The Issue The issue presented for decision is whether Proposed Rules 20-15.001, 20-15.002, and 20-15.003 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated facts, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Florida Citrus Commission was established in 1935 to organize and promote the growing and sale of various citrus products, fresh and processed, in the State of Florida. The purpose of the Citrus Commission is today reflected in Section 601.02, Florida Statutes. The powers of the Florida Citrus Commission ("the Commission") and the Department, are set forth in full in Section 601.10, Florida Statutes. The powers of the Department include the power to tax and raise other revenue to achieve the purposes of the Department. In particular, Section 601.10(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, state: The Department of Citrus shall have and shall exercise such general and specific powers as are delegated to it by this chapter and other statutes of the state, which powers shall include, but shall not be confined to, the following: To adopt and, from time to time, alter, rescind, modify, or amend all proper and necessary rules, regulations, and orders for the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties under this chapter and other statutes of the state, which rules and regulations shall have the force and effect of law when not inconsistent therewith. To act as the general supervisory authority over the administration and enforcement of this chapter and to exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be imposed upon it by other laws of the state. The Department is authorized to set standards by Section 601.11, Florida Statutes, as follows: The Department of Citrus shall have full and plenary power to, and may, establish state grades and minimum maturity and quality standards not inconsistent with existing laws for citrus fruits and food products thereof containing 20 percent or more citrus or citrus juice, whether canned or concentrated, or otherwise processed, including standards for frozen concentrate for manufacturing purposes, and for containers therefor, and shall prescribe rules or regulations governing the marking, branding, labeling, tagging, or stamping of citrus fruit, or products thereof whether canned or concentrated, or otherwise processed, and upon containers therefor for the purpose of showing the name and address of the person marketing such citrus fruit or products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed; the grade, quality, variety, type, or size of citrus fruit, the grade, quality, variety, type, and amount of the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, and the quality, type, size, dimensions, and shape of containers therefor, and to regulate or prohibit the use of containers which have been previously used for the sale, transportation, or shipment of citrus fruit or the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, or any other commodity; provided, however, that the use of secondhand containers for sale and delivery of citrus fruit for retail consumption within the state shall not be prohibited; provided, however, that no standard, regulation, rule, or order under this section which is repugnant to any requirement made mandatory under federal law or regulations shall apply to citrus fruit, or the products thereof, whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, or to containers therefor, which are being shipped from this state in interstate commerce. All citrus fruit and the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed sold, or offered for sale, or offered for shipment within or without the state shall be graded and marked as required by this section and the regulations, rules, and orders adopted and made under authority of this section, which regulations, rules, and orders shall, when not inconsistent with state or federal law, have the force and effect of law. The Department is authorized to conduct citrus research by Section 601.13, Florida Statutes. To help pay for these duties of the Department, the Legislature first enacted the "box tax" in 1949. The box tax is now codified as Section 601.15(3), Florida Statutes. Section 601.15(3)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part: There is hereby levied and imposed upon each standard-packed box of citrus fruit grown and placed into the primary channel of trade in this state an excise tax at annual rates for each citrus season as determined from the tables in this paragraph and based upon the previous season's actual statewide production as reported in the United States Department of Agriculture Citrus Crop Production Forecast as of June 1. Section 601.15(3)(a), Florida Statutes, goes on to set forth specific rates for fresh grapefruit, processed grapefruit, fresh oranges, processed oranges, and fresh or processed tangerines and citrus hybrids. Section 601.15(1), Florida Statutes, sets forth the Department's authority to administer the box tax, as follows: The administration of this section shall be vested in the Department of Citrus, which shall prescribe suitable and reasonable rules and regulations for the enforcement hereof, and the Department of Citrus shall administer the taxes levied and imposed hereby. All funds collected under this section and the interest accrued on such funds are consideration for a social contract between the state and the citrus growers of the state whereby the state must hold such funds in trust and inviolate and use them only for the purposes prescribed in this chapter. The Department of Citrus shall have power to cause its duly authorized agent or representative to enter upon the premises of any handler of citrus fruits and to examine or cause to be examined any books, papers, records, or memoranda bearing on the amount of taxes payable and to secure other information directly or indirectly concerned in the enforcement hereof. Any person who is required to pay the taxes levied and imposed and who by any practice or evasion makes it difficult to enforce the provisions hereof by inspection, or any person who, after demand by the Department of Citrus or any agent or representative designated by it for that purpose, refuses to allow full inspection of the premises or any part thereof or any books, records, documents, or other instruments in any manner relating to the liability of the taxpayer for the tax imposed or hinders or in anywise delays or prevents such inspection, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The box tax was challenged in 1936 under various provisions of the Florida Constitution as well as the Export Clause, Article 1, s. 9, cl. 5, of the United States Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in 1937 upholding the validity of the box tax. C.V. Floyd Fruit Company v. Florida Citrus Commission, 128 Fla. 565, 175 So. 248 (1937). In 1970, the Legislature enacted the "equalization tax," codified as Section 601.155, Florida Statutes. The statute mirrored Section 601.15, Florida Statutes, but added certain processors who were mixing foreign citrus products with Florida products. The purpose of the equalization tax was to have all Florida processors of citrus products help pay for the costs of the Department, rather than have the burden fall entirely on the Florida growers subject to the box tax. Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part: The first person who exercises in this state the privilege of processing, reprocessing, blending, or mixing processed orange products or processed grapefruit products or the privilege of packaging or repackaging processed orange products or processed grapefruit products into retail or institutional size containers or, except as provided in subsection (9) or except if a tax is levied and collected on the exercise of one of the foregoing privileges, the first person having title to or possession of any processed orange product or any processed grapefruit product who exercises the privilege in this state of storing such product or removing any portion of such product from the original container in which it arrived in this state for purposes other than official inspection or direct consumption by the consumer and not for resale shall be assessed and shall pay an excise tax upon the exercise of such privilege at the rate described in subsection (2). Upon the exercise of any privilege described in subsection (1), the excise tax levied by this section shall be at the same rate per box of oranges or grapefruit utilized in the initial production of the processed citrus products so handled as that imposed, at the time of exercise of the taxable privilege, by s. 601.15 per box of oranges. In order to administer the tax, the Legislature provided the following relevant provisions in Section 601.155, Florida Statutes: Every person liable for the excise tax imposed by this section shall keep a complete and accurate record of the receipt, storage, handling, exercise of any taxable privilege under this section, and shipment of all products subject to the tax imposed by this section. Such record shall be preserved for a period of 1 year and shall be offered for inspection upon oral or written request by the Department of Citrus or its duly authorized agent. Every person liable for the excise tax imposed by this section shall, at such times and in such manner as the Department of Citrus may by rule require, file with the Department of Citrus a return, certified as true and correct, on forms to be prescribed and furnished by the Department of Citrus, stating, in addition to other information reasonably required by the Department of Citrus, the number of units of processed orange or grapefruit products subject to this section upon which any taxable privilege under this section was exercised during the period of time covered by the return. Full payment of excise taxes due for the period reported shall accompany each return. All taxes levied and imposed by this section shall be due and payable within 61 days after the first of the taxable privileges is exercised in this state. Periodic payment of the excise taxes imposed by this section by the person first exercising the taxable privileges and liable for such payment shall be permitted only in accordance with Department of Citrus rules, and the payment thereof shall be guaranteed by the posting of an appropriate certificate of deposit, approved surety bond, or cash deposit in an amount and manner as prescribed by the Department of Citrus. * * * (11) This section shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes set forth and as additional and supplemental powers vested in the Department of Citrus under the police power of this state. In March 2000, certain citrus businesses challenged Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, as being unconstitutional. At the time of the suit, Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, read as follows: All products subject to the taxable privileges under this section, which products are produced in whole or in part from citrus fruit grown within the United States, are exempt from the tax imposed by this section to the extent that the products are derived from oranges or grapefruit grown within the United States. In the case of products made in part from citrus fruit grown within the United States, it shall be the burden of the persons liable for the excise tax to show the Department of Citrus, through competent evidence, proof of that part which is not subject to a taxable privilege. The citrus businesses claimed the exemption in Section 601.155(5) rendered the tax unconstitutionally discriminatory, in that processors who imported juice from foreign countries to be blended with Florida juice were subject to the equalization tax, whereas processors who imported juice from places such as California, Arizona and Texas enjoyed an exemption from the tax. The case, Tampa Juice Service, Inc., et al. v. Department of Citrus, Case No. GCG-00-3718 (Consolidated) ("Tampa Juice"), was brought in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Polk County. Judge Dennis P. Maloney of that court continues to preside over that case. In a partial final declaratory judgment effective March 15, 2002, Judge Maloney found Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution due to its discriminatory effect in favor of non-Florida United States juice. In an order dated April 15, 2002, Judge Maloney severed the exemption in Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, from the remainder of the statute. The court's decision necessitated the formulation of a remedy for the injured plaintiffs. While the parties were briefing the issue before the court, the Florida Legislature met and passed Chapter 2002-26, Laws of Florida, which amended Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, to read as follows: Products made in whole or in part from citrus fruit on which an equivalent tax is levied pursuant to s. 601.15 are exempt from the tax imposed by this section. In the case of products made in part from citrus fruit exempt from the tax imposed by this section, it shall be the burden of the persons liable for the excise tax to show the Department of Citrus, through competent evidence, proof of that part which is not subject to a taxable privilege. Chapter 2002-26, Laws of Florida, was given an effective date of July 1, 2002. By order dated August 8, 2002, Judge Maloney set forth his decision as to the remedy for the plaintiffs injured by the discriminatory effect of Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes. Judge Maloney expressly relied on the rationale set forth in Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corporation, 574 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1991)("McKesson II"). In its initial McKesson decision, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corporation, 524 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment ruling that Florida's alcoholic beverage tax scheme, which gave tax preferences and exemptions to certain alcoholic beverages made from Florida crops, unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce. The Florida Supreme Court also affirmed that portion of the summary judgment giving the ruling prospective effect, thus denying the plaintiff a refund of taxes paid pursuant to the unconstitutional scheme. The decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In McKesson Corporation v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (1990), the United States Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court's decision as to the prospective effect of its decision. The United States Supreme Court held that: The question before us is whether prospective relief, by itself, exhausts the requirements of federal law. The answer is no: If a State places a taxpayer under duress promptly to pay a tax when due and relegates him to a postpayment refund action in which he can challenge the tax's legality, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment obligates the State to provide meaningful backward-looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation. 496 U.S. at 31 (footnotes omitted). The United States Supreme Court set forth the following options by which the state could meet its obligation to provide "meaningful backward-looking relief": [T]he State may cure the invalidity of the Liquor Tax by refunding to petitioner the difference between the tax it paid and the tax it would have been assessed were it extended the same rate reductions that its competitors actually received. . . . Alternatively, to the extent consistent with other constitutional restrictions, the State may assess and collect back taxes from petitioner's competitors who benefited from the rate reductions during the contested tax period, calibrating the retroactive assessment to create in hindsight a nondiscriminatory scheme. . . . Finally, a combination of a partial refund to petitioner and a partial retroactive assessment of tax increases on favored competitors, so long as the resultant tax actually assessed during the contested tax period reflects a scheme that does not discriminate against interstate commerce, would render Petitioner's resultant deprivation lawful and therefore satisfy the Due Process Clause's requirement of a fully adequate postdeprivation procedure. 496 U.S. at 40-41 (citations and footnotes omitted). The United States Supreme Court expressly provided that the state has the option of choosing the form of relief it will grant. In keeping with the United States Supreme Court opinion, the Florida Supreme Court granted the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the "Division") leave to advise the Court as to the form of relief the state wished to provide. The Division proposed to retroactively assess and collect taxes from those of McKesson's competitors who had benefited from the discriminatory tax scheme. McKesson contended that a refund of the taxes it had paid was the only clear and certain remedy, because retroactive taxation of its competitors would violate their due process rights. McKesson II, 574 So. 2d at 116. The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on McKesson's refund claim, with the following instructions: While McKesson may not necessarily be entitled to a refund, it is entitled to a "clear and certain remedy," as outlined in the Supreme Court's opinion. Because nonparties, such as amici, will be directly affected by the retroactive tax scheme proposed by the state, all affected by the proposed emergency rule must be given notice and an opportunity to intervene in this action. Therefore, on remand, the trial court not only must determine whether the state's proposal meets "the minimum federal requirements" outlined in the Supreme Court's opinion, it also must determine whether the proposal comports with federal and state protections afforded those against whom the proposed tax will be assessed. We emphasize that the state has the option of choosing the manner in which it will reformulate the alcoholic beverage tax during the contested period so that the resultant tax actually assessed during that period reflects a scheme which does not discriminate against interstate commerce. Therefore, if the trial court should rule that the state's proposal to retroactively assess and collect taxes from McKesson's competitors does not meet constitutional muster and such ruling is upheld on appeal, the state may offer an alternative remedy for the trial court's review. However, any such proposal likewise must satisfy the standards set forth by the Supreme Court as well as be consistent with other constitutional restrictions. 574 So. 2d at 116. In the Tampa Juice case, Judge Maloney assessed the options prescribed by the series of McKesson cases and concluded that the only fair remedy was to assess and collect back assessments from those who benefited from the unconstitutional equalization tax exemption. His August 8, 2002, order directed the Department to "take appropriate steps, consistent with existing law, to assess and collect the Equalization tax from those entities which [benefited] from the unconstitutional exemption." On September 18, 2002, the Department promulgated the Emergency Rules that were at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-3648RE. The Emergency Rules were filed with the Department of State on September 24, 2002, and took effect on that date. Those emergency rules were held invalid in Peace River, and are not at issue in the instant case. In the November 15, 2002 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly (vol. 28, no. 46, pp. 4996-4998), the Department published the Proposed Rules that were at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-4607RP. In the March 7, 2003, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly (vol. 29, no. 10, p. 1036), the Department published amendments to the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rules, as amended, read as follows: EQUALIZATION TAX ON NON-FLORIDA UNITED STATES JUICE 20-15.001 Intent. The Court in Tampa Juice Service, et al v. Florida Department of Citrus in Consolidated Case Number GCG-003718 (Circuit Court in and for Polk County, Florida) severed the exemption contained in Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, that provided an exemption for persons who exercised one of the enumerated Equalization Tax privileges on non-Florida, United States juice. The Court had previously determined that the stricken provisions operated in a manner that violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. On August 8, 2002, the Court ordered that the Florida Department of Citrus "take appropriate steps, consistent with existing law, to assess and collect the Equalization tax from those entities which [benefited] from the unconstitutional exemption." It is the Florida Department of Citrus' intent by promulgating the following remedial rule to implement a non- discriminatory tax scheme, which does not impose a significant tax burden that is so harsh and oppressive as to transgress constitutional limitations. These rules shall be applicable to those previously favored persons who received favorable tax treatment under the statutory sections cited above. Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, , 601.155 FS. History-- New . 20-15.002 Definitions. "Previously favored persons" shall be defined as any person who exercised an enumerated Equalization Tax privilege as defined by Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, but who was exempt from payment of the Equalization Tax due to the exemption for non-Florida, United States juice set forth in the statutory provision, which was ultimately determined to be unconstitutional and severed from Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes. The "tax period" during which the severed provisions of Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, were in effect shall be defined as commencing on October 6, 1997, and ending on March 14, 2002. "Tax liability" shall be defined as the total amount of taxes due to the Florida Department of Citrus during the "tax period," at the following rates per box for each respective fiscal year: Fiscal Year Processed Rate Orange Grapefruit 1997-1998 .175 .30 1998-1999 .17 .30 1999-2000 .18 .325 2000-2001 .175 .30 2001-2002 .165 .18 Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, , 601.155 FS. History-- New . 20-15.003 Collection. The Florida Department of Citrus shall calculate the tax liability for each person or entity that exercised an enumerated Equalization Tax privilege outlined in section 601.155, Florida Statutes, upon non-Florida, United States juice based upon inspection records maintained by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the United States Department of Agriculture. Subsequent to adoption of this rule, the Florida Department of Citrus will provide to the previously favored persons by certified mail a Notice of Tax Liability which shall contain a demand for payment consistent with the above-referenced itemized statement. The Department will deem late payment of Equalization Taxes owed by previously favored persons to constitute good cause, and shall waive the 5 percent penalty authorized by Section 601.155(10), F.S., as compliance with either of the following is established by Department [sic]: Lump sum payment of the tax liability remitted with the filing of Department of Citrus Form 4R (incorporated by reference in Rule 20-100.004, F.A.C.) for the relevant years and then-applicable tax rate(s) per subsection 20-15.002(3), F.A.C., within 61 days of receiving Notice of Tax Liability; or Equal installment payments remitted with the filing of Department of Citrus Form 4R (incorporated by reference in Rule 20- 100.004, F.A.C.) for the relevant years and then-applicable tax rate(s) per subsection subsection [sic] 20-15.002(3), F.A.C., over a 60-month period, the first payment being due within 61 days of receiving Notice of Tax Liability pursuant to subsection 20- 15.003(2), F.A.C.; or The Good Cause provisions of 601.155(10), F.S., shall not apply to persons who do not comply with paragraph 20- 15.003(2)(a), F.A.C., or paragraph 20- 15.003(2)(b), F.A.C. Failure to pay the taxes or penalties due under 601.155, F.S. and Chapter 20-15, F.A.C., shall constitute grounds for revocation or suspension of a previously favored person's citrus fruit dealer's license pursuant to 601.56(4), F.S., 601.64(6), F.S., 601.64(7), F.S., and/or 601.67(1), F.S. The Florida Department of Citrus will not oppose the timely intervention of persons who previously enjoyed the subject exemption that wish to present a claim to the Court in the Tampa Juice Service, Inc., et al v. Florida Department of Citrus. However, the Florida Department of Citrus does not waive any argument regarding the validity of the calculation of the tax liability or that imposition of this tax is constitutional. Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. History-- New . The Final Order in Peace River held that the Proposed Rules were not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, for reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law below. Judge Maloney has yet to rule on the backward-looking remedy proposed by the Department. On March 26, 2003, Judge Maloney entered an order extending until May 1, 2003, the time for interested parties to file motions to intervene with regard to the Department's proposed backward-looking relief. The order noted that the parties have stipulated to the suspension of the back tax as to plaintiffs and objecting non-parties until further order of the court. On February 19, 2003, Judge Maloney entered an "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment-- Import-Export." The sole issue before Judge Maloney was "whether Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, (the 'Equalization Tax'), as it existed in 1997, violates Article I, Section 10, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States (the 'Import- Export Clause')." (Emphasis in original) After setting forth the standard for analysis of whether a taxing scheme violates the Import-Export Clause under Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276, 96 S. Ct. 535, 46 L.Ed.2d 495 (1976), Judge Maloney ruled as follows: It is precisely [the exemption for United States products found in 601.155(5), Florida Statutes] that causes the 1997 Equalization Tax to contravene the Import-Export Clause. Specifically, the court finds that because the statute exempts "citrus fruit grown within the United States," but does not exempt citrus fruit grown in foreign countries, the exemption causes the tax to "fall on imports as such simply because of their place of origin." Michelin, 423 U.S. at 286. Additionally, because the tax falls on foreign-grown citrus as such simply because of its origin but does not fall on domestic-grown citrus, the Equalization Tax, with the exemption, creates a "special tariff or particular preference for certain domestic goods." Id. (i.e. California, Arizona, and Texas citrus products). * * * In conclusion, because the court finds the exemption contained within the 1997 Equalization Tax violates both the first and third elements of the Michelin test,1 the court finds the 1997 Equalization Tax violates Article I, Section 10, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States (the "Import-Export Clause"). On March 31, 2003, Judge Maloney entered an "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment." In this order, Judge Maloney found that the box tax itself, Section 601.15, Florida Statutes, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioners and Intervenor in the instant case are licensed citrus fruit dealers regulated by Chapter 601, Florida Statutes. As such, they are subject to the rules of the Department. Petitioners and Intervenor buy, sell, and manufacture citrus juices. They shipped products made with non- Florida U.S. juice during the tax period without paying equalization taxes. Petitioners and Intervenor have been notified by the Department that they are liable to pay back taxes pursuant to the Proposed Rules, as well as the invalid Emergency Rules.
The Issue Whether the Respondent Carlyn R. Kulick, d/b/a Carlyn's, failed to pay amounts owing to the Petitioner for the shipment of citrus fruit, as set forth in the Complaint dated April 30, 2001, and, if so, the amount the Petitioner is entitled to recover.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Spyke's Grove and Carlyn's were "citrus fruit dealers" licensed by the Department. As part of its business, Carlyn's sells to its retail customers "gift fruit" consisting of oranges and grapefruit for shipment to third persons identified by the customers. Carlyn R. Kulick is the owner of Carlyn's and acted on its behalf with respect to the transactions that are the subject of this proceeding. Spyke's Grove is in the business of packaging and shipping "gift fruit" consisting of oranges and grapefruit pursuant to orders placed by other citrus fruit dealers. Barbara Spiece is the president of Spyke's Grove and acted on its behalf with respect to the transactions that are the subject of this proceeding. In November and December 1999, Spyke's Grove received a number of orders for "gift fruit" from Carlyn's. Most of the orders were for single shipments of fruit. One order was for six monthly shipments of fruit. This was the first year Carlyn's had done business with Spyke's Grove, and Carlyn's and Spyke's Grove did not execute a written contract governing their business relationship. On the night of Sunday, December 12, 1999, the Spyke's Grove's packinghouse was destroyed by fire, and its offices were substantially damaged. The fire could not have happened at a worse time because it was at the peak of the holiday fruit- shipping season. Spyke's Grove was able to move into temporary offices and to obtain the use of another packinghouse very quickly. It had telephone service at approximately noon on Tuesday, December 14, 1999, and it began shipping "gift fruit" packages on Friday, December 17, 1999, to fill the orders it had received. Carlyn R. Kulick, the owner of Carlyn's, learned of the fire at Spyke's Grove and attempted to contact the Spyke's Grove offices for an update on the orders Carlyn's had placed for shipment during the holidays. Mr. Kulick was unable to contact anyone at Spyke's Grove for three or four days after the fire, and he was worried that his customers' orders for "gift fruit" would not be shipped on time. Mr. Kulick called another packinghouse and placed orders duplicating some of the orders Carlyn's had placed with Spyke's Grove. Meanwhile, Spyke's Grove was giving priority to its smaller wholesale customers such as Carlyn's, and it shipped all of the orders it had received from Carlyn's. Carlyn's did not cancel its orders with Spyke's Grove or otherwise notify Spyke's Grove that it should not ship the fruit; Mr. Kulick assumed that Spyke's Grove would contact him if it intended to ship the fruit ordered by Carlyn's. Spyke's Grove sent numerous invoices and statements of account to Carlyn's Regarding the gift fruit at issue here. According to the statement of account dated June 1, 2001, as of that date Carlyn's owed Spyke's Grove $1,069.78 for the gift fruit at issue here. Most of the invoices to Carlyn's that were submitted by Spyke's Grove contain the following: "Terms: Net 14 days prompt payment is expected and appreciated. A 1½% monthly service charge (A.P.R. 18% per annum) may be charged on all past due accounts. . . ." Relying on this language, Spyke's Grove also seeks to recover a monthly service charge for each month that Carlyn's account was past due. Carlyn's does not dispute Spyke's Grove's claim that $1,069.78 worth of "gift fruit" was shipped by Spyke's Grove pursuant to orders Carlyn's placed in November and December 1999. Carlyn's' basic position is that it need not pay Spyke's Grove for the fruit because Spyke's Grove did not notify it after the December 12, 1999, fire that it would ship the orders and because Carlyn's had to make sure that its customers' orders were filled. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Carlyn's was, at the times material to this proceeding, a Florida- licensed and bonded citrus fruit dealer; that, in November and December 1999, Carlyn's submitted orders to Spyke's Grove for the shipment of "gift fruit" consisting of oranges and grapefruit; that Spyke's Grove shipped all of the "gift fruit" ordered by Carlyn's in November and December 1999; that the price of the "gift fruit" shipped by Spyke's Grove pursuant to Carlyn's' orders totaled $1,069.78; and that Spyke's Grove timely filed its complaint alleging that Carlyn's failed to promptly pay its indebtedness to Spyke's Grove for citrus products shipped pursuant to orders placed by Carlyn's. Spyke's Grove is, therefore, entitled to payment of the principal amount of $1,069.78, plus pre-judgment interest. Based on the date of the last invoice which contained a charge for any of the gift fruit at issue here, the prehearing interest would run from May 1, 2000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order ordering Carlyn R. Kulick, d/b/a Carlyn's, to pay $1,069.78 to Spyke's Grove, Inc., d/b/a Fresh Fruit Express, Emerald Estate, Nature's Classic, together with pre-judgment interest calculated at the rate specified in Section 55.03, Florida Statutes, on the amounts owing. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2001, 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 1st day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlyn R. Kulick, Owner Carlyn's 1601 Fifth Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Barbara Spiece, President Spyke's Grove, Inc. 7250 Griffin Road Davie, Florida 33314 Western Surety Company Post Office Box 5077 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 541 East Tennessee Street India Building Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Based upon the foregoing and in consideration of Pitts' failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, the following Findings of Fact are made in this matter: On or about December 12, 2007, J2J filed a form entitled, "Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Political Committees and Electioneering Communication Organizations" with the Florida Division of Elections (the "Division"). The form designated Pitts as the chairman and treasurer of J2J. The Division then sent Pitts a letter dated December 14, 2007, providing directions concerning the filing of a Committee Campaign Treasurer's Report ("Report") by J2J in accordance with the campaign financing requirements set forth in chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2007). Pitts received the letter from the Division. By letter dated April 13, 2009, the Division notified Pitts that J2J had failed to file the Report which had been due on April 10, 2009. Pitts received the letter from the Division concerning the overdue Report. The Division sent a follow-up letter to Pitts dated April 27, 2009, concerning the delinquent Report. Pitts received the letter from the Division. As of the date of its Motion for Summary Final Order, the Division had not received the Report from Pitts. J2J is in violation of the campaign financing requirements for political committees in Florida. The Division deems Pitts' failure to file the Report for J2J to be a willful violation of the Florida campaign financing laws.
The Issue Whether respondent violated Section 498.023, Florida Statutes, by offering or disposing of an interest in subdivided lands (Pinecrest Estates) without first registering it or delivering a public offering statement to the purchasers and, if so, what penalty should be assessed or affirmative action ordered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter an order assessing a $10,000 civil penalty against respondent for its violation of Chapter 498 Florida Statutes; requiring respondent to fully disclose the adverse features of the Pinecrest Estates property to each of its prior purchasers, such disclosure to be accomplished in a manner approved by the Division; requiring respondent to offer and make full refunds to its prior purchasers who desire a refund, such refunds to be made in a manner approved by the Division and conditioned only on reconveyance of the land to the respondent or recission of the agreement for deed; and requiring respondent to record in the official records of St. Johns County, Florida, all outstanding agreements for deeds covering lots belonging to prior purchasers who, after disclosure, choose not to request refunds. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent's, Department of Citrus, proposed changes to Rules 20-71.005, 20-71.006, and 20-72.009, Florida Administrative Code, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In Florida, all citrus processing plant operations are under continuous inspection by USDA inspectors as a result of a Cooperative Agreement, which has an effective date of July 1, 1968, between the Consumer and Marketing Services (now known as Agricultural Marketing Services), the USDA, and the Florida Department of Agriculture (now known as Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services). By its terms, the Cooperative Agreement contemplates that the State of Florida agency (Respondent herein) may develop standards for processed citrus products under authority granted by Florida state law. As such, Respondent establishes policy and the USDA implements the policy established by Respondent. Since 1949, Chapter 601, Florida Statutes (the "Florida Citrus Code"), has vested Respondent with general and specific legislative authority to inspect, grade, develop minimum quality and maturity standards, and to do myriad other things to ensure the quality of processed citrus products. In addition, the Florida citrus industry has implemented internal quality control testing and standards in an effort to instill consumer confidence in Florida citrus products. Not unlike many other segments of commerce, the Florida citrus industry has evolved from small, local operators to large multi-state conglomerates. Innovation and consolidation has resulted in new products, production techniques, and citrus processing methodology. Where bulk concentrate was stored in 55-gallon drums in the 1950s, it is now stored in 100,000-gallon tanks, and can be transported in huge container trailers towed by semi-tractors. As the Florida citrus industry has changed, so too has governmental and internal testing for product wholesomeness, maturity, grade, and safety. Upon delivery to a citrus processing plant, all citrus fruit is tested for wholesomeness and maturity before it is processed. This initial inspection is accomplished by the arbitrary selection of approximately 38-45 pounds of citrus from throughout a 500-box load. If the citrus passes this initial testing, it proceeds to be processed. Processed citrus product is later tested for grade and, finally, undergoes microbial, pathogen, and safety testing by the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, processors undertake private testing to assure particular quality assurance. In 2001, the Florida Legislature repealed Subsection 601.48(1), Florida Statutes, and, as a result, deleted the statutory requirement for inspections of grade standards in registered citrus processing plants. The repeal of Subsection 601.48(1), Florida Statutes, eliminated legislative direction for a grade inspection; however, there remained other inspection requirements. Section 601.49, Florida Statutes, provides that it is unlawful for any person to sell or transport canned or concentrated products unless the same has been inspected and accompanied by a certificate of inspection or manifest indicating that an inspection has taken place. Subsection 601.48(3), Florida Statutes, exempts intrastate shipment of processed citrus products between licensed citrus fruit dealers who operate processing plants from grade labeling requirements. In 2000, Respondent, by Rule 20-71.005, Florida Administrative Code, established manifest requirements and statements for in-state transport of processed citrus products between registered facilities owned by the same processor. This was the precursor to the proposed rule changes, which are the subject of this rule challenge. Proposed Rule 20-71.005, Florida Administrative Code, allows the intrastate transport of bulk processed citrus products between registered facilities, eliminating the requirement that both facilities be owned by the same individual or entity and establishes informational requirements for the shipping manifest. One of the informational requirements for the shipping manifest established in the proposed rule is a certified statement that "the processed citrus products are being transported in bulk as processor grade." "Processor grade" is a new designation. Proposed Rule 20-71.006, Florida Administrative Code, establishes manifest requirements for transport of processed citrus products with the exception of bulk processed citrus product shipments specified in Rule 20-71.009, Florida Administrative Code. Proposed Rule 20-71.009, Florida Administrative Code, authorizes an inspector to issue a certificate of processor grade, which reflects that the bulk processed citrus product has been inspected for wholesomeness and maturity and ensures that the bulk processed citrus product will be inspected and/or re- graded before final shipment. The proposed rules reflect changes that are taking place in citrus processing methodology; the rule changes ensure that inspection as required by Section 601.49, Florida Statutes, takes place.
The Issue Whether Respondent, The Citrus Store, a citrus fruit dealer, owes Petitioner, Hutchinson Groves, Inc., a grower of Florida citrus products, a sum of money for citrus fruit harvested from Petitioner's groves. SUMMARY DISPOSITION On or about December 16, 2003, Petitioner, Hutchinson Groves, Inc., filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the "Department"), alleging that Respondent, The Citrus Store, owes Petitioner the sum of $27,117.59, for oranges harvested from Petitioner's groves by Respondent pursuant to a written contract. Respondent conceded that it owed some lesser amount to the owner of the groves in question. However, the matter was complicated by the fact that, subsequent to the execution of the contract with Respondent, Petitioner had sold those groves to a third party who also asserted a claim to the proceeds from the sale of the fruit to Respondent. The matter was the subject of litigation in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Highlands County (Case No. GC-02-587), which caused the Department to delay forwarding the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings until December 2, 2005. The case was assigned to the undersigned and set for hearing on February 2, 2006. The hearing was convened as scheduled. Prior to the taking of testimony, the parties discussed settlement of the matter. At the conclusion of their discussions, the parties stipulated: that the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties thereto pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2005); that, at all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was a "producer" pursuant to Subsection 601.03(29), Florida Statutes; that, at all times relevant to this proceeding, The Citrus Store was a "citrus fruit dealer" pursuant to Subsection 601.03(8), Florida Statutes; that Respondent owes Petitioner $27,117.59 for the oranges harvested from Petitioner's groves; and that no interest would be sought or assessed against Respondent on the principal amount owing to Petitioner. Based on the foregoing stipulations, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered requiring Respondent, The Citrus Store, to pay to Petitioner, Hutchinson Groves, Inc., the principal sum of $27,117.59, without interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 8th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Alves Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 87 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 William Hutchinson Hutchinson Groves, Inc. 1323 Edgewater Point Drive Sebring, Florida 33870 Clifford R. Rhoades, Esquire Clifford R. Rhoades, P.A. 227 North Ridgewood Drive Sebring, Florida 33870 Anthony W. Surber, Esquire Harbsmeier, DeZayas, Harden & DeBari, L.L.P. 5116 South Lakeland Drive Lakeland, Florida 33813 Chris Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Division of Marketing 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is liable for sales tax, interest, and penalties as alleged by the Department of Revenue (Department).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Petitioner is a Florida corporation formed in October 2004. The principal office and mailing address of the Petitioner is 518 North Tampa Street, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 33602. The directors of the corporation are Brenda Dohring and Robert Hicks (husband and wife), and Joshua Dohring (their son). Brenda Dohring and Robert Hicks are residents of Tampa, Florida, and registered voters in Hillsborough County. Brenda Dohring and Robert Hicks hold Florida driver's licenses. Joshua Dohring is a resident of the United States Virgin Islands, where he operates a charter boat business. On November 8, 2004, the Petitioner purchased, in St. Petersburg, Florida, a 36-foot catamaran sailboat (hull No. QPQ0000D089) for $113,000. On November 15, 2004, the Petitioner purchased, in St. Petersburg, Florida, an inflatable tender with outboard motor and accessories (hull No. XMO18119G405) for $4,865. The catamaran and tender were purchased for the use of Joshua Dohring in his charter boat business in the Virgin Islands. They were to replace his previous boat that was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan. Because Joshua Dohring did not have sufficient financial resources or credit, Brenda Dohring and Robert Hicks decided to make the purchases for him. They created the Petitioner corporation to purchase and own the catamaran and tender because they wanted protection from personal liability that might arise from Joshua Dohring's use of the vessels in the Virgin Islands. At the time of each purchase, Joshua Dohring was provided a Department affidavit form to be completed and filed with the Department to claim exemption from sales tax. Joshua Dohring indicated the name of the Petitioner corporation on the affidavit forms along with the names of the corporation's directors. The Department's affidavit form for sales tax exemption includes several statements that the affiant must attest to, including the following: 4. I represent a corporation which has no officer or director who is a resident of, or makes his or her permanent place of abode in Florida. David Erdman, a licensed yacht broker in Florida who assisted Joshua Dohring in the purchase of the catamaran and tender, believed that the purchases were exempt from Florida sales tax because Joshua Dohring was not a Florida resident and was going to remove the vessels from Florida. Mr. Erdman did not understand that, because the purchaser was not Joshua Dohring, but a Florida corporation, the sales tax exemption did not apply. Mr. Erdman advised Joshua Dohring that the purchases were exempt from Florida sales tax. There is no evidence in the record, and the Department did not allege, that the Petitioner intended to defraud the State. On this record, it is clear that the Petitioner's directors were simply mistaken in their belief that the purchases of the boats were exempt from Florida sales tax, based primarily on the erroneous advice of Mr. Erdman. The Department made a routine investigation after its receipt of the sales tax exemption affidavits signed by Mr. Dohring and determined that the exemption did not apply because the Petitioner is a Florida corporation with directors who are residents of Florida. In January 2005, the Department notified the Petitioner of its billing for the sales tax due on the boat purchases, plus penalty and interest, totaling $8,474.67. An informal conference regarding the billing was requested by the Petitioner, and a conference was held in an attempt to resolve the matter. Subsequently, the Department's Final Assessment was issued on January 23, 2005, indicating tax, penalty, and interest totaling $9,229.26. Because of the circumstances indicating that the Petitioner's failure to pay was due to a mistake and bad advice, the Department proposes to eliminate the penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue an final order: finding that the Petitioner's purchases of the catamaran and inflatable tender are subject to sales tax; and assessing sales tax of six percent on the purchases; and imposing interest on the taxes until paid; and imposing no penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 22nd day of September, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, acting on behalf of June Rosacker, is entitled, pursuant to Chapter 717, Florida Statutes, to the $37,281.25 in the Department of Banking and Finance's (Department's) Unclaimed Property Account Number 00963-1981- 00026, which was derived from the Department's sale of five $5,000.00 Florida Development Commission Sunshine Skyway Revenue Bonds, numbers 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, and 2118, that Gulfstream Bank, N. A., had turned over to the Department as unclaimed property.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement the "Stipulated Facts" set forth in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation: June Rosacker (Mrs. Rosacker) is the widow of Richard Rosacker (Mr. Rosacker). She and her late husband were married for 38 years before he passed away on October 11, 1995. Mr. and Mrs. Rosacker lived in a residence on the premises of Floral Acres, a commercial nursery located at 109 Northeast 17th Street in Delray Beach from 1961 until 1978. It was their first marital residence. Mr. Rosacker was the Vice President of Operations of Floral Acres until 1969, when he resigned his position. Mr. Rosacker's resignation coincided with his cousin, Arthur Rosacker, Jr. (Arthur Jr.), succeeding Arthur Rosacker Sr. (Arthur Sr.), Arthur Jr.'s father and Mr. Rosacker's uncle, as President of Floral Acres. Mr. Rosacker and Arthur Jr. did not get along with each other as well as Mr. Rosacker and Arthur Sr. did. Mr. Rosacker started his own business in 1970. Arthur Sr. executed his Last Will and Testament (Arthur Sr.'s Will) in 1971. Mr. Rosacker was not named a beneficiary in Arthur Sr.'s Will. Arthur Sr. passed away on April 4, 1978. Sometime in the 1970's, Mr. Rosacker received at his and Mrs. Rosacker's Floral Acres residence correspondence from a bank, which was not Mr. and Mrs. Rosacker's "regular bank," advising Mr. Rosacker that the bank was holding $25,000.00 in "funds" in his name. 1/ Mr. Rosacker thought "the bank must have made a mistake." He had no knowledge of the "funds" which were the subject of the bank's correspondence. Mr. Rosacker went to the bank (which was located in Boca Raton) for the purpose of letting the bank know that the "funds" were not his. Upon his return, he told Mrs. Rosacker that had taken care of the matter by telling the bank "it was not his money, he didn't put any money in the bank, and he knew nothing about it." In 1981, Boca Raton-based Gulfstream Bank, N.A. 2/ (Gulfstream) reported to the Department that it was holding as unclaimed property five $5,000.00 Florida Development Commission Sunshine Skyway Revenue Bonds, numbers 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, and 2118, (Bonds in Question) that had been left in a safe deposit box, number 3228, rented in the name of a "Richard Rosacker" whose address was not "on file" at the bank. 3/ Gulfstream's report to the Department further indicated that the "date of [the] last transaction" involving safe deposit box number 3228 was May 5, 1971. On this date, according to the report, the lessor of the box was Fort Lauderdale-based American National Bank and Trust Company (which subsequently merged with Gulfstream). The bonds were remitted to the Department, which sold them for a total of $37,281.25. At no time did either Mr. or Mrs. Rosacker rent a safe deposit box from American National Bank and Trust Company or Gulfstream. At no time did either Mr. or Mrs. Rosacker purchase Florida Development Commission Sunshine Skyway Revenue Bonds. On May 18, 1984, Mr. Rosacker executed a Declaration of Trust, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: ARTICLE I TRUST CORPUS This Trust shall consist of the original TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) contribution and additional assets may be contributed by me or by any other person. All trust assets shall be listed on the SCHEDULE OF ASSETS attached hereto, may be comprised of property of any kind and character, including insurance benefits of any nature, and may be added by inter vivos or testamentary transfer, or otherwise at my demise. Any asset registered in the name of the Trust or Trustee 4/ shall be presumed to be a part of this Trust, whether such asset is listed on the SCHEDULE OF ASSETS or omitted therefrom, it being my intent to expand rather than restrict the list of assets held in this Trust. . . . ARTICLE V DISPOSITION AT SETTLOR'S DEMISE-RESIDUARY TRUST PROVISIONS If my wife, JUNE WEBB ROSACKER, survives me, I direct my Trustee to fund into "Trust B" provided under paragraph B the largest amount, if any, that can pass free of Federal estate tax under this instrument by reason of the unified credit and the state death tax credit, reduced by property passing outside this instrument which does not qualify for the marital or charitable deduction in computing Grantor's federal estate tax. The values as finally fixed for Federal estate tax purposes shall govern the funding of this Trust. The balance of my estate I give outright to my wife, June Webb Rosacker. . . . ARTICLE VI APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEE . . . Upon my demise my wife, JUNE WEBB ROSACKER and my friend, MARVIN SALINE, shall be appointed the Trustees of all shares of this Trust. Should MARVIN SALINE be unable to serve as Trustee, my brother, HANS DONALD ROSACKER shall be appointed Trustee. . . . Should neither of the foregoing be able to serve as Trustee with my spouse then she shall appoint as Trustee a corporate fiduciary. The "Declaration of Trust's" "Schedule of Assets" was left blank. On September 23, 1988, Mr. Rosacker executed an Amendment to Trust Agreement, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: I hereby amend Article VI, Paragraph A to provide that if my spouse cannot serve as Trustee, then my daughters, JANICE and ELLEN, shall serve as Trustees, or either shall serve as sole trustee if one cannot serve. I then amend Paragraph B to appoint my spouse and my daughters, JANICE and ELLEN, (or either if one cannot serve) as Co-Trustees at my demise. I therefore revoke all reference to MARVIN SALINE and HANS DONALD ROSACKER as potential Trustees, . . . . On May 18, 1984, the same day he executed the Declaration of Trust, Mr. Rosacker also executed a Last Will and Testament, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: ARTICLE III I give to my beloved wife, JUNE WEBB ROSACKER, in fee, all clothing, jewelry, household goods, personal effects, automobiles and other tangible personal property not otherwise specifically bequeathed by Will, Codicil or Separate Writing, except cash on hand, owned by me at the time of my death. . . . ARTICLE V All the rest, residue and remainder of the property which I may own at the time of my death, real, personal and mixed, tangible and intangible, of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situated, including all property which I may acquire or become entitled to after the execution of this Will, . . . , I bequeath and devise to the Trustee of that Trust Agreement executed by me on , 1984, said assets to be held IN TRUST as part of the Trust Estate as that term is used in said Trust Agreement as further amended at time prior to my death. . . . ARTICLE VI I hereby appoint my wife, JUNE WEBB ROSACKER, to be my Personal Representative of this my Last Will and Testament. . . . Fred Goodman is a Florida-licensed private investigator who does business as Eyes and Ears Investigative Services. He has been "involved in abandoned property matters" for the past nine years. In February of 1994, Mr. Goodman visited Mr. and Mrs. Rosacker at their home in Oveido, Florida, to seek authorization to file a claim with the Department, on behalf of Mr. Rosacker, to recover the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds in Question. Mr. Rosacker declined to give Mr. Goodman such authorization. He told Mr. Goodman that, although he believed that the bonds "were put in the bank for him by his uncle," Arthur Sr., "it was a situation in which he was not going to be able to prove that he owned the funds" and that therefore it would be a "waste of time" for him to pursue the matter. Following Mr. Rosacker's death in 1995, Mr. Goodman entered into an agreement with Mrs. Rosacker in which Mrs. Rosacker agreed to "appoint Eyes and Ears Investigative Services . . . an irrevocable Limited Power of Attorney to proceed on [her] behalf in accordance with [the recovery of the $37,281.25 in assets described in the agreement]; [and] to perform any and all acts, including but not limited to the execution of any and all documents, for and on behalf of [her], as may be required in order to effect the recovery and disbursement of said assets to Eyes and Ears Investigative Services Escrow Account." The agreement provided that, "for full compensation of its Services," Eyes and Ears Investigative Services would be "assigned a fee of 30% [of] said assets." Although it has been almost six years since Mr. Rosacker has passed away, his Last Will and Testament has not yet been probated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's claim that Mrs. Rosacker is entitled to the proceeds of the Bonds in Question. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2001, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 2001.
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether Respondent violated Article II, Section 8(e), Florida Constitution, by personally representing his private employer for compensation before the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority while serving as a State Senator. After admissions and stipulation of the parties, the single issue of law and fact is whether the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority is a "state agency" for purposes of Article II, Section 8(e), Florida Constitution.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George Stuart, served as State Senator from District 14, the Orlando area, from 1978 until November 1990. On September 22, 1986, Respondent was hired by the brokerage firm, Drexel Burnham Lambert, to serve in the company's municipal bond finance division. He served as vice president of the division until December 29, 1989. Respondent was compensated for his services, which services included calling on clients to explain how Drexel Burnham could assist in their bond issues and to urge the issuer to select Drexel Burnham as an underwriter. The Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA, or Authority) was created in 1983 by section 348.753, F.S. It has five members, three of whom are appointed by the Governor; the fourth member is chair of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, and the fifth member is the district secretary for the Department of Transportation for the district which includes Orange County. OOCEA is limited in its operation to Orange County. Its budget has no legislative oversight and it is not operated with state funds appropriated to meet its budget. Tolls collected by the Authority are used for construction, financing and operation of its expressway system. Once built, the roads are operated and maintained by the Department of Transportation. OOCEA members are required to file financial disclosure statements. OOCEA participates in the Florida Retirement System. Bonds issued by the OOCEA are tax exempt. The Authority's General Counsel, J. Fennimore Cooper, advised that the Florida Constitution requires legislative approval for revenue bond issues; and in 1986, he sent a letter to Respondent seeking assistance in obtaining the necessary appropriations proviso language to approve various projects of the Authority. In 1988 when OOCEA decided to issue bonds to finance its Central Connector Project, legislative approval was again required and the necessary language was provided by its General Counsel to its registered lobbyist, Bobby Hartnett. The OOCEA received the legislative approval for the project during the Special Session on June 8, 1988. Chapter 88-557, Laws of Florida, containing appropriations act proviso language, includes this section: Section 59. The Orlando-Orange County Ex- pressway Authority is hereby authorized to construct the Central Connector and the Southern Connector of the Expressway System as part of the authority's 20-year capital projects plan. These extensions shall each be financed with revenue bonds issued by the Division of Bond Finance of the Department of General Services on behalf of the author- ity pursuant to s. 11, Art. VII of the State Constitution and the State Bond Act, ss. 2156.57-215.83, Florida Statutes. Respondent met with the chairman of the OOCEA to express Drexel Burnham's interest in serving as a co-managing underwriter for the issue and to ask for a request for proposal to which Drexel Burnham could respond. Respondent made a similar visit to the executive director of the Authority. A September 23, 1988 contact by Respondent was specifically regarding the Central Connector bond issue. On August 12, 1988, Respondent, as vice president of the Municipal Bond Finance Division and Ander Crenshaw, as first vice president, submitted Drexel Burnham's "Proposal to Serve as Co-Managing Underwriter for the Central Connector Project" to the Authority. Respondent received compensation for all representations he made for Drexel Burnham, including this one. The Authority received twenty-two proposals and ultimately selected nine co-managers, one of which was Drexel Burnham. Drexel Burnham co-managed a small percent of the issue and received $59,940 total compensation. The total amount of the bond issue was $140,600,000.00. The Department of General Services, Division of Bond Finance, served as agent for the OOCEA's 1988 bond issue. In his contacts with OOCEA, Respondent did not consider there was any ethical proscription. He avoided Cabinet-level bond issues and called on cities, hospital districts, or airport authorities. He considered OOCEA a similar local agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics issue its Final Order and Public Report finding that Respondent, George Stuart, violated Article II, Section 8(e), Florida Constitution, by representing Drexel Burnham Lambert before the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority for compensation while serving as State Senator. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dexter Douglass, Esquire Post Office Box 1674 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1674 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
