The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether a county which operated a motor vehicle inspection station under the now defunct program is entitled to a cash refund of moneys that the county collected from motorists who were tardy in having their automobiles inspected. Alachua County contends that these fees were collected by the county to be held in escrow by DHSMV. With the demise of the inspection system, the county contends that the proceeds should be returned to the county. Both Respondents contend that the county is not entitled to any such funds and that there is no statutory authority for either DHSMV or the Comptroller to make such a refund.
Findings Of Fact The parties entered into a stipulation of facts. While issues remained between the parties as to precise monetary amounts, these issues are not pertinent to the facts deemed relevant for the purposes of this Recommended Order. Accordingly, the findings of fact set out in the stipulation are hereby adopted as the Findings of Fact in this Recommended Order. The parties' stipulation is attached to this Recommended Order as Appendix I and is incorporated into the Recommended Order as fully as if it were set out herein. The paragraphs which follow constitute a summary of the factual findings for the sake of clarity. A motor vehicle inspection program was established in Florida in 1967. See: Chapter 67-301, Laws of Florida. DHSMV was in charge of administering the program. Alachua County operated one motor vehicle inspection station in the county. The station was licensed by DHSMV in July, 1968, and operated continuously until the motor vehicle inspection program was terminated on September 30, 1981. When a motorist had his or her vehicle successfully inspected at the Alachua County station, the county would place an inspection certificate on the vehicle. The county collected a fee for the inspection service. The certificate was purchased from DHSMV at a cost of 40 cents per certificate. Certificates were ordered by the county in bulk, typically on an annual basis. In accordance with Section 325.24, Florida Statutes, Alachua County would collect a delinquent fee of $1.00 from motorists who had their vehicles inspected subsequent to the time required by law. These delinquent fees were forwarded by the county to DHSMV. DHSMV deposited them into the State's general revenue fund. DHSMV maintained a record of the amount of delinquent fees that had been forwarded by the county. When the county ordered inspection certificates, the cost of the certificates was offset by debiting the delinquent fee account. The county was thus able to offset the cost of obtaining inspection certificates through the delinquent fees that it had collected. If the county had not collected sufficient delinquent fees to offset the cost of all certificates that it needed to purchase, the remaining certificates would be purchased with cash. At the end of a calendar year, inspection certificates that had been purchased by the county would become obsolete and unusable. If the county timely returned these certificates to DHSMV, the Department would issue a cash refund to the county for certificates that had been purchased with cash and credit the county's delinquent fee account for certificates that had been purchased by using the account. In 1981, the Florida automobile inspection program was terminated by legislation. See: Chapter 81-212, Laws of Florida. In bringing the program to an end, DHSMV continued to handle returns of unused inspection certificates in the same manner that it had previously. If a county returned unused certificates that had been purchased with cash, a cash refund would be issued. If a county returned certificates that had been purchased through the delinquent fee account, the account would be credited. The delinquent fee accounts became obsolete when the program concluded on September 30, 1981.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent operated a motor vehicle repair shop in Melbourne known as A-New-Carb-O- Tronics. The shop has been registered with the Department since 2004 under registration number MV54037. In December 2005, Janet Shea started having problems with the back hatch of her 2001 Pontiac Aztek. The problems were attributed to the body control module (BCM), which is an electronic device that controls the vehicle's lights, door locks, and window motors. Ms. Shea consulted Respondent about the problems she was having with the Aztek because he had previously done repair work on another one of her vehicles. Respondent told Ms. Shea that he could make the necessary repairs to the BCM, and he picked up the vehicle from Ms. Shea's home to perform the repairs. On January 27, 2006, Ms. Shea paid Respondent $900 for the repairs that he claimed to have done to the BCM. Ms. Shea continued to have the same problems with the back hatch after the vehicle was returned to her by Respondent, so she took it back to Respondent for repairs. On February 14, 2006, Ms. Shea paid Respondent an additional $1,200 for repairs that he claimed to have done to the BCM. Ms. Shea continued to have the same problems with the back hatch after the vehicle was returned to her the second time, so she again took it back to Respondent for repairs. On February 18, 2006, while the vehicle was in Respondent's possession, it was involved in an accident that damaged the fuel pump. Respondent charged Ms. Shea $390 to repair the fuel pump. Ms. Shea continued to have the same problems with the back hatch of the vehicle after Respondent returned it to her the third time at the end of April or beginning of May 2006. At that point, Ms. Shea decided to sell the Aztek, but Respondent convinced her to let him take the car again for another evaluation. Respondent told Ms. Shea that the BCM that he installed must have been defective and that he would replace it under his warranty and that it would cost her nothing. On August 2, 2006, after Respondent failed to return the vehicle and refused to return her calls, Ms. Shea filed a stolen vehicle report with the Melbourne Police Department. During the course of the police investigation, Respondent produced two written invoices for repairs that he purportedly performed with Ms. Shea's authority, including charges for repairs to a 1992 Chrysler LeBaron owned by Ms. Shea's friend, Ron Shultz. Ms. Shea was never given these invoices by Respondent. The first invoice, dated July 13, 2006, was for $1,657. It included $343 of charges for repairs to Mr. Shultz's LeBaron. The remainder of the invoice was for repairs that Respondent claimed to have performed on Ms. Shea's Aztek, including replacement of the BCM. The second invoice, also dated July 13, 2006, detailed the $343 of repairs that Respondent purportedly made to Mr. Shultz's LeBaron. Ms. Shea did not authorize the repairs to Mr. Shultz's vehicle, nor did she authorize the charges for that vehicle to be included on her invoice. The handwritten notations on the invoices, which appear to show that Ms. Shea consented to the repairs, were not written by Ms. Shea, but rather were written by Respondent without Ms. Shea's authority. Ms. Shea did not pay these invoices. Respondent placed a mechanic's lien on Ms. Shea's vehicle for the $1,657 of repairs that he claimed to have performed, but for which Ms. Shea failed to pay. On December 4, 2006, the Circuit Court for Brevard County entered an Order finding the lien to be "wrongful" and declaring it "null and void." On or about December 11, 2006, Ms. Shea recovered her vehicle from Respondent with the assistance of the Melbourne Police Department. Respondent had abandoned the vehicle behind the warehouses near his shop. The vehicle was not in a drivable condition when it was recovered. Respondent had removed belts and other parts that he claimed to have installed on the vehicle. 23. On December 11, 2006, Ms. Shea's vehicle was towed to Lane Pontiac-Buick-GMC (Lane) for an estimate of the repairs needed to make it drivable. The estimate prepared by Lane identified almost $4,400 of necessary repairs, including a new BCM. The estimated charges related to the BCM were approximately $400--$252.46 for parts and $148.42 for labor--which is far less than the $2,100 that Ms. Shea paid Respondent for the repair work that he claimed to have done on the BCM. Ms. Shea filed a complaint with the Department in August 2006 concerning her dealings with Respondent. The complaint was investigated by Garrett Craig Moon, who has approximately eight years of experience investigating motor vehicle repair shops for the Department. On September 21, 2006, Mr. Moon conducted an onsite visit to Respondent's shop. The visit was conducted after 8:00 p.m., because that was during the time Respondent regularly conducted his motor vehicle repair business. During the onsite visit, Mr. Moon requested that Respondent provide the documents supporting any repairs that he made to Ms. Shea's vehicle, including documents showing her authorization for the repairs and receipts for the parts used to complete the repairs. Respondent told Mr. Moon that he did not have the documents at the shop on that date, but he agreed to produce them by fax. Respondent subsequently sent a letter to Mr. Moon by fax, but he did not produce any of the requested records. He told Mr. Moon on December 4, 2006, that he refused to produce any records. Respondent had not produced the motor vehicle repair records for inspection by the Department as requested by Mr. Moon as of the date of the final hearing. On seven separate occasions, Ms. Shea paid Respondent for motor vehicle repairs where the cost of the repair work exceeded $100. Those payments included the $900 and $1,200 payments for repairs to the BCM and the $390 payment for the fuel pump, as well as payments for other repairs. The only invoices that Respondent prepared for the work that he allegedly performed for Ms. Shea were those described above dated July 13, 2006. Respondent did not provide written estimates to Ms. Shea for any of the repair work that he allegedly performed, and at no time did Ms. Shea waive the preparation of a written estimate. The invoices described above did not include odometer readings for Ms. Shea's Aztek or Mr. Shultz's LeBaron, a statement indicating whether anything was guaranteed in connection with the repair work, or the registration number for Respondent's motor vehicle repair shop. Respondent did not appear at the final hearing despite having been given due notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing. Respondent operated a motor vehicle repair shop under registration number MV10590 from 1993 to 2001. Respondent has no disciplinary history with the Department. The Department's records identify only one other consumer complaint against Respondent. Mr. Moon's report states that the other complaint was in 1996 and that it was mediated by a Department investigator.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order that: Finds Respondent guilty of violating Sections 559.905(1), 559.911(1), (5), and (6), 559.915(2), and 559.920(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; Imposes an administrative fine of $12,000; and Revokes Respondent's motor vehicle repair shop registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 19th day of May, 2008.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dixie-Southern Constructors, is in the construction business. In connection with its construction business, it operates a 1979 Ford. The Respondent generally registered the vehicle with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) through the Bartow tag agency. When it operated the vehicle as a van, the Respondent declared a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 22,000 pounds. During the early part of 1989, the Respondent converted the vehicle to a haul truck and, on or about May 16, 1989, changed the vehicle's registration to reflect the conversion and to declare a GVW of 43,099 pounds. The change increased the registration fee for the vehicle by approximately $75 for the last seven months of 1989. For reasons not explained by the evidence, the Respondent made this change through the Lakeland tag agency. Also for reasons not explained by the evidence, the Respondent replaced the vehicle's tag. In the normal course of business, the Lakeland tag agency would have reported the May 16, 1989, change to the DHSMV, either through "on-line" computer entries, or by sending the DHSMV a computer tape of transactions undertaken by the tag agency while "off-line." The report would have included the new license tag number, the new GVW and the new vehicle type. This new information would have been included in the registration renewal reminder sent to the Respondent by the DHSMV at the end of 1989. It was not proven that the renewal notice was not sent, as usual, or that it did not contain the correct GVW of 43,099 pounds. The evidence proved only that, instead of renewing, on January 22, 1990, the Respondent again purchased a new tag and registered the vehicle at a GVW of 22,000 pounds again. (The vehicle was registered as a truck, not as a van.) On January 31, 1991, the Respondent renewed the vehicle's registration, again at a GVW of 22,000 pounds. (This time the vehicle was registered as a van instead of as a haul truck.) On November 18, 1991, a DOT compliance officer stopped the Respondent's vehicle as it was being operated on State Road 60 headed east between Mulberry and Bartow. After inspecting the vehicle's registration certificate, the officer suspected that the vehicle exceeded its declared GVW and had the vehicle weighed. The scale indicated a GVW of 49,520. The officer assessed a $1,176.05 fine and impounded the vehicle. The Respondent paid the fine to regain possession of the vehicle. On November 20, 1991, the Respondent again purchased a new tag for the vehicle, declaring a GVW of 54,999 pounds and designating the vehicle as a haul truck. The registration fee for twelve months was $594.10, versus $194.10 for the prior registration, when the declared GVW was 22,000 pounds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order upholding the $1,176.05 fine it assessed against the Respondent in this case. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 9th day of July, 1992. Paul Sexton, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Doris M. Caves Controller Dixie-Southern Constructors Route 2, Box 78A Bowling Green, Florida 33834 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Elyse S. Kennedy Executive Secretary Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact A commercial vehicle owned by Garrett Enterprises of Tampa, Inc. and operated by Respondent Smith entered the weigh station located on I-4 West in Plant City, Hillsborough County, Florida, on August 8, 1991. During the routine inspection, it was discovered that the vehicle's registration had expired on May 31, 1991. The tag on the vehicle clearly bore the expiration date. The statutory legal weight of 35,000 pounds for an expired registration was subtracted from this vehicle's tax class weight of 76,180 pounds to determine the amount by which the vehicle was overweight. A penalty of 5 cents a pound was assessed upon the difference of 41,180 pounds which amounted to a fine of $2,059.00. Respondent Smith has driven commercial vehicles in Florida for seven years. Prior to the registration at issue in this proceeding, he had never purchased an apportioned tag. Although he was originally aware that the apportioned tag he purchased would expire on May 31, 1991, he did not pay attention to the expiration date noted on the tag because he assumed the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles would mail him a renewal notice prior to its expiration. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles does not mail renewal notices to owners of vehicles with apportioned tags. Respondent did not become aware of this variation in the Department's notification policy until after his vehicle was inspected and he had paid the penalty. Respondent had the vehicle registration renewed within ten days after the instant fine was levied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the penalty of $2,059.00 was correctly assessed and denying Respondent's request for a refund or a reduction. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 19th day of October, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Sexton, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Jesse Smith 114-L Mitchell Road Land O' Lakes, FL 34639 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue The only issue remaining in this case is the extent to which the Petitioner, the Department of Transportation (DOT), should penalize the Respondent, Keystone Excavators, Inc. (Keystone), for operating a commercial motor vehicle with an expired vehicle registration and for exceeding the maximum legal weight of 35,000 pounds allowed under Section 316.545, Fla. Stat. (1987).
Findings Of Fact On July 8, 1987, one of Keystone's commercial motor vehicles was operating on Interstate I-4 near Plant City, Hillsborough County, Florida, with a registration that expired on May 31, 1987. According to the DOT scales, the weight of the vehicle, loaded, was 82,520 pounds. The DOT's Form 509-13, Revised 1/86, titled the "Load Report and Field Receipt," specifies that, in subtracting the legal weight from the the scaled weight to determine the amount of overweight, a ten percent tolerance should be added to the legal weight. This is how the DOT interprets and applies the requirement of Section 316.545(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987), that for enforcement purposes, all scaled weights of the gross or axle weight of vehicles and combinations of vehicles shall be deemed to be not closer than 10 percent to the true gross weight. When Keystone last registered the vehicle in question, it obtained a six-month registration instead of an annual registration. As a result, the registration expired May 31, 1987. For some reason, the sticker stating the month of expiration of the registration was not put on the vehicle's registration tag. Through inadvertent oversight, Keystone failed to renew the registration on the vehicle. When the DOT discovered the violation, it fined Keystone $2,376, calculated as 5 cents for each pound the vehicle weighed over 35,000 pounds. Keystone paid the fine under protest, taking the position that the fine was excessive under the circumstances. On the same day, after the DOT citation, Keystone paid a late fee and renewed the vehicle's registration for the period from May 31, 1987, forward. Keystone's evidence proved that Keystone did not intentionally violate the vehicle registration laws in this instance. Keystone does not intentionally violate the applicable laws and attempt to avoid or escape detection of violations. Nor does Keystone conduct business in a reckless or careless manner with respect to compliance with the applicable laws and treat penalties for detected violations as a cost of doing business. Notswithstanding this violation, Keystone generally has a good record for operating safe and properly licensed and permitted vehicles. The violation in this case resulted from an isolated case of inadvertent oversight. Keystone requested that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board (the Review Board) drop or reduce the fine. The Review Board considered Keystone's request on August 13, 1987, and denied it by letter dated August 18, 1987. Keystone then requested a rehearing. The Review Board met on December 8, 1987, and denied rehearing by letter dated December 14, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order reducing the fine against Keystone to $750. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of May, 1991.
The Issue Whether two policy statements issued by Respondent, TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18, are unadopted rules, as defined in section 120.52(20), Florida Statutes, that violate section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.3/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a co-trustee of the Sparkhill Trust (the "Trust"), which was created in July 2009. Opinicus Sentinel, LLC ("Opinicus Sentinel") currently is a co-trustee of the Trust, and has been a trustee of the Trust since its creation. Barbara Williams is the manager of Opinicus Sentinel, and has served in that capacity since its creation.8/ Petitioner was appointed as a trustee of the Trust on October 11, 2016.9/ The Trust owns a 2001 Porsche 996/911 Turbo motor vehicle (hereinafter, "Vehicle"). Solely for purposes of this proceeding,10/ the Vehicle Identification Number ("VIN") of the Vehicle is WP0ZZZ99Z1S682830, as alleged in the Amended Petition. As of the final hearing, the Vehicle was located in Germany. During all times relevant to this proceeding, the Vehicle was located in a foreign country. Respondent is the state agency responsible for, among other things, implementing and administering chapter 319, Florida Statutes, governing the issuance of certificates of title for motor vehicles. See § 319.17, Fla. Stat. Background and Events Giving Rise to This Proceeding On or about September 30, 2014, Opinicus Sentinel——at that time, the sole trustee of the Trust——submitted an application consisting of completed Form 8204011/ and supporting documentation to the Lee County Tax Collector ("Tax Collector")12/ on behalf of the Trust, requesting issuance of a certificate of title for the Vehicle in the name of the Trust. The application included a letter from a motor vehicle dealer in London, Ontario, Canada, stating that the dealer had inspected the Vehicle and that the Vehicle's VIN is WP0ZZZ99Z1S682830. On or about October 22, 2014, the Tax Collector sent a letter to Ms. Williams, as manager of Opinicus Sentinel, stating that the application for certificate of title could not be processed "because all used vehicles coming into Florida from a foreign country must have the Vehicle Identification Number verified by a Division of Motorist Services Compliance Examiner." When asked for further explanation, the Tax Collector responded by electronic mail ("email"): The Lee County Tax Collector is a Constitutional Office that provides the services of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV). As such, we are bound by both statutory and department procedural guidance. Procedures often are entitled Technical Advisories. The technical advisory relied upon by this office indicates that all used vehicles coming into Florida from a foreign country must have the VIN verified by a Division of Motorist Services Compliance Examiner as referenced in TL-10 in effect on the date the correspondence was drafted. Email from Tax Collector to Barbara Williams, dated October 27, 2014 (emphasis added). This email directed Ms. Williams to contact Respondent if the trustee wished to challenge the denial of the application for certificate of title for the Vehicle. On November 3, 2014, Ms. Williams contacted Respondent, asserting that the Tax Collector's denial of the application for a certificate of title violated section 319.23(3)(a)2, Florida Statutes. Also on that date, Ms. Williams filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing with Respondent on behalf of Opinicus Sentinel, challenging TL-10 as an invalid and unadopted rule pursuant to section 120.56(4).13/ On November 24, 2014, Respondent sent a letter to Ms. Williams, refusing to issue the requested certificate of title. The letter stated: After researching the issue identified in your letter, the Department stands by the decision made by . . . [the Lee County Tax Collector]. Section 319.23(a)(2), Florida Statutes, states that, '[a]n appropriate departmental form evidencing that a physical examination has been made of the motor vehicle by the owner and by a duly constituted law enforcement officer in any state, a licensed motor vehicle dealer, a license inspector as provided by s. 320.58, or a notary public commissioned by this state and that the vehicle identification number shown on such form is identical to the vehicle identification number shown on the motor vehicle. Letter from Respondent to Barbara Williams, dated November 24, 2014 (emphasis added). The letter further stated: However, section 319.23(11), Florida Statutes, states that, '[t]he Department shall use security procedures, processes, and materials in the preparation and issuance of each certificate of title to prohibit to the extent possible a person's ability to alter, counterfeit, duplicate, or modify the certificate of title.' In the case at bar, the Department is choosing to implement the language found in 319.23(11) to ensure that the certificate of title is issued correctly. The Department has the authority to require VIN verifications on vehicles entering the state of Florida from a foreign country before a title can be issued. In subsequent correspondence to Ms. Williams, dated December 18, 2014, Respondent stated: I can only again point you to s. 319.23(11). Since April of 2000 the Department's policy is to require all used vehicles coming into Florida from a foreign country to have the VIN verified by a Motor Vehicle Field Office Compliance Examiner prior to being titled. * * * I have included a copy of the Department's Technical Advisory, TL 14-18, which explains the Department's policy in depth.[14/] On December 18, 2014, Respondent referred Opinicus Sentinel's Petition for Administrative Hearing to DOAH. The case was assigned DOAH Case No. 14-6005. On March 3, 2015, Opinicus Sentinel withdrew the petition, and the DOAH case file for Case No. 14-6005 was closed. Notwithstanding that Case No. 14-6005 was pending at DOAH, on February 25, 2015, Respondent sent Ms. Williams a letter dismissing the previously-filed petition for administrative hearing with leave to file an amended petition. The letter also asserted an additional basis15/ for Respondent's denial of the certificate of title for the Vehicle, specifically: Because the vehicle to be titled is not currently in Florida, clearly the vehicle will not be operated on the roads of Florida. Accordingly, the vehicle cannot be registered in Florida and the titling provisions of Chapter 319, Fla. Stat., do not apply. Therefore, the application for title you submitted to the Lee County Tax Collector pursuant to section 319.23, Fla. Stat. will not be approved. While DOAH Case No. 14-6005 was pending, Stephen J. Williams, as beneficiary of the Trust, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing challenging both TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18 as unadopted and invalid rules pursuant to section 120.56(4). That case was assigned DOAH Case No. 15-0484 and ultimately was dismissed by Final Order dated March 25, 2015.16/ As previously noted, on October 11, 2016, Petitioner was appointed as a co-trustee of the Trust. On October 17, 2016, Petitioner, as a trustee of the Trust, initiated this proceeding by filing a Petition for Administrative Hearing, again challenging both TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18 as unadopted and invalid rules. As noted above, the scope of this proceeding subsequently was narrowed to eliminate the challenge to the substantive invalidity of TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18, so that the sole issue in this proceeding is whether TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18 are unadopted rules that violate section 120.54(1)(a). The Challenged Statements: TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18 TL-10, identified by the Tax Collector as the original basis for denial of issuance of the certification of title for the Vehicle, went into effect on April 30, 2014. The portion of TL-10 pertinent to this proceeding states: IV. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION * * * B. Vehicle identification number (VIN) verifications are to be completed by the applicant. * * * 2. VIN verification may be done by one of the following: * * * c. Florida Division of Motorist Services (DMS) Compliance Examiner, DMS or tax collector employees. * * * NOTE: All USED vehicles coming into Florida from a foreign country, including dealer transactions, MUST have the VIN verified by a DMS Compliance Examiner. Technical Advisory RS/TL 14-18 is titled "Motor Vehicles Coming Into Florida from a Foreign Country." It states in pertinent part: All used vehicles coming into Florida from a foreign country (including dealer transactions) must have the vehicle identification number verified by a Motor Vehicle Field Office Compliance Examiner prior to being titled. * * * The Regional Motor Vehicle Field Office staff will perform an inspection of the vehicle that includes verification of the public VIN, confidential VIN or secondary VIN, manufacturer’s label or letterhead letter that states compliance with US vehicle standards, computer checks of NMVTIS/NICB data-bases, and a review of documentation showing vehicle clearance through US Customs (if applicable). Copies of these documents, including a copy of the completed form HSMV 84044, will be maintained in the regional office. The VIN verification will be completed by the compliance examiner on a form HSMV 84044, in lieu of a form HSMV 82040 or HSMV 82042. The compliance examiner will give the customer the original required documentation (including the original complete form HSMV 84044). The customer must submit all documentation to a tax collector’s office or license plate agency in order for him/her to apply for a Florida Certificate of Title. The undisputed evidence establishes that neither TL-10 nor RS/TL 14-18 have been adopted as rules pursuant to the procedures prescribed in section 120.54. Respondent did not present any evidence showing that rulemaking was not practicable or feasible. Respondent's Position Respondent admitted, in its Amended Responses to Requests to Admissions served on Petitioner on November 21, 2016, that TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18 are intended to be, and are, of general application; that TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18 implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy and/or describe the procedure or practice requirements of Respondent; and that TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18 have not been, and are not published in the Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, Respondent acknowledges that neither TL-10 nor RS/TL 14-18 have been adopted as rules. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner lacks standing to challenge TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18 as unadopted rules. Specifically, Respondent asserts that Petitioner has not suffered a "real or immediate injury in fact" for purposes of having standing because although the Tax Collector and Respondent referred the Trust to TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18 as grounds for denial of the certificate of title, they were not the "ultimate grounds" on which the Trust was denied a certificate of title. On this basis, Respondent asserts that it did not apply TL-10 or RS/TL 14-18 to Petitioner, so Petitioner did not suffer injury as a result of application of these statements. Respondent further asserts that because Petitioner cannot meet the requirements in section 319.23 to be entitled to issuance of a certificate of title for the Vehicle, Petitioner's claimed injury in this proceeding is speculative and hypothetical. To this point, Respondent argues that Petitioner's alleged injury in this proceeding is speculative because the Trust has not satisfied the requirements of section 319.23 for purposes of being entitled to issuance of a certificate of title. Specifically, Respondent argues that because the Vehicle is not physically present in the state of Florida, it is not being operated on the roads of Florida, and because it is not being operated on the roads of Florida, it is not required to be registered or to obtain a certificate of title——and, indeed, cannot be registered and a certificate of title issued until it is physically present in Florida. Accordingly, Respondent reasons, until the Vehicle is physically present in Florida and thus subject to registration and licensure requirements, TL-10 and RS/TL 14-18 were not, and cannot be, applied to determine whether the certificate of title for the Vehicle should be issued. Also on this point, Respondent argues that Petitioner's alleged injury is speculative because Petitioner did not meet the requirement in section 319.23 that a physical examination of the Vehicle be made by the owner and a motor vehicle dealer licensed in the state of Florida. Respondent further asserts that Petitioner's alleged interest does not fall within the zone of interest of this proceeding. Specifically, Respondent argues that because the Vehicle is located in a foreign country, Petitioner is unable to establish that the Vehicle must be registered and a certificate of title issued in Florida. Respondent concludes: Because Petitioner cannot meet the burden of establishing that the motor vehicle in question is required to be licensed and registered in Florida, and because he failed to satisfy the application requirements of section 319.23(3)(a)(2), he cannot meet the burden of establishing that any interest in obtaining a certificate of title for the vehicle in question is within the 'zone of interests' to be protected and regulated.
Findings Of Fact The Parties H. B. Walker, Inc. is in the business of demolition, excavation and land clearing. The company transports heavy equipment to and from job sites and transports debris from job sites and is a commercial motor carrier. The company maintains a terminal for its motor vehicles at 1913 Bruton Boulevard, Orlando, Florida. All commercial motor carriers operating over the public highways in Florida are subject to certain federal regulations governing driver and vehicle safety and record-keeping. Those federal regulations are adopted by reference in the Florida Statutes, which statutes are amended from time to time to address a later version of the federal regulations. The DOT has the authority and responsibility to enforce those safety and record-keeping requirements, which it does, in part, through terminal audits, sometimes called "compliance reviews". The Process On April 18, 1995, after conferring with his supervisor, Officer Terron Lindsey, a seasoned agency motor carrier compliance officer, visited H. B. Walker's terminal and conducted a review of Walker's records. As a result of the review, Officer Lindsey found multiple violations of the record-keeping requirements of 49 CFR, parts 391 and 396. He advised Walker's personnel that he would return in 60 - 90 days and no penalty would be imposed if the violations were corrected. On a follow-up audit on July 12 and 13, 1995, Officer Lindsey found that some, but not all corrections were made. On August 1, 1995, the agency issued to H. B. Walker a Safety Report and Field Receipt stating the violations and citations to the federal rules and assessing penalties in the total amount of $4,000. Officer Lindsey delivered the Safety Report and Field Receipt to Walker's terminal and was told that the penalty would not be paid. Walker did not pay the $4,000, but protested the agency's findings to the Commercial Motor Carrier Board (Board). By 1995 the DOT had some brief experience with conducting terminal audits and assessing penalties for record- keeping violations, but this was the first time that a motor carrier had refused to pay the penalty prior to presenting its protest to the Board. Captain E. A. Brown, Officer Lindsey's supervisor, called the Tallahassee headquarters of DOT's motor carrier compliance office and the DOT's legal office to find out how to proceed. As motor carriers are aware, DOT exercises authority in road-side safety inspections to require immediate payment of any penalty or to impound the vehicle when a compliance officer issues a citation. Based on DOT's existing rules, Chapter 18 of the Motor Carrier Compliance Manual and experience with road-side safety enforcement, Colonel McPherson advised Captain Brown that the agency had authority to impound an H. B. Walker vehicle. After receiving directions from his headquarters, Captain Brown wrote letters to H. B. Walker and orally informed Walker's employee, John Valois, that if the penalty were not paid, a vehicle would be held, consistent with past enforcement actions on non-payment of penalties. On August 28, 1995, at the direction of Captain Brown, Officer Rick Hunter detained one of Walker's vehicles and impounded it at a DOT maintenance yard. In the meantime, after the Board received H. B. Walker's request for a hearing on the violations, the Board's Executive Secretary, Elyse Kennedy, telephoned Walker's counsel and told him that the Board could not hear his case until the penalties were paid, or a bond was posted. Later, after confirming with DOT legal staff, Ms. Kennedy sent a letter advising Walker's counsel that the Board could schedule and hear the case, as the impoundment of a vehicle was equivalent to payment of the penalties or the bond. H. B. Walker's case was scheduled with consultation with Walker's attorney. On the appointed date, when no representative from H. B. Walker appeared, the Board considered written material submitted by Walker's attorney and testimony from Officer Lindsey. The Board notified H. B. Walker of its denial of relief in a letter dated September 15, 199[5]. The letter states in pertinent part: Dear Sir: Pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board at its meeting of July 13, 199[5], carefully reviewed all of the information placed before it and determined that a refund was not appropriate in this case for the following reason. After hearing testimony of Officer Lindsey and Captain E. A. Brown, the Board felt that H. B. Walker, Inc. was not in compliance with CFR 391.51; CFR 391.43; CFR 391.103 and CFR 396.3. Pursuant to Rule 14A-1.012, Florida Administrative Code, you are entitled to request a rehearing in this matter by filing such a request with the Executive Secretary within ten (10) days of the receipt of this letter. Pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, you have the right to either a formal or an informal hearing. A formal hearing will be granted where disputed issues of material fact exist; in other words, where you disagree with the specific facts contained in this letter upon which the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board bases its intent to deny your request for refund. All requests for either type of hearing must be in writing. * * * You are hereby notified that the conclusion contained in this letter shall become final with 21 days of receipt of this letter, unless, you file a written request for an informal or formal Administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings within 21 days. * * * Walker's timely request for a formal hearing tolled the Board's conclusion. The 1995 Rules In 1995, at the time of the H. B. Walker terminal audit and ensuing Board meeting, rules 14A-1.004 and 14A-1.007, Florida Administrative Code, provided, in pertinent part: 14A-1.004 Meetings . . . Only penalties which have been paid or for which a Section 316.545 bond has been posted, will be considered by the Review Board. 14A-1.007 Timely Written Request for Meeting Any person who is aggrieved by the imposition of a civil penalty imposed upon the provisions of section 316.545 or 316.3025, Florida Statutes, after payment of the penalty, or posting a section 316.545, Florida Statutes, bond may request consideration by the Review Board by notifying the Review Board office in writing within 60 days of the date of the penalty notice (Load and Field Receipt Date) that the penalty is being protested and a Review Board consideration is requested . . . . At the relevant period, rules 14-87.011(1) and 14-87.002 provided, in pertinent part: 14-87.011 Definitions * * * "Citation" means: A Load Report and Field Receipt issued to the owner or driver of a commercial motor vehicle for violation of weight and vehicle registration laws: or A Safety Report and Field Receipt issued to the owner or driver of a commercial motor vehicle for violation of safety laws and regulations and permit violations; or The penalty portion of an I. R. P. Trip Permit & Temporary Fuel Use Permit issued to the owner or driver of a commercial motor vehicle in violation of the fuel use tax requirements contained in Chapter 207, Florida Statutes. 14-87.002 Penalties and Fees Due Penalties and fees imposed upon the operations of commercial motor vehicles are due and payable upon the issuance of a citation or a permit. . . The 1996 Amendments On June 7, 1996, DOT published notices of rule-making, proposing to amend various provisions of rule chapters 14-87, 14-108 and 14A-1. On July 16, 1996, the agency filed the amendments to Chapter 14A-1 for adoption, and those amendments became effective August 5, 1996. The amendments to Chapters 14-87 and 14-108, Florida Administrative Code, became effective in September 1996. The cumulative effect of these amendments is to distinguish between the penalty process for road violations and the process for violations found during a terminal audit/compliance review. The amendments provide that a commercial motor carrier who has been assessed penalties for violations found during a terminal audit may obtain a Review Board hearing prior to payment or posting a bond. The amendments also distinguish between a "notice of non- compliance" issued after a terminal audit to advise the carrier of violations and the penalties that will be assessed if the violations are not corrected, and a "notice of violation" which identifies the violations and assesses penalties. DOT's amendments to chapter 14-87, Florida Administrative Code, are, in relevant part, as follows: (Underlined material has been added, material struck through has been deleted.) 14-87.0011 Definitions * * * "Penalty" means a monetary amount prescribed by statute or Department rule as a civil penalty to be assessed administratively for a violation of a commercial motor vehicle law pursuant to the issuance of a citation or a notice of violation. * * * "Notice of Violation" means a notice of violation as defined by Rule 14-108.002(5). * * * 14-87.002 Penalties and Fees Due; Detaining and Impounding Motor Vehicles When Citation or Permit Issued Penalties and fees imposed upon the operations of commercial motor vehicles are due and payable upon the issuance of a citation or a permit. Penalties due under chapter 14-108 are due in accordance rule 14-108.004. All penalties and fees not guaranteed by a Surety Bond must be paid to the officer or inspector issuing the citation or permit or detaining the vehicle for nonpayment of penalties prescribed under rule 14-108.005 prior to further operation of the affected commercial motor vehicle on the roads of this State. Payment may be in cash, by cashier's check or by money order. In the event that payment is not made when payment is due, the motor vehicle will be impounded in accordance with sections 316.3025 or 316.545, Florida Statutes. When a Surety Bond has been properly filed and accepted by the Department, the vehicle will be released upon presenting written evidence of the surety bond to the officer or inspector detaining the vehicle the citation or permit will be issued to the owner or driver of the vehicle, and payment must be remitted to the officer or inspector who issued the citation or permit within ten working days of the release of the vehicle date of issuance. Company checks may be accepted when a proper Surety Bond is on file. In the event that payment is not made within ten working days of release of the vehicle, the Department will take action to recover the penalty amount from the surety bond. Motor vehicles impounded in accordance with this rule will be released upon payment of the penalty or the posting of a bond pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, or upon a determination by the Commercial Motor Carrier Review Board to cancel or revoke the penalty or upon the issuance of a Department order setting aside the penalty as the result of a proceeding held pursuant to section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Motor vehicles released as a result of the posting of a bond under section 316.545, Florida Statutes, remain subject to the lien imposed by that statute. The Department's amendments to chapter 14-108, Florida Administrative Code, are, in relevant part, as follows: 14-108.002 Definitions * * * "Notice of Noncompliance" means a notice issued to a motor carrier that advises the motor carrier of violations found during a terminal audit/compliance review and identifies the penalties that will be assessed if the violations are not corrected within 60 days of receipt of the notice. "Notice of Violation" means a written notice which identifies violations of safety laws and regulations found during the conduct of a terminal audit/compliance review and assesses penalties pursuant to these rules. Such a notice will be issued after violations are found and penalties are to be assessed under this Chapter. (5) "Penalty" means a monetary amount prescribed by statute as a civil penalty to be assessed administratively for violation(s) of safety laws and regulations found during the conduct of a terminal audit/compliance review. (6) "Terminal Audit" or "Compliance Review" means an onsite investigation at a motor carrier's terminal or office of property carrier or passenger carrier records such a driver's hours of service, maintenance and inspection, driver qualification, commercial drivers license requirements, financial responsibility, accidents and other safety and business records to determine compliance with the safety laws and regulation. The investiga- tion will compliance review may result in the initiation of an enforcement action to include the assessment of the applicable penalty(ies) prescribed by statute and this rule chapter. 14-108.003 Applicability; Compliance Required * * * Any person or motor carrier who operates or causes or permits nonpublic- sector buses to be operated on any road, street, or highway open to travel by the public in the transportation of passengers shall be in compliance with the applicable safety laws and regulations contained in section 316.70, Florida Statutes, and Title 49 C.F.R. Parts 382, 385 and 390 through 397 301, 393, 394 and 396. Any person or motor carrier found to be in violation of these rules during the conduct of a terminal audit or compliance review shall be subject to the penalties herein described. The penalties prescribed by rule 14-108.105 will be waived and a notice of violation will not be issued if, as a result of the first terminal audit or compliance review conducted of a Motor Carrier, the Motor Carrier corrects the described violations within 60 days after receipt of a written notice of noncompliance. Penalties for the following violations will not be waived under the above provision, even if they are found during the first terminal audit or compliance review and are corrected immediately. Failure to comply with controlled substance testing requirements Exceeding driver hours of service. Violations involving hazardous materials. Lack of valid commercial driver's licenses, including revoked, suspended or cancelled licenses. 14-108.004 Administration: Enforcement. All penalties imposed and collected in accordance with these rules shall be paid to the treasurer, who shall credit the total amount collected to the State Trans- portation Trust Fund in accordance with section 316.3025(5)(b), Florida Statutes. Penalties assessed as a result of a terminal audit are due and shall be paid no later than ten working days after receipt of the notice of violation, unless a timely appli- cation is made to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board under rule 14A-1.007, in which case the penalty (or the remaining part thereof) is due and shall be paid no later than ten working days after receipt of a written decision by the Review Board sustaining the penalty in whole or in part. Whenever any person or motor carrier violates the provisions of these rules and becomes indebted to the State because of such violation(s) and refuses to pay the appropriate penalty, the penalty becomes a lien upon the property including the motor vehicles of such person or motor carrier and may be foreclosed by the State in a civil action in any court of this state as prescribed by section 316.3025(4), Florida Statutes. Motor vehicles of the person or motor carrier will be detained and impounded for nonpayment in accordance with Rule 14-87.002. The adopted amendments to Chapter 14A-1, Florida Administrative Code, are, in relevant part, as follows: 14A-1.004 Meetings The Review Board shall sit as an admin- istrative body in equity to consider testimony or written documents in mitigation, extenuation, modification, cancellation, revocation, or maintenance of any penalty or penalties imposed pursuant to 316.540, 316.545, or 316.3025, Florida Statutes. Only penalties which have been paid or for which a section 316.545 bond has been posted, will be considered by the Review Board. However, this provision shall not prevent the owner of a motor vehicle that has been impounded for nonpayment from receiving a Review Board hearing. Further, as provided in Rule 14-108.004, a motor carrier may obtain a Review Board hearing on penalties assessed as a result of a terminal audit prior to payment or posting of a bond. Review Board meetings may be scheduled as often as determined necessary, based on a sufficient number of penalties being avail- able for review to justify the expense of hold a meeting. The Review Board shall meet not less than six times per year. Location of meetings shall be determined by the Review Board. Upon timely written request, cases involving Florida based persons will be scheduled at the next meeting held in their geographic area. However, cases involving requests for Review Board conside- ration of unpaid penalties imposed for violations found during a terminal audit will be scheduled for the next meeting regardless of location. Upon timely written request, cases involving non-Florida based persons will be scheduled at the next meeting of the Review Board. Persons may request the scheduling of their case at a specific city at which the Review Board meets. Such requests must be in writing to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450. * * * 14A-1.007 Timely Written Request for Meeting Any person who is aggrieved by the imposition of a civil penalty imposed upon the pro- visions of Section 316.545 or 316.3025, Florida Statutes upon compliance with Rule 14A-1.004, after payment of the penalty, or posting a Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, bond may request consideration by the Review Board by notifying the Review Board office in writing within 60 days of the date of the Penalty Notice (Load and Field Receipt Date) that the penalty is being protested and a Review Board consideration is requested. The request shall set forth in detail the basis of the protest and all matters to be considered so that the Review Board can be prepared to discuss the issue at the meeting if the protestor does not appear. The request must be received within 60 days. A written request for Review Board consideration of a penalty imposed for violations found during a terminal audit must be submitted and received within ten working days after receipt of the notice of violation in order to be considered timely and such written request must be submitted via hand-delivery or certified mail. 14A-1.008 Appearances Those persons, firms or corporations who have been assessed a penalty for violations of Section 316.540, 316.545, or 316.3025, Florida Statutes, and have complied with the requirements of Rules 14A-1.004 and 14A-1.007 either have paid the penalty or posted a Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, bond shall appear in person, through an authorized representative or by legal counsel. Each person shall be given ample time to explain the reasons for seeking relief. The Review Board, at its discretion, may inquire into any testimony presented at the meeting or written statements presented. Testimony also may be received from the agency that imposed the penalty. Although Mr. Walker testified that he never received notice of rule- making to amend Chapter 14A-1, Florida Administrative Code, he did not present evidence that he requested notice. Nor did he argue that the amendments were otherwise invalid. Chapter 18, Motor Carrier Compliance Operations Manual As stated in its first paragraph, Chapter 18, "Collection of Civil Penalties", within the Motor Carrier Compliance Operations Manual, the purpose of Chapter 18 is, to establish a uniform procedure for the collection of overweight penalties and other commercial vehicle penalties assessed pursuant to Florida Statutes and, Department Rules. (DOT Exhibit Number13) Like the rules of DOT in 1995, the Chapter 18 procedures provided for immediate collection of a penalty, or posting a bond or impoundment of a vehicle at the time enforcement action is taken. Although agency personnel invoked Chapter 18 as part of their basis for seeking immediate payment by H. B. Walker, the provisions of the Chapter nowhere specifically mention penalties assessed as the result of terminal audits. On April 15, 1996, the agency issued Enforcement Bulletin 18-001, to be inserted in Chapter 18 describing procedures for imposition and collection of civil penalties associated with terminal audits. Those procedures are the same as the procedures described in the rule amendments addressed in paragraphs 18 through 20, above.
The Issue As to Case No. 96-5539, whether the Respondent, Dynotech Automotive, Inc., committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated October 22, 1996; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. As to Case No. 96-5463, whether Supertech Automotive, Inc. (the alleged successor to Dynotech) is entitled to registration as a motor vehicle repair shop under the provisions of Section 559.904, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in this matter, Respondent Dynotech was a motor vehicle repair shop registered under the provisions of Section 559.904, Florida Statutes, located at 2240 North Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this matter, Respondent Supertech was an applicant for registration as a motor vehicle repair shop charged with doing business without being appropriately registered, which was also located at 2240 North Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida. The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining motor vehicle repair shops under Florida law. At all times material to the allegations in this matter, Theodore (Ted or Teddy) Russo was the president and manager of Dynotech. Mr. Russo’s home address is listed as 1604 Hollyhock Drive, Wellington, Florida. Prior to June 18, 1996, the Department commenced an investigation of Dynotech based upon suspected acts in violation of Chapter 559, Florida Statutes. In furtherance of the investigation the Department sent investigators with three vehicles to West Palm Beach for use in the operation. One vehicle driven by Investigator Tony Golino went to the Dynotech premises on June 18, 1996. After giving Mr. Russo a story about having just inherited the vehicle and being on the way back to New York, Investigator Golino requested an oil change and Dynotech’s free air conditioner inspection. Immediately prior to taking the vehicle to Dynotech, Investigator Golino’s vehicle had been thoroughly evaluated by a certified mechanic for any repair which might be needed to the air conditioning system. The vehicle, a 1989 Buick, checked out with no problems. On June 19, 1996, when Investigator Golino returned to Dynotech to pick up the vehicle, he was charged $358.94 for the requested oil change, the free air conditioner inspection, and for an evac and recharge together with an “acculmater.” Of the foregoing work, only a charge of $14.95 was required for this vehicle (the oil change cost). Investigator Golino had been verbally advised that if the evac and recharge were necessary the cost for same would be approximately $105.00 or $110.00. No estimate was given to him for the “acculmater” which was charged. Investigator Golino had not been given any written estimate for the work which was to be performed on the Buick. When the Buick was returned for inspection by the Department, Mr. Bullard found that the oil had been changed and that a new accumulater had been installed. Donald Bullard is a certified mechanic with 30 years of experience. An evac and recharge of the air conditioning system is appropriate if the system is not performing within acceptable standards. The evac and recharge is the process of cleaning the freon in order to allow it to do its work more efficiently. The freon is removed from the vehicle (evac), run through a machine for cleaning, then returned to the vehicle (recharge). This process takes less than an hour. An accumulator is a device which takes moisture out of the vehicle. The Buick driven by Investigator Golino did not need a new accumulator. On June 20, 1996, Jack Hill, another investigator with the Department, took a Plymouth van to Dynotech for an oil change and free air conditioner inspection. This vehicle had also been inspected beforehand and had been fully repaired so that it was in proper working order prior to being driven to Dynotech. Dynotech billed Investigator Hill $95.45 for the work performed on the van and alleged that it had added freon to the air conditioning system. No cost should have been billed for the van as a coupon for a free oil change was used. Additionally, the van did not require an evac and recharge nor freon. A third vehicle, a Ford Tempo, was taken to Dynotech by the Department’s investigator Fred Barnsdale on June 19, 1996. Like the others, prior to being driven to Dynotech the Tempo was inspected and evaluated by Mr. Bullard. The air conditioning system worked properly and did not require an evac and recharge. With regard to the Tempo, Dynotech billed for an evac and recharge which were unnecessary. Glen Eakin, Louis Vincent Zauss, and Michael David Baranowsky are certified mechanics formerly employed by Dynotech. All were hired and supervised by Mr. Russo. During their employment with Dynotech, each was instructed by Mr. Russo to perform work which was unnecessary. In some instances customers were billed for work which was not performed. In some instances customers who were to receive free services were advised work had been performed which was not done. Dynotech paid mechanics a flat hourly rate based upon service work performed. Mechanics did not receive compensation for parts sold in connection with repairs. Dynotech billing was reviewed and approved by Mr. Russo. Mr. Russo was aware of the work performed or not performed by Dynotech’s mechanics. Johnni Angel began working at Dynotech to help Mr. Russo out. Ms. Angel came on board as the receptionist/secretary for the company. She resides with Mr. Russo and decided to incorporate Supertech one day after Dynotech was suspended from doing business by the Department. Ms. Angel intended to operate Supertech from the same business location and retained Mr. Russo to continue the management of the premises. All of the mechanics formerly employed by Dynotech now worked for Supertech and continued to answer to Mr. Russo regarding the day-to-day activities of the business. Ms. Angel is the sole owner of Supertech, she obtained a new tax identification number for the business, and opened new bank accounts. All other aspects of the business operation remained as it had when under the Dynotech name. Ms. Angel filed an application for registration as a motor vehicle repair shop with the Department on November 7, 1996. Estimates and invoices from Supertech established that the company had been operating without being registered as required by law. The invoice forms used by Supertech did not contain a statement indicating what, if anything, was guaranteed in connection with the repair work. Such forms also did not contain the time and mileage period for which the guarantee was effective. Supertech’s written motor vehicle repair estimate and disclosure statements did not contain the proposed work completion date; the customer’s intended method of payment; the name and telephone number of another person who may authorize repair work, if the customer desired to designate such person; a statement allowing the customer to indicate whether replaced parts should be saved for inspection or return; or a statement indicating the daily storage charge for the customer’s vehicle after the customer had been notified that the repair work had been completed. Supertech’s application for registration did not contain a State of Florida tax identification number.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter final orders confirming the suspension and revoking the registration for Dynotech, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000.00, and denying Supertech’s application for registration as a motor vehicle repair shop. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence J. Davis Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James R. Merola, Esquire JAMES R. MEROLA, P.A. 11380 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 204 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
