Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, David E. Rabren was licensed as a Tampa Bay state pilot and was president of the Tricounty Pilot's Association (TRICO). At the time the movement of the OCEAN LORD occurred, there was only one state licensed pilot who was a member of TRICO. That was David E. Rabren. Other members held only federally issued pilot's licenses. Prior to the movement of the VOMAR, a second state licensed pilot joined TRICO. At present, there are four licensed state pilots and one deputy pilot associated with TRICO. The vessel OCEAN LORD arrived in Tampa Bay February 18, 1986, and was piloted by Captain Rabren to its berth at C. F. Industries (CFI). After taking on cargo, the OCEAN LORD was moved the same date to Gadsden Anchorage. During this move, Captain Murphy, a federally licensed, but not state licensed, pilot was on board. Captain Murphy is associated with TRICO. On February 21, 1986, the OCEAN LORD was moved from Gadsden Anchorage to the CSX Transportation dock at Rockport. Again, Captain Murphy was the pilot. On September 21, 1986, the vessel VOMAR was moved from Rockport to a dock at Big Bend with Captain Murphy as the pilot. Anita Rabren determined that the movement could be accomplished with a federally licensed pilot on board. On October 5, 1986, the vessel ASPEN, an American flag vessel, arrived at Tampa Bay, and the ship's agent requested TRICO provide a pilot. Due to a misunderstanding of the agent's statement that the ASPEN was coming from the west coast, Anita Rabren assumed this was from the west coast of the United States. Actually, the ASPEN's last port of call was in Korea. Had the vessel come from a west coast of the United States port, the voyage would have been a coastwise trip, and a federally licensed pilot would be required. A federally licensed pilot was assigned to pilot the ASPEN. The last port of call of the ASPEN was ascertained after the pilotages up Tampa Bay commenced, and the fact that an improperly licensed pilot was used was reported forthwith. TRICO paid a double pilot fee to the Tampa Bay Pilot's Association. Tampa Port Authority has jurisdiction over all of Hillsborough County and establishes rules and regulations for that area. They do not regulate pilotage of vessels. Many of the terminals in Hillsborough County are owned by the Port Authority, but some are privately owned such as Big Bend and Rockport, both of which are in the port of Tampa. The Port Authority controls the allocation of berths at all terminals owned by the Port Authority, but does not control the berths at privately owned terminals. The CFI terminal is owned by the Port Authority who establishes wharfage rates and docking rates at this terminal. The berths at Rockport and Big Bend are privately owned, and tariff rates are not set by the Port Authority. CSX Transportation owns a dock at Rockport where phosphate is loaded onto vessels. No wharfage or dockage charge is levied, but such charges are included in charges for the commodity loaded. Ships can clear customs at any of the terminals above noted. The Big Bend facility is under the jurisdiction of Gulf Coast Transit Company. Vessels bring coal to Big Bend for use by Tampa Electric Company. The AGRICO terminal at Big Bend is used for loading phosphate rock. All of these privately owned terminals are licensed by the Tampa Port Authority to whom they pay a fee and submit reports of their activities. The Tampa Port Authority charges a fee to vessels who load or unload cargo at the Gadsden Anchorage which is also in the port of Tampa. Section 310.002(4), Florida Statutes, defines "port" to mean, any place in the state in which vessels enter and depart. For Tampa Bay, this section lists Tampa, Port Tampa, Port Manatee, St. Petersburg and Clearwater as ports. Of those listed ports, Tampa and Port Tampa are in Hillsborough County and come under the jurisdiction of the Tampa Port Authority. No evidence was submitted showing the areas encompassed by the Port of Tampa and Port Tampa. The Port of Tampa's Terminal and Facilities Map (Exhibit 5) showing the port facilities at Tampa, Florida, does not show the facilities at Port Tampa; it shows only those facilities on the east side of the Tampa peninsula, and does not reach as far south as Big Bend. Presumably, if there are only two ports in Hillsborough County that portion of Hillsborough County west of the Tampa peninsula would comprise Port Tampa, and that portion of Hillsborough County east and south of the Tampa peninsula would comprise the Port of Tampa. If so, all of the movements here complained of occurred in the Port of Tampa. Exhibit 5 supports this conclusion. Finally, no credible evidence was presented that Respondent assigned a federally licensed, but not a state licensed, pilot to the OCEAN LORD, VOMAR and ASPEN as alleged, except Exhibit 3 which states the assignment of a federally licensed pilot to the Aspen was due to an error on the part of Captain Rabren. The direct testimony presented in this regard is that Anita Rabren assigned federally licensed pilots to those ships. Further, this determination that use of a federally licensed pilot for those movements of foreign flag vessels within the Port of Tampa was proper was made by Anita Rabren after receiving legal advice regarding the in-port movements of foreign flag vessels that can be piloted by a federally licensed pilot.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in Administrative Complaint? If so, what action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the admissions made by Respondent, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since November 7, 1991, registered with the Department as an associated person of H.D. Vest Investment Securities, Inc. He has previously been registered with the Department as an associated person of Schlitt Investor Services, Inc. (from January 1, 1989, to November 5, 1991), Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (from December 11, 1987, to August 31, 1988), Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc. (from May 11, 1987, to December 7, 1987), and Marina (from March 27, 1986, to April 29, 1987). After leaving Marina in 1987 and working for two other firms, in or about late July of 1988, Respondent returned to the employ of Marina. Upon being rehired, he was given a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer Form (hereinafter referred to as the "Form" or "U-4 Form") to fill out and sign. Respondent did as he was told and returned the Form to Marina. 1/ He was led to believe that Marina would take care of the rest, including completing certain items on the U-4 Form and mailing the completed Form to the Department, and that there was nothing more that he needed to do, other than wait, to become registered with the Department as an associated person of Marina. Several days later, Marina gave Respondent the go-ahead to start selling securities. Respondent assumed, erroneously, that the Department had granted his application for registration as an associated person of Marina. He did nothing to verify his assumption was correct. At no time subsequent to April 29, 1987, has Respondent been registered with the Department as an associated person of Marina, although he was registered with the National Association of Securities Dealers as a representative of Marina from August 8, 1988, to December 19, 1988. Between the dates of August 8, 1988, and December 16, 1988, Respondent, as an employee of Marina, 2/ offered for sale and sold securities to Florida residents. He executed 17 such securities trades, as a result of which he received $8,251.46 in commissions. At no time during this period did Respondent realize that he was not registered with the Department as an associated person of Marina. He continued to assume that he was so registered, without seeking to verify the correctness of his assumption.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes, alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint and imposing upon him an administrative fine of $8,251.46 for having committed these violations. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of April, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 26th day of April, 1993.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons pursuant to Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed yacht broker.1 She is the yacht broker for Yachting Consultants, Inc. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In April 1999, Respondent was the listing broker of record regarding the sale of a 43-foot Pilgrim yacht. The selling broker was Mark Lipkus, a licensed yacht broker. John Pribik, a licensed salesperson, was Respondent's representative in the sale of the Pilgrim yacht. Mr. Pribik was under the supervision and control of Respondent and Respondent was responsible for his actions. Respondent had a buyer for the Pilgrim yacht, and the closing for the sale of the yacht was scheduled for April 13, 1999. The buyer was financing the purchase of the yacht. In a sale situation, a buyer and a seller have different responsibilities. The seller is responsible for providing all of the documents needed for a sale. The buyer is responsible for providing the funds for a sale. In the sale of the Pilgrim yacht, the responsibilities of the Seller and the Buyer did not change. There is a commission from the sale of a yacht, which is paid by the seller and, in accordance with standard industry practice, paid at closing. By standard industry practice, the commission split is 70/30, but can differ upon agreement. Mr. Lipkus received a down payment of $15,000.00 from the Buyer and placed the down payment in his escrow account. Mr. Lipkus was of the mistaken belief that the commission was payable by the Buyer, not the Seller. No co-broker agreement was entered into between Respondent or Mr. Pribik and Mr. Lipkus regarding commission. There was no discussion regarding the split of the commission between them. On a prior sale involving Mr. Pribik and Mr. Lipkus, the commission split was 60/40. Mr. Pribik and Respondent assumed the commission split of the sale of the Pilgrim yacht would again be 60/40. Considering the prior sale, it was not unreasonable for Respondent and Mr. Pribik to assume a 60/40 split of the commission. Mr. Lipkus assumed the commission split would be 70/30. A power of attorney had been prepared by the Seller who was unavailable for closing due to being in a remote area in the Philippine Islands. Mr. Pribik provided the power of attorney to the documenting agent who reviewed the power of attorney and found it to be satisfactory. The mortgage broker received a copy of the power of attorney prior to closing and forward a copy to the lending institution. The lending institution notified the mortgage broker at some point before closing that the power of attorney was unacceptable. In turn, the mortgage broker contacted the documenting agent regarding the unacceptability of the power of attorney and informed the documenting agent that a new power of attorney was required before closing could take place. Mr. Pribik was notified by the mortgage broker that a new power of attorney was required. The responsibility to obtain the new power of attorney was the responsibility of the listing broker, who was Respondent via Mr. Pribik. As far as Mr. Pribik was concerned, with the time remaining before closing2 and with the Seller being in the Philippine Islands, he believed that it was virtually impossible to obtain a new power of attorney by the time of closing. The mortgage broker, taking the position that he should do whatever he could to effectuate a closing, encouraged Mr. Pribik to attempt to contact the Seller. Complying, Mr. Pribik was able to make telephonic contact with the Seller and Mr. Pribik and the mortgage broker spoke with the Seller, who agreed to provide a new power of attorney. Based on the verbal assurance by the Seller to provide the new power of attorney, the lending institution agreed to proceed with the closing, which was re- scheduled for April 14, 1999. A new power of attorney was faxed to the Seller, and the Seller executed it and faxed it back. According to industry standard, all commissions are paid at closing when a seller receives the funds. Also, according to industry standard, closing is not delayed until a commission is paid. Mr. Lipkus mistakenly believed that the commission was paid by a buyer, coming out of a buyer's deposit. As a result, he expected to take the commission out of the Buyer's down payment, which was held in Mr. Lipkus' escrow account. After obtaining his commission, Mr. Lipkus was going to forward the remaining monies. On April 13, 1999, the original date for the closing, the closing could not take place because the financing from the lending institution was not available, based upon the absence of a new power of attorney. Also, Mr. Lipkus had not made arrangements for the deposit monies to be at closing or forwarded a settlement statement to closing, which were both needed for the closing. Respondent contacted Mr. Lipkus by fax regarding the commission monies and the settlement statement, demanding both items in order for closing to take place. The evidence is not clear and convincing as to whether Respondent demanded the monies held by Mr. Lipkus prior to closing or whether Respondent was threatening to delay the closing unless she had the monies prior to closing. The evidence suggests that Respondent was demanding the monies to be in place at closing. Additionally, on the original closing date, closing was to take place at the office of the mortgage broker. Mr. Pribik, the Buyer, and the mortgage broker were present for the closing. Mr. Lipkus did not intend to attend, and did not attend, the closing. Since the commission monies were not available at closing, Mr. Pribik telephoned Mr. Lipkus and demanded that the commission monies be available and, told him that if not made available, the closing could not take place. In Mr. Pribik's opinion, the monies were needed for closing. The evidence is not clear and convincing as to whether Mr. Pribik demanded the monies held by Mr. Lipkus prior to closing or whether Mr. Pribik was threatening to delay the closing if he did not have the monies prior to closing. The evidence suggests that Mr. Pribik was demanding the monies to be in place at closing. Furthermore, for the first time, Mr. Pribik and Mr. Lipkus, during the telephone conversation, became aware of their disagreement as to the proper commission split, whether 60/40 or 70/30. Believing that Mr. Pribik would prevent a timely closing, Mr. Lipkus agreed to Mr. Pribik's split of 60/40. Closing occurred on April 14, 1999. The necessary documents and finances were present. At the final hearing, Respondent expressed with sincerity that, if she did anything wrong, she wanted to know exactly what it was, so that she would not engage in the same conduct again. Furthermore, Respondent expressed the frustration that, prior to hearing, no one had explicitly told her what she had done wrong and that, at hearing, she continued to be unsure what she had done wrong because she had not been explicitly told what she had done wrong. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order: Finding that Giovanna Gallottini did not violate Rule 61B-60.008(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Not sustaining the Notice to Show Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 326.004(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Notice to Show Cause, by acting as a broker or sales person, without a license, on two occasions.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and documentary evidence, the following facts are determined, as follows: Joseph Daniel Judson, Respondent, has never been licensed as a yacht and ship broker or sales person in the state of Florida. Respondent was informed in 1999 of the general requirements for being a yacht and ship broker and/or sales person in the state of Florida, and the need to obtain a license. Stephen D. Silver and Vicky A. Silver purchased a Pacemaker motor yacht (Hull ID No. 509484) on May 5, 1998, from Kenneth Thompson and Jeannette Myers in Brevard County, Florida. The Pacemaker motor yacht is over 32 feet in length and weighs less than 300 gross tons. Respondent listed the Pacemaker motor yacht for sale on his website during the summer of 2000. Respondent indicated that he had recently purchased the Pacemaker motor yacht on his website. Respondent sought to broker the yacht to a perspective buyer. The Pacemaker motor yacht listed on Respondent's website was the same Pacemaker motor yacht which was stored at the Banana River Marina in Brevard County, Florida, and was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Silver at that time. Respondent is not and has not been the owner of the Pacemaker motor yacht in question. Douglas Jeran, II, is the current owner of the yacht. He purchased the yacht directly from Mr. and Mrs. Silver. Dr. James H. Southard, Jr., first came into contact with Respondent via Respondent's internet website. Respondent sold a 41-foot 1949 Chris Craft (Hull ID No. C41015), held in his name, to Dr. Southard using a Texas Bill of Sale and Certificate of Title on April 14, 2000. Dr. Southard paid Respondent the full $10,000 purchase price for the Chris Craft. The Chris Craft is in excess of 32 feet in length and weighs less than 300 gross tons. Dr. Southard did not receive the title to the Chris Craft from Respondent until January 2001. Dr. Southard was a naïve yacht purchaser and was unaware that Respondent had not provided him with all the needed documents at the time of the sale. Respondent continued to use the title to Dr. Southard's Chris Craft as security in order to purchase another yacht, after Respondent had sold the yacht to Dr. Southard. Respondent did not inform Dr. Southard that the legal title to the Chris Craft was being used as security in another yacht transaction. Dr. Southard never conveyed any interest in the Chris Craft back to Respondent. Months after Respondent transported the Chris Craft to the Banana River Marina in Brevard County, Florida, Dr. Southard called to inquire whether Respondent had brought his Chris Craft to the marina and had it under repair. Respondent indicated to Dr. Southard that he had invested a "substantial" amount of money to refurbish the Chris Craft, purchased from Respondent for $10,000. However, the estimated value of the Chris Craft months after delivery to the marina was still approximately $10,000. Respondent charged Dr. Southard $10,000 for used diesel engines although he only paid $2,500 for them. Respondent initiated the search for the diesel engines and insisted on handling any repair work needed to make the vessel seaworthy. Respondent charged Dr. Southard a substantially inflated amount for repairs that he allegedly made to the diesel engines. Respondent told Dr. Southard that the Chris Craft was going to be placed in the water during the week of July 18, 2000. The Chris Craft was never returned to the water by Respondent. When the rusted diesel engines were recovered from the Banana River Marina, they were found partially disassembled and exposed to the elements due to sitting in the rain. Neither the boat nor the diesel engines were in a seaworthy condition when recovered. Leaving the Chris Craft out of the water for years without constant maintenance has rendered it virtually valueless. Dr. Southard lost his investment of $30,000 on the Chris Craft in his dealings with Respondent. Respondent operates an internet business when he seeks to buy and sell yachts. Respondent listed the Chris Craft owned by Dr. Southard on his website for sale, after April 14, 2000, when he was no longer the owner of the vessel. In addition, Dr. Southard's Chris Craft had a for sale sign posted on it, indicating a sale price of $50,000, and listing Respondent's phone number.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: That Respondent be found guilty of two counts of acting as a broker or sales person of yachts without a license under the Florida Yacht and Ship Broker's Act. That a civil penalty be imposed on Respondent in the amount of $10,000 for the unlicensed brokering of the Pacemaker motor yacht and an additional $10,000 for the unlicensed brokering of the Chris Craft for a total fine of $20,000. That a cease and desist order be issued and that the Secretary impose such other and reasonable provisions as is necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet Gray Department of Business and Professional Regulation 5080 Coconut Creek Parkway, Suite B Margate, Florida 33063-3942 Joseph Daniel Judson a/k/a Dan Judson Post Office Box 146 Hallandale, Florida 33008 Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ross Fleetwood, Division Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent, while acting as pilot aboard the M/V Itanage in the St. John's River, Jacksonville, Florida on August 29, 1990, engaged in a practice which did not met acceptable standards of safe piloting. (F.S.A. s. 310.101(1)(k))
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed pilot in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 1) Respondent has been issued license number SP0000032. (Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 2) On or about August 29, 1990, Respondent was piloting the M/V Itanage outbound in Jacksonville, Florida. (Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 4) The Itanage is a 12,000 gross ton, Brazilian registered diesel powered container vessel. (Transcript p. 164) From May 1988 to August 1990 the Itanage entered and exited the port of Jacksonville under pilotage fifteen times without navigational incident. (Transcript pp. 21, 22) The same crew abroad the Itanage at the time of the allision was on the Itanage on its previous voyage of the Itanage. (Transcript p. 22) Respondent has piloted the Itanage or similar vessels many times previously. (Transcript p. 355) The Itanage was equipped with an overhead rudder angle indicator which is visible from the bridge wing. The rudder angle indicator exhibits the degree angle of the rudder and is color coded red for port and green for starboard so the pilot can glance up and see whether port or starboard rudder is applied. 2/ (Transcript pp. 166, 167) Each bridge wing of the Itanage was equipped with an RPM indicator which shows whether the engine was going ahead or astern and the number of revolutions per minute. (Transcript p. 168) The Itanage was equipped with an engine room telegraph which was operated by the second mate to communicate engine commands to the engine room. 3/ On August 29, 1990, the docking master, Captain Meers, undocked the vessel from Jacksonville Port Authority berths 3 and 4, turned, headed down the river on slow ahead, and disembarked around Coastal Petroleum. (Statement of Captain Steele; DPR Report, p. 2) Respondent assumed responsibility for directing the ship at 1454 hours with the vessel parallel to and favoring the west bank of the river. (Statement of Captain Steele; DPR Report, p. 8; engine bell book, Transcript p. 175) It was a clear day, the ride was at or near slack water, the weather was perfect. (Transcript pp. 92. 169, 170, 198) Respondent gave commands to the second mate who remained positioned by the engineroom telegraph on the bridge. The second mate repeated the commands in English then repeated the commands to the helmsman in Portuguese. (Transcript pp. 195, 337); Statement of Second Mate) The second mate spoke very little English and the helmsman did not speak any English. (Transcript p. 331) At 1454 the Respondent ordered course 320 degrees and slow ahead, which was executed. At approximately 1456, Respondent ordered a course of 310 degrees and full speed ahead. (Transcript pp. 82, 83, 191, 192; DPR Report p. 8; engine bell book; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman, Master, and Chief Mate; Statement of Captain Steele) Respondent's orders issued at 1456 were executed, and the engine speed was set at full ahead and the Helmsman steered 310 degrees. (Transcript p. 186; DPR Report p. 8; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman, Master, and Chief Mater; engine bell book; Statement of Captain Steele; Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 8) Respondent was in the wheelhouse and observed the master-gyro-compass. (Transcript p. 331; Statement of Captain Steele) Because the view forward was blocked by the deck cargo, Respondent went to the starboard wing to observe Buoy 71. (Statement of Captain Steele) At 1455 Respondent ordered "10 degrees port" from the starboard wing. (Transcript pp. 337, 338; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman) The helmsman steered 10 degrees to port (left). (Transcript p. 192; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman) After the order of "10 degrees port", Respondent remained on the starboard wing and had a radio conversation using a hand held marine radio with the master of the tug "Ann Moran" which took approximately 45 seconds about a ship they had handled the previous day. (Transcript pp. 338, 340, 247) At 1456 as Itanage approached Buoy 71, at point "D" on Hearing Officer Exhibit 1, from the starboard bridge wing, Respondent ordered hard right (starboard) rudder and engine ahead full. (Transcript p. 343) This was to start the turn around Buoy 71. (Transcript p. 384) Captain Steele did not at that time, however, go to the pilot house. Captain Steele remained on the wing to observe the response of the vessel. (Transcript p. 395) After a few seconds, Captain Steele observed the bow of the vessel swinging to port (left) not to starboard (right). (Transcript p. 345) He immediately rushed to the pilot house, repeating his hard starboard (right) rudder order as he did so. (Transcript p. 345) The rudder angle indicator in the pilot house, however, indicated the actual position of the rudder was passing from port (left) 20 degrees to starboard when Captain Steele entered the pilot house. (Transcript p. 345) Captain Steele did not alter the prior order for ahead full. Captain Steele reached the helm console and grabbed the helm. By that time, the helm was already in the hard starboard position. The only explanation as to how the rudder got to 20 degrees port (left) was that when Captain Steele gave the command hard to starboard, the helmsman actually went hard to port (left), then the helmsman realized his error and was correcting it when Captain Steele entered the pilot house. No one suggests that any other command was given which would account for the port swing of the vessel. (Transcript p. 235) Captain Steele again went to the wing to observe the response of the vessel. When it became apparent the vessel would not make the turn, Steele ordered full astern and ordered both anchors dropped. The vessel continued to make way in a sweeping curve alliding with the Shell Oil Terminal on the western edge of the Chaseville turn at approximately 1459 hours. The allision was not caused by a mechanical failure, weather, or tide. (Transcript p. 69). The allision was set up by the helmsman's turning the ship to port (left) instead of starboard (right). However, the Respondent contributed to this error by failing to give the steering command, "Right, full rudder," as required by the Rules of Road. See 33 USC 232. The Coast Guard conducted an investigation and prepared a report (Petitioner's Exhibit 1), the second page of which is a data sheet taken from the ship's bridge. This data sheet contains a diagram of the ship's turning circle to both port (left) and starboard (right) at half and full speeds. An overlay in proper scale was prepared and attached to Hearing Officer Exhibit 1 at the point where the turn was executed, Point D. The scaled extract of the Coast Guard report is attached to the back of Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. The overlay reveals that the vessel could not make the turn at full speed from Point D because the vessel's course takes it almost exactly to the point of allision. If the vessel's course is offset slightly to the left due to the helmsman's mistake and the vessel's turning circle adjusted for less speed, as would have occurred if the vessel went from half speed to full speed when the order for the turn was given, the vessel's projected track would again place the vessel at the point of the allision. The primary cause of the allision was Respondent's use of full speed in the turn. Although there was controversy about whether the vessel proceeded north the entire way at full speed or whether full speed was ordered as the turn was ordered approaching Buoy 71 (Point D on Hearing Officer Exhibit 1), there is no controversy that Captain Steele intended to execute the turn at full speed. The distance from where Captain Steele assumed control of the ship to where it came to rest is approximately 1 and 1/8 nautical miles. According to the logs, the vessel covered this distance in between four and five minutes. In order to cover that distance in that time, the ship was at or close to its full speed, adjusted for a dirty hull, of 15 knots. The advance and transfer of the ship was extended at full speed in such a way that the vessel could not make the turn in the sea room available. Referring again to the overlay, the vessel could have turned within the searoom available from Point D at half speed. The ship might have completed the turn at half speed from a point left of and forward of Point D, its track as the result of the helmsman's error, particularly with the reserve of thrust available to assist in turning after the emergency developed. The Chaseville turn is a tight turn without a great amount of sea room, and requires care to be exercised by pilots. (Transcript pp. 354, 362, 170, 171). The Respondent's failure to maintain proper speed caused the allision with the Shell Oil Terminal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Pilot commissioners issue a final order suspending Captain Henry A. Steele for three (3) months and levying a civil penalty of $5,000 against him. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner was the state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute Administrative Complaints alleging misconduct by practitioners of the real estate profession in this state. The Florida Real Estate Commission is the state agency responsible for licensing real estate sales persons and brokers in Florida and for regulating the real estate profession in this state. By Administrative complaint dated May 1, 1992, Respondent and Nicholas G. Patsios were charged with various violations of Section 475.25(1), Florida Statute. At the time, Respondent was a licensed real estate salesperson at Gulf Beaches Realty, Inc. (Gulf Beaches) in Holmes Beach. Gulf Beaches was licensed as a real estate broker for which Mr. Patsios was the qualifying broker. However, Respondent was actually the owner of Gulf Beaches and registered as an officer of the corporation. On January 16, 1992, an investigator for the Department had attempted to audit Gulf Beaches' escrow account but could not do so because the records were not in order. This was the impetus for the investigation into the operation which resulted in the filing of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent actually operated the brokerage, and in the Administrative Complaint was alleged to have been registered as an officer of a brokerage corporation while licensed as a salesperson. She was also charged with having operated as a broker while licensed as a salesperson. By Final Order dated August 18, 1992, the Florida Real Estate Commission found Respondent guilty of the alleged misconduct, fined her $100.00, reprimanded her and placed her on probation for one year conditioned, inter alia, upon her not violating any other provisions of Chapter 475. On May 21, 1993, the Department again charged Respondent with violations of Chapter 475, alleging that she: (1) continued to operate as a broker while licensed as a salesperson; (2) operated as a broker without holding a valid broker's license and (3) violated an order of the Commission. Though the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, Respondent failed to respond to the Administrative Complaint, and pursuant to a motion to relinquish jurisdiction, the matter was returned to the Commission. Thereafter, by Final Order dated November 7, 1993, the Commission revoked Respondent's license as a salesperson. In the interim between that action and the filing of the instant Administrative Complaint, Peggy Jean Lasser, a licensed broker, became the qualifying broker for Gulf Beaches. She allowed Respondent, the owner of the brokerage, to control its operations, including interfacing with clients. When the Commission initiated action against Ms. Lasser for that infraction, she did not dispute the allegations, and as a result, by Final Order of the Commission dated August 15, 1995, her license was suspended for two years. Ms. Lasser immediately ceased operating as the broker for Gulf Beaches. To the best of her knowledge, however, Gulf Beaches is still operating as a real estate office without a broker, and Respondent is still operating as a salesperson without a broker. On July 29, 1996, George Sinden, an investigator for the Department, went to Gulf Beaches' office accompanied by another investigator. He found the door to the office open and Respondent seated at a desk beside the door. She was alone in the office. There were office machines present and it appeared to Sinden that the office was operating as a real estate office. During his visit, Mr. Sinden could find no one with a valid license as a broker or salesperson. Respondent indicated she was trying to find a broker to qualify the company. She admitted she was currently operating a real estate business. Respondent also indicated she had four rentals which she was managing and for which she was depositing funds into a trust account for the owners. She also claimed to have an escrow account with over $2,000 in it. Sinden found that Respondent was not complying with the Commission's monthly reconciliation requirements and he could not determine to whom the funds in the escrow account belonged. Respondent claims this money was deposit money placed by a prospective purchaser in a sale between two parties, both of whom trusted her to hold the funds. She claims she was to receive a 5 percent fee. Records of Secretary of State's office showed Ms. Lasser as the only officer of Gulf Beaches. However, she no longer holds a valid broker's license. Respondent indicated she was the sole owner of Gulf Beaches. She claimed when Sinden interviewed her and at the hearing, where she again admitted the matters set forth above and in the Complaint, that she has not take in any new business since Ms. Lasser left. Respondent admits that she has attempted to divest herself of her clients but claims that because the Complaints filed against her by the Department have damaged her reputation, no broker will work with her or her business since the action in 1992. Respondent either cannot or will not accept the fact that she is operating illegally. Her primary concern seems to be the fact that this business is her way of making a living. She is 80 years old and seeks only to operate for two more years, at which time she will "meet her maker." The evidence is clear that since 1992, and before, Respondent has been the owner of Gulf Beaches. From the departure of Mr. Patsios to the incumbency of Ms. Lasser, and after the departure of that individual up to the present, Respondent has operated the corporation without a broker. It is also clear that since November 1993, Respondent has operated as a salesperson without a valid license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, consistent with the provisions of Section 455.228, Florida Statutes, impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 3rd day of September, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven D. Fieldman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Geraldine Ruesel, pro se 5351 Gulf Drive Holmes Beach, Florida 34217 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to administer and to enforce the Florida Yacht and Ship Broker's Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At times prior to June 21, 1991, Respondent Bongiovi was licensed by Petitioner as a yacht broker. Respondent Bongiovi did not hold any license as a yacht broker at any time after June 21, 1991. Respondent AJB Yachts was not licensed as a yacht broker at any time pertinent to this proceeding. Respondent Bongiovi does business as AJB Yachts or AJB Yacht Sales, Inc. There was no evidence that AJB Yacht Sales, Inc., is legally incorporated. On various dates in September and October 1994, Respondent Bongiovi placed two separate advertisements in the classified ads section of the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Sun-Sentinel newspaper. The first of these ads offered for sale a 41' Hatteras yacht for the sum of $150,000. The second of these advertisements offered for sale a 43" Portofino yacht for the sum of $125,000. Both advertisements contained the Respondent's telephone number, 305-942-7425. On or about May 28, 1993, Respondent, acting as a yacht broker, represented Charles Robbins in the purchase of a 66' Pacemaker yacht named the Sea Cow. The owner of the yacht, Dennis Gaultney, was represented by Mauch Yacht Sales, Inc., the listing broker. As part of the offer made by Mr. Robbins, he gave to Respondent Bongiovi a check in the amount of $33,000 as earnest money. Respondent Bongiovi deposited this money in a bank account at First Union National Bank of Florida, Pompano Beach branch on June 1, 1993. This account is entitled "AJB Yacht Sales, Inc., Escrow Account." Respondent Bongiovi was the sole signatory on this account. Respondent Bongiovi immediately began making withdrawals from this account that were not related to the Robbins transaction. 1/ As of June 10, 1993, the balance in this account was $29,575.54. As of June 21, 1993, the balance was $23,570.83. As of June 30, 1993, the balance was $21,554.04. Negotiations for the sale of the Sea Cow continued between the purchaser and the owner until July 20, 1993. The final version of the owner's proposal was a response to the last proposal made by Mr. Robbins and contained several changes to the last offer made by Mr. Robbins, including a change in the price of the vessel and an extension of the closing date to July 22, 1993. These changes were initialed by the owner of the boat, but they were not initialed by Mr. Robbins. Mr. Robbins never received a signed copy of the final proposal from the owner of the Sea Cow. A survey to evaluate the condition of the vessel was conducted and a copy of the inspection report faxed to Respondent Bongiovi by Jan Mauch of Mauch Yacht Sales on June 9, 1993. The transmittal note that accompanied the fax stated the following: "Here is the 'Schedule A' 2/ to go with the contract. After Charlie sees the survey, have him sign this and Acceptance of Vessel on contract and fax back both to me and I'll have Denny sign." Included in the inspection report was the following information: ". . . an engine inspection did not include a detailed mechanical inspection or test of components. A complete engine survey by a qualified mechanic is recommended in all cases." Mr. Robbins thereafter requested that Respondent Bongiovi arrange for an inspection of the vessel's engines before he accepted the vessel. Mr. Robbins never received an inspection report for the engines, he did not obtain his own financing for the vessel, and he never tendered the balance of the purchase price. The transaction involving Mr. Robbins did not timely close because the inspection of the engines were not completed. Because there was a delay in closing the transaction, the owner sold the yacht to another buyer. Neither Mr. Gaultney nor Mauch Yacht Sales demanded a portion of the $33,000 earnest money deposit. Mr. Robbins demanded the return of his money from the Respondent after he learned that the Sea Cow had been sold to another purchaser. Respondent Bongiovi refused to return the deposit and asserted the position that he was entitled to keep all of the deposit as liquidated damages because the transaction had not closed. Respondent Bongiovi relies on Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the form agreement for his contention that he was entitled to retain the $33,000 deposit as liquidated damages. Those provisions are as follows: The purchase of the vessel is subject to survey - seatrial - capt (sic) - inspection showing condition subject to purchasers (sic) sole judgment and approval to be conducted as soon as practicable after execution of this agreement at the option and expense of the PURCHASER. The PURCHASER shall give written acceptance or rejection of the Vessel by June 10, 1993, and if written notification is not received by the BROKER (A.J.B. Yacht Sales) on or before said date, it shall be construed as acceptance of the Vessel by PURCHASER. In the event, after written or construed acceptance of the Vessel, the PURCHASER fails to pay the balance of the purchase price and execute all papers necessary to be executed by him for the completion of his purchase, pursuant to the terms of this contract, on or before July 10, 1993, the sum this date paid shall be retained by A.J.B. Yacht Sales as liquidated and agreed damage and the parties shall be relieved of all obligations under this contract. In paragraph 2 of the agreement executed by Mr. Robbins on May 28, 1993, there was a provision that the offer submitted by Mr. Robbins was withdrawn if not accepted by June 5, 1993. There was no evidence that there was a final and complete agreement sufficient to bind the parties by June 5, 1993, or at any time thereafter. The agreement executed by Mr. Robbins on May 28, 1993, also contained the following provision: In the event that this sale is not consummated by reasons of unsatisfactory survey . . . the deposit shall be returned, providing all expenses incurred by the PURCHASER against the Vessel have been paid, and this agreement shall be null and void. Mr. Robbins verbally notified Respondent Bongiovi that he would require additional testing on the engine before accepting the vessel. Mr. Robbins did not receive the results of those additional tests and learned soon thereafter that the vessel had been sold to another purchaser. Following the failure and refusal of the Respondents to return the deposit, Mr. Robbins sued the Respondents in the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 772.11 and 812.014, Florida Statutes. Based on the evidence presented, the Circuit Judge in that civil proceeding entered a final judgement for treble damages ($99,000) in favor of Mr. Robbins and against the Respondents based, in part, on the following: . . . On the evidence presented, the Court finds: * * * Plaintiff (Mr. Robbins) gave Defendants (Mr. Bongiovi and his corporation) a check in the amount of $33,000.00 on May 28, 1993, to be held in escrow as a deposit pending accep- tance by the owner of a vessel for the purchase of said motor vessel. Said $33,000.00 was deposited into a bank account owned and/or controlled by Defendants. The owner of the vessel failed to accept Plaintiff's offer within the time provided in the written contract attached to the Amended Complaint; and, therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to return of his $33,000.00 deposit. Plaintiff demanded return of said $33,000.00 deposit, but Defendants failed and refused to return same, which sum has been due with interest since June 5, 1993. Defendants breached the Purchase Agree- ment on June 5, 1993, by failing and refusing to return Plaintiff's deposit of $33,000.00 when the offer to purchase the vessel was not accepted by the owner by that date. Defendants had a fiduciary responsibility to Plaintiff as escrow agents under the Purchase Agreement, and they breached their fiduciary responsibility by failing and refusing to return the $33,000.00 deposit when the offer to purchase the vessel was not accepted by the owner by June 5, 1993. . . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order in this proceeding that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law and which imposes an administrative fine jointly and severally against the Respondents in the amount of $10,000 for the violations of Count I and imposes an additional administrative fine jointly and severally against the Respondents in the amount of $10,000 for the violation of Count II. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 29th day of December, 1995.
The Issue Whether the Yacht Ship Salesman License issued to Arthur Lowe should be suspended or revoked for violation of Subsections 537.96(3)(a) and (i), and Section 537.06(4)(c), Florida Statutes. Whether the Yacht & Ship Brokers License issued to William L. Wescott should be suspended or revoked for violation of Section 537.06(3)(a)(1) and Section 537.06(4)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent William L. Wescott is the holder of Florida Yacht Brokers License No. 12528 and Respondent Arthur Lowe is the holder of Florida Yacht Salesman License No. 13118. Upon joint motion of the parties the two cases were consolidated for hearing. On April 9, 1976, Respondents Wescott and Lowe were served Notice To Show Cause why the Yacht Ship Brokers and Salesman Licenses should not be suspended or revoked for violation of Chapter 537, Florida Statutes. This hearing is a result of that notice. On or about February 6, 1976, James Kinard, a resident of Columbia, South Carolina, responded to an advertisement in a boating magazine placed there by Daniel Yacht & Ship Brokerage, Ltd. depicting a Morgan sailboat. By telephone Mr. Kinard was informed that the Morgan sailboat advertised was no longer available but that a 41-foot Gulfstar was available. Mr. Kinard informed the Daniel Yacht Ship Brokerage, Ltd.'s representative that he had had a Gulfstar and had been unhappy with it. He became interested, however, in the 41-foot Gulfstar sailing yacht believing that it was designed by Sparkman and Stephens rather than Vince S. Lazzaro, the designer of the Gulfstar owned by him. Many people believe that a Sparkman and Stephens design hull is considered to be of the highest quality. As a result of the communication of Mr. Kinard, Respondent Arthur Lowe, a salesman for William Wescott, broker for Daniel Yacht Ship Brokerage, Ltd., Respondent, contacted another broker, Andrew Cilla, of Frank Gordon Yacht Sales, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who informed Respondents that he had a listing of a vessel known as "Sea Lark IV." Frank Gordon Yacht Sales delivered a specification sheet to Mr. Wescott. Mr. Wescott photostated the letterhead of Daniel Yacht Ship Brokerage, Ltd. on to the top of the Frank Gordon Yacht Sales specification document and furnished it to Mr. Kinard. Said specifications listed Sparkman and Stephens as the designer of the vessel, although in fact, the Gulfstar 41-foot yacht was designed by Vince S. Lazzaro. The Driver Associates, Inc. prepared the document with specifications on the 41-foot Gulfstar "Sea Lark IV." On or about February 8, 1976, Mr. Kinard wired an offer of $45,000 to Daniel Yacht Ship Brokerage, Ltd. along with a ten percent deposit of $4,500. This amount was put in the escrow account of Daniel Yacht Ship Brokerage, Ltd. and remains in the escrow account. On or about February 22, 1976, Mr. Kinard and Mr. Lowe, together with others, took the yacht "Sea Lark IV" on a sea trial. Because of inclement weather the parties present huddled beneath the covering to the cockpit during the voyage. Mr. Hugh Furman was at the controls and called out the speed of the vessel as being 8, 9, 10 and 11 knots, respectively. The knot indicator in view to most of those present indicated that the vessel was proceeding at that speed. Mr. Kinard believed that in actuality the yacht was proceeding at the speed indicated by the knot indicator and that the speed the pilot was calling out was the correct speed. Mr. Lowe, a seaman, did not believe the ship was sailing at that speed and did not believe that others aboard thought that the ship was going at that speed. Mr. Kinard contends: That he believed the 41-foot Gulfstar was designed by Sparkman and Stephens; that the specifications furnished him by the Respondents indicated that Sparkman and Stephens was the designer. That he informed the Respondents that he did not like the Gulfstar he owned and did not like the designer Vince S. Lazzaro; that he believed the pilot of the ship who called out the speed of the ship and that he believed that the knot indicator on the ship was correct. That he was misled by the representations of the Respondents and by the specifications they furnished him and that he believed the ship would travel faster than it can in actuality; that the place in which he intended to use it requires a ship that will proceed faster than the "Sea Lark IV"; that he would not have put the $4,500 deposit down on the ship had he known that the hull was not designed by Sparkman and Stephens or had he known that the ship would not proceed at the rate of speed the pilot called out on the sea trial. That because he was misled he should be refunded the $4,500 that is his deposit on the "Sea Lark IV" and is in the escrow account of the Respondents. Respondents Arthur Lowe and William L. Wescott, contend: That during the sea trial Respondent Lowe believed that all persons on board the vessel knew that the speed called off by Mr. Furman was erroneous, and that if the knott indicator indicated the speed called off by Mr. Furman, it was erroneous and obvious to most persons familiar with yachts that such speed was not registered or called out correctly; that it was obvious the yacht was going at a much slower rate of speed. That the misrepresentation in the folder of the designer is not a substantial misrepresentation and that such misrepresentation was not intentional; that the advertisement and circulation of the specifications was by a second broker and its distribution to Mr. Kinard was in the ordinary course of business and was not meant in any way to mislead the buyer. The Petitioner Department of Business Regulation contends: That the delivery to the prospective buyer Kinard of an erroneous publication was an intentional and fraudulent act; that Respondents had been informed by tide buyer he did not like the designer Vince Lazzaro and the seller should have determined that Vince Lazzaro was the designer of subject vessel and notified the buyer; that such actions were intentional and fraudulent and a violation of Chapter 537, Florida Statutes. That the salesman and broker should have determined the true speed of the vessel and informed the prospective buyer; that failure to do so was intentional and fraudulent. That the actions of Respondents should result in the suspension of their licenses.
Recommendation Dismiss the charges. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Winson, Esquire Division of General Regulation Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Gerhardt A. Schreiber, Esquire Fourth Floor, First Federal Building 1000 Northeast First Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint in the manner specified therein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now, and has been since November 2, 2006, a Department-licensed state pilot. Respondent's license (License No. SP177), which is current and active, authorizes him to pilot vessels in and out of the Port of Palm Beach (Port). The Port has 17 berths at which vessels can dock. The navigable portions of the Port consist of an inner and an outer channel, two turning basins, and three slips. To aid mariners traversing the Port, there are navigation markers (herein referred to as "Beacons"), which are sequentially numbered in ascending order from east to west with odd-numbered markers to the port side and even-numbered markers to the starboard side of inbound vessels. The Tropic Carib (Ship) is a foreign-flagged container ship owned by Tropical Shipping (Tropical). With an overall length of 525 feet and a gross registered tonnage of 10,825, it is the largest vessel regularly accommodated at the Port. It is equipped with bow and stern thrusters and a Becker rudder and is otherwise designed to handle well in harsh conditions. At 12:50 p.m. on August 3, 2011, at around high water slack, the Ship was offshore, just to the east of the entrance to the Port's outer channel, drawing 21 feet four inches forward and 23 feet aft, when Respondent boarded and took command of the vessel from the Ship's captain for the final leg of its journey. The Ship was bound for the Port's Berth 7 (Assigned Berth) to offload its cargo. The Assigned Berth is a 464-foot, north-south oriented marginal wharf that lies directly on the western end of the Port's main turning basin (Main Turning Basin), into which the inner channel flows.2/ As the Ship, with Respondent on the bridge and in command,3/ entered the outer channel heading west to the Assigned Berth following the much smaller, 31-foot pilot boat (Pilot Boat) that had carried Respondent out to the Ship, there was no evidence of any storms in the area.4/ Precipitation, in the form of a light drizzle, was first encountered as the Ship was travelling in the inner channel between Beacon 8 and Beacon 10. Respondent, at this time, also observed lightning in the distance. He saw one bolt that struck a Port transformer5/ and another bolt that struck approximately one-half mile north of the Port causing a small explosion. After seeing these lightning strikes, Respondent decided to inquire as to whether the lightning had impacted the availability of Tropical's Port-based line handlers to assist with the mooring of the Ship at the Assigned Berth. He did not have the capability of communicating directly with Tropical's Port-based personnel, so he radioed the pilot of the Pilot Boat (Boatman), who did have such capability, and asked her to make this inquiry on his behalf. Respondent did not hear back from the Boatman until the Ship had passed Beacon 10 and was approaching Beacon 12, beginning its turn to the southwest toward the Assigned Berth. The Boatman informed him that the line handlers had been ordered to take cover, as a precautionary measure, due to the lightning in the area and therefore were not at the Assigned Berth waiting for the Ship to arrive. Respondent, however, did not receive any report from the Boatman, who was in front of him on the Pilot Boat, that there were any squally conditions ahead about which Respondent needed to be concerned in navigating the Ship to its ultimate mooring position. By the time Respondent heard back from the Boatman, the intensity of the rain had increased somewhat, but weather conditions had not worsened to the extent that Respondent's ability to maneuver the Ship was impacted. Visibility was still good and the winds, which were predominantly westerly, did not present a problem. The Ship was about ten minutes away, under ordinary circumstances, from its intended destination to the southwest alongside the Assigned Berth. Respondent had the Ship continue on course, in a southwesterly direction, toward the Assigned Berth, a decision that was reasonable under the circumstances that existed at the time. That line handlers might still be unavailable when he arrived did not make heading toward the Assigned Berth a foreseeably more risky or imprudent choice than any other option that Respondent may have had at the time. Respondent had no reason to believe that, if there no line handlers at the Assigned Berth to catch and secure the Ship's mooring lines, the Ship, equipped as it was, would not be able to hover in the water alongside the Assigned Berth and wait for the line handlers to appear. Moreover, even if there were stronger than anticipated westerly winds and the Ship, for some reason, were unable to hold its position, it would be blown, not toward, but away from the Assigned Berth, in the direction of the center of the Main Basin. A few minutes later, as the Ship was approaching the Assigned Berth, it ran into a sudden and unexpected rain squall, with west-southwesterly wind gusts over 30 knots and blinding rains which reduced visibility to zero. Radio communications from the boatswain at the bow of the Ship, who was providing Respondent with needed information concerning the Ship's position in relation to the Assigned Berth, became garbled and unreliable. Reasonably fearing an allision if the Ship continued its forward motion under these conditions, Respondent prudently ordered that the port anchor be dropped, with 1.5 shots (135 feet) on deck,6/ and that the Ship's engines be put astern, orders that were followed. After determining, from the prop wash that he saw on the starboard side of the vessel, that the Ship was no longer closing on the Assigned Berth, Respondent ordered slow ahead, but the Ship's bow thrusters were overcome by the wind, causing the bow of the Ship to swing and the anchor to drag. As a result, the Ship's starboard stern corner touched the sandy bottom approximately 30 feet west of Beacon 12 in the northern part of the Main Turning Basin, where recorded water depths are from 13 to 15 feet and, at high water slack, are generally three to four feet higher. The grounding produced minor, cosmetic damage to the Ship's rudder. No other damage to the Ship was sustained. The squally conditions lasted a mere two minutes. When the weather cleared, Respondent ordered engines ahead. The Ship proceeded to its mooring position alongside the Assigned Berth, where it was serviced by the Tropical line handlers, who had emerged from the shelter they had sought from the lightning. Thereafter, at the recommendation of the Ship's captain, Tropical had divers inspect the underbody of the Ship. The inspection revealed the damage to the rudder caused by the grounding of the Ship during the rain squall (Grounding Incident).7/ Respondent was notified by Tropical of the outcome of the divers' inspection at around 3:30 p.m. on August 3, 2011, and, within a matter of minutes of receiving such notification, he telephonically reported the Grounding Incident to the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and to the Department's Pilot Consultant/Investigator, Lieutenant Commander Galen Dunton, USCG (Ret.).8/ The following day, Respondent provided Commander Dunton with a written report of the incident, as required by section 310.111 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G14-15.002. On August 30, 2011, Commander Dunton issued his Investigative Report concerning the Grounding Incident. It contained the following "Conclusions" and "Recommendation": Conclusions: It is concluded that Captain Hansen was operating under the auspices of his state license and therefore subject to disciplinary action by the State of Florida. The proximate cause [of the grounding of the Ship on August 3, 2011] is unknown. The most probable cause was the failure of the pilot to seek a better position within the [Main] Turning Basin to anchor instead of trying to come alongside the intended berth. The pilot made an error in judgment in deciding to approach the berth without any line handlers to assist versus seeking a better position within the [Main] Turning Basin to anchor and ride the storm out. Had the pilot proceeded further to the SW in the [Main] Turning Basin and then anchored,[9] he may not have grounded or at least bought more time to ride out the storm. The anchor began to drag once the bow started to swing with the wind, and as a result the stern quickly touched bottom near Beacon #12. There is evidence of a violation of FS 310.101(1)(a) on the part of the pilot, in that he failed to make allowances for the wind by anchoring off the berth instead of seeking a better position within the [Main] Turning Basin. There is evidence of a violation of FS 310.101(1)(k) on the part of the pilot in that he failed to (1) seek a better position to anchor within the [Main] [T]urning [B]asin, (2) [a]ttempted to approach the berth knowing that there were no line handlers available, practices not in keeping with the acceptable standards of safe piloting. Recommendation: It is recommended that 1. This case be forwarded to the Probable Cause Panel and that probable cause be found to exist for the following violations: FS 310.101(1)(a) on the part of the pilot in that he failed to make allowances for the wind by anchoring off the berth instead of seeking a better position within the [Main] Turning Basin. FS 310.101(1)(k) on the part of the pilot in that he failed to (1) seek a better position to anchor within the [Main] [T]urning [B]asin, (2) [a]ttempted to approach the berth knowing that there were no line handlers available, practices not in keeping with the acceptable standards of safe piloting.[10] The probable cause finding Commander Dunton recommended was made, and an Administrative Complaint, based on this finding, was thereafter filed. Respondent subsequently requested a "formal hearing" on the allegations against him. This administrative proceeding ensued, with the final hearing being held on February 27, 2012. Ultimate Finding The evidence presented at the final hearing did not clearly and convincingly establish that, in having the Ship approach the Assigned Berth and anchor where it did during its inbound journey through the Port on August 3, 2011, Respondent failed to exercise the care a reasonable and prudent Department- licensed pilot would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances or otherwise violated some professional standard of care or safety he was obligated to follow as a Department- licensed pilot.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Pilot Commissioners dismiss the Administrative Complaint against Respondent in its entirety. S DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2012.
