STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
WILCOXEN, INC., d/b/a )
SOD BUSTERS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6035A
) SOUTHERN GRASSING AND SOD, INC. ) AND FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY ) OF MARYLAND, AS SURETY. )
)
Respondent. )
)
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: John Charles Heekin, Esquire
21202-C2 Olean Boulevard
Port Charlotte, Florida 33952
For Respondent
Southern Grassing Kimberly Williams
and Sod, Inc.: Qualified Representative
For Respondent
Fidelity and James A. Black, Esquire Deposit Company 1 N/ Dale Mabry, Suite 1020 of Maryland: Tampa, Florida 33609
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Should the $2,115 remitted to Sod Busters by Southern Grassing and Sod, Inc. by check number 88508 drawn on The Bank, Florida Bank of Commerce, Clearwater, Florida dated September 14, 1993, be considered as payment of the
$2,115 required by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in its Final Order issued on August 31, 1993?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On August 31, 1993, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issued a Final Order wherein the Department ordered Southern Grassing and Sod, Inc. (Southern) to pay J. Wilcoxen, Inc., d/b/a Sod Busters (Sod Busters) the sum of $2,115 for sod purchased from Sod Busters. On September 16, 1993, Southern caused a check in the amount of $2,115 made payable to "Sod Buster" to be delivered to Sod Busters. Sod Busters received the check and applied the
amount against Southern's account but did not credit it against the Department's Final Order. Sod Buster contends that there were no directions as to how the funds were to be applied; therefore, it was free to apply the funds against Southern's account without giving credit against the Department's Final Order.
Southern contends that there were directions and the amount should have satisfied the Department's Final Order. Because there were disputed issues of fact concerning this matter the Department, in accordance with Section 604.21(6), Florida Statutes, referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division) for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and conduct of a hearing.
Sod Busters presented the testimony of J. Wilcoxen and Kimberly Williams. Sod Buster's exhibits 1 through 3 were received as evidence. The Respondents did not call any witnesses to testify. Respondent Southern's exhibits 1 and 2 were received as evidence. Respondent Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) did not offer any documentary evidence.
There was no transcript of this proceeding filed with the Division. Sod Busters and Respondent Fidelity timely filed their Proposed Recommended Orders. Subsequent to Respondent Fidelity filing its Proposed Recommended Order, Sod Busters filed a Motion To Strike wherein Sod Busters moved to strike all of the attachments to Respondent Fidelity's Proposed Recommended Order in that they were not admitted as evidence. Fidelity filed a Memorandum In Opposition To Motion To Strike. Southern has not filed any response to the motion. After due consideration, the motion is granted as to the attachments designated Exhibits B, C, D, first page of E, F, first page of G, and H. The motion is denied as to Exhibit A, the second page of Exhibit E and the second page of Exhibit G since they were received into evidence as Sod Busters Exhibits 3, 1 and 2, respectively. Respondent Southern elected not to file a Proposed Recommended Order. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact submitted by Sod Busters and Fidelity 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:
Sod Busters and Southern had a course of dealing wherein Sod Busters furnished agricultural products (grass sod) to Southern for which Southern agreed to pay Sod Busters.
Southern failed to pay Sod Busters for the grass sod as agreed.
Sod Busters filed a civil action, Case No. 93-235CC in County Court in Charlotte County, Florida, against Southern for its unpaid account on April 26, 1993.
Sod Busters filed a complaint with the Department's Bureau of License and Bond (LB Claim No. 93-0029) in the amount of $2,115 under the provisions of the Agricultural Bond and License Law, Sections 604.15 - 604.34, Florida Statutes, for that portion of its account which was still timely. The amount of this claim was also included in Sod Busters civil claim referred to in Finding of Fact 3, above.
On August 31, 1993, the Department issued its Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029. The Final Order provided that: (a) Southern was indebted to Sod Busters in the amount of $2,115; (b) Southern pay Sod Busters the sum of $2,115
within 15 days of the Final Order becoming final; (c) if Southern failed to timely pay Sod Busters, then Fidelity, as Surety, was ordered to pay under the conditions and provisions of the bond; (d) the Final Order would become final 14 days from the date of mailing unless a hearing was requested within the 14-day period and; (e) the Final Order was mailed on August 31, 1993.
There was no evidence of any hearing being requested within the 14-day period; therefore, the Final Order became final on September 29, 1993.
On September 13, 1993, the civil action proceeded to trial and Sod Busters recovered a judgment of $9,013.40, which included the $2,115 indebtedness included in the Department's Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029.
On September 14, 1993, Southern purchased an Official Check from The Bank, Florida Bank of Commerce, Clearwater, Florida in the amount of $2,115 made payable to Sod Busters.
On September 15, 1993, Southern made arrangements with Federal Express for the check and a document from Southern titled "Final Release of Lien and Claim #LB-93-0029" (Release) to be delivered to Sod Busters in Arcadia, Florida. Federal Express delivered the check and the Release of Claim #LB-93-0029 to Sod Busters on September 16, 1993, some 13 days before the Final Order became final. The check and was signed for by M. Johnson, an employee of Sod Busters.
The Release provides that "[t]he undersigned," (Sod Busters) "in consideration of payment of ***$2,115.00*** receipt is hereby acknowledged, hereby waives and releases: State of Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services License #05692 and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Bond #30470963 from any claim, demand, lien . . . . This is a FINAL RELEASE OF LIEN AND CLAIM . . . and does hereby release and forever discharge the State of Florida and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland." Sod Busters refused to execute the Release on basis that it would discharge Southern's account.
Sod Busters did not apply the $2,115 received on September 16, 1993, from Southern against the Department's Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029, but applied the $2,115 to Southern's open account which was in civil litigation.
On September 21, 1993, the court in the civil action reduced the claim in the civil action ($9,013.40) by the amount paid to Sod Busters by Southern ($2,115) which left a judgment against Southern in the amount of $6,898.40.
Sod Busters admits to receiving the Release of Claim #LB-93-0029 from Southern but denies that it was received simultaneously with the check. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that the Release of Claim #LB-93- 0029 was enclosed with the check and delivered to Sod Busters simultaneously with the check by Federal Express.
J. Wilcoxen, president of Sod Busters, signed the complaint in LB Case No. 93-0029, had knowledge of the amount claimed in the complaint ($2,115) and received the Final Order from the Department adjudicating Southern's indebtedness to Sod Busters in the amount of $2,115.
There is sufficient evidence to show that Sod Busters was given sufficient notice by Southern that the $2,115 was for the satisfaction of the Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029, particularly since the release included with the check indicated the same number (93-0029) as the case number of the complaint filed with the Department.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), 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 the Sod Busters must establish facts upon which its allegations are based by a preponderance of the evidence. Sod Busters has failed to meet its burden in this regard.
Sod Busters does not deny that it received the check in the amount of
$2,115 from Southern but contends there were no directions from Southern as to how the funds were to be applied. Therefore, Petitioner was free to apply the funds to Southern's open account reducing the civil judgment without satisfying the Department's Final Order. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that Southern did give Sod Busters directions to apply the payment of $2,115 for the satisfaction of the Final Judgment on the Release of Claim #LB-93-0029 (the License and Bond case having been assigned 93-0029 as the LB Case Number) which was delivered with the check. Furthermore, Sod Busters, through its president, had knowledge of the amount of indebtedness adjudicated against Southern having received a copy of the Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029.
Sod Busters's contention that the payment was untimely is without merit.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner Southern Grassing and Sod, Inc. satisfaction of the Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029.
DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1995.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6035A
The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department in this case.
Sod Buster's Proposed Findings of Fact:
Proposed findings of fact 1 through 6 are adopted in substance as modified by Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9, respectively.
Proposed finding of fact 7 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 7 and 12.
Proposed finding of fact 8 is covered in the Preliminary Statement.
The first, third and fourth sentence of proposed finding of fact 9 is covered in the Preliminary Statement. The balance of proposed finding of fact 9 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 10 and 13.
Proposed finding of fact 10 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 10.
Southern's Proposed Findings of Fact:
Southern elected not to file any proposed findings of fact.
Fidelity's Proposed Findings of Fact
Fidelity's proposed findings of fact are presented as "Uncontroverted Facts" and "Additional Facts" and shall be responded to in that manner.
Uncontroverted Facts:
Paragraphs 1 through 3 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 5, 9 and 11.
Additional Facts:
Paragraph 1 is an introductory paragraph and requires no response. Paragraphs 2 an 3 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact
2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12 and 13.
Paragraphs 4 through 6 are rejected on the basis that they cover matters not in evidence.
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
John Charles Heekin, Esquire 21202-C2 Olean Boulevard
Port Charlotte, Florida 33952
Ms. Kimberly Williams Qualified Representative Southern Grassing & Sod, Inc. Post Office Box 42
Oldsmar, Florida 34677
James A. Black, Esquire
1 N/ Dale Mabry, Suite 1020 Tampa, Florida 33609
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
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.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
WILCOXEN, INC., d/b/a )
SOD BUSTERS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6035A
) SOUTHERN GRASSING AND SOD, INC. ) AND FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY ) OF MARYLAND, AS SURETY. )
)
Respondent. )
)
CORRECTED 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: John Charles Heekin, Esquire
21202-C2 Olean Boulevard
Port Charlotte, Florida 33952
For Respondent: Kimberly Williams Southern Grassing Qualified Representative and Sod, Inc.
For Respondent: James A. Black, Esquire Fidelity and 1 North Dale Mabry, Suite 1020 Deposit Company Tampa, Florida 33609
of Maryland
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Should the $2,115 remitted to Sod Busters by Southern Grassing and Sod, Inc. by check number 88508 drawn on The Bank, Florida Bank of Commerce, Clearwater, Florida dated September 14, 1993, be considered as payment of the
$2,115 required by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in its Final Order issued on August 31, 1993?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On August 31, 1993, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issued a Final Order wherein the Department ordered Southern Grassing and Sod, Inc. (Southern) to pay J. Wilcoxen, Inc., d/b/a Sod Busters (Sod Busters) the sum of $2,115 for sod purchased from Sod Busters. On September 16, 1993, Southern caused a check in the amount of $2,115 made payable to "Sod Buster" to be delivered to Sod Busters. Sod Busters received the check and applied the amount against Southern's account but did not credit it against the Department's Final Order. Sod Buster contends that there were no directions as to how the funds were to be applied; therefore, it was free to apply the funds against Southern's account without giving credit against the Department's Final Order.
Southern contends that there were directions and the amount should have satisfied the Department's Final Order. Because there were disputed issues of fact concerning this matter the Department, in accordance with Section 604.21(6), Florida Statutes, referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division) for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and conduct of a hearing.
Sod Busters presented the testimony of J. Wilcoxen and Kimberly Williams. Sod Buster's exhibits 1 through 3 were received as evidence. The Respondents did not call any witnesses to testify. Respondent Southern's exhibits 1 and 2 were received as evidence. Respondent Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) did not offer any documentary evidence.
There was no transcript of this proceeding filed with the Division. Sod Busters and Respondent Fidelity timely filed their Proposed Recommended Orders. Subsequent to Respondent Fidelity filing its Proposed Recommended Order, Sod Busters filed a Motion To Strike wherein Sod Busters moved to strike all of the attachments to Respondent Fidelity's Proposed Recommended Order in that they were not admitted as evidence. Fidelity filed a Memorandum In Opposition To Motion To Strike. Southern has not filed any response to the motion. After due consideration, the motion is granted as to the attachments designated Exhibits B, C, D, first page of E, F, first page of G, and H. The motion is denied as to Exhibit A, the second page of Exhibit E and the second page of Exhibit G since they were received into evidence as Sod Busters Exhibits 3, 1 and 2, respectively. Respondent Southern elected not to file a Proposed Recommended Order. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact submitted by Sod Busters and Fidelity 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:
Sod Busters and Southern had a course of dealing wherein Sod Busters furnished agricultural products (grass sod) to Southern for which Southern agreed to pay Sod Busters.
Southern failed to pay Sod Busters for the grass sod as agreed.
Sod Busters filed a civil action, Case No. 93-235CC in County Court in Charlotte County, Florida, against Southern for its unpaid account on April 26, 1993.
Sod Busters filed a complaint with the Department's Bureau of License and Bond (LB Claim No. 93-0029) in the amount of $2,115 under the provisions of the Agricultural Bond and License Law, Sections 604.15 - 604.34, Florida Statutes, for that portion of its account which was still timely. The amount of this claim was also included in Sod Busters civil claim referred to in Finding of Fact 3, above.
On August 31, 1993, the Department issued its Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029. The Final Order provided that: (a) Southern was indebted to Sod Busters in the amount of $2,115; (b) Southern pay Sod Busters the sum of $2,115 within 15 days of the Final Order becoming final; (c) if Southern failed to timely pay Sod Busters, then Fidelity, as Surety, was ordered to pay under the conditions and provisions of the bond; (d) the Final Order would become final 14 days from the date of mailing unless a hearing was requested within the 14-day period and; (e) the Final Order was mailed on August 31, 1993.
There was no evidence of any hearing being requested within the 14-day period; therefore, the Final Order became final on September 29, 1993.
On September 13, 1993, the civil action proceeded to trial and Sod Busters recovered a judgment of $9,013.40, which included the $2,115 indebtedness included in the Department's Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029.
On September 14, 1993, Southern purchased an Official Check from The Bank, Florida Bank of Commerce, Clearwater, Florida in the amount of $2,115 made payable to Sod Busters.
On September 15, 1993, Southern made arrangements with Federal Express for the check and a document from Southern titled "Final Release of Lien and Claim #LB-93-0029" (Release) to be delivered to Sod Busters in Arcadia, Florida. Federal Express delivered the check and the Release of Claim #LB-93-0029 to Sod Busters on September 16, 1993, some 13 days before the Final Order became final. The check and was signed for by M. Johnson, an employee of Sod Busters.
The Release provides that "[t]he undersigned," (Sod Busters) "in consideration of payment of ***$2,115.00*** receipt is hereby acknowledged, hereby waives and releases: State of Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services License #05692 and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Bond #30470963 from any claim, demand, lien . . . . This is a FINAL RELEASE OF LIEN AND CLAIM . . . and does hereby release and forever discharge the State of Florida and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland." Sod Busters refused to execute the Release on basis that it would discharge Southern's account.
Sod Busters did not apply the $2,115 received on September 16, 1993, from Southern against the Department's Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029, but applied the $2,115 to Southern's open account which was in civil litigation.
On September 21, 1993, the court in the civil action reduced the claim in the civil action ($9,013.40) by the amount paid to Sod Busters by Southern ($2,115) which left a judgment against Southern in the amount of $6,898.40.
Sod Busters admits to receiving the Release of Claim #LB-93-0029 from Southern but denies that it was received simultaneously with the check. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that the Release of Claim #LB-93- 0029 was enclosed with the check and delivered to Sod Busters simultaneously with the check by Federal Express.
J. Wilcoxen, president of Sod Busters, signed the complaint in LB Case No. 93-0029, had knowledge of the amount claimed in the complaint ($2,115) and received the Final Order from the Department adjudicating Southern's indebtedness to Sod Busters in the amount of $2,115.
There is sufficient evidence to show that Sod Busters was given sufficient notice by Southern that the $2,115 was for the satisfaction of the Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029, particularly since the release included with the check indicated the same number (93-0029) as the case number of the complaint filed with the Department.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), 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 the Sod Busters must establish facts upon which its allegations are based by a preponderance of the evidence. Sod Busters has failed to meet its burden in this regard.
Sod Busters does not deny that it received the check in the amount of
$2,115 from Southern but contends there were no directions from Southern as to how the funds were to be applied. Therefore, Petitioner was free to apply the funds to Southern's open account reducing the civil judgment without satisfying the Department's Final Order. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that Southern did give Sod Busters directions to apply the payment of $2,115 for the satisfaction of the Final Judgment on the Release of Claim #LB-93-0029 (the License and Bond case having been assigned 93-0029 as the LB Case Number) which was delivered with the check. Furthermore, Sod Busters, through its president, had knowledge of the amount of indebtedness adjudicated against Southern having received a copy of the Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029.
Sod Busters's contention that the payment was untimely is without merit.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order granting Respondent Southern Grassing and Sod, Inc. satisfaction of the Final Order in LB Case No. 93-0029.
DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1995.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6035A
The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department in this case.
Sod Buster's Proposed Findings of Fact:
Proposed findings of fact 1 through 6 are adopted in substance as modified by Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9, respectively.
Proposed finding of fact 7 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 7 and 12.
Proposed finding of fact 8 is covered in the Preliminary Statement.
The first, third and fourth sentence of proposed finding of fact 9 is covered in the Preliminary Statement. The balance of proposed finding of fact 9 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 10 and 13.
Proposed finding of fact 10 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 10.
Southern's Proposed Findings of Fact:
Southern elected not to file any proposed findings of fact.
Fidelity's Proposed Findings of Fact
Fidelity's proposed findings of fact are presented as "Uncontroverted Facts" and "Additional Facts" and shall be responded to in that manner.
Uncontroverted Facts:
Paragraphs 1 through 3 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 5, 9 and 11.
Additional Facts:
Paragraph 1 is an introductory paragraph and requires no response. Paragraphs 2 an 3 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact
2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12 and 13.
Paragraphs 4 through 6 are rejected on the basis that they cover matters not in evidence.
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
John Charles Heekin, Esquire 21202-C2 Olean Boulevard
Port Charlotte, Florida 33952
Ms. Kimberly Williams Qualified Representative Southern Grassing & Sod, Inc. Post Office Box 42
Oldsmar, Florida 34677
James A. Black, Esquire
1 N/ Dale Mabry, Suite 1020 Tampa, Florida 33609
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
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.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 06, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 05/02/95. |
| Jun. 01, 1995 | (James A. Black, Jr.) Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Strike filed. |
| May 30, 1995 | (Fidelity & Deposit Company) Memorandum In Opposition to Motion to Strike filed. |
| May 25, 1995 | (Petitioner) Motion to Strike filed. |
| May 18, 1995 | Letter to DOAH from K. Williams (RE: authority of officer) filed. |
| May 18, 1995 | (Respondent) Memorandum In Support of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law filed. |
| May 17, 1995 | Petitioner`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order filed. |
| May 02, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Mar. 21, 1995 | Letter to K. Williams from WRC sent out. (RE: enclosing copy of Rule 60Q) |
| Mar. 16, 1995 | Letter to WRC from K. Williams (RE: request for copy of FAC, Rule 60Q) filed. |
| Mar. 10, 1995 | Ltr. to Court Reporter from Hearing Officer`s secretary sent out. (hearing set) |
| Mar. 10, 1995 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 5/2/95; 1:00pm; Arcadia) |
| Mar. 10, 1995 | Letter to WRC from J. Heekin (RE: request for continuance) filed. |
| Mar. 07, 1995 | Letter to Bay Park Reporting from L. Lunkley (re: court reporter services) sent out. |
| Mar. 06, 1995 | Order of Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 5/23/95; 3:00pm; Arcadia) |
| Feb. 24, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Jan. 13, 1995 | Amended Notice of Hearing (as to location only) sent out. (hearing set for 3/3/95; 9:00am; Arcadia) |
| Nov. 21, 1994 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 3/3/95; 9:00am; Arcadia) |
| Nov. 12, 1994 | Ltr. to WRC from K. Williams re: Reply to Initial Order filed. |
| Nov. 01, 1994 | Initial Order issued. |
| Oct. 27, 1994 | Agency referral letter; (County Court) Final Judgment; Various Supportive Letters of Correspondence; (Agency) Order; Notice of Filing of A Complaint; Complaint filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sep. 18, 1995 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 06, 1995 | Recommended Order | Sufficient evidence to show that Respondent Southern had given direction to apply fund against final order. |
