The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, R & R Sod Contractors, Inc., owes the Petitioner for sod purchased from the Petitioner and, if so, the amount presently owed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is in the business of raising and selling sod in the State of Florida. During the past few years, R & R has been a frequent customer of the Petitioner and has purchased large amounts of sod from the Petitioner. Prior to April of 1998, R & R had a credit account with the Petitioner. The terms of the credit agreement included the following: "In the event the account becomes delinquent, and will be referred to a licensed collection agency or an attorney, Customer agrees to pay all costs and expenses of collection including reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and costs incurred on appeal." During April of 1998, R & R's account with the Petitioner became delinquent. The Petitioner referred the delinquent account to an attorney. The attorney filed a lawsuit against R & R and also filed a complaint with the Department to collect the delinquency by asserting a claim against the bond posted by R & R. The 1998 account delinquencies were resolved in December of 1998, when the Department issued a check to the Petitioner in the amount of $48,431.00. That check paid the full amount of all unpaid invoices from the Petitioner to R & R as of December of 1998. In the process of collecting the $48,431.00 debt from R & R during 1998, the Petitioner incurred costs and attorney's fees in the amount of $1,644.00. These costs and attorney's fees were in addition to the $48,431.00 debt that was paid by the check from the Department. In January of 1999, the Petitioner again began to sell sod to R & R, but only on a cash basis. In the latter part of February of 1999, R & R bought approximately $2,500.00 of sod from the Petitioner which they paid for with a $2,500.00 cashier's check payable to the Petitioner. Although the cashier's check was given to the Petitioner by R & R, the face of the cashier's check identified the remitter as "Ely Sod, Inc." 3/ At the time the Petitioner received the $2,500.00 cashier's check described above, the Petitioner had an unsatisfied judgment against Ely Sod, Inc. When the cashier's check first went through the Petitioner's bookkeeping system, it was treated as a payment by Ely Sod, Inc., to the Petitioner, and was applied to reduce the amount of the judgment owed by Ely Sod, Inc. Consequently, none of the $2,500.00 cashier's check was initially applied towards the amounts owed by R & R. The misapplication of the proceeds of the $2,500.00 cashier's check discussed above apparently produced a great deal of confusion between the Petitioner and R & R regarding the status of R & R's account with the Petitioner. In this regard the Petitioner was especially concerned about the fact that R & R, which was supposed to be on a "cash only" basis, appeared to be $2,500.00 in arrears in its payments to the Petitioner. During the course of resolving the issue of the misapplied cashier's check, the Petitioner became aware of the fact that R & R had never paid the Petitioner's costs and attorney's fees related to the 1998 litigation. Ultimately, it was agreed between the attorneys representing the Petitioner and R & R that the proceeds of the $2,500.00 cashier's check should be applied to pay the costs and attorneys fees in the amount of $1,644.00 incurred by the Petitioner in the 1998 litigation, and that the balance of $856.00 would be paid to R & R or would be applied to any outstanding debts of R & R. Consistent with the agreement, $1,644.00 was applied to pay the Petitioner's costs and attorneys fees, and $856.00 was applied towards the unpaid amounts owed by R & R for sod purchased from the Petitioner Review of the invoices, payments, and accounts between the Petitioner and R & R reveals that, after the agreed application of funds described in paragraph 7, above, R & R still owes the Petitioner the amount of $1,844.00 for sod purchased from the Petitioner. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that R & R is indebted to the Petitioner in the amount of $1,844.00; (2) directing R & R to make payment to the Petitioner in the amount of $1,844.00 within 15 days following the issuance of the order; and (3) announcing that if payment in full of this $1,844.00 indebtedness is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from ICNA, R & R's surety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 7th day of April, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sheila Traub was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from June 3, 1975, to September 9, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Ms. Sheila Traub c/o Dan Barrie 8975 Northeast 6th Avenue Miami Shores, Florida 33153
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002), by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for her employees; and whether Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against Respondent pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; documentary materials received in evidence; stipulations by the parties; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); and the record evidence submitted, the following relevant and material finding of facts are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002).1 On August 8, 2003, Respondent was a sole proprietor in the construction industry by framing single-family homes. On that day, Respondent was the sub-contractor under contract with Marco Raffaele, general contractor, providing workers on a single-family home(s) located on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision, Riverview, Florida. It is the responsibility of the Respondent/employer to secure and maintain workers' compensation coverage for each employee. During the early morning hours of August 8, 2003, Donald Lott, the Department's workers' compensation compliance investigator, was in the Panther Trace subdivision checking on site workers for potential violations of the workers' compensation statute. While driving down Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision, Mr. Lott approached two houses under construction. There he checked the construction workers on site and found them in compliance with the workers' compensation statute. Mr. Lott recognized several of the six men working on the third house under construction next door and went over to investigate workers' compensation coverage for the workers.2 At the third house Mr. Lott interviewed Darren McCarty, Henry Keithler, and Mike Sabin, all of whom acknowledged that they worked for Respondent, d/b/a Riopelle Construction. Mr. Lott ascertained through Southeast Leasing Company (Southeast Leasing) that three of the six workers, Messrs. Keithler, Sabin, and McCarthy were listed on Southeast Leasing Company's payroll through a valid employee lease agreement with Respondent as of August 8, 2003. The completed employee lease agreement provided for Southeast Leasing Company to provide workers' compensation coverage for only those employees whose names, dates of birth, and social security numbers are contained in the contractual agreement by which Southeast Leasing leased those named employees to the employing entity, Respondent, d/b/a Riopelle Construction. Mr. Lott talked with the other three workers on site, Ramos Artistes, Ryan Willis, and Robert Stinchcomb. Each worker acknowledged working for (as an employee) Respondent on August 8, 2003, in the Panther Trace subdivision. In reply to his faxed inquiry to Southeast Leasing regarding the workers' compensation coverage status for Messrs. Artistes, Willis, and Stinchcomb, Southeast Leasing confirmed to Mr. Lott that on August 8, 2003, Southeast Leasing did not have a completed employee leasing contractual agreement with Respondent for Messrs. Artistes, Willis or Stinchcomb. Southeast Leasing did not provide workers' compensation coverage for Messrs. Artistes, Willis or Stinchcomb on August 8, 2003.3 Southeast Leasing is an "employee" leasing company and is the "employer" of "leased employees." As such, Southeast Leasing is responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage for its "leased employees" only. Southeast Leasing, through its account representative, Dianne Dunphy, input employment applications into their system on the day such application(s) are received from employers seeking to lease employees. Southeast Leasing did not have employment applications in their system nor did they have a completed contractual employment leasing agreement and, therefore, did not have workers' compensation coverage for Messrs. Artistes and Willis at or before 12:08 p.m. on August 8, 2003. After obtaining his supervisor's authorization, Mr. Lott served a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order against Respondent on August 8, 2003, at 12:08 p.m., requiring the cessation of all business activities and assessing a penalty of $100, required by Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes, and a penalty of $1,000, as required by Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, the minimum penalty under the statute. On August 12, 2003, the Department served a Corrected Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order containing one change, corrected federal identification number for Respondent's business, Riopelle Construction. Mr. Stinchcomb, the third worker on the construction job site when Mr. Lott made his initial inquiry, was cutting wood. On August 8, 2003, at or before 12:00 p.m., Mr. Stinchcomb was not on the Southeast Leasing payroll as a leased employee covered for workers' compensation; he did not have individual workers' compensation coverage; and he did not have a workers' compensation exemption. On that day and at that time, Mr. Stinchcomb worked as an employee of Riopelle Construction and was paid hourly by Riopelle Construction payroll check(s). Respondent's contention that Mr. Stinchcomb, when he was working on the construction job site between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on August 8, 2003, was an independent contractor fails for the lack of substantial and competent evidence in support thereof. On August 8, 2003, the Department, through Mr. Lott, served an administrative request for business records on Respondent. Respondent failed and refused to respond to the business record request. An Order requiring Respondent to respond to Petitioner's discovery demands was entered on December 1, 2003, and Respondent failed to comply with the order. On December 8, 2003, Respondent responded that "every effort would be made to provide the requested documents by the end of the day" to Petitioner. Respondent provided no reliable evidence and Mr. Stinchcomb was not called to testify in support of Respondent's contention that Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor as he worked on the site on August 8, 2003. Respondent's evidence, both testamentary and documentary, offered to prove that Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor on the date in question failed to satisfy the elements required in Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes. Subsection 440.02(15)(c), Florida Statutes, in pertinent part provides that: "[f]or purposes of this chapter, an independent contractor is an employee unless he or she meets all of the conditions set forth in subparagraph(d)(1)." Subsection 440.02(15)(d)(1) provides that an "employee" does not include an independent contractor if: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal requirements; The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controls the means of performing the services or work; The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform; The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services; The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid basis and not on any other basis; The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services; The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations; and The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. The testimony of Respondent and the testimony of her husband, Edward Riopelle, was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and incorrect dates and was so confusing as to render such testimony unreliable. Based upon this finding, Respondent failed to present evidence sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and failed to demonstrate that on August 8, 2003, Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that on August 8, 2003, Mr. Stinchcomb, while working on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision was an employee of Respondent and was not an independent contractor. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Stinchcomb did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. On August 8, 2003, Mr. Willis was a laborer on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision as an employee of Respondent, who paid him $7.00 per hour. Mr. Willis was not listed on the employee list maintained by Southeast Leasing, recording those employees leased to Respondent. Mr. Willis did not have independent workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. Mr. Willis had neither workers' compensation coverage nor a workers' compensation exemption on August 8, 2003. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Willis did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. On August 8, 2003, Mr. Artises was a laborer on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision and was an employee of Respondent. Mr. Artises had been in the employment of Respondent for approximately one week before the stop work order. Mr. Artises did not have independent workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. Mr. Artises did not have a workers' compensation coverage exemption on August 8, 2003. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Aristes did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleading and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, affirming and adopting the Corrected Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order dated August 12, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 29th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether the application filed by Mr. Johnson for a certificate of registration as a Florida Farm Labor Contractor should be issued by the Department.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Johnson had been the subject of a prior administrative complaint by the Department of Labor and Employment Security Case No. 88-3795. In that proceeding he was represented by Mr. Thomas Montgomery, Esquire, of Belle Glade, Florida. That proceeding involved an earlier application by Mr. Johnson for a certificate of registration as a Florida Farm Labor Contractor, which the Department denied because Mr. Johnson was liable for unpaid unemployment compensation taxes in the amount of $1,400, and under Rule 38B-4.06(5), Florida Administrative Code, he was ineligible for registration until those unemployment compensation taxes had been paid. The parties had reached a stipulated settlement in that action, under which Mr. Johnson agreed to pay $100.00 per month until the balance due had been paid in full. That stipulation had been signed by Mr. Montgomery, the lawyer for Mr. Johnson. The stipulation was filed on November 18, 1988, with the Division of Administrative Hearings, and consequently an Order Closing File was entered in Case No. 88-3795. Mr. Johnson failed to make payments in accordance with the stipulation agreement. Given the accrued interest and penalties, Mr. Johnson is currently indebted to the State of Florida for unpaid employment compensation taxes, interest, penalties and filing fees in the amount of $2,213.94. Mr. Johnson's failure to make payment as required under the stipulation which he entered into in settlement of Case No. 88-3795, his prior application for a certificate of registration as a Farm Labor Contractor, causes the Hearing Officer to disbelieve that Mr. Johnson was mistaken as to the location of the hearing. The Notice of Hearing was clear. Mr. Johnson has also failed to answer requests for admissions and interrogatories served upon him in this proceeding. Mr. Johnson is continuing to engage in a pattern of conduct designed to evade his responsibility to pay unemployment compensation taxes which he owes. His application for a certificate of registration filed June 4, 1990, should be denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application of James Johnson for a certificate of registration as a Florida Farm Labor Contractor. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 30th day of November, 1990. Copies furnished: Francisco Rivera, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 James Johnson 391 Shirley Drive Pahokee, Florida 33034 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Berkeley Building, Suite 200 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658
Findings Of Fact Florida Export Tobacco Co., Inc., Petitioner, operates, as a concessionaire, duty-free stores at Miami International Airport. The premises are owned by the Dade County Aviation Department and the stores are leased to Petitioner pursuant to the terms of a lease and concession agreement dated 19 July 1977, effective 1 August 1977 and continuing until 30 September 1987. (Exhibit 1 to Deposition) Pursuant to this agreement Petitioner occupies six stores and additional warehouse space at the Terminal Building and the International Satellite Facility. Article II in Exhibit 1 entitled Rental Charges and Payments provides for rental payments for each store and space occupied based upon a fixed fee of $X per square foot per year with the dollar per square foot cost varying with the space occupied. In addition to this minimal rental fee, Section 2.03 of this agreement provides: County Profit Participation: As additional consideration for the rights and privileges granted Concessionaire herein, Concessionaire shall pay the County a portion of its profits. As a convenience and in order to eliminate requirements for detailed auditing of expenditures, assets and liabilities and in order to provide an even flow of annual revenues for budgeting and bond financing purposes, said portion of the profits of the Concessionaire shall be calculated as the amount by which sixteen percent of the monthly gross revenues, as defined in Arti- cle 2.07, exceeds the sum of monthly rental payments required by Articles 2.01 and 2.04. Concessionaire shall pay such portion of its profits to County by the twentieth (20th) day of the month following the month in which the gross revenues were received or accrued. For the period October 1, 1982 through September 30, 1987, the percent of monthly gross revenues to be paid by Concessionaire as a portion of its profits shall be eighteen percent, payable and calculated in the same manner as above. The lessor provides air conditioning, garbage and sewage disposal facilities, security, and many other services to the lessee in addition to the space leased. From October 1976 through September 1977 Petitioner paid $40,499.66 in additional sales tax over the guaranteed minimum amount; for the year ending September 1978 this additional sales tax was $66,284.85; for the year year ending September 1979 this additional sales tax was $93,837.15; and for the year ending September 1980 this additional sales tax was $137,521.87. (Exhibit 2 to the Deposition) As the owner of the facility Dade County has the option of operating the various facilities and services available to the public or having these operated by a concessionaire. Dade County has opted for the manner it believed more profitable to the county and in the case of the duty free stores this has resulted in leasing the space to a concessionaire. The hotel at the airport is operated by the Aviation Department under a management contract. It is Petitioner's and Dade County's position that a sales tax should not be paid on the county profit participation charges because, if the Aviation Department operated the stores there would be no sales tax on any rental income and the County operates the facilities at the airport so as to maximize profits to the county. Therefore by requiring the concessionaire to pay sales tax, this reduces the profit available to share with the County.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT) should charge Respondent with lease payments and fine him for unauthorized use of sovereignty submerged lands under the Halifax River in Daytona Beach.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns residential property on the Halifax River in Daytona Beach. In 2004, he entered into a Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease with BOT to allow him to construct a single-family dock structure into the Halifax River from his property. In 2007, he entered into a Modification to Increase Square Footage (Modified Lease). The Modified Lease covered 2,714 square feet, required an annual lease fee of $423.89, and expired on November 16, 2008. The Modified Lease provided for a late charge equal to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the due date until paid on any lease fees not paid within 30 days from their due dates. There was no evidence that any lease fee under the Modified Lease was not paid or paid late. In August 2008, BOT attempted to have Respondent enter into a Lease Renewal. He did not renew his lease, and the Modified Lease expired on November 16, 2008. Respondent paid no lease fees for 2008/2009. In September 2009, BOT again attempted to have Respondent enter into an updated Lease Renewal at an annual lease fee of $436.78 and pay current and past due lease fees. BOT placed Respondent on notice that his failure to do so could be considered a willful violation of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, which could subject Respondent to administrative fines of up to $10,000 a day. Respondent did not renew his lease or pay any lease fees. Instead, he complained (as he claims to have since 2005) that a stormwater outfall structure installed by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1998 approximately 100 feet to the north (upriver) of his dock structure, at the end of Ora Street, was not functioning properly and was allowing silt to enter the river, shoaling the water in the area of Respondent’s dock structure (and elsewhere in the vicinity) and eventually making it impossible for Respondent to moor his boat at his dock structure and navigate to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). The DOT outfall structure at Ora Street has been in existence since the 1950’s. In 1998, DOT added a silt box, which is not functioning properly and is allowing silt to enter the river. The evidence is not clear whether silt from the DOT outfall structure was entering the river before 1998. In 2010, BOT informed Respondent by certified mail that it had contacted the DOT at Respondent’s request and determined that DOT was planning to clean and monitor the outfall structure after August 2010 but had no plans to dredge sediment from the river. BOT also placed Respondent on notice that he was in violation for not renewing his lease and paying all current and past due fees, and that he would be fined and required to remove his dock structure if he did not come into compliance. This certified letter was designated an NOV. The evidence was not clear when the letter was sent to Respondent, but it is clear that Respondent has continued to refuse to renew the lease, or pay any fees, and has not removed his dock structure. BOT takes the position in this case that Respondent must pay: the Lease Renewal annual lease fee of $436.78 for 2008/2009, plus the Lease Renewal late charge equal to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from November 30, 2010; and an annual lease fee of $448.49 for 2009/2010, plus a late charge equal to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the $448.49 from November 29, 2009. The evidence did not explain how the annual lease fees for the years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 were determined. (But see Florida Administrative Code Rule2 18- 21.011(1)(b)10.b., set out in Conclusion of Law 24, which may explain how the annual lease fees were determined.) Invoices in evidence charge Respondent a total of $1,283.22 through July 30, 2010: $436.78, plus tax, for a total of $465.17 for the year 2008/2009; $448.49, plus tax for a total of $477.64 for the year 2009/2010; and $36.18 of interest on the $448.49. BOT also takes the position that Respondent must either: enter into a lease for the year 2010/2011 and beyond; remove part of his dock structure so that he will preempt only 1,150 square feet of sovereignty submerged land (so as not to require a lease, but only a cost-free consent of use); or remove the entire dock structure. BOT also seeks the imposition of an administrative fine under Rules 18-14.002 and 18-14.005(5). In its First Amended NOV, BOT sought a fine in the amount of $2,500; in its PRO, BOT seeks a fine in the amount of $2,500 for the first offense and $10,000 per day from the issuance of the NOV for repeat offenses. Respondent believes he should not be required to pay any lease fees or fines because of his inability to use his dock structure due to the shoaling of the river caused by the malfunctioning DOT outfall structure. Respondent believes it is DEP’s responsibility to require DOT to remove the silt from the river and make the outfall structure work properly. He believes this is required by the state and federal constitutions, statutes, and rules, and by an unspecified “federal bond issue” or “federal bond agency.” DEP takes the position that the silting from the outfall structure and its adverse impact on Respondent’s ability to use his dock structure is irrelevant because the requirement of a lease is based on preemption of sovereignty submerged land, not on the lessee’s use of the land. DEP also believes that, under an operating agreement among governmental agencies, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), not DEP, is the agency responsible for enforcing the applicable environmental laws and permit conditions against DOT. DOT has indicated to the parties that it is in the process of modifying the outfall structure so that it functions properly but that it does not have the money to remove silt from the river. DEP personnel visited the site at approximately 11:00 a.m. on July 16, 2010, and measured the water in the vicinity of the terminal platform and slips of Respondent’s dock structure to be approximately 36 inches deep, which is deep enough for navigation. DEP did not take measurements in the slips of the dock structure, between the terminal platform and Respondent’s property, or between the vicinity of the terminal platform and the ICW. The evidence was not clear what the tide stage was at the Respondent’s dock structure when DEP measured the water depth. DEP called the tide stage low, or near low, based in part on tidal charts for Ormond Beach and the Halifax River indicating that the tide was low at 11:21 a.m. and high at 4:10 p.m. on July 16, 2010. However, the persuasive evidence was that the tidal chart applied to locations at the beach, and there is a difference in the tides at Respondent’s dock structure and at the beach. It does not appear that the tide was dead low or near dead low at Respondent’s dock structure at 11:00 a.m. on July 16, 2010; it probably was between low and slack, possibly a half foot higher than dead low. Regardless of the measurements taken by DEP on July 16, 2010, Respondent testified that he is not able to operate his boat from his dock structure consistently due to shoaling from the silt. He testified that, as a result, he kept his boat at a marina for a year at a cost of $7,000 but cannot afford to continue to do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that BOT enter a final order: (1) that, within 10 days, Respondent sign the appropriate lease renewal and send it, along with $1,283.22 in past due lease fees and interest owed BOT, plus the lease payment for 2010/2011, by cashier’s check or money order made payable to the “Internal Improvement Trust Fund,” with a notation of OGC Case No. 10-1948, sent to 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232, Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program; or (2) that, within 20 days, Respondent remove his dock structure or at least enough of it to preempt no more than 1,150 square feet of sovereignty submerged; and (3) that, within 30 days, Respondent pay BOT a fine in the amount of $2,000, by cashier’s check or money order made payable to the “Internal Improvement Trust Fund,” with a notation of OGC Case No. 10-1948, sent to 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232, Attention David Herbster, Program Administrator, Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of November, 2010.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is indebted to the Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, Oglesby Nursery, Inc., is a commercial nursery providing a variety of landscape agricultural products. The principal office for Petitioner is located at 3714 SW 52nd Avenues Hollywood, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden Landscape and Nursery, Inc., is an agricultural dealer with its office located at 3317 So. Dixie Highway, Delray Beach, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden, is subject to the licensing requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. As such, Garden of Eden is obligated to obtain and to post a surety bond to ensure that payment is made to producers for agricultural products purchased by the dealer. To meet this requirement, Garden of Eden delivered a certificate of deposit from Sun Bank of Palm Beach County to the Department. On or about August 22, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $7673.40 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of nine may pan coconuts and thirty green malayans trees. All of the trees were accepted and no issue was made as to their condition. On or about September 2, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $1190.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of seven coconut malayans dwarf trees. All of the trees were accepted and no issue was made as to their condition. The total amount of the agricultural products purchased by Garden of Eden from Petitioner was $8863.40. The total amount Garden of Eden paid on this account was $5000.00. The balance of indebtedness owed by Garden of Eden t o Petitioner for the purchases listed above is $3863.40. Petitioner claims it is due an additional sum of $247.77 representing interest on the unpaid account since the assessment of interest to an unpaid balance is standard practice in the industry and since Respondent took delivery of additional products knowing interest on past due accounts to be Petitioner's policy. No written agreement of acknowledgment executed by Garden of Eden was presented with regard to the interest claim.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner is a dentist and is also engaged in the business of leasing real property in Florida for commercial purposes. A tax auditor for the respondent, Mr. Eugene A. Soinski, notified petitioner that an audit of his books and records would be conducted to determine whether petitioner was remitting the appropriate amount of rental taxes to the respondent. At the time of the initial audit, Mr. Soinski was supplied with only bank deposit receipts and certain leases. The auditor had difficulty in determining which were mortgage payments and which were rental payments. Based upon the auditor's review of petitioner's deposit slips, lease agreements, a three-year audit prepared by petitioner and discussions with some of petitioner's tenants, as assessment for delinquent taxes was made. The initial assessment was reduced and the present dispute lies with the revised assessment dated October 2, 1978, in the amount of $5,316.35. In his amended petition for a hearing and at the hearing, petitioner alleged that no rent tax was due on three specific leases. Petitioner offered no evidence to refute the respondent's assessment on any other lease. All testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing was confined to the lease agreements between petitioner and three other businesses -- Suncoast Amusement, Product Movement Systems, Inc., and Staid, Inc. One of the three disputed items in the assessment concerned an agreement between petitioner and Suncoast Amusement, also referred to as Hot Foots. The lease agreement between Suncoast and petitioner was not made available at the hearing. According to the testimony of the petitioner, the tenant removed carpeting from the premises and installed new red carpeting in its stead. Certain other improvements were also made to the property. The petitioner testified that he received no actual benefit to the property from these improvements, and that the red carpet actually decreased the value of the property. The auditor, Mr. Soinski, remembered seeing the lease agreement and matching the rental payment amounts with the deposit receipts to arrive at the assessment. A copy of the first two pages of the "business lease" between petitioner and Product Movement Systems, Inc., was received into evidence as respondent's Exhibit 3. This agreement contains the stipulation that TWENTY-SECOND: Minimum of two room office, with air, will be built at tenant's expense and remain as part of the first years rent. According to petitioner, the tenant actually built eight to ten offices and this did not improve the real estate. It was, instead, a deterrent to future tenants, according to petitioner. A copy of the "business lease" between petitioner and Staid, Inc., was received into evidence as the respondent's Exhibit 2. The consideration for the agreement was a total rental of sixty thousand dollars, payable as follows: One thousand dollars per month in advance, plus 4 percent State tax. Two thousand dollars security deposit, receipt acknowledged. Also on the first of each month an amount equal to 1/60th of the total cost of all improvements of any kind, as approved by both parties, will be paid plus the above basic rent of $1,040. - per month. Also, the twenty-fourth stipulation and condition in said lease provides as follows . . . TWENTY-FOURTH: If during the life of this lease tenant has need of more space every effort will be made to provide some adjacent. If it is desirable to both parties a new building is necessary then such buildings will be to tenants specifications, the rent will be the total cost of such land and improvements including architect fee, cost of mortgage, paving, landscaping or any expense of any nature x 15 percent net, net. According to the petitioner, he made a loan to Staid, Inc., in the amount of $48,000.00 to enable Staid to pay for certain improvements to the property. This loan was to be repaid in installments of $800.00 per month for sixty months. It was petitioner's testimony that regardless of the wording contained in the lease agreement, the improvements were not considered a part of the rent, he derived no benefits from the improvements to the property, and part of the payment made by the tenant each month was for repayments of a loan, rather than rental on the property. It was the testimony of Mr. Soinski, the auditor, that the assessment of the three disputed leases was based on the total amount of rent paid by the tenants to the petitioner, which rent included any improvements to the property. Where lease documents were available, he utilized the amount of rent due from the face of the lease document. Where possible, he compared the lease documents with the petitioner's bank deposit slips. The revised notice of proposed assessment dated October 2, 1978, was received into evidence as the respondent's Exhibit 1. This document assesses a tax on rentals of real property in the amount of $4,215.40, a delinquent penalty in the amount of $210.79 and interest through October 2, 1978, in the amount of $890.16, for a total amount of $5,316.35.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the proposed assessment dated October 2, 1978, in the amount of $5,316.35 be upheld and that the relief requested by petitioner be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: James W. Hickman 203 River Bend Longwood, Florida Linda Procta Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue As described in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation Petitioners are challenging the Respondent's (SJRWMD) solicitation process with regard to the "Invitation to submit an Offer to Purchase property known as the Zellwin Airstrip." Petitioners seek to set aside the award of purchase to Intervenors and to have the solicitation process re-advertised. The issue for resolution is whether Petitioners are entitled to that relief.
Findings Of Fact In 1996 the Florida Legislature mandated that the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) attempt to purchase farms on the north shore of Lake Apopka as part of a long-term restoration and reclamation project. Petitioners, Rex Shepherd and Dale Harper, are pilots and owners of an aerial advertising business, American Outdoor Aerial Advertising. In early 1998 the business was operating out of Crakes field, a small airstrip owned by Kent Crakes as part of Crakes' North Lake Apopka farm. Petitioners' business owned airplanes and banners which it flew for its advertising clients such as Sears and GEICO. Sometime in early 1998 it became obvious that Petitioners would need to move their operation to another field. There were break-ins at the hanger, and the airstrip was beginning to flood as a result of the reclamation project. Kent Crakes referred Rex Shepherd to Leonard Freeman, the individual with SJRWMD who was involved with land acquisition in the area. Around March or early April 1998 Petitioners commenced discussions with Mr. Freeman regarding their use of the farm airstrip at Zellwin Farms, also part of the SJRWMD Lake Apopka farms acquisition program. Mr. Freeman was the SJRWMD point of contact for the Zellwin Farms acquisition. By early 1998, the property was already under contract and was scheduled to close some time around June 1998. Mr. Freeman and the Petitioners met at the Zellwin Farms airstrip in June 1998, and Petitioners determined the property would be suitable for their operation. Eager to accommodate Petitioners because of their predicament and also in anticipation of the SJRWMD's eventual sale of the Zellwin parcel, Mr. Freeman gave permission for Petitioners to store their equipment on the site and gave them a key. Because Zellwin Farms was beyond what SJRWMD considered to be the lake's historic shoreline, the SJRWMD knew that it would need to dispose of its 1400 acres as surplus, in whole or part. Mr. Freeman's desire was to find a way to dispose of the property as the best thing for the SJRWMD. Thus, because of the Petitioners' immediate interest in relocating their business, Mr. Freeman began negotiating with them for their purchase of the airstrip and related buildings. In September 1998, Mr. Freeman met again with Petitioners at the airstrip and discussed a specific proposal. Petitioners talked about offering $250,000 under a lease-purchase arrangement, and sent a letter dated September 10, 1998, to Mr. Freeman with that offer. Mr. Freeman later suggested that since the appraised value was $275,000, an offer in that amount would be easier to get approved. Mr. Freeman did not have the authority to obligate the SJRWMD to sell the property and Petitioners understood that. Still, Petitioners felt they were negotiating in good faith with staff who could make a strong recommendation to the board. Petitioners believed in early October that they had a hand-shake deal subject to further discussions regarding specific terms. They knew that a competitive solicitation might be an option for the SJRWMD but they also believed that they would be given an opportunity to meet another third party's offer. This belief was based not on some specific agreement for a "right of first refusal," but rather on Mr. Freeman's good-natured assurances that they would work it all out. Mr. Freeman requested that the SJRWMD special counsel develop a draft contract based on Petitioners' offer. The offer would then need to be signed by Petitioners and approved by Mr. Freeman's supervisor before going to the SJRWMD governing board. The counsel never finished the draft and it was never given to Mr. Freeman or the Petitioners. By the end of October 1998, Robert Christianson, Mr. Freeman's supervisor and director of the SJRWMD Department of Operations and Land Resources, learned that Petitioners were flying in and out of the Zellwin airstrip and using it for their business base of operations. This activity was beyond the storage permission that Mr. Freeman had granted. (Even that permission was beyond his individual authority.) Mr. Freeman and Mr. Christianson met with Petitioners on October 27, 1998, to work out a license agreement for their use of the airstrip. Such an agreement was necessary to protect the parties' respective interests and to cover the SJRWMD for any liability in the landlord/tenant relationship. The result of that meeting was a written license agreement for Petitioners to use, maintain, and provide protection for the property for a period from October 30, 1998, to April 30, 1999, subject to revocation with advance notice. Petitioners used the airstrip property under that agreement and made improvements, mostly cleaning up the facility so it could be used. At the October meeting it became obvious to Petitioners that the informal negotiations for their purchase were terminated and that the SJRWMD was going to solicit competitive offers for the purchase. This concerned the Petitioners and they felt let- down by Mr. Freeman. Still, they concentrated on getting the license agreement worked out. Rex Shepherd's account of the October meeting was that Mr. Christianson was very clear about the fact that the SJRWMD had to go for competitive bid, that they were bound by a board and rules and regulations even though both he and Mr. Freeman would like for Petitioners to have the airport, and that they should be able to work it out. At the end of the meeting, and as they were leaving the trailer, Mr. Shepherd commented to Mr. Freeman that he really did not want to lose the airport and wanted to be apprised of what was going on so that if there were a higher bid, he could have the opportunity to match it, or if it were too high, that they would have 30 or 60 days to vacate the property. According to Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Freeman simply responded, "We'll work all that out, don't worry about it." On November 11, 1998, the SJRWMD governing board voted to surplus the Zellwin Farms property with direction to the staff that the sale be widely advertised in the aviation community and not be a sole source deal. Consistent with the board's direction and pursuant to Section 373.089(3), Florida Statutes, the SJRWMD advertised a "Notice of Intention to Sell" the airstrip property in the Orlando Sentinel for three consecutive weeks, November 9, 16, and 23, 1998. The notice identifies the airstrip property as an "Approximately 47-acre agricultural airport facility, 2,200'? square feet asphalt runway, 5,250 ? square feet metal hanger, 2,048 ? storage square feet building, well and septic tank at a location of northwest Orange County, Florida, Sections 20 and 29, T-20-S, R-27-E, on Jones Avenue, 1 ? mile west of U.S. Highway 441, Zellwood." The Notice of Intention to Sell states that "[a]ll interested persons are invited to submit an offer to the District for purchase of said lands. Contact the District . . . and request an Airport Sales Package." Both the Airport Sales Package and the Notice of Intention to Sell state that the airport property will be sold for the highest price obtainable. The sales package states that full cash offers to be paid at closing will be given first consideration and that 10 percent of the purchase price must be paid when the offeror was notified that it was successful. The sales package also states that any person adversely affected by an offer solicitation shall file a Notice of Protest, in writing, prior to the date on which the offers are to be received, and shall file a formal written protest within ten (10) days after filing the Notice of protest pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-1.801. * * * Failure to timely file a notice of protest or failure to timely file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (SJRWMD Ex. 3). Both the Notice of Intention to Sell and the sales package require that sealed "offers for purchase" be submitted to the SJRWMD prior to 2:00 p.m. on December 4, 1998, the advertised time for opening of the offers. Nothing in the Notice or sales package reserves a right of first refusal for any person. Instead, both plainly state "no offer will be accepted after the date and hour specified for submittal of offers." (SJRWMD Exhibits 1 and 3) Although Petitioners did not see the newspaper notice, they had knowledge that the SJRWMD advertised the sale of the airstrip property through a competitive solicitation process in the newspaper. They had been clearly informed of need for the competitive process by Mr. Christianson at the October meeting and they were present when a pre-solicitation meeting/inspection took place at the airstrip in November prior to the offers being accepted by the SJRWMD. Intervenors requested a sales package from the SJRWMD on November 30, 1998, and December 2, 1998. Petitioners requested and received a sales package prior to the opening of the offers to purchase. The sales packages were not available to the public until December 2, 1998, the same day Petitioners received their package. Mr. Freeman told Petitioners they needed to submit their bid. Although the sales package stated that facsimile offers would not be accepted by the SJRWMD, Leonard Freeman informed Petitioners that they could fax their Offer to Purchase. The SJRWMD did accept a facsimile offer to purchase from Petitioners on December 4, 1998, at 1:07 p.m. Offers to purchase were opened by the SJRWMD at 2:10 p.m. on December 4, 1998. Petitioners submitted an offer to purchase the airstrip property for $275,000, where Petitioners would pay $1,500.00 per month for 60 months ($90,000 with $72,000 applied toward principal) with a balance of $203,000 cash to be paid at the end of the 60-month term. Intervenors submitted an offer to purchase the airstrip property for $310,000, where Intervenors would put 10 percent down ($31,000 earnest money deposit) at award of Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the balance of $279,000 cash would be paid at closing on or before May 1, 1999. Petitioners' offer to purchase was not the highest offer; it did not provide for cash at closing; and it did not meet the requirement of 10 percent to be paid upon notification. Staff recommended to the SJRWMD board that it award the purchase of the airstrip property to the highest offeror, Intervenors. The governing board approved staff's recommendation at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 9, 1998. On December 9, 1998, Petitioners filed a Notice of Protest. On December 18, 1998, Petitioners filed a copy of their Formal Bid Protest with the SJRWMD. Petitioners never grasped the implications of the competitive solicitation process until after the offers were opened and the award was made to Intervenors. Even if Petitioners had seen the newspaper notice and had received the sales package sooner, they still would not have protested because they understood that their "agreement" was outside of the process. That is, they mistakenly perceived that after the offers were in they could negotiate further to exceed the high offer. Chagrined, and genuinely regretful of the misunderstanding, Mr. Freeman had to tell Petitioners that further negotiations were foreclosed after the offers were opened. Mr. Freeman's earlier assurances to Petitioners were the result of an excess of bonhomie rather than any deception. He wanted them to have the airport and he wanted to work out the sale of surplus property. Petitioners were aware that he did not have the authority to bind his agency to an agreement. Mr. Freeman never specifically told Petitioners they had a right of first refusal; they wanted that advantage and surmised agreement from Mr. Freeman's and Mr. Christianson's vague counsel to not worry and that it would all be worked out. The SJRWMD devised a competitive process for disposition of the Zellwin airstrip that was consistent with its statute and with the direction of its governing board. Intervenors responded with an offer that met all the published requirements. Petitioners did not, and any culpability of SJRWMD's staff for Petitioners' misunderstanding is not so egregious as to require that the process begin again. Petitioners occupied the property, used it, and made improvements to enhance their use. This, however, was in reliance on their license to use the property and not on some certainty that they would ultimately be able to own the property. As Petitioners testified at hearing, they were disappointed that the SJRWMD decided to solicit competitive proposals; they knew that it was possible someone would offer more than they could match. (Harper, Transcript pages 117-120).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the SJRWMD enter its final order denying Petitioners' request to reject all bids and re-advertise the sale. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 John W. Williams, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Clayton D. Simmons, Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Colbert, Whigham And Simmons, P.A. Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Stanley Dollen 1230 Kelso Boulevard Windermere, Florida 34786 Herbert Clark 5416 Trimble Park Road Mt. Dora, Florida 32757
