STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ORALIA VERA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 96-4323A

) REDLAND BROKERS EXCHANGE, INC., ) and FLORIDA FARM BUREAU GENERAL ) NSURANCE COMPANY, as Surety )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on January 29, 1997, at Miami, Florida, before Claude B. Arrington, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Oralia Vera, pro se

14500 Southwest 280th Street, Lot 4

Homestead, Florida 33032

For Respondent, Frank T. Basso, Jr., President Redland Brokers: Redland Brokers Exchange, Inc.

Post Office Box 343544 Florida City, Florida 33034

For Respondent, No appearance. Florida Farm Bureau:

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent, Redland Brokers, a dealer in agricultural products, is indebted to Petitioner, a producer of agricultural products, for 529 hampers of peas delivered by

Petitioner to Redland Brokers on May 2, 3, and 7, 1996, and subsequently resold by Redland Brokers on behalf of Petitioner.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Agriculture, alleging that Respondent owed her the sum of

$6,821.00. Respondent timely disputed this claim, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and this proceeding followed.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of three witnesses and offered one composite exhibit, which was admitted into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses and offered two composite exhibits, both of which were admitted into evidence.

No transcript of the proceeding has been filed. No party filed a post-hearing submittal.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products.

   
   

2. Respondent, Redland Brokers Exchange, Inc. (Redland), is a dealer in agricultural products.

3. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, there was a marketing agreement in effect between Petitioner and Redland. This agreement provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

   The grower (Petitioner) gives Redland Brokers Exchange, Inc. the right to sell or consign to the general trade. No guarantees as to sales price are made and only amounts actually received by Redland Brokers Exchange less selling

   charges, loading charges, cooling charges and any other charges will be paid to the grower. Final settlement will be made within a reasonable length of time and may be held until payment is received from the purchaser.

   
   

4. On May 2, 1996, Martin Ruiz, the son of the Petitioner, delivered to Redland 233 hampers of peas for sale on consignment. On May 3, 1996, Mr. Ruiz delivered to Redland 38 hampers of peas for sale on consignment. On May 3, 1996, Mr. Ruiz delivered to Redland 124 hampers of peas. On May 7, 1996, Mr. Ruiz delivered to Redland 134 hampers of peas. These peas were produced by Petitioner and her family. Petitioner asserts that the sale price for the peas delivered on May 2 and 3, 1996, should have been $20.00 per hamper. Petitioner asserts that the sale price for the peas delivered May 7, 1996, should have been $14.00 per hamper. Petitioner does not challenge the amounts deducted from the sales price by Redland for its commission, advances it made to the grower, and for crates.

5. The greater weight of the evidence established that Mr. Ruiz was misinformed as to the fair market value for the peas that were delivered to Redland in May 1996 and that he believed the price to be greater than the actual fair market value. Redland did not misrepresent to Petitioner the fair market value of these peas.

6. The greater weight of the evidence established that Redland sold the peas that Petitioner delivered to it in the regular course of business and that it paid Petitioner in full

   for that product consistent with the marketing agreement that was in effect. The lower prices were the result of falling market prices and the poor quality of some of the peas.

7. Petitioner failed to establish that Redland was indebted to her as a result of these transactions.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject of this proceeding. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.

9. The burden is on the Petitioner to prove that Respondents are indebted to her. See, Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Petitioner has failed to meet that burden in this proceeding.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner’s complaint be dismissed.

DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (904) 921-6847

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1997.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Oralia Vera, pro se

14500 Southwest 280th Street, Lot 4

Homestead, Florida 33032

Frank T. Basso, Jr., President Redland Brokers Exchange, Inc. Post Office Box 343544

Florida City, Florida 33034

Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company (Legal Dept.)

Post Office Box 147030 Gainesville, Florida 32614

Brenda Hyatt, Chief

Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture

508 Mayo Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800

Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture

The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810

Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

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.

Docket for Case No: 96-004323

Orders for Case No: 96-004323