respondent Aetna filed a Motion To Set Aside Order of January 25, 1995 and Request for Hearing. By letter dated February 16, 1995, the Department notified Bethel Farms of the motion being filed and of the necessity of forwarding the file to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division). By letter dated February 16, 1995, this matter was referred to the Division for the conduct of a hearing and assignment of a hearing officer.
Bethel Farms presented the testimony of William T. Traywick, but did not offer any documentary evidence. Naples presented the testimony of Joseph Kureth and Mark Kureth. Naples' exhibits 1 through 13 were received as evidence.
The transcript of this proceeding was filed with the Division on May 11, 1995. Bethel Farms elected not to file a Proposed Recommended Order. Naples and Aetna timely filed a
2
(Proposed) Recommended Order and Memorandum of Law jointly. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact submitted by Naples and Aetna has been made as reflected in an Appendix to the Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made:
At all times material to this proceeding, Bethel Farms was in the business of growing and selling "agricultural products" (grass sod) as that term is defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes.
At all times material to this proceeding, Naples was a "dealer in agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, issued license number 08525 by the Department, and bonded by Aetna in the sum of $16,000.00 - Bond Number 23 S 100840661 BCA.
Bethel Farms and Naples had a course of dealing wherein Bethel Farms furnished agricultural products (grass sod) to Naples and Naples agreed to pay Bethel Farms for the grass sod. There was no evidence that Naples was acting as agent for Bethel Farms in the sale of the grass sod for the account of Bethel Farms on a net return basis or acting as a negotiating broker between Bethel Farms or its agent or representative and the ultimate consumer of the grass sod.
Between June 7, 1994 and June 27, 1994, both dates inclusive, Bethel Farms billed Naples by invoices in the amount
of $9,418.80, which included sales tax in the amount of $506.80 and pallet charges in the amount of 240.00. Naples refused and failed to pay Bethel Farms as invoiced by Bethel Farms.
Bethel Farms filed a complaint with the Department's Bureau of License and Bond dated September 15, 1994, in the amount of $9,418.00 under the provisions of the Agricultural Bond and License Law, Sections 604.15 - 604.34, Florida Statutes, for the unpaid balance which included both sales tax and pallet charges. The Department preliminarily dismissed the pallet charges and Bethel Farms filed and amended complaint dated October 26, 1994, in the amount of $9,178.80 ($9,418.00 minus
$240.00 pallet charge plus $0.80 error in amount claimed in initial complaint). The amended complaint included $8,672.00 for grass sod $506.80 sales tax.
The parties stipulated, and there is no dispute, that Naples purchased grass sod in the amount of $8,672 from Bethel Farms and was invoiced for that amount of grass sod plus sales tax on the sale of the grass sod in the amount of $506.80.
Naples does not dispute that it owes Bethel Farms for the sales tax. However, Naples contends that sales tax does not come within the definition of the term "agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes; therefore, sales tax is not collectible under the provisions of Sections 604.15 through 604.34, Florida Statutes. While Naples agrees that Bethel Farms furnished grass sod to Naples in the amount of
$8,672.00, which remains unpaid, Naples contends that it is entitled to a charge back for the cost of replacing contaminated
sod furnished to Naples by Bethel Farms that was included in the invoiced amount that remains unpaid.
There is insufficient evidence to show that any of the grass sod furnished and invoiced to Naples between June 7, 1994, and June 27, 1994, was contaminated such that it required replacing, notwithstanding the testimony of Mark Kureth or Joseph Kureth to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility in this regard.
Likewise, assuming arguendo that the sod was contaminated, there is insufficient evidence to show that Naples gave Bethel Farms sufficient and timely notice of such contamination in order for Bethel Farms to decide for itself the nature and extent of contamination and whether a charge back was warranted, notwithstanding the testimony of Mark Kureth and Joseph Kureth to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility in this regard.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.57(1) and 604.21(6), Florida Statutes.
The burden of proof is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). To meet this burden Bethel Farms must establish facts upon which its allegations are based by a preponderance of the evidence. Bethel Farms has met its burden in this regard. Bethel Farms having met its burden, the burden
of moving forward with the presentation of evidence to prove that part of the grass sod was contaminated and thereby require that Naples be allowed to charge back costs in that regard falls on Naples.
Pertinent to this case, Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, provides:
"Dealer in agricultural products" means any person, whether itinerant or domiciled within this state in the business of purchasing, receiving, or soliciting agricultural products from the producer. for resale or processing for sale;
Naples does not deny that it agreed to pay for the grass sod purchased and received from Bethel Farms in the amount of
$8,672.00, subject to any charge back for replacing contaminated sod. Furthermore, Naples contends that while it may owe Bethel Farms for the sales tax on the purchase price of the grass sod, the sales tax is not part of the purchase price of "agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes, and collectible under the provision of Sections 604.15 through 604.34, Florida Statutes.
Naples has failed to prove that any of the grass sod purchased from Bethel Farms was contaminated or, if contaminated, that Naples gave Bethel Farms sufficient and timely notice of such contamination. Therefore, Naples owes Bethel Farms to sum of
$8,672.00 for the grass sod purchased from Bethel.
Naples argument concerning the issue of sales tax is persuasive. Sales tax is not part of the purchase price of agricultural products, but an add on such as a pallet charge, a late charge or interest on an open account. Therefore, albeit a
debt, sales tax is not collectible under the provisions of Sections 604.15 through 604.34, Florida Statutes.
Naples argument that Bethel Farms' recovery be limited by the proceeds received by Naples in its resale and installation of the grass sod to its customers is without merit. Naples was not acting as an agent for Bethel Farms in the sale of the grass sod for the account of Bethel Farms on a net return basis.
Naples purchased the grass sod from Bethel Farms outright and agreed to pay for the grass sod. What proceeds Naples may or may not receive from its customers for the grass sod and its installation is between Naples and its customers and is immaterial under the facts of this proceeding.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order wherein the Respondent Naples Landscape Services, Inc. be ordered to pay Petitioner Bethel Farms the sum of $8,672.00.
DONE AND ENTERED thisday of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Divisio of Administrative Hearings this day of June, 1995.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0702A
The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted jointly by the Respondents Aetna and Naples in this case.
Bethel Farms Proposed Findings of Fact:
Bethel Farms elected not to file any proposed findings of fact. Naples' and Aetna's Proposed Findings of Fact
Naples and Aetna have presented their proposed findings of fact in their (Proposed) Recommended Order in 23 unnumbered paragraphs starting on page 4 and ending on page 12 which shall be numbered as proposed findings of fact 1 through 23 for purposes of a response in this Appendix.
Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 4 - 6.
Proposed finding of fact 2 is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding.
The first sentence proposed finding of fact 3 is included the Statement of Issue. The balance of proposed finding of fact
3 is the recitation of testimony and not stated as a finding of fact. However, in any case, it is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding.
Proposed findings of fact 4 - 7, 9,10, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 20 are the recitation of testimony or what a document reflects and are not stated as findings of fact. In any event, these proposed findings of fact are not supported by evidence in the record or are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. See Findings of Fact 8 and 9.
Proposed finding of fact 8 is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding.
Proposed finding of fact 11 is the recitation of testimony and is not stated a finding of fact. In any event, it is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. See Findings of Fact 8 and 9.
Proposed finding of fact 14 is not supported by evidence in the record.
Proposed finding of fact 16 is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. See Findings of Fact 8 and 9.
Proposed findings of fact 17 and 18 are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding.
Proposed findings of fact 19 - 21 are the recitation of testimony or what a document reflects and are not stated as findings of fact. In any event, these proposed findings of fact are not supported by evidence in the record or are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding.
Proposed finding of fact is argument and is cover in the Conclusions of Laws in the Recommended Order.
Proposed finding of fact 23 is not supported by evidence in the record.
Copies furnished:
Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Richard Tritschler General Counsel
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Brenda Hyatt, Chief
Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
C. William Allen, Esquire Allen & Meirose, P.A. Suite 340, One Urban Centre 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609
William Nugent
Qualified Representative Bethel Farms
3244 N.W. Pearce Street Arcadia, Florida 33821
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least
10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
10
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 01, 2009 | Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 10, 1995 | Final Order filed. |
| Jun. 22, 1995 | Respondents Exceptions to Recommended Order In DOAH Case No.: 95-702A filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1995 | Letter to WRC from Stephen Allen (RE: parties entered into a settlement) filed. |
| Jun. 09, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 05/02/95. |
| May 23, 1995 | (Respondent) Recommended Order (for HO signature); (Respondent) Memorandum of Law; Cover Letter filed. |
| May 17, 1995 | Letter to WRC from W. Hackney (RE: William Nugent had authorization to represent the Estate of Glenda S. Bethel) filed. |
| May 11, 1995 | Letter to C. Allen and William Nugent from Peggy Huffman (Unsigned) Re: Mailing transcript; Transcript of Proceedings filed. |
| May 02, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Apr. 21, 1995 | Letter to WRC from Stephen Allen (RE: responses to interrogatories) filed. |
| Apr. 21, 1995 | Subpoena Duces Tecum (from C. S. Allen); Return of Service filed. |
| Apr. 20, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion to Compel; Cover Letter filed. |
| Apr. 17, 1995 | Return of Service Affidavit (from Stephen Allen); Cover Letter filed. |
| Apr. 07, 1995 | Subpoena Duces Tecum; Return of Service filed. |
| Apr. 07, 1995 | Subpoena Duces Tecum; Return of Service filed. |
| Mar. 30, 1995 | Letter to WRC from Stephen Allen (RE: request for subpoenas) filed. |
| Mar. 23, 1995 | First Set of Interrogatories to Estate of Glenda S. Bethel, d/b/a Bethel Farms (from W. Nugent) filed. |
| Mar. 16, 1995 | Letter to WRC from C. Stephen Allen (RE: request for subpoenas filed. |
| Mar. 10, 1995 | (Respondents) Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Complainant, Estate of Glenda S. Bethel, d/b/a Bethel Farms; First Set of Interrogatories to Estate of Glenda S. Bethel, d/b/a Bethel Farms w/cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 10, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 5/2/95; 9:00am; Arcadia) |
| Mar. 08, 1995 | Ltr. to Court Reporter from HO's secretary sent out. (hearing set) |
| Mar. 06, 1995 | (Respondent) Response to DOAH Initial Order Dated 2/21/95; (Respondent) Response to Amended Complaint; Cover Letter filed. |
| Mar. 03, 1995 | Letter to WRC from W. Nugent re: Reply to Initial Order filed. |
| Feb. 21, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| Feb. 17, 1995 | Agency referral letter; Motion to Set Aside Order of January 25, 1995and Request for Hearing; Notice of Appearance; Request for Production; Cover Letter from S. Allen; Agency Order; Notice of Filing of An Amended Complaint; Amendm ent; Complaint; Supporti |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jul. 28, 1995 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 28, 1995 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 09, 1995 | Recommended Order | Sufficient evidence to show that Respondent owed Petitioner $8672 but insufficient evidence to show contamination of sod or that Petitioner was given timely and sufficient notice. |
