The Issue This proceeding was initiated on June 27, 1985, when Petitioner filed its complaint for $51,680.00 with the Florida Department of Agriculture. Respondents were Dade Tomato and its surety, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. of Columbus, Ohio. After payment of $38,880.00 was received, Homestead Tomato reduced its claim to $12,800.00 in an amended complaint dated July 22, 1985. Dade Tomato responded with a timely request for formal hearing. The issue at hearing was whether $12.00 or $16.00 was the price per box of 5 x 7 tomatoes purchased by Dade Tomato from Homestead Tomato on January 13th and 21st, 1985. Homestead Tomato presented the testimony of two witnesses and nineteen exhibits; Dade Tomato presented seven witnesses and thirteen exhibits; State Automobile Insurance Company was noticed, but did not appear. Both parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. These have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order, and an outline of the adoption or rejection of each proposed finding is included in Appendix A, attached to, and incorporated in this order. A document styled Reply Brief of Petitioner Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc., was filed on January 9, 1986. It was not authorized and was not considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Homestead Tomato is agent for Strano Farms of Florida City, Florida, a producer of tomatoes. Rosario Strano is president of Homestead Tomato and co-owner of Strano Farms. (R. Strano) Dade Tomato, a tomato repacking company, is located in Miami, Florida. Its president is Joe Lococo. It is licensed as a dealer in agricultural products and is bonded by State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company. (J. Lococo, Amended Complaint dated July 22, 1985) The week of January 20-26, 1985, was a memorable week for the Florida tomato industry: a savage freeze hit south Florida, crops were devastated and the market awoke from its earlier torpor. For days prior to the 20th, Rosario Strano had carefully watched the weather services. By the 15th, when the freeze forecast appeared to be a sure thing, Strano Farms worked night and day and into the weekend harvesting tomatoes. (T. Banks, R. Strano) On January 19th, a representative from Dade Tomato contacted Tom Banks, an employee of Homestead Tomato, and asked for a load (1600 boxes) of 6 x 7 tomatoes. Banks explained that they were ready to sell, but not ready to price, since they expected a high demand as a result of the impending freeze. It was established that the "following week's price would control." The load was shipped that same day. On Monday, the Dade Tomato called for another load the same size. Prices still had not been established, but the load was shipped, again the same day. (T. Banks) After the freeze, around the middle of the week, Rosario Strano called together Tom Banks and a few other key employees and established a price for their tomatoes: $20.00 box for 5 x 6 (largest) $18.00 box for 6 x 6 (next size down) $16.00 box for 6 x 7 (medium) $12.00 box for 7 x 7 (small) Banks was instructed that the buyers were to be notified the price was set. Anyone "booked in" didn't have to take the order or could back out. Strano wanted to be told immediately of any problems with the tomatoes on the other end, and he would take them back. He was confident that he had a good market for his unique, pre-freeze tomato supply. Several buyers backed out, some tomatoes did come back, but the entire supply was sold (approximately 40-48 loads). (T. Banks. R. Streno) In setting his prices for the week of the freeze, Strano obtained information from the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Report, a daily publication of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, out of Winter Park, Florida. (R. Strano) The sheets include price quotations for a wide variety of commodities in different parts of the state obtained by telephone survey of packing houses and producers the prior date. (Petitioner's Exhibits #15-19) It is a guideline rather than an "official" market price indicator. (J. Strother, R. Cohen) In some eases the prices quoted to the survey are later adjusted by the producer. (R. Cohen) The issue dated January 24, 1985, reflected for #1 quality tomatoes a price of $20.00, $18.00 and $16.00 for 5 x6, 6 x 6, and 6 x 75 respectively. The following two days showed the same. Prior days, January 22 and 23 quoted no prices but stated "practically all sales prices to be established later". (Petitioner's Exhibits #15-19) After hearing the prices established by Strano, some of his customers, including Joe Lococo and his broker, began to protest. (T. Banks, J. Lococo) While refusing to budge, end arguing that he was charging the same price to his other customers for his pre-freeze, quality tomatoes, Strano resorted to offering rebates of 2.00 a box for prompt payment and, later, for settlement of cases that otherwise would have gone to court. (T. Banks) In short, Strano had difficulty getting some of his customers to pay the price he had set. Not all of Strano's customers bought and had tomatoes shipped on a price to be settled basis. Of the ten invoices admitted as Petitioner's Exhibits #5- 14, three represented sales on the same basis as the sales to Dade Tomato: Exhibits 5, 6 and 7. The remaining invoices represented sales to customers who had the price established prior to sale. Each of the invoices reflect the price of a box of 5 x 7 tomatoes to be $15.00. The invoices do not reveal which may have received the $2.00 rebate. Dade Tomato purchased ten loads of tomatoes during the week of the freeze. With the exception of the two loads from Homestead Tomato, the highest price for 6 x 75 was $12.00. Most of the tomatoes picked prior to the freeze were priced from $10- 12.00, with tomatoes picked after the freeze (salvage) going for as low as $6.00 for 6 x 7s. (J. Lococo, Respondent's Exhibits #1- 12) "Market price" is a highly fluid, highly subjective standard. During the course of a tomato season from 25-30% of sales are made on a "market price" basis, that is, the parties do not establish a firm price prior to sale, but wait to see what the market does. The market can be settled in a few days in a normal condition or longer in an abnormal condition, such as after a freeze. Market relates to supply and demand. A price is tried, then accepted or rejected, depending on whether the buyer in turn can find a market to sell at this price. Failure by a seller to adjust downward, or overpricing can result in animosity and the refusal of customers later to purchase at reasonable prices in a different season. (J. Strother, R. Cohen, F. Campisi) Various agents and brokers testified at the hearing on behalf of Dade Tomato as to what they felt was the market during the week of January 20-26th, 1985. James Strother, with thirty- three years in the produce business, came out that week with prices of $16.00, $14.00 and $12.00, and $16.00, $15.00 and $12.00, with $12.00 for the 6 x 75. He told his customers, "You're looking at the low and I expect to get paid for it." He had heard rumblings of a higher market, but set his market price to insure that he would get paid, and he moved his tomatoes. While he avowed respect for Strano, he testified that their thoughts on the market that week differed. He knew others were quoting higher than $12.00, he just wanted to be sure he sold. Florida Tomato Packers, Inc., is one of the largest packers in Florida. They initially sold 6 x 7 tomatoes during the freeze market at $16.00, but later adjusted the invoices down to $12.00. (D. Holden, Respondent's Exhibit #1) No one explained exactly how or why this was done by Florida Tomato Packers. Other exhibits produced by Respondent showed adjustments downward to varying prices. (Respondent's Exhibits # 7 and 8) After the initial complaint was filed by Homestead Tomato, Lococo made two payments for a total which amounts to $12.00 a box, the level which he insists the proper price should be. He does not dispute the quality or condition of the tomatoes sold by Homestead Tomato. (J. Lococo)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered requiring that the balance of $12,800.00 be paid by Dade Tomato to Homestead Tomato. In the absence of payment, Co-Respondent, State Automobile Insurance Company, should be required to pay said sum in accordance with Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1986, in 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 15th day of January, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3487A The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in paragraph 1, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 2, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 5, except that instead of a set number of loads of tomatoes sold, the testimony of R. Strano was a range from forty to forty-eight loads. Adopted in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. The names of the buyers and total amounts of each purchase are immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6, Findings of Fact. The substance of this paragraph relating to Florida Tomato Packers, Inc., is adopted in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. The sentence relating to the market price is incorporated in essence in paragraph 5, Conclusions of Law. These facts are covered in the "Issues and Procedural Matters" preceding the Findings of Fact, and in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. The substance of this paragraph relating to when the market settles is adopted in paragraph 9, Findings of Fact. The bias of witnesses who testified as to when the market settled is irrelevant as the time that the market settled is irrelevant. The statement that " Respondent agrees that the contract for the tomatoes was at a price to be established during the week of January 21-26 1985' . . . " is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The first sentence is adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. The second sentence is substantially modified in paragraph 4 by a finding that the agreement was that the following week's price would control". Same as paragraph 1, above. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 7, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. The second sentence, relating to all of the sales at $16.00 as being a set price, is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The remaining sentences are adopted in paragraphs 5 and 7, Findings of Fact. Partially adopted in paragraph 8, Findings of Fact. The basis of the price paid is immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as a misconstruction of the testimony. James Strother testified that his price was 12.00 a box. Adopted in paragraph 6, Findings of Fact. 14 - 16. The substance of these paragraphs have been adopted. However, they are presented here as simply testimony of witnesses rather than findings of fact. The "market price" description is rejected for reasons set out in paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law. Adopted in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: David V. Lococo, Esquire LOCOCO, KLEIN, TOUBY & SMITH 901 Northeast 125th Street Suite C North Miami, Florida 33161 Joe W. Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 416 - Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 State Automobile Insurance Company 515 E. Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Alexander Pires, Esquire SCOTT, HARRISON and McLEOD 2501 M. Street N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20037 Robert Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513 - The Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Junior Martin, Petitioner, is a farmer d/b/a/ Junior Martin Farms in the State of Florida. Bastista Madonia is a farmer doing business in Florida and West Virginia and a licensed broker in Florida and packer of agricultural products d/b/a/ East Coast Brokers and Packers. Madonia holds Florida license no. 3906 supported by bond no. 743F4618 written by Travelers Indemnity Company as surety. In the summer of 1984 James DiMare, Bastista Madonia, and Junior Martin entered into a Farming Agreement (Exhibit 1) to establish a joint venture to grow cherry tomatoes in the fall 1984 farming season and, if successful, to continue this agreement into the spring season. Pursuant to this agreement approximately fifty (50) acres of tomatoes would be grown by Martin. DiMare and Madonia agreed to supply all plants and $500 cash per acre for which they would own 25 percent of the crop and the profits derived therefrom. East Coast Brokers (Madonia) was to supply picking bins and advance all picking money. Two dollars ($2) per package was to be charged for packing and thirty cents ($.30) per package for selling. Costs for growing the tomatoes was approximately $2,250 per acre. With their advance of $500 per acre and providing plants DiMare and Madonia financed approximately 25 percent of the growing cost of which they were to receive 25 percent of the profits. They were also to advance funds to harvest the tomatoes and deliver them to the packing house. In addition, Madonia paid for two (2) deliveries of tomato stakes to Martin's farm. The tomato crop planted in the fall of 1984 froze and was a total loss. DiMare then pulled out of the agreement. The agreement provided that if both parties are satisfied and things are going well by October 15, all parties will continue this venture by planting a spring crop. Madonia offered to contribute DiMare's share as well as his own for a spring Crop and Martin agreed to plant the spring crop. The spring crop was harvested from late March 1985 through late May 1985 (exhibit 4) at a profit. It is from this venture only that Martin bases his claim. In auditing the records, the Department of Agriculture investigator did not consider the transactions involving the fall crop because that had occurred more than nine (9) months before Martin's complaint. Section 604.21(1) Florida Statutes limits the time frame in which a complaint may be brought. Following the harvesting of the spring crop, Martin and Madonia went to Virginia to look into the feasibility of planting a summer crop in Virginia. They obtained suitable land to lease and, under a modification of their agreement, Madonia would put up most of the money required for the land, fertilizer, etc., and would be entitled to 50 percent of the profits. This venture was unsuccessful and resulted in a large loss, none of which has been paid by Martin. This endeavor was not included in the Department of Agriculture's audit because it occurred outside Florida and beyond the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Agriculture. The parties discussed a fall 1985 crop after the debacle in Virginia and the Respondent advanced $10,000 to Petitioner for this crop (exhibit 16). This crop was never planted and the Petitioner has rendered no accounting for this advance. The endeavors by Madonia and Martin to grow fall and spring crops in Florida and a summer crop in Virginia were ongoing farming operations carried out pursuant to the Farming Agreement (Exhibit 1). As such, the endeavor was a joint farming venture with Martin providing the land (in Florida) and the farming expertise while Madonia provided plants and funds equal to one-fourth of the expenses and the marketing experience to sell the crops. Accordingly this endeavor was exempt from the provisions of Section 604.15-604.34 Florida Statutes, by Section 604.16(1) (Florida Statutes). The audit conducted by the Department of Agriculture (exhibit 6) showed Petitioner was owed $18,401.91 by Madonia as a buyer for the 1985 spring crop only. This figure does not include any advances over and above the $500 per acre advanced to Martin by Madonia for the fall crop 1984, or the advances for the Virginia operation in excess of the amount agreed to be provided by Madonia. Nor does this figure reflect the 25 percent of the profits due Madonia pursuant to the Farming Agreement. The amount Petitioner claims is owed to him by the Respondent for the spring crop is $60,632.86 (exhibit 7). This balance was prepared by Mrs. Martin from her records. Numerous checks endorsed by Petitioner which he received from Madonia were not included in those figures. Although cashed by Petitioner, they did not get into Mrs. Martin's bookkeeping records. Mrs. Martin acknowledged that she was not sure that she properly credited all of the checks she did receive from Madonia to the spring crop account. Accordingly, this figure is totally unreliable. Disregarding the fall 1984 crop and the Virginia episode, and accepting the Department of Agriculture's audit figures of $18,401.91 as the profits on the spring crops, 25 percent should go to Respondent pursuant to the Farming Agreement. This would leave $13,801.43 owed to Petitioner. From this should be deducted, at least, the $10,000 advance given to the Petitioner for the fall crop of 1985 which was never planted. The parties are engaged in civil litigation to resolve the disputes engendered by the farming activities above discussed. In those proceedings, all of the activities in which they participated pursuant to the Farming Agreement can be considered by the tribunal and resolved. Accordingly, that is the proper forum to resolve the disputes here in issue.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in issue, the Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker in Florida. However, since April 28, 1989, his broker's license has been nonactive. The Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, is the state agency responsible for the policing of and administration of rules governing the real estate profession in Florida. In May, 1987, Mary Louise Hockman and her husband, Elden D. Hockman, now deceased, were interested in purchasing a flea market somewhere in Florida. A requirement was that it have additional acreage on which a recreational vehicle park could be established. At just about that time, Rickey L. Reynolds, a family friend, told them of the Cypress Hut, a Florida corporation, which owned and operated a flea market near Okeechobee, Florida. The property in question was sufficiently large to accommodate a recreational vehicle park. The Hockmans went to look at the property in question and, satisfied with what they saw, made an offer to buy it through the Respondent who was the agent for the owner, Mr. James Evans. This offer was memorialized in a purchase and sale agreement executed on May 23, 1987, signed by Mrs. Hockman and Mr. Reynolds, her partner, as buyers, and the Cypress Hut Flea Market, through James H. Evans, as seller. The purchase price was $550,000.00. Ten Thousand dollars was paid by Mrs. Hockman to the Respondent as an initial down payment. An additional $117,500.00 was to be paid at time of closing, and the remaining $422,500.00 was to be payable on a semiannual basis at 8% interest. The agreement also called for a commission of $27,500.00 to be paid to the Respondent, secured by a note between the buyer and the broker. Closing was to take place at a reasonable time after all contingencies, outlined separately, were fulfilled. These contingencies were memorialized in an addendum to the purchase and sale agreement signed by both the buyer and the seller on May 29, 1987. They included: Buyer's inspection and approval of all books and records of the corporation, Approval of a 55 unit recreational vehicle camp ground by county and city zoning officials, including environmental approval, and Seller's providing a survey proving that 17.2 acres was contained in the total real estate parcel to be conveyed. The addendum also provided that in the event these contingencies could not be satisfied to the buyer's "full satisfaction", all earnest money would be returned immediately to the buyer upon written demand. To satisfy these requirements, the seller provided the Hockmans with several sheets of paper containing yearly figures for the operation of the flea market. These figures did not constitute the full books and records of the corporation relating to the flea market operation and were not satisfactory to the Hockmans. The Hockmans were also provided with several 1983 applications submitted by Cypress Hut corporation to the county zoning officials, which were subsequently approved, for the establishment of a mobile home park on the property. A mobile home park approval is sufficient approval for the establishment and operation of a recreational vehicle park. However, the Hockmans were never provided with a survey clearly defining the extent of the real property in question. On September 21, 1987, Mrs. Hockman wrote to the Respondent indicating that if the formal contract for the sale was not signed by October 1, 1987, they would consider their offer withdrawn and demand a return of the earnest money paid, plus interest. This letter, sent to the Respondent by certified mail, was received by Respondent's wife who signed for it. Respondent claims, however, that he never received it. He and his wife were separated at the time, he was not living with her, and she neither gave it to him nor told him it had arrived. Respondent's wife was not called to verify his claim, but Petitioner was unable to present any evidence to disprove it, and it is accepted as fact. Nonetheless, on or about September 27, 1987, Mrs. Hockman personally spoke with the Respondent at the Cypress Hut Flea Market and directly reiterated to him the substance and terms of that letter she had sent him. In response, Respondent indicated he would speak to Mr. Evans about the Hockmans' demand. Shortly thereafter, Respondent wrote to Mr. Hockman, referring to an alleged statement by Hockman's attorney that all contingencies had been satisfied, and acknowledging that Cypress Hut was ready and willing to close as of October 1, 1987. No independent evidence of such an opinion by Hockman's attorney was forthcoming and that claim is found to be without merit. Enclosed with Respondent's letter, was a letter he had received from Evans making a demand upon him for the disbursement of the earnest money, based on Hockman's indication of no further interest in going through with the purchase. Notwithstanding this direct notice, neither Mr. Evans nor the Respondent contacted the Hockmans prior to October 1, 1987, and after that date, the Hockmans made several telephone calls to the Respondent which went unanswered. Finally, because they had made plans to go on vacation, they departed the area and were assured by Mr. Reynolds, their partner in the proposed purchase, that he would contact Respondent in their absence. Respondent denies he did and there is, again, no evidence to the contrary. When the Hockmans returned to the area, they contacted Respondent and advised him again that they wanted their earnest money refunded as they were considering the agreement void. Respondent did not repay the money in question. Instead, on October 13, 1987, he withdrew the $10,000.00 paid to him by the Hockmans, which he had placed in his escrow account pending closing, and on October 15, 1987, purchased a cashier's check in the amount of $5,000.00 payable to James H. Evans. This represented one-half of the earnest money paid by the Hockmans. He converted the other $5,000.00 to his own use. Respondent justifies doing this on the basis of a previous phone call he claims to have made to the Division of Real Estate in which he outlined the circumstances and sought the Division's guidance. He states he was advised by a gentleman, further unidentified, who indicated he had two options: to forward the money to the Division for agency arbitration of the dispute between the Hockmans and Mr. Evans, or to adhere to the terms of the agreement, consider the deposit forfeited, disburse the funds to the seller and himself, and rely upon the courts to determine, upon claim filed by the buyer, who was entitled to the funds. He chose the latter though it is found to be unlikely he got such advice. Suit was thereafter filed by Mrs. Hockman against not only the Respondent but also the Cypress Hut. Respondent chose not to retain counsel but to rely on counsel for his co-defendant to represent him. Prior to hearing, however, the claim against Cypress Hut was abandoned, its counsel released, and Respondent was left as sole defendant. He still did not seek a delay to retain counsel and at the very brief hearing held before the Circuit Judge in December, 1988, a Judgement was entered against him in favor of Mrs. Hockman for the full $10,000.00, plus interest and costs. With knowledge of the terms of the Judgement, Respondent still has not satisfied it through reimbursement of Mrs. Hockman, claiming he has no assets with which to do so. Discovery in aid of execution revealed he had no assets, either realty or personalty, upon which to execute since all his assets were transferred to his wife prior to suit. When Mrs. Hockman filed her initial complaint with the Division, an investigation was conducted by Mr. Maye who recommended that action be taken against Respondent based on evidence of violations. However, it would appear that a contrary position was taken by the Division which advised Respondent, in writing, that a determination of no probable cause had been made. However, after the judgement was entered against Respondent, the Division reversed itself and filed the instant Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, GEORGE RICHARD MCKOWEN's license as a real estate broker in Florida be suspended for three years, that he pay an administrative fine of $3,000.00, and that he be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR-Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 George Richard McKowen 3503 14th Street, West, #76 Bradenton, Florida 34205 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact On March 21, 1995, Respondent's truck driver was referred by another nursery to Petitioner. Pursuant to instructions from Kevin Laux, coowner of Respondent, the driver was looking to purchase Washingtonian palms for resale. The driver went to Petitioner's nursery, found Washingtonian palms, and telephoned Mr. Laux. Mr. Laux and Wilfred Perez, vice president of Petitioner, spoke on the telephone about the plants. In the conversation, Mr. Perez represented that the Washingtonian plants were two and one-half to three feet tall, but the plants delivered were half that height. Mr. Perez also described other plants that Mr. Laux ordered. These were calypso oleanders, three types of ixora, and 15 paurotis palm. Mr. Perez described the calypso oleanders as somewhat taller than those delivered, but, more importantly, the plants were infested with yellow aphids and required insecticide treatment by Mr. Laux. The ixora were somewhat smaller than described. Also, the paurotis palms were infested with scale and mealy bugs and required more extensive insecticide treatment than did the oleanders. Mr. Perez presented the driver with an invoice for $1550, which was the price upon which Mr. Perez and Mr. Laux agreed for the plants. The invoice stated: "All merchandise should be checked before accepting. We terminate our liability upon acceptance of merchandise." The driver gave Mr. Perez a check for $1550. When Mr. Laux inspected the shipment early the next morning, he called Mr. Perez and complained. After inspecting other plants at the nursery, Mr. Perez called Mr. Laux the same day and they agreed on an adjustment of $187.50. In the meantime, Mr. Laux had stopped payment on the check, and three attempts by Mr. Perez to cash the check were fruitless. Mr. Perez believed that the $1550 check should be paid before he issued a credit. Mr. Laux wanted a check for the credit from Mr. Perez before sending another check. There were a number of obvious solutions available, such as the issuance of a draft by Mr. Laux for the reduced amount due, payable upon receipt by the bank of the check for $1550. Instead, the parties did nothing to try to work out a means by which to credit Mr. Laux for the amount agreed except to resort to administrative litigation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order determining that Respondent owes Petitioner the sum of $1362.50. ENTERED on July 7, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on July 7, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Wilfred Perez Vice President Tropical Resort Marketing, Inc. 20701 Williams Drive North Ft. Myers, FL 33917 Kevin Laux Citrus and Palm Gardens 12426 US Highway 441 Belleview, FL 34420
The Issue Whether Petitioner has standing to bring this proceeding and, if so, whether Petitioner is entitled to a waiver or variance of Rule 5K-4.021, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.542, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Rule 5K-4.021, Florida Administrative Code, provides in operative part that food establishments with four or more employees present at the same time engaged in food establishment operations must have at least one certified food manager present in the food establishment during all phases of food establishment operation. The food manager is responsible for and must actively oversee all food establishment operations. Food establishments with fewer than four employees engaged in food establishment operations at the same time must also have a certified food manager, but that food manager need not be present at all times. The rule provides for written testing of persons seeking certification as food managers. The test is designed to allow the applicant to demonstrate knowledge of food protection and food safety principles and practices. The rule defines “food establishment operation” as the manufacturing, processing, packing, holding or preparing of food or selling food at wholesale or retail at a food establishment regulated by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services pursuant to Chapter 500, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is an industry association comprising nearly all of the poultry industry in the State of Florida. Petitioner’s membership includes eight shell-egg producers and three broiler producers. Petitioner concedes that its shell-egg producer members are “food establishment operations” that are subject to Rule 5K- 4.021, Florida Administrative Code, absent the variance sought in this proceeding or some other exemption therefrom. At the time Petitioner filed its Petition for Variance or Waiver, six of its member shell-egg producers were subject to Rule 5K-4.021, Florida Administrative Code. At the time of the hearing, only one of Petitioner’s member shell-egg producers was subject to the rule. Subsequent to the filing of the Petition, the other five members had become full-time United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified plants. Respondent concedes that USDA plants are automatically exempt from Rule 5K-4.021, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner’s reason for requesting the variance or waiver is, essentially, that the rule “does nothing” in relation to shell-egg plants. Petitioner alleges that the purpose of the rule is to monitor retail food establishments, i.e., those that are pre-packaging for sale, or directly preparing food for sale to be consumed on or off the premises as prepared or packaged. Petitioner contends that shell-egg plants do not fall under those criteria. Petitioner alleges that a shell-egg plant only cleans, grades and packages the shell egg, and that the edible portion of the egg is not touched by human hands or packaged in such a manner as to be consumed “as is.” Petitioner argues that the requirements of the rule duplicate safety measures already required by law of shell-egg producers, and that a waiver would not affect food safety because the egg is in no way compromised by the processing that occurs on the premises of a shell-egg plant. In its Petition Denial, Respondent disputes that either Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, or the rules promulgated thereunder are limited to retail food establishments. Respondent points out that the United States Food and Drug Administration has determined that a shell egg is a potentially hazardous food, and that the examination for food manager covers the proper handling of potentially hazardous foods, making its provisions applicable to and desirable for shell-egg plants. In its Amended Petition Denial, Respondent set forth the following additional justifications for applying the food manager requirement to shell-egg plants: A certified food manager with knowledge of potential biological, chemical, and physical sources of foodborne disease and illness is needed at all egg processing plants to safeguard the public health and promote the public welfare. A certified food manager with knowledge of proper food storage techniques is needed at all egg processing plants to safeguard the public health and promote the public welfare. A certified food manager with knowledge of proper selection, use and care of equipment and utensils is needed at all egg processing plants to safeguard the public health and promote the public welfare. A certified food manager with knowledge of proper cleaning and sanitizing procedures is needed at all egg processing plants to safeguard the public health and promote the public welfare. A certified food manager with knowledge of proper pest control and supply storage protocol is needed at all egg processing plants to safeguard the public health and promote the public welfare. A certified food manager with knowledge of proper facility maintenance and operation is needed at all egg processing plants to safeguard the public health and promote the public welfare. Respondent’s expert witnesses affirmed that the yolks of shell eggs provide an excellent medium for the growth of harmful bacteria, including salmonella enteritidis, which can cause serious illness or even death in humans. Respondent’s witnesses also testified as to cleanliness and hygienic problems that they have observed in shell-eggs plants they have inspected as part of their duties, problems they believe could be addressed more efficiently by the constant presence of a certified food manager, as opposed to the periodic inspections conducted by Respondent’s agents. Petitioner stipulated, and the proof demonstrated, that compliance with Rule 5K-4.021, Florida Administrative Code, would not create a substantial hardship on its members. Compliance would not create an economic, technological, legal or other type of hardship for Petitioner’s members. Petitioner stipulated, and the proof demonstrated, that application of the rule to Petitioner’s members would not affect those members any differently than it affects other similarly situated persons who are subject to the rule.
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 dismissing the petition for formal proceeding and affirming its denial of the Petition for Variance or Waiver of Rule 5K-4.021, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 6th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Chuck R. Smith Executive Vice President Florida Poultry Federation, Inc. 4508 Oak Fair Boulevard, Suite 290 Tampa, Florida 33610 John N. Spivey, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondent, Debruyn Produce Co. owes Petitioner, Florida Farm Management Inc. the sum of $4,846.00 for watermelons shipped by Petitioner and handled by Respondent as Petitioner's agent during the period from May 30, 1989 through July 5, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant fact are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, Florida Farm Management, Inc. was a "producer" of agricultural products in the state of Florida as that term is defined in Section 605.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Debruyn Produce Co. was a licensed "dealer in agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent was issued license number 596 by the Department, and bonded by Peerless Insurance Company (Peerless) for the sum of $47,000.00, bond number R2-27-13, with an effective date of November 13, 1988 and a termination date of November 13, 1989. At all times material to this proceeding, Debruyn was authorized to do business in the state of Florida. Around the last week of April, 1989, Petitioner and Respondent orally agreed, among other things, for Petitioner to produce certain quantities of Mickey Lee Watermelons and for Respondent to market those watermelons. This oral agreement was reduced to writing, executed by the Respondent and sent to Petitioner to execute. Petitioner, after making certain changes in the agreement and initialing those changes, executed the agreement and returned it to the Respondent. It is not clear if Respondent agreed to the change since they were not initialed by Respondent. However, the parties appeared to operate under this agreement as modified by Petitioner. Under the agreement, Respondent was to advance monies for harvesting and packing, furnish containers and labels for packing and agreed to pay certain chemical bills. Petitioner was to reimburse any monies advanced by the Respondent for (a) harvesting or packing; (b) containers and labels and; (c) chemicals, from the proceeds of the sale of watermelons. Any balance owed Petitioner for watermelons was to be paid within 30 days. Additionally, Respondent was to receive a commission of 8% of net FOB, except 30 cent maximum on sales of less than $6.25 per carton and 40 cents per carton for melons delivered on contract to National Grocers Co. The relationship of the parties was to be that of producer and sales agent. Before entering into the agreement with Respondent, Petitioner had agreed to furnish National Grocers Co. four shipments of melons totalling 8,000 cartons. Respondent agreed to service that agreement. Although Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger shows a credit of $6,007.13 for chemicals paid for by Respondent, the parties agreed that only $3,684.68 was expended by Respondent for chemicals and that Respondent should receive credit for that amount. The parties agree that Respondent advanced a total of $18,960.00 for harvesting and packing and the Respondent should be given credit for this amount. The parties agree that Respondent paid to Petitioner the sum of $12,439.32 and the Respondent should be given credit for this amount. Cartons and pads for packing the melons were shipped on two occasions and the total sum paid by Respondent for those cartons and pads was $17,225.00. The cartons were printed with the logo of Respondent on one side and the logo of Petitioner on the other side. Petitioner agrees that the number of cartons and pads used by him came to $12,463.78 and the Respondent should be given credit for that amount. All cartons and pads in the sum of $17,255.00 were delivered to Petitioner's farm. The amount in dispute for the remainder of the carton is $4,762.22. The Respondent was responsible under the agreement to furnish cartons and pads (containers). Respondent ordered the cartons and pads after determining from Petitioner the number needed. There were two orders for cartons and pads placed and delivered. There was an over supply of cartons and pads delivered to Petitioner. This over supply was the result of a miscommunication between Petitioner and Respondent as to the amount of cartons and pads needed. Petitioner agrees that all of the cartons and pads were delivered to his farm but that he was unable to protect these cartons and pads from the weather. However, Petitioner advised Respondent that the remainder of the carton and pads could be picked up at his farm. Respondent contended that he was denied access to the farm and was unable to pick up the remainder of the cartons and pads and, therefore, they were ruined by exposure to the weather. While there may have been times when Respondent attempted to retrieve the carton and Petitioner was unavailable, there is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent was intentionally denied access to Petitioner's farm to retrieve the cartons. Clearly, the ordering, purchasing and storing of the cartons and pads was a joint effort and both Petitioner and Respondent bear that responsibility. Therefore, the Petitioner is responsible for one-half of the difference between the total cost of the cartons ($17,225.00) and the amount used by Petitioner ($12,462.78) which is $2,381.11 and Respondent should be given credit for this amount. Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger shows that Petitioner shipped melons to Respondent in the amount of $54,715.63, after adjustments for complaints and commission. Respondent's accounts payable ledger shows receiving melons from Petitioner in the amount of $51,483.00, after adjustments for complaints and commission. The difference in the two ledgers in the amount of is accounted for as follows: Invoice No. 210066 - Customer paid $2.00 per carton less on 93 cartons, Petitioner agreed to the reduction. However, Petitioner's account is in error by 9 cents which reduces total amount to $54,715.54. Invoice No. 210067 - Respondent paid for more melons than Petitioner shows were shipped - $39.60. Invoice No. 210068 - difference in calculation of commission $13.32 Invoice No. 2100105 - difference due to Petitioner not agreeing to adjustment in price taken by customer. $2,886.00 Invoice No. 2100239 - difference of $108.04 due to Respondent allowing customer adjustment which Petitioner did not agree to. Invoice No. 2100267 - difference of $210.00 for same reason stated in (e) above. Petitioner should be allowed the difference due to miscalculation of commission in invoice Nos. 210068, 2100134 and 2100160 in the sum of $68.10 since Petitioner's calculation was in accordance with the agreement. There was no dispute as to the condition of melons being as contracted for upon receipt. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the melons shipped under invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 by Petitioner were not of the size and number contracted for by the customer. As to invoice Nos. 2100239 and 2100267, the adjustments were made after the fact without contacting Petitioner. As to invoice No. 2100105, the Petitioner shipped the melons to Russo Farms, Inc., Vineland, N.J., as per Respondent's order who then unloaded the melons and reloaded on Russo's truck and shipped to another buyer. It was this buyer's complaint that resulted in Russo demanding an adjustment. Respondent granted such adjustment without approval of the Petitioner. Although Respondent did contact Petitioner in regard to this complaint, Petitioner would not authorize a federal inspection, which he could have, but instead, requested that Respondent obtain an independent verification of the basis of the complaint. Instead of an independent verification of the complaint, Respondent had Russo evaluate the load as to size of melons and number of boxes. No complaint was made as to condition of the melons. Petitioner would not accept Russo's evaluation because based on the total weight of the melons shipped, as indicated by the freight invoice, Russo's evaluation could not have been correct. The only evidence presented by Respondent as to size and number of melon in regard to invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 was hearsay unsupported by any substantial competent evidence. Petitioner should be allowed the difference in invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 for a sum total of $3,204.00. No adjustment should be made for the differences in invoice No. 210067 other than the 9 cent error made by Petitioner because this amount is not used in Petitioner's calculation of the gross amount due for melons shipped. Therefore, the sum total of all melons sold and shipped is $54,715.63 - 0.09 = $54,715.54. The amount due Petitioner is calculated as follows: Sum total of melons shipped with proper adjustments $54,715.54 Subtract from that the following: Chemicals 3,684.68 Advances 18,960.00 Cost of Cartons $12,462.78 + 2,381.11 14,773.89 Payment 12,439.32 Subtotal of Deductions 49,857.89 Difference and amount owed $4,857.65
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Debruyn Produce Company, Inc. be ordered to pay the Petitioner Florida Farm Management, Inc. the sum of $4,857.65. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Debruyn Produce Company, Inc. fails to timely pay Petitioner, Florida Farm Management, Inc. as ordered, the Respondent, Peerless Insurance Company be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and that the Department reimburse the Petitioners in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner. 1. Not a finding of fact but the issue in this case. 2.-3. Adopted in findings of fact 2 and 4. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 4. First sentence adopted in finding of fact 7. The balance is not material but see findings of fact 16-23. Not material but see findings of fact 16-23. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record but see findings of fact 9-14. Adopted but modified in findings of fact 21 and 22. 10(A), 10(C)(1), 10(E), and 10(F) adopted in finding of fact 24. 10(C)(2)(3), 10(d) rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See findings of fact 5, ,7, 9 - 15. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent. 1.-7. Adopted in findings of fact 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 6, and 7 respectively as modified. Not material. This involved invoice Nos. 210066 and 210067 and adjustment were agreed to be Petitioner and is not part of this dispute. See Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger, Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Adopted in finding of fact 21 as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Not material. This involved invoice No. 2100160 and adjustments were granted by Petitioner and is not part of this dispute. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1. 12.-13.Adopted in finding of fact 21 as modified. Adopted in finding of fact 5, and 9-15 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record but see findings of fact 9-15. Adopted in finding of fact 13 as clarified. Adopted in finding of fact 23 as clarified but see findings of fact 9-22.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is owed $7,097.15 by Respondent Green Acres for various nursery products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a wholesaler engaged in the business of producing agricultural products, primarily nursery plants, since approximately 1953. Green Acres is a retail nursery engaged in the business of selling sod, nursery products, and provision of other related landscaping services. Green Acres is a newly-formed business which commenced operations during the summer of 1992. On August 10, 1992, Green Acres purchased from Petitioner various quantities of flowers and nursery products which are reflected by Petitioner's invoice nos. 5074, 5076, 5077 and 5080 in the respective amounts of $625.25, $1,097.00, $2,927.50, and $383.20. On August 14, 1992, Green Acres purchased another order of nursery products from Petitioner which is reflected by Petitioner's invoice no. 5085 in the total amount of $1,063.75. On August 18, 1992, again Petitioner delivered products to Green Acres based on an order (Petitioner's invoice no. 5060) for the total sum of $599.20. Finally, on September 17, 1992, Green Acres ordered various nursery products from Petitioner (Petitioner's invoice no. 5097), which were delivered to Green Acres for the total sum of $401.25. Petitioner has made numerous attempts to collect for the nursery products that it supplied to Green Acres without success. These efforts to collect included personal trips to the Green Acres nursery by Roy Amerson. When disputes arose as to the pricing of plants, Green Acres unilaterally adjusted the price to the amount that it desired to pay which amount Petitioner accepted without protest based upon the fact that Petitioner's owners were aware that Green Acres was a new nursery and Petitioner was desirous of building a good client over a long period of time. For this reason, Petitioner also extended credit to Green Acres on an open-account basis for a long time without attempting to collect. Petitioner extended credit to Green acres based upon Petitioner's knowledge and understanding of the difficulty that new retail nursery owners undergo in starting a new nursery business. Green Acres suffered fire damage at one of its office buildings on the Friday prior to the Labor Day weekend during 1992. As a result of that fire, Green Acres contends that it paid Petitioner in cash for products and was not properly receipted for those payments. Green Acres maintains that its receipts were destroyed in the fire. Green Acres's contention in this regard was considered; however, it is more likely than not that Green Acres did not pay Petitioner for any nursery products which they have not been granted credit for. In this regard, Petitioner introduced invoices and credit notations for each purchase of products that Green Acres ordered. Those invoices appear to properly reflect the entire series of transactions of the purchase of products from Petitioner with the appropriate credits and adjustments noted. Respondent, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm), issued a surety bond to Green Acres for the period during which Petitioner provided nursery products to Green Acres in 1992.
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 Green Acres to pay to Petitioner the sum of $7,097.15 within fifteen (15) days after the issuance of its Final Order. Upon the failure of Green Acres to tender the referenced amount to Petitioner, it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services direct that the surety company pay over to the Department out of the surety bond posted for such dealer, the amount necessary to cover the indebtedness noted herein of $7,097.15. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 2nd day of September, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Roy and Barbara Amerson Post Office Box 202 Terra Ceia, Florida 34250 Shelly K. Thomas 9330 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34641 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esq. General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ms. Becky L. Herald State Farm Fire & Casualty Company 112 East Washington Street Bloomington, Illinois 61710-1001
The Issue Whether, under the provisions of sections 604.15 - 604.34, Florida Statutes, Lester Towell Distributors, Inc., is entitled to recover $2,098 for agricultural products ordered by and delivered to VBJ Packing, Inc
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. Lester Towell is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. VBJ is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of extra-large green bell peppers. Lester Towell delivered 200 boxes of such peppers to VBJ on May 23, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 63 boxes of peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 137 boxes from producer Thomas Produce, in Boca Raton, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of yellow corn. Lester Towell delivered 100 boxes of such corn to VBJ on May 24, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 100 boxes of corn from producer Wilkinson-Cooper, in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for this producer; it purchased the products outright. On May 24, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of jalapeno peppers, white corn, and red radishes. Lester Towell delivered two boxes of jalapeno peppers, 26 boxes of white corn, and 20 boxes of red radishes to VBJ on May 25, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 2 boxes of jalapeno peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 26 boxes of white corn and 20 boxes of red radishes from producer American Growers in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. Lester Towell filed its complaint with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("Department") pursuant to the provisions of section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes, because VBJ did not pay for the products identified above. There is, however, no evidence to establish that Lester Towell was a producer or the agent or representative of a producer with respect to the products for which it seeks payment. It is, therefore, not a "person" entitled to file a complaint with the Department against VBJ and its surety.
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 dismissing the complaint of Lester Towell Distributors, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 3nd day of July 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July 1996
The Issue The issue is whether Garden World of Holiday, Inc., d/b/a Garden World (Respondent), and its surety, Platte River Insurance Company, owe funds to Sturon, Inc. (Petitioner), for the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a producer of agricultural products, specifically tropical foliage materials. The Respondent was a dealer of agricultural products and was apparently involved in a large project that required obtaining substantial quantities of tropical foliage plant product. In July 2006, the Respondent contacted the Petitioner and inquired as to the availability of tropical foliage plant product. The Petitioner and the Respondent had not previously done business together. At the beginning of the sales transactions, the Respondent sought, and the Petitioner granted, a line of credit for the plant material purchases. Beginning on July 28, 2006, and continuing through September 22, 2006, the Respondent purchased and took delivery of tropical foliage plant product from the Petitioner. All materials sold by the Petitioner to the Respondent were in response to telephone orders placed by the Respondent. There is no evidence that the Petitioner charged for any plant materials that were not ordered by the Respondent. All charges for all plants sold by the Petitioner to the Respondent were billed on invoices that were sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent within one day of each delivery. The quantities and prices of the plants were clearly set forth on the invoices. The evidence establishes that the Respondent received the invoices and was aware of the prices being charged by the Petitioner. The Respondent has asserted that there were conversations about the prices being charged by the Petitioner, but there was no evidence presented that there was any agreement between the parties under which the Petitioner agreed to reduce the prices being invoiced. Despite the alleged price concern, the Respondent continued to order plant materials from the Petitioner. Based on a review of the invoices, the total cost of the plant materials sold by the Petitioner to the Respondent was $164,362.67. The Respondent has paid a total of $66,968.69 to the Petitioner. The total unpaid amount is $97,393.98. The Petitioner routinely grew various types of foliage product. When the Petitioner's own supplies were insufficient, or the material requested was not of a type grown by the Petitioner, the Petitioner located and obtained plant materials from other producers for purposes of resale to dealers. The prices of plants obtained from other producers for resale included a "markup" for locating and obtaining the materials for purchase by a dealer. In supplying the plant materials requested by the Respondent in this case, the Petitioner sold from its own inventory and obtained materials from other producers for resale to the Respondent. There was no evidence that the markup was unreasonable or was not common practice in the industry. There is no evidence that the Respondent attempted to locate and obtain plant materials from other suppliers rather than from the Petitioner because of dissatisfaction with the Petitioner's prices. At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent asserted that the Respondent's refusal to pay was related to "price gouging" by the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the Petitioner engaged in "price gouging." There was no evidence that the Respondent could not have located and obtained the plant materials from the same sources from which the Petitioner obtained the materials it did not produce. Although prior to the hearing, the Respondent asserted that some plant materials were not of appropriate quality; there was no evidence presented at the hearing of any quality problems that were not immediately resolved at the time of delivery. At one time, the Respondent asserted that the entity for which the Respondent was purchasing and installing plant materials was tax exempt and that the amount owed should have been accordingly reduced, but there was no evidence offered in support of the assertion and no reduction has been set forth in this Recommended Order. The Respondent presented no evidence to establish any legitimate reason to avoid payment of the $97,393.98 owed to the Petitioner.
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 directing that the Respondent pay the total of $97,393.98, to the Petitioner, and providing for such other procedures as are appropriate to provide for satisfaction of the debt. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 9th day of July, 2007.
The Issue An administrative complaint dated January 24, 1991, alleges that Respondent violated Chapter 450, F.S., Part III, by acting as a farm labor contractor without an active certificate of registration and by contracting with an unregistered individual. The issue for disposition is whether those violations occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Gabriel Bain, the Respondent, has worked in citrus fields for 37 years. At various times he has been registered as a farm labor contractor. He had his own company, Mid-Florida Harvesting, but became bankrupt in 1990 after the citrus freeze disaster. Bain's business address is 30 South Ivey Lane, Orlando, Florida. On or about December 14, 1990, Compliance Officers, Henry Parker and Marshall Carroll were at Nevins Fruit Company in Mims, Brevard County, checking leads on unregistered farm labor contractors. In the course of an interview with Steve Schaffer, Harvest Manager for Nevins, Gabriel Bain was called in as the man who was in charge of the harvesting job. Bain identified himself to the officers with a driver's license and did not have his certificate of registration with him. Schaffer produced the certificate that Bain had submitted when he was hired by Nevins. The certificate was in the name of General Traders, Inc., and had an expiration date of February 28, 1991. "G. Bain" was handwritten on the signature line. During the meeting with Carroll and Parker, on December 14, 1990, Bain freely admitted hiring Jerome Pender as a sub-contractor. Pender was not registered as a farm labor contractor, but had shown Bain papers that he had applied for his certificate. Bain signed a notarized statement attesting to this fact and gave it to the compliance officers. The compliance officers issued a summary of violations to Bain for utilization of an unregistered crewleader. At the time, they were unaware that Bain was, himself, unregistered. Gabriel Bain's registration in the name of Mid-Florida Harvesting expired on June 30, 1990. His application, in the name of General Traders, Inc., was approved on March 1, 1991. In December 1990, he was working for General Traders but was not included in that company's registration. He was not registered in any other name in December 1990, and a subsequent summary of violations was issued, citing "fail to register." In December 1990, at the time of the compliance officers' investigation, Gabriel Bain was working for Nevins Fruit Company as a farm labor contractor and was paid for his work in that capacity. In this work he subcontracted with other labor contractors who provided crews. At the hearing Bain claimed that he lied to the compliance officers about hiring Jerome Pender. He claimed he lied because he had actually hired Willie Simmons, someone whom the Nevins people had told him they did not want "within 100 miles" of their groves. This self-impeachment in no way advances Respondent's averment of innocence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a final order be entered, finding Gabriel Bain guilty of violating Sections 450.30(1), F.S. and 450.35, F.S., and assessing a civil fine of $1250.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARY W. CLARK 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 22nd day of July, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Francisco Rivera, Sr. Atty. Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Gabriel Bain 30 S. Ivey Lane Orlando, Florida 32811 Frank Scruggs, Secretary 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn Chief Legal Counsel 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
