The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a licensed citrus fruit dealer, violated the Florida Citrus Code by failing to pay Petitioner the full purchase price for grapefruit that the dealer had harvested from Petitioner's grove and sold in the ordinary course of business to its (the dealer's) customers; and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness owed by the dealer.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Frontier Fresh of Indian River, LLC ("Seller"), is in the business of growing citrus fruit and hence is a "producer" as that term is defined in the Florida Citrus Code. § 601.03(33), Fla. Stat. Respondent United Indian River Packers, LLC ("Buyer"), is a "citrus fruit dealer" operating within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the "Department"). See § 601.03(8), Fla. Stat. On September 6, 2013, Seller and Buyer entered into a Production Contract Agreement (the "Contract") under which Buyer agreed to purchase and harvest red and flame grapefruit (both generally called "colored grapefruit") then growing in Seller's "Emerald Grove" in St. Lucie County. Buyer promised to pay Seller $7.75 per box plus "rise" for all colored grapefruit harvested from the Emerald Grove during the 2013/2014 season. ("Rise" is an additional payment due Seller if Buyer's net revenue from marketing the fruit exceeds the Contract price or "floor payment.") The Contract gave Buyer and its "agents, employees and vehicles" the right to "enter upon SELLER'S premises . . . from time to time for the purpose of inspecting, testing and picking fruit, and for the purpose of removing said fruit." Buyer was obligated to make scheduled payments to Seller totaling $250,000 between September and December 2013, with the balance of the floor payment "to be made within 45 days from week of harvest." The deadline for making the final rise payment was June 30, 2014. The Contract described the Seller's duties as follows: SELLER agrees to maintain the crop merchantable and free from Citrus Canker, Mediterranean fruit fly, Caribbean fruit fly, and any and all impairments which would alter the ability to market the crop. It is further agreed that in the event of such happening BUYER has the option to renegotiate with SELLER within 10 days of such find, or terminate contract and receive any monies that may be remaining from deposit. It is understood and agreed that the word "merchantable" as herein used, shall mean fruit that has not become damaged by cold, hail, fire, windstorm, insects, drought, disease or any other hazards to the extent it cannot meet all applicable requirements of the laws of the State of Florida and the Federal Government, including without limitation those relating to pesticides, and the regulations of the Florida Department of Citrus relating to grade and quality. With regard to default, the Contract provided: It is further agreed that in case of default by either the BUYER or SELLER the opposite party may, at his option, take legal action to enforce this contract or may enter into negotiations to carry out the terms and provisions thereof, in which event the party found to be in default shall pay reasonable costs in connection with either negotiation or litigation, such cost to include a reasonable attorney's fee to party prevailing in such controversy. The Contract acknowledged the existence of a "Citrus Fruit Dealers Bond" posted with the Department but cautioned that the bond "is not insurance against total 1iabilities that may be incurred if a citrus fruit dealer should default" and "does not necessarily insure full payment of claims for any nonperformance under this contract." Buyer began picking colored grapefruit from the Emerald Grove on October 17, 2013, and initially things went well. For the first month, Buyer achieved encouraging packout percentages of between 60% and 90%. (The packout percentage expresses the ratio of fruit deemed acceptable for the fresh market to the total fruit in the run. A higher packout percentage means fewer "eliminations" for the juice processing plant and thus a more valuable run.) On November 13, 2013, however, the packout rate plunged to around 38%. Although there were some good runs after that date, for the rest of the season the packout percentages of grapefruit picked from the Emerald Grove mostly remained mired in the 30% to 50% range, which is considered undesirably low. Everyone agrees that the 2013/2014 grapefruit crop in the Emerald Grove was disappointing. Representatives of Buyer and Seller met at the Emerald Grove in mid-November to discuss the reduced packout percentages. Mild disagreement about the exact reason or reasons for the drop-off in quality arose, but some combination of damage by rust mites and a citrus disease known as greasy spot is the likeliest culprit.1/ The problems were not unique to Emerald Grove, as the 2013/2014 citrus season was generally poor in the state of Florida. Seller's grapefruit crop was consistent with the statewide crop for that year. Despite the low packout percentages, and being fully aware of the crop's condition, Buyer continued to harvest colored grapefruit from the Emerald Grove, which it packed and exported for sale to its customers in Europe, Japan, and Southeast Asia. After picking fruit on February 3, 2014, however, Buyer repudiated the Contract and left the colored grapefruit remaining in the Emerald Grove to Seller. As a result, Seller sold the rest of the crop to another purchaser.2/ At no time did Buyer notify Seller that it was rejecting any of the grapefruit which Buyer had picked and removed from the Emerald Grove pursuant to the Contract. For months after Buyer stopped performing under the Contract, Seller endeavored to collect the amounts due for all the fruit that Buyer had harvested. By mid-April, however, Buyer still owed several hundred thousand dollars. At a meeting between the parties on April 22, 2014, Buyer proposed that Seller discount the purchase price given the disappointing nature of the crop, which Buyer claimed had caused it to lose some $200,000 in all. Buyer requested that Seller forgive around $100,000 of the debt owed to Buyer, so that Seller, in effect, would absorb half of Seller's losses. Buyer expected that Seller would agree to the proposed reduction in price and maintains that the parties did, in fact, come to a meeting of the minds in this regard, but the greater weight of the evidence shows otherwise. Seller politely but firmly——and unequivocally——rejected Buyer's proposal, although Seller agreed to accept installment payments under a schedule that would extinguish the full debt by August 31, 2014. This response disappointed Buyer, but Buyer continued to make payments to Seller on the agreed upon payment schedule. By email dated June 4, 2014, Buyer's accountant asked Seller if Seller agreed that the final balance due to Seller was $108,670.50. Seller agreed that this was the amount owing. After that, Buyer tried again to persuade Seller to lower the price, but Seller refused. Buyer made no further payments. At no time did Buyer notify Seller that it was revoking its acceptance of any of the fruit harvested from the Emerald Grove during the 2013/2014 season. Having taken physical possession of the fruit, Buyer never attempted to return the goods or demanded that Seller retrieve the fruit. Rather, exercising ownership of the goods, Buyer sold all the colored grapefruit obtained under the Contract to its customers for its own account. On October 14, 2014, Seller brought suit against Buyer in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Indian River County, Florida, initiating Case Number 31-2014-CA-001046. Buyer filed a counterclaim against Seller for breach of contract. On February 4, 2015, Seller filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its judicial complaint, opting to take advantage of available administrative remedies instead, which it is pursuing in this proceeding. As of the final hearing, Buyer's counterclaim remained pending in the circuit court.
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 awarding Frontier Fresh of Indian River, LLC, the sum of $108,670.50, together with pre-award interest at the statutory rate from June 4, 2014, to the date of the final order, and establishing a reasonable time within which said indebtedness shall be paid by United Indian River Packers, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 27th day of August, 2015.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent, as a licensed citrus fruit dealer, misappropriated and marketed citrus fruit owned by Petitioner during the 1992-1993 shipping season, and further, whether such actions constitute a violation of the Florida Citrus Code for which proceeds of the citrus fruit dealer's bond executed by Co-Respondent should be paid to Petitioner in satisfaction of Petitioner's claim pursuant to Section 601.66, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Thompson Fruit Company, is a Florida company with an office in Winter Haven, Florida. Petitioner has been in the business of buying and selling citrus fruit for many years. James Thompson, Jr., (Thompson) is the President of Petitioner. Petitioner was actively engaged in the business of buying and selling citrus fruit during the 1992-1993 shipping season. Respondent, Golden Gem Growers, Inc., is a Florida corporation located in Umatilla, Florida, and was, at all material times, a licensed citrus fruit dealer under the provisions of chapter 601, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a cooperative organization comprised of citrus fruit grower members. Respondent offers various services to its members including harvesting and marketing services. Respondent enters into individual contracts with its grower members to accept and market citrus fruit. During the 1992-1993 shipping season Respondent entered into more than one hundred contracts with its grower members relating to the acceptance and marketing of citrus fruit. Co-Respondent, Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, is a surety company qualified to do business in Florida, which, pursuant to section 601.61, Florida Statutes, during the 1992-1993 shipping season, executed a citrus fruit dealer's bond for Respondent in the amount of $100,000. E.J. Higgins (Higgins) at all material times hereto was a citrus fruit grower and member of Respondent's cooperative organization. On July 23, 1991, Higgins entered into a Revised Grower Member Agreement with Respondent. In accordance with its contract with Higgins, Respondent was obligated to provide citrus fruit harvesting and marketing services to Higgins. On July 5,1990, Higgins had entered into a Crop Agreement and a separate Lease Agreement relating to a citrus grove owned by Pomco Associates, Inc., (Pomco) in Manatee, County, Florida. The grove consisted of approximately 52 acres of red grapefruit trees. The Crop Agreement made no reference to the duration of the agreement. The separate Lease Agreement between Higgins and Pomco expressly stated that the lease ended one year from the date of signing. Higgins provided Respondent with a copy of his July 5, 1990 Crop Agreement and Lease Agreement with Pomco. Respondent thereafter accepted citrus fruit from Higgins which was harvested in the Pomco grove in the 1991-1992 season, and Respondent paid Higgins for the citrus fruit from the Pomco grove at that time. In 1992 and early 1993, Higgins informed Phillip Conant, a Vice- President and Director of the Grower Division of Respondent, that Higgins was a holdover lessee under the Pomco lease, and was entitled to harvest the fruit from the Pomco grove. Under Higgins' contract with Respondent, Respondent was required to provide Higgins with harvesting equipment including trailers and boxes. Respondent was further required under the contract to accept and market the citrus fruit on Higgins' behalf. Respondent advanced Higgins $2,400 toward the marketing of the citrus fruit from the Pomco grove. On January 23, 1993, Higgins requested that Respondent provide him with trailers and boxes to set up Higgins' crew for harvesting the Pomco grove. Respondent complied with Higgins' request, and dispatched a truck and trailer with a load of boxes to the Pomco grove. The truck, trailer and boxes were clearly marked and identified as belonging to Respondent. Prior to this time, on or about December 2, 1992, Petitoner, by and through its President, James Thompson, Jr., had entered into a Purchase Contract and Agreement for the citrus fruit on the same Pomco grove in Manatee County, Florida, for the 1992-1993 season. Under the terms of the contract, Petitioner advanced Pomco $3,000 toward the purchase of the citrus fruit from the Pomco grove. Shortly after Respondent dispatched its equipment to the Pomco grove on January 23, 1993, Thompson was informed that citrus fruit was being harvested from the Pomco grove. Thompson went to the grove, observed the boxes and trailers which were identified as belonging to Respondent, and called Phillip Conant to inform Conant that Thompson had a purchase contract and agreement for the citrus fruit from the Pomco grove. Thompson furnished Conant with a copy of the Petitioner's contract with Pomco. Thompson also contacted the Manatee County Sheriff's Department to remove Higgins' harvesting crew from the Pomco grove. Respondent, by and through its director, Conant, then contacted Higgins who stated that he had obtained a legal opinion that as a holdover lessee under his prior crop agreement and lease with Pomco, he had a right to harvest the fruit from the Pomco grove. Higgins further stated that he expected Respondent to fulfill its contractual obligations to provide harvesting services and to market the citrus fruit. Conant, by telephone, informed Thompson that in light of Higgins' representations, Respondent was unsure as to whether Higgins or Petitioner had a right to harvest the fruit. In response to this information, Thompson stated that he would pursue judicial remedies to resolve the dispute. By letter dated February 4, 1993, Conant confirmed to Thompson that Respondent was taking a "hands off" position as to the dispute between Petitioner and Higgins over the citrus fruit from the Pomco grove. On February 5, 1993, Conant also sent a facsimile copy of the February 4, 1993, letter to Thompson and reiterated to Thompson that Respondent was not knowledgeable of the facts of Petitioner's dispute with Higgins, and would not be involved in the dispute. Between February 7, 1993, and February 13, 1993, Respondent accepted three shipments of citrus fruit from the Pomco grove harvested by Higgins. The three shipments totalled 1,230 boxes. All the fruit accepted by Respondent from the Pomco grove was red grapefruit. At that point in the season, the market for red grapefruit was not good. The net value received by Respondent for the red grapefruit from the Pomco grove was $.9889 per box. A reasonable average price for red grapefruit at that time was $.97 per box. Respondent received a reasonable price per box for the red grapefruit from the Pomco grove during the 1992-1993 shipping season. Respondent received a total of $2,418.86 for the red grapefruit from the Pomco grove. The harvesting costs incurred by Respondent during the 1992- 1993 relating to the Pomco fruit were $1,402.40, leaving a balance of $1,216.34. Respondent has placed the funds received from the Pomco grove fruit during the 1992-1993 shipping season in its escrow account pending a determination as to who is the rightful owner of the funds. Respondent has provided an accurate accounting of the harvesting and marketing of the Pomco grove citrus fruit during the 1992-1993 season. There has not been a judicial resolution of the dispute between Petitioner and Higgins.
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 pursuant to Section 601.66(4), Florida Statutes, dismissing the proceeding. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of May, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 18th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings: Paragraphs 1 through 21 adopted and incorporated. Paragraphs 22 revised as to amount remaining due. COPIES FURNISHED: Commissioner Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Jerri A. Blair, Esquire Post Office Box 130 Tavares, FL 32778 Ray Mattox, Esquire 170 East Central Avenue Post Office Box 917 Winter Haven, FL 33882-0917 Golden Gem Growers Post Office Box 9 Umatilla, FL 32784 Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 1227 Baltimore MD 31203
The Issue This matter began with the filing of a complaint by Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc., (Homestead Tomato) with the Florida Department of Agriculture asserting that it was due $9,502.50 for tomatoes sold January 21, 1985, to Seymour Cohen Brokerage Company (Cohen Brokerage). While Cohen Brokerage did not appear, due to the death of the owner, Seymour Cohen, the surety on its Agricultural Products Bond, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland did appear. Because it represents the interest of Cohen Brokerage, in this order its position will be characterized as that of Cohen Brokerage. Cohen had already paid $16,360.00 for the tomatoes. The dispute centers upon the agreement between the parties as to the price of the tomatoes. The parties agree that the price was to be set after the tomatoes were shipped, due to an impending freeze which had caused volatility in the price for tomatoes. Homestead Tomato contends that other purchasers bought tomatoes at about the same time and agreed to the price which Homestead Tomato claims is due from Cohen Brokerage. Cohen Brokerage maintains that the price claimed is excessive, and that the payment made was full payment.
Findings Of Fact Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc., sells tomatoes as agent for Strano Farms of Florida City, Florida, which produces tomatoes. Cohen Brokerage is a licensed dealer in agricultural products holding license number 3047, which is supported by a bond written by the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, number 9634509. Seymour Cohen died, apparently before the complaint in this action was filed. See the Verified Suggestion of Death of Party and Motion to Dismiss filed on June 26, 1986. On Thursday, January 17, 1985, Rosario Strano, the President of Homestead Tomato, learned that a freeze would occur in South Florida on or about January 22, 1985. Strano notified Homestead Tomato's sales staff, including Thomas Banks, that beginning January 19, 1985, all sales were to be made at prices to be determined following the freeze. On January 21, 1985, Cohen Brokerage, acting through Rick Cohen (the son of Seymour Cohen, now deceased), purchased 1,600 boxes of Strano Pride #25, 6X7 (medium) tomatoes. Both parties testified that the price was not established on Monday, January 21, but that it would be established "sometime in the middle of the week" (Testimony of T. Banks, Transcript 177)) on or about Wednesday, January 23, 1985 (Testimony of R. Cohen, Transcript 225). This is consistent with the brokerage confirmation from Cohen Brokerage dated January 21, 1985, which was belatedly submitted to Homestead Tomato, stating that the tomatoes were "to be priced on or about Wednesday, 1/23/85, in line with Florida Tomato industry Market". The parties intended that the tomatoes would be priced by Wednesday, January 23, 1985, in accordance with the market price for U.S. number one tomatoes 85 percent or better. The freeze did occur on January 21 and 22, 1985, which caused a shortage of high quality unfrozen tomatoes. The expectation of the freeze had caused uncertainty in the market price for tomatoes during the period January 19 through January 25, 1985. From January 19 through January 22, 1985, Homestead Tomato sold 43 loads of tomatoes to buyers at prices to be determined later. On Wednesday, January 23, 1985, Rosario Strano set his price for 6x7 Strano Pride tomatoes at $16.00 a box and told sales staff to inform those who had purchased from Homestead Tomato before the $16.00 per box price had been set that they could return the tomatoes if they were dissatisfied with his price. According to Mr. Strano, he was unable to compare his prices the week after the freeze to what competitors were charging for like quality, unfrozen tomatoes because there were not enough others with tomatoes to make a price comparison. (Transcript 44-45). On January 23, Homestead Tomato's salesman Banks called Rick Cohen and gave him the price. The Florida Fruit and Vegetable Report is a market quotation service for agricultural commodities published by the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Division and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Marketing, Bureau of Market News. It is used and generally relied on by those in agriculture. It shows that tomatoes sold January 21, 1985, were sold with sales prices to be established later. The January 24th edition of the report shows that on January 23, 6x7 tomatoes sold for $16.00 per box. Homestead Tomato also introduced evidence that other buyers purchased 6 x 7 tomatoes which were shipped between January 19 and January 23, 1985, who were invoiced at $16.00 per box and paid that amount. This evidence of price is undercut, however, by the testimony of Rosario Strano with respect to disputes he had with other tomato purchasers, such as acme Pre-Pack over his price of $16.00 for medium tomatoes. Under cross-examination about whether he had reduced his billing or given a discount to protesting purchasers, Mr. Strano testified: The only -- Way back last -- latter part of February, I told them I would not give rebates. I told Mr. -- when they bought future tomatoes, when we got back in the tomatoes, we would work out an arrangement. I never quoted $2. I heard quoted $2, 4, 6, 8. I never quoted the price. I told them that I understood their plight but that I was not -- they had to take that then and there, settle and pay in full, or I was not going to do anything, and [there] was a reason for that, [which] was to expedite the collections of some very, very serious money, as you can see in this [case] right here. Transcript pages 165-166. Cohen Brokerage was invoiced $16.00 per box on January 25, 1986, for the tomatoes it had received on January 21, 1985. The total amount of the bill was $25,862.50. Cohen Brokerage made a payment on the invoice in the amount of $16,360.00 which then caused Homestead Tomato to file the instant complaint for the balance billed of $9,502.50.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the complaint filed by Homestead Tomato against Cohen Brokerage be dimissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3923A The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. 8. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as argument. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as inconsistent with the more significant testimony of Mr. Strano relied on in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as inconsistent with other evidence, see for example Petitioner's Exhibit #29. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected because the prices quoted were asking prices but not necessarily market prices. See Conclusion of Law 3. Rejected as a recitation of evidence. Rejected as a recitation of evidence. Rejected as a recitation of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent (Seymour Cohen Brokerage Company) Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 and the statement of the issues. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as a conclusion of law. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Scherer was unpersuasive because the methodology implied to determine the price of $10.00 per box for 6x7 tomatoes was not adequately explained. Rejected as unnecessary. Sentence 1 rejected as unnecessary. Sentence 2 covered in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexander J. Pires, Jr., Esquire 2501 M. Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20037 Murray H. Dubbin, Esquire 1000 Rivergate Plaza 444 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017- 108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments To Be Used In Conjunction With Tax-Exempt Bond Financing And Non-Competitive Housing Credits” was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to provide and promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is authorized to establish procedures to distribute low income housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of these credits. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida Housing is considered an agency of the State of Florida. To promote affordable housing in Florida, Florida Housing offers a variety of programs to distribute housing credits. (Housing credits, also known as tax credits, are a dollar-for-dollar offset of federal income tax liability.) One of these programs is the State Apartment Incentive Loan program (“SAIL”), which provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers. SAIL funds are available each year to support the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to very low- income individuals and families. See § 420.5087, Fla. Stat. Additional sources of financial assistance include the Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond program (“MMRB”) and non- competitive housing credits. Florida Housing administers the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits, SAIL funds, nontaxable revenue bonds, and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation. Florida Housing initiates the competitive application process by issuing a Request for Applications. §§ 420.507(48) and 420.5087(1), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(4). The Request for Application at issue in this matter is RFA 2017-108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments to Be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt Bond Financing and Non-Competitive Housing Credits.” Florida Housing issued RFA 2017-108 on August 31, 2017. Applications were due by October 12, 2017.6/ The purpose of RFA 2017-108 is to distribute funding to create affordable housing in the State of Florida. Through RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing intends to award approximately $87,000,000 for proposed developments serving elderly and family demographic groups in small, medium, and large counties. RFA 2017-108 allocates $46,279,600 to large counties, $32,308,400 to medium counties, and $8,732,000 to small counties. RFA 2017-108 established goals to fund: Two Elderly, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; Three Family, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; One Elderly, new construction Application located in a Medium County; and Two Family, new construction Applications located in Medium Counties. Thirty-eight developers submitted applications in response to RFA 2017-108. Of these applicants, Florida Housing found 28 eligible for funding, including all Petitioners and Intervenors in this matter. Florida Housing received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2017-108, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67- 48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. RFA 2017-108 provided that applicants were scored based on certain demographic and geographic funding tests. Florida Housing sorted applications from the highest scoring to the lowest. Only applications that met all the eligibility requirements were eligible for funding and considered for selection. Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to review and score each application. On November 15, 2017, the Review Committee announced its scores at a public meeting and recommended which projects should be awarded funding. On December 8, 2017, the Review Committee presented its recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors for final agency action. The Board of Directors subsequently approved the Review Committee’s recommendations and announced its intention to award funding to 16 applicants. As a preliminary matter, prior to the final hearing, Florida Housing agreed to the following reassessments in the scoring and selection of the applications for funding under RFA 2017-108: SP Lake and Osprey Pointe: In the selection process, Florida Housing erroneously determined that SP Lake was eligible to meet the funding goal for the “Family” demographic for the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. (SP Lake specifically applied for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Consequently, Florida Housing should have selected Osprey Pointe to meet the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. Osprey Pointe proposed to construct affordable housing in Pasco County, Florida. Florida Housing represents that Osprey Pointe is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (While Osprey Pointe replaces SP Lake in the funding selection for the “Family” demographic, SP Lake remains eligible for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Sierra Bay and Northside II: In the scoring process, Florida Housing erroneously awarded Sierra Bay proximity points for Transit Services. Upon further review, Sierra Bay should have received zero proximity points. Consequently, Sierra Bay’s application is ineligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. By operation of the provisions of RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing should have selected Northside II (the next highest ranked, eligible applicant) for funding to meet the Elderly, Large County, New Construction Goal. Florida Housing represents that Northside II is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. Harbour Springs: Florida Housing initially deemed Harbour Springs eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108 and selected it to meet the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal. However, because Harbour Springs and Woodland Grove are owned by the same entity and applied using the same development site, under rule 67-48.004(1), Harbour Springs is ineligible for funding. (Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove for funding for the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal, is not affected by this determination.) The sole disputed issue of material fact concerns Liberty Square’s challenge to Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Liberty Square and Woodland Grove applied to serve the same demographic population under RFA 2017-108. If Liberty Square successfully challenges Woodland Grove’s application, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, will be selected for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal instead of Woodland Grove. (At the hearing on December 8, 2017, Florida Housing’s Board of Directors awarded Woodland Grove $7,600,000 in funding.) The focus of Liberty Square’s challenge is the information Woodland Grove provided in response to RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d., entitled “Latitude/Longitude Coordinates.” Liberty Square argues that Woodland Grove’s application is ineligible because its Development Location Point, as well as the locations of its Community Services and Transit Services, are inaccurate. Therefore, Woodland Grove should have received zero “Proximity” points which would have disqualified its application for funding. RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d(1), states, in pertinent part: All Applicants must provide a Development Location Point stated in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. RFA 2017-108 set forth scoring considerations based on latitude/longitude coordinates in Section Four, A.5.e, entitled “Proximity.” Section Four, A.5.e, states, in pertinent part: The Application may earn proximity points based on the distance between the Development Location Point and the Bus or Rail Transit Service . . . and the Community Services stated in Exhibit A. Proximity points will not be applied to the total score. Proximity points will only be used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference ” In other words, the Development Location Point identified the specific location of an applicant’s proposed housing site.7/ Applicants earned “proximity points” based on the distance between its Development Location Point and selected Transit and Community Services. Florida Housing also used the Development Location Point to determine whether an application satisfied the Mandatory Distance Requirement under RFA 2017-108, Section Four A.5.f. To be eligible for funding, all applications had to qualify for the Mandatory Distance Requirement. The response section to Section Four, A.5.d., is found in Exhibit A, section 5, which required each applicant to submit information regarding the “Location of proposed Development.” Section 5 specifically requested: County; Address of Development Site; Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites?; Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Proximity; Mandatory Distance Requirement; and Limited Development Area. Section 5.d. (Latitude and Longitude Coordinates) was subdivided into: (1) Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place In its application, Woodland Grove responded in section 5.a-d as follows: County: Miami-Dade Address of Development Site: NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032. Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites? No. Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 25.518647 Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 80.418583 In plotting geographic coordinates, a “-” (negative) sign in front of the longitude indicates a location in the western hemisphere (i.e., west of the Prime Meridian, which is aligned with the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, England). A longitude without a “-” sign places the coordinate in the eastern hemisphere. (Similarly, a latitude with a negative value is south of the equator. A latitude without a “-” sign refers to a coordinate in the northern hemisphere.) As shown above, the longitude coordinate Woodland Grove listed in section 5.d(1) did not include a “-” sign. Consequently, instead of providing a coordinate for a site in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Woodland Grove entered a Development Location Point located on the direct opposite side of the planet (apparently, in India). At the final hearing, Florida Housing (and Woodland Grove) explained that, except for the lack of the “-” sign, the longitude Woodland Grove recorded would have fallen directly on the address it listed as its development site in section 5.b., i.e., the “NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032.” In addition to the longitude in section 5.d., Woodland Grove did not include a “-” sign before the longitude coordinates for its Transit Services in section 5.e(2)(b) or for any of the three Community Services provided in section 5.e(3). Again, without a “-” sign, the longitude for each of these services placed them in the eastern hemisphere (India) instead of the western hemisphere (Miami-Dade County). In its protest, Liberty Square contends that, because Woodland Grove’s application listed a Development Location Point in India, Florida Housing should have awarded Woodland Grove zero proximity points under Section Four, A.5.e. Consequently, Woodland Grove’s application failed to meet minimum proximity eligibility requirements and is ineligible for funding. Therefore, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, should be awarded funding for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108.8/ Liberty Square asserts that a correct Development Location Point is critical because it serves as the beginning point for assigning proximity scores. Waiving an errant Development Location Point makes the proximity scoring meaningless. Consequently, any such waiver by Florida Housing is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to competition. At the final hearing, Woodland Grove claimed that it inadvertently failed to include the “-” sign before the longitude points. To support its position, Woodland Grove expressed that, on the face of its application, it was obviously applying for funding for a project located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, not India. In at least five places in its application, Woodland Grove specified that its proposed development would be located in Miami-Dade County. Moreover, several attachments to Woodland Grove’s application specifically reference a development site in Florida. Woodland Grove attached a purchase agreement for property located in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 8). To satisfy the Ability to Proceed requirements in RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove included several attachments which all list a Miami-Dade address (Attachments 9-14). Further, Woodland Grove submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form executed on behalf of the Mayor of Miami-Dade County, which committed Miami-Dade County to contribute $1,000,000.00 to Woodland Grove’s proposed Development (Attachment 15). Finally, to qualify for a basis boost under RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove presented a letter from Miami-Dade County’s Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, which also referenced the address of the proposed development in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 16). In light of this information, Woodland Grove argues that its application, taken as a whole, clearly communicated that Woodland Grove intended to build affordable housing in Miami-Dade County. Nowhere in its application, did Woodland Grove reference a project in India other than the longitude coordinates which failed to include “-” signs. Accordingly, Florida Housing was legally authorized to waive Woodland Grove’s mistake as a “harmless error.” Thus, Florida Housing properly selected the Woodland Grove’s development for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Florida Housing advocates for Woodland Grove’s selection to meet the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017- 108. Florida Housing considers the omission of the “-” signs before the longitude coordinates a “Minor Irregularity” under rule 67-60.002(6). Therefore, Florida Housing properly acted within its legal authority to waive, and then correct, Woodland Grove’s faulty longitude coordinates when scoring its application. In support of its position, Florida Housing presented the testimony of Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s current Director of Multifamily Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button oversees the Request for Applications process; although, she did not personally participate in the review, scoring, or selection decisions for RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button initially explained the process by which Florida Housing selected the 16 developments for funding under RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button conveyed that Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score the applications. Florida Housing selected Review Committee participants based on the staff member’s experience, preferences, and workload. Florida Housing also assigned a backup reviewer to separately score each application. The Review Committee members independently evaluated and scored their assigned portions of the applications based on various mandatory and scored items. Thereafter, the scorer and backup reviewer met to reconcile their scores. If any concerns or questions arose regarding an applicant’s responses, the scorer and backup reviewer discussed them with Florida Housing’s supervisory and legal staff. The scorer then made the final determination as to each application. Ms. Button further explained that applicants occasionally make errors in their applications. However, not all errors render an application ineligible. Florida Housing is authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities.” As delineated in RFA 2017-108, Section Three, A.2.C., Florida Housing may waive “Minor Irregularities” when the errors do not provide a competitive advantage or adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67- 60.002(6) and 67-60.008. Such was the case regarding Woodland Grove’s application. Heather Green, the Florida Housing staff member who scored the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, waived the inaccurate longitude coordinates as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green then reviewed Woodland Grove’s application as if the proposed development was located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Florida Housing assigned Ms. Green, a Multifamily Loans Manager, as the lead scorer for the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, which included the Development Location Point listed in Exhibit A, section 5.d. Ms. Green has worked for Florida Housing since 2003 and has scored proximity points for Request for Applications for over ten years. At the final hearing, Florida Housing offered the deposition testimony of Ms. Green. In her deposition, Ms. Green testified that she is fully aware that, to be located in the western hemisphere (i.e., Miami-Dade County), a longitude coordinate should be marked with a negative sign or a “W.” Despite this, Ms. Green felt that the longitude coordinates Woodland Grove used without negative signs, particularly its Development Location Point, were clearly typos or unintentional mistakes. Therefore, Ms. Green waived the lack of a negative sign in front of the longitude coordinates in section 5.d. and section 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green understood that she was authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities” by rule under the Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Green felt comfortable waiving the inaccurate longitude coordinates because everywhere else in Woodland Grove’s application specifically showed that its proposed housing development was located in Miami-Dade County, not India. Accordingly, when scoring Woodland Grove’s application, Ms. Green corrected the longitude entries by including a negative sign when she plotted the coordinates with her mapping software. Ms. Green then determined that, when a “-” was inserted before the longitude, the coordinate lined up with the address Woodland Grove listed for the Development Location Point. Therefore, Woodland Grove received proximity points and was eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (See RFA 2017-108, Section Five.A.1.) However, Ms. Green acknowledged that if she had scored the application just as it was presented, Woodland Grove would not have met the required qualifications for eligibility. Ms. Button relayed that Florida Housing fully accepted Ms. Green’s decision to waive the missing negative signs in Woodland Grove’s response to section 5.d. and 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Button opined that Woodland Grove’s failure to place a “-” mark before the longitude was clearly an unintentional mistake. Ms. Button further commented that Florida Housing did not believe that scoring Woodland Grove’s development as if located in the western hemisphere (instead of India), provided Woodland Grove a competitive advantage. Because it was evident on the face of the application that Woodland Grove desired to develop a housing site in Miami-Dade County, Ms. Green’s decision to overlook the missing “-” sign did not award Woodland Grove additional points or grant Woodland Grove an advantage over other applicants. Neither did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. However, Ms. Button also conceded that if Ms. Green had scored the application without adding the “-” sign, Woodland Grove would have received zero proximity points. This result would have rendered Woodland Grove’s application ineligible for funding. Ms. Button also pointed out that Ms. Green waived the omission of “-” signs in two other applications as “Minor Irregularities.” Both Springhill Apartments, LLC, and Harbour Springs failed to include negative signs in front of their longitude coordinates. As with Woodland Grove, Ms. Green considered the development sites in those applications as if they were located in Miami-Dade County (i.e., in the western hemisphere). Ms. Green also waived a mistake in the Avery Commons application as a “Minor Irregularity.” The longitude coordinate for the Avery Commons Development Location Point (section 5.d(1)) was blank. However, Ms. Green determined that Avery Commons had placed the longitude in the blank reserved for Scattered Sites coordinates (section 5.d(2)). When scoring Avery Commons’ application, Ms. Green considered the coordinate in the appropriate section. According to Ms. Button, Florida Housing felt that this variation did not provide Avery Commons a competitive advantage. Nor did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Finally, Ms. Button explained that the application Florida Housing used for RFA 2017-108 was a relatively new format. In previous Request For Applications, Florida Housing required applicants to submit a Surveyor Certification Form. On the (now obsolete) Surveyor Certification Form, Florida Housing prefilled in an “N” in front of all the latitude coordinates and a “W” in front of all the longitude coordinates. However, the application used in RFA 2017-108 did not place an “N” or “W” before the Development Location Point coordinates. Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, Liberty Square did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Florida Housing’s decision to award funding to Woodland Grove for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108 was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Florida Housing was within its legal authority to waive, then correct, the missing “-” sign in Woodland Grove’s application as “Minor Irregularity.” Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that Florida Housing’s proposed action to select Woodland Grove for funding was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of RFA 2017-108.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the protest by Liberty Square. It is further recommended that Florida Housing Finance Corporation rescind the intended awards to Sierra Bay, SP Lake, and Harbour Springs, and instead designate Northside II, Osprey Pointe, and Pembroke Tower Apartments as the recipients of funding under RFA 2017-108.10/ DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2018.
The Issue The Respondents have all been charged with multiple violations of Chapter 48, Florida Statutes. The specific violations charged raise the following issues: Whether the Respondents violated Section 489.023(1), Florida Statutes, by offering, disposing, or participating in the offer or disposition of subdivided lands located in Dade and Osceola Counties, Florida, without a valid order of registration from the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes. Whether the Respondents violated Section 498.023(2), Florida Statutes, by disposing or participating in the disposition of subdivided lands located in Dade and Osceola Counties, Florida, without furnishing each purchaser with a public offering statement, approved by the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, prior to the purchase. Whether the Respondents violated Section 498.023(3), Florida Statutes, by disposing or participating in the disposition of subdivided lands principally offered by long distance telephone solicitation without furnishing the prospective purchaser with a copy of a synopsis or summary of the sales script, approved by the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes prior to the execution of the sales agreement Whether Melvin Lewis, Larry Burton Lewis, Virginia G. Young, or Julio Bercowicz are jointly and severally liable with one or more of the other Respondents for the foregoing violations because of materially participating in the offer or disposition of subdivided lands located in Florida, which offers or dispositions were made in violation of Chapter 498, Florida Statutes, and involved fraud, deception, false pretenses, misrepresentation, or false advertising. Underlying all of the foregoing issues is the issue of whether the activities of the Respondents alleged in the several Notices To Show Cause constitute a "common promotional plan" within the meaning of Rule 7D-1.003(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these cases, Melvin Lewis and Fay Lewis were and are husband and wife. Larry Burton Lewis ("Larry Lewis") and Cindy Morales are their son and daughter. During the period June 11, 1984, through March 16, 1987 (and perhaps later), Helen Lewis was married to Larry Lewis. Julio Bercowicz is the brother of Helen Lewis. From 1980 through 1987, Virginia Young was employed by Melvin Lewis as a secretary. South Florida Properties, Inc., was a Florida corporation created on April 26, 1977, for purposes which included selling real property located in section 21, township 54 south, range 37 east, Dade County, Florida, comprising 48 lots known as South Florida Properties. West Miami Estates, Inc., is an active Florida corporation created on July 20, 1978, for purposes which included selling the following real property: approximately 40 acres in the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of section 19, approximately 10 acres in the northeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of section 33, and approximately 21.25 acres in the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of section 34, all in township 55 south, range 37 east, Dade County, Florida, comprising 48 lots known as West Miami Estates. Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., is an active Florida corporation created on October 12, 1979, for purposes which included selling approximately 60 acres in both the southwest 1/4 and the southern 1/2 of the northwest 1/4, of the southwest 1/4 of section 17, township 54 south, range 38 east, and approximately 10 acres in the east 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of section 35, township 55 south, range 37 east, Dade County, Florida, comprising 48 lots known as Miami Kendall Estates. Randy Landes was the original incorporator, director, and president of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc. Miami Kendall West Inc., was a Florida corporation created on April 15, 1980, for purposes which included selling approximately 10 acres in the south 1/2 of the south 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 of section 32, township 54 south, range 38 east, and approximately 40 acres in the northeast 1/4 and approximately 20 acres in the west 1/2 of the southwest 1/4, both in the southwest 1/4 of section 34, township 55 south, range 37 east, section 34, Dade County, Florida, comprising 46 lots known as Miami Kendall West. Gateway Acres, Inc., is an active Florida corporation created on February 9, 1984, for purposes which included selling approximately 60 acres located in the western 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of section 16, township 25 south, range 27 east, Osceola County, Florida, comprising 48 lots, numbered 27 through 39 and 42 through 76, known as Gateway Acres. Maingate Acres, Inc., is an active Florida corporation created on June 11, 1984, for purposes which included selling approximately 35 acres located in the western 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 and in the northeastern 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of section 16, township 25 south, range 27 east, Osceola County, Florida, comprising 28 lots, numbered 1 through 26, 40, and 41, known as Maingate Acres. Central Florida Estates, Inc., is an active Florida corporation created on November 4, 1985, for purposes which included selling approximately 60 acres located in the southern 3/4 of the south 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of section 19, township 25 south, range 27 east, Osceola County, Florida, comprising 48 lots known as Central Florida Estates. Mid-Florida Acres, Inc., is an active Florida corporation created on December 18, 1985, for purposes which included selling approximately 60 acres located in the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of section 19, township 25 south, range 27 east, Osceola County, Florida, comprising 48 lots known as Mid-Florida Acres. Melvin Lewis controlled or participated in the formation, operation, or business of South Florida Properties, Inc., West Miami Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall West, Inc., Gateway Acres, Inc., Maingate Acres, Inc., M and L Management, Inc., and Central Florida Estates, Inc., as follows: Melvin Lewis was a subscriber to the formation of South Florida Properties, Inc., Gateway Acres, Inc., and M and L Management, Inc., and participated in the formation of Central Florida Estates, Inc. Melvin Lewis is and has been the sole shareholder of Gateway Acres, Inc., since 1984, of Maingate Acres, Inc., since 1986, and of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., and Central Florida Estates, Inc., since 1988. Melvin Lewis was the president of South Florida Properties, Inc., from 1977 through 1983; the president and a director of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., from 1988 to the present; the president of Gateway Acres, Inc., from 1984 to present; the president of M and L Management, Inc., from 1985 to the present; the president and a director of Maingate Acres, Inc., from 1987 to the present; and the president and a director of Central Florida Estates Inc., from 1988 to the present. Melvin Lewis has been the registered agent for Gateway Acres, Inc., from 1984; for Maingate Acres, Inc., from 1986; for M and L Management, Inc., from 1985; and for Central Florida Estates, Inc., from 1988. Melvin Lewis executed the following checks, drawn on the indicated bank accounts, to pay the necessary filing fees to the Florida Secretary of State for the incorporation of the indicated corporations: Gateway Acres, Inc., paid by check number 161, and Maingate Acres, Inc., paid by check number 186, both drawn on the account of Melvin Lewis Licensed Real Estate Broker, account number 0104101960, with the Executive National Bank. M and L Management, Inc., paid by check number 50 drawn on the account of Gateway Acres, Inc., account number 0104105354, Executive National Bank. Central Florida Estates, Inc., paid by check number 2333 drawn on the account of Melvin Lewis and Fay Lewis, account number 0107205147, Executive National Bank. Melvin Lewis participated in dividing into lots for resale those parcels known as Miami Kendall Estates, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, and Central Florida Estates. Melvin Lewis directed and controlled the sale of lots in Miami Kendall Estates, Gateway Acres, and Maingate Acres. He further directed and controlled the sale of lots in Central Florida Estates as the real estate broker for Central Florida Estates, Inc. Melvin Lewis was authorized to execute agreements for deed as an agent for west Miami Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall West, Inc., Gateway Acres, Inc., and Maingate Acres, Inc. As an authorized agent for each corporation, he executed at least two agreements for deed for west Miami Estates, Inc. (November 6, 1978 and August 15, 1979), one each for Miami Kendall Estates, Inc. (January 12, 1980), and Miami Kendall West, Inc. (January 28, 1981), four for Gateway Acres, Inc. (September 12, 26, 30 and October 5, 1984), and three for Maingate Acres, Inc. (September 7, 10, 14, 1984). As a notary public commissioned by the State of Florida, Melvin Lewis notarized the signature of Cindy Morales on six agreements for deed for Miami Kendall west, Inc. (dated from March 22 through September 21, 1982), and on one agreement for deed for Central Florida Estates, Inc. (January 28, 1986). He also notarized the signature of Fay Lewis on forty agreements for deed for Gateway Acres, Inc. (dated from April 23, 1984, through August 8, 1985), and on twenty agreements for deed for Maingate Acres, Inc. (dated from July 8 through October 31, 1984). He also notarized the agreement for deed, dated November 11, 1984, between Maingate Acres Inc., and Irma Jean DeWitt and/or Jean M. Hutchens for Maingate Acres lot 11. Melvin Lewis also notarized the corporate execution for deeds conveying lots to purchasers from West Miami Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., and Miami Kendall West, Inc. Larry Lewis controlled or participated in the formation, operation, or business of South Florida Properties, Inc., West Miami Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall West, Inc., Gateway Acres, Inc., Maingate Acres, Inc., Central Florida Estates, Inc., and Mid-Florida Acres, Inc. as follows: Larry Lewis was a subscriber in the formation of West Miami Estates, Inc., and South Florida Properties, Inc., and participated in the formation of Central Florida Estates, Inc. Larry Lewis was president and a director of West Miami Estates, Inc., from 1979 through 1984, and from 1987 to the present; an officer of South Florida Properties, Inc., from 1977 to 1979; and the president of Mid-Florida Acres; Inc., from 1987 to the present. Larry Lewis has been the sole shareholder of West Miami Estates, Inc., since 1978 and the sole shareholder of Mid-Florida Acres, Inc., since 1986. Larry Lewis participated in dividing into lots for resale those parcels known as West Miami Estates and Mid-Florida Acres. From the inception of West Miami Estates, Inc., and of Mid-Florida Acres, Inc., Larry Lewis has controlled the daily operations and sale of lots by each corporation. Purchasers for lots in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, and Mid- Florida Acres were solicited by Larry Lewis using long distance telephone calls. Fay Lewis controlled or participated in the formation, operation or business of South Florida Properties, Inc., West Miami Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall West, Inc., Gateway Acres, Inc., and Maingate Acres, Inc., as follows: Fay Lewis was a subscriber to the formation of South Florida Properties, Inc., and Miami Kendall West, Inc. Fay Lewis was the president and a director of Miami Kendall West, Inc., from its inception in 1980 until its dissolution in 1988. As president of West Miami Estates, Inc., Fay Lewis executed the warranty deed conveying lot 35A of West Miami Estates to Troy Johnson. From April 30, 1984, to August 12, 1985, Fay Lewis executed at least forty agreements for deed on behalf of Gateway Acres, Inc.; thirty-eight as corporate secretary and two as an agent for the corporation. From July 17 to November 19, 1984, Fay Lewis executed at least twenty agreements for deed on behalf of Maingate Acres, Inc.; eighteen as corporate secretary and two as an agent for the corporation. Fay Lewis executed two separate warranty deeds conveying lots in Miami Kendall Estates as a witness to the execution by the president of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc. Cindy Morales participated in the operation or business of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall West, Inc., and Central Florida Estates, Inc., as follows: From April 29 to September 28, 1982, Cindy Morales executed six agreements for deed as an authorized agent for Miami Kendall West, Inc. From January 21 to February 27, 1986, Cindy Morales executed fifteen agreements for deed as an authorized agent for Central Florida Estates, Inc. Cindy Morales also executed two separate warranty deeds conveying lots in Miami Kendall Estates as a witness to the execution by the president of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc. In 1985, Virginia Young participated in the formation of Central Florida Estates, Inc., and was listed as the sole subscriber, president, and registered agent. She participated in the daily operations of the corporation, including the filing of annual reports with the Florida Secretary of State. In 1987, she resigned her positions with Central Florida Estates, Inc., and transferred the corporation to Melvin Lewis. Saundra Bonduel ("Bonduel"), who was Melvin Lewis' accountant, was an officer in South Florida Properties, Inc., West Miami Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall West, Inc., Gateway Acres, Inc., Maingate Acres, Inc., M and L Management, Inc., and Central Florida Estates, Inc., as follows: Bonduel was a vice president of South Florida Properties, Inc., from 1978 to 1983; of West Miami Estates, Inc., from 1979 to the present; of Miami Kendall West, Inc., from 1981 to 1987; of Gateway Acres, Inc., and Maingate Acres, Inc., from 1985 to the present; of M and L Management, Inc., from 1987 to the present, and of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc.; and Central Florida Estates, Inc., from 1988 to the present. Bonduel was a director and the corporate secretary of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., from 1980 to 1988. In the foregoing capacities, Bonduel executed the annual reports filed with the Florida Secretary of State for each corporation as follows: South Florida Properties, Inc. (1978-1983); West Miami Estates, Inc. (1979-1989); Miami Kendall Estates, Inc. (1980, 1982-1989); Miami Kendall West, Inc. (1982- 1987); Gateway Acres, Inc., and Maingate Acres, Inc. (1985-1989); M and L Management, Inc. (1987-1988); and Central Florida Estates, Inc. (1988-1989). South Florida Properties, Inc., West Miami Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall West, Inc., Gateway Acres, Inc., Maingate Acres, Inc., M and L Management, Inc., Central Florida Estates, Inc., and Mid- Florida Acres, Inc. have shared common offices and telephones, as follows: All of the corporations are or have been located at 633 N.E. 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33162, as follows: South Florida Properties, Inc.: Suite 519 (1978); Suite 1020 (1979); Suite 810 (1980-1983) West Miami Estates, Inc.: Suite 1020 (1979); Suite 810 (1980 to the present) Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., and Miami Kendall West, Inc.: Suite 810 (1981 to the present). Gateway Acres, Inc., and Maingate Acres, Inc.: Suite 810 (1985 to the present) M and L Management, Inc.: Suite 810 (1987 to the present). Mid-Florida Acres, Inc.: Suite 810 (1986 to the present). Central Florida Estates, Inc.: Suite 810 (1988 to the present). 2114 N.E. 182nd Street, North Miami Beach, Florida, was the personal address for Larry Lewis from 1979 through 1984; the personal address of Randy L. Landes, incorporator of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., from 1979 through 1984; the personal address of Helen Lewis from 1984 through 1986; the corporate address of Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., in 1979 and 1980; and the corporate address of Maingate Acres, Inc., in 1984. 4927 S.W. 139th Court, Miami, Florida 33175 was the corporate address for Gateway Acres, Inc., in 1984 and for M and L Management, Inc., in 1985 and 1986. (305) 652-8523 was the telephone number given for the officer executing each of the annual reports listed below for the following corporations: West Miami Estates, Inc., and Miami (Kendall Estates, Inc. (1980-present); South Florida Properties, Inc. (1980-1983); Miami Kendall West, Inc. (1981-1987); Gateway Acres, Inc., and Maingate Acres, Inc. (1985-present); M and L Management, Inc. (1986-present); Central Florida Estates, Inc. (1988-present); Mid-Florida Acres, Inc. (1986). Mel Lewis, Larry Lewis, and Fay Lewis are authorized signers for the following corporate bank accounts with Executive National Bank, Miami, Dade County, Florida; each account opened on the indicated date: Miami Kendall West, Inc., Account Number 010-410-176-6-06, opened on October 12, 1982; Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., Account Number 010-410-179-0-06, opened on October 12, 1982; West Miami Estates, Inc., Account Number 010-410-177-4-06, opened on October 12, 1982. West Dade Acres, Inc., Account Number 010- 410-178-2-06, opened on October 12, 1982, with Cindy Morales listed as an additional signer; Gateway Acres, Inc., Account Number 101- 010-410-5354-06, opened on July 12, 1984; Maingate Acres, Inc., Account Number 010- 410-6350-06, opened on June 25, 1984. Mel Lewis, Larry Lewis, and Fay Lewis were the authorized signers for Skylake State Bank, Account Number 102-007-6, opened July 28, 1978, for West Miami Estates, Inc. Mel Lewis and Larry Lewis were the authorized signers for the bank account of South Florida Properties, Inc., at Skylake State Bank, Account Number 101-526-9. Julio Bercowicz executed agreements for deed as an authorized agent of Mid-Florida Acres, Inc. Julio Bercowicz was the original incorporator of Mid- Florida Acres, Inc., and was, at one time, the sole stockholder. He was president of Mid-Florida Acres, Inc., until at least March 17, 1986. The properties offered as West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, and Miami Kendall West share certain characteristics. All are located in the portion of the Everglades lying east of the Everglades National park. The parcels are typical Everglades wetland: primarily sawgrass prairie with occasional hardwood hammocks on slightly elevated areas and subject to seasonal flooding. Several of the small parcels comprising West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, and Miami Kendall West are located close together. One of the parcels sold as West Miami Estates and two of those sold as Miami Kendall West; are located within the one square mile of section 34, township 55 south, range 37 east, Dade County, Florida. A second parcel of West Miami Estates and the smaller parcel of Miami Kendall Estates are located in sections 33 and 35, respectively, township 55 south, range 37 east, on either side of the foregoing section 34. The parcels sold as Gateway Acres and Maingate Acres are contiguous and were formed from the single large parcel conveyed by Sand Hills Corporation to Melvin M. Lewis Licensed Real Estate Broker, Inc., on March 30, 1984. The single parcel was divided into a total of seventy-six consecutively-numbered lots; lots 1-26, 40, and 41 were then apportioned to Maingate Acres and lots 27- 39 and 42-76 to Gateway Acres. On more than one occasion, when a lot in Gateway Acres or Maingate Acres was deeded, Melvin Lewis, individually, would convey the lot by warranty deed to the applicable corporation for nominal consideration (as shown by the documentary stamps affixed to each document). If the lot was in those apportioned to Gateway Acres, Inc., he would then execute a second warranty deed as corporate president, on the same date and before the same witnesses and notary, conveying the lot to the purchaser for substantial consideration. If the lot was in Maingate Acres, the warranty deed conveying the lot to the purchaser would be executed on the same day. Fay Lewis witnessed, and Mel Lewis witnessed and notarized, the execution of at least one warranty deed by Helen Lewis as president of Maingate Acres, Inc. Those parcels sold as Central Florida Estates and Mid-Florida Acres were created from a single 140-acre parcel, acquired by M and L Management, Inc., on January 6, 1986, from David Alan Siegel and Betti L. Siegel, comprising almost the entire northeast 1/4 of section 19, township 25 south, range 27 east, Osceola County, Florida. On the same date, Melvin Lewis, as president of M and L Management, Inc., executed a warranty deed conveying to Kissimmee Hills, Inc., a 20-acre strip 2,640 feet long and 330 feet wide. This conveyance divided the single parcel conveyed by the Siegels into northern and southern portions. On January 7, 1986, Melvin Lewis, as president of M and L Management, Inc., executed a warranty deed conveying to Central Florida Estates, Inc., the remaining portion of the original parcel to the immediate south of the strip of property conveyed to Kissimmee Hills, Inc. Cindy Morales and Fay Lewis executed the deed as witnesses to the signature of Melvin Lewis. Mid-Florida Acres is comprised of the northern 60 acres remaining after 60 acres were conveyed to Central Florida Estates, Inc., and 20 acres to Kissimmee Hills, Inc. Identical or substantially identical form contracts were used to sell lots in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, and Central Florida Estates. The form of the contracts was also similar to the types of contracts used by many other people in the business of selling undeveloped real estate in Florida. Each sale was made by executing an unrecorded agreement for deed which reserved to the seller both the title and possession of the property until payment under the contract was complete. The use of agreements for deed is not an unusual practice in the business of selling undeveloped real estate in Florida. Purchasers of lots in South Florida Properties exchanged their lots for lots in Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, West Dade Acres, or West Miami Estates. Melvin Lewis solicited people who had purchased lots from South Florida Properties, Inc., to exchange their lots for ones in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, or West Dade Acres. He subsequently sent letters to each of such purchasers verifying their discussions and providing the documents necessary for the exchange of lots. Casimir T. Brudzinski purchased lot 94-B in South Florida Properties by an agreement for deed executed by Melvin Lewis as president of South Florida Properties, Inc. After being solicited by Melvin Lewis to exchange his lot, Mr. Brudzinski agreed to exchange his lot for lot 7WD in West Dade Acres. Delbert D. Oldenburg purchased lot 126-D, South Florida Properties, by an agreement for deed executed by Melvin Lewis as president of South Florida Properties, Inc. After being solicited by Melvin Lewis to exchange his lot, Mr. Oldenburg agreed to exchange his lot for lot 43WDA in West Dade Acres, which exchange agreement was countersigned by Melvin Lewis. Ralph J. and Beryl G. Hanchin purchased lots 100A and 100B in South Florida Properties, making monthly payments to South Florida Properties, Inc. The Hanchins continued to make payments after October 1982, which payments were credited toward the purchase of lots 55A and 55B in Miami Kendall Estates. The following sales were made in each indicated parcel: at least 19 in West Miami Estates, 22 in Miami Kendall Estates, 19 in Miami Kendall West, 44 in Gateway Acres, (lots 38, 53, 67, 71 appear to have been resold due to purchaser default or refund), 24 in Maingate Acres, at least 15 in Central Florida Estates, and at least 43 in Mid-Florida Acres. None of the lots in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid- Florida Acres were sold as part of a reservation program approved by the Division pursuant to Section 498.024, Florida Statutes. West Miami Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall West, Inc., Gateway Acres, Inc., Maingate Acres, Inc., Central Florida Estates, Inc., and Mid-Florida Acres, Inc., are neither governments nor governmental agencies. The lots in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, and Mid-Florida Acres, were not offered as cemetery lots or interests in cemetery lots. The offer or disposition of lots in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid-Florida Acres was not registered with either the Florida Department of Banking and Finance or the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Each offer or disposition of a lot in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, and Mid-Florida Acres was for the actual sale of real property and not for the sale of a debt secured by a mortgage on real property. The sale price for each separate lot sold in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, and Mid-Florida Acres did not exceed 50,000.00. The lots in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, and Mid-Florida Acres were each offered or sold without any residential or commercial buildings. The lots in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, and Mid-Florida Acres were each offered or sold without any obligation of the seller to construct a residential or commercial building thereof for the purchaser. No plat or series of plats describing each lot in South Florida Properties, West Dade Acres, West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, or Miami Kendall West, was recorded or accepted for recordation in the official records of Dade County, Florida, prior to any lot sales. No plat or series of plats describing each lot in Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid-Florida Acres, was recorded or accepted for recordation in the official records of Osceola County, Florida, prior to any lot sales. The Division did not issue any order exempting West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid-Florida Acres from the registration requirements of Chapter 498, Florida Statutes, prior to any lot sale or other disposition being made. The Division has not issued a valid order of registration for lots in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid-Florida Acres pursuant to Chapter 498, Florida Statutes. No purchaser of a lot in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid-Florida Acres received a current public offering statement which had been approved by the Division. No purchaser of a lot in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid-Florida Acres received a synopsis or summary, approved by the Division, of the sales script used in conjunction with the long distance telephone solicitation of the lot purchaser. The Division has not approved a public offering statement for West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid-Florida Acres. The Division has not approved a synopsis or summary of any long distance telephone solicitation sales script for West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid-Florida Acres. Both Melvin Lewis and Larry Lewis were familiar with the subdivided land registration requirements of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, and Mid-Florida Acres were each created to hold less than 50 lots in an attempt to avoid the registration requirements of Chapter 498. The physical characteristics of the parcels of land offered and sold by the Respondents made those parcels unacceptable for registration under Chapter 498. Rodney A. Lein purchased lot 73 in Miami Kendall West on July 13, 1980, after a telephone call from Larry Lewis in which Larry Lewis offered Mr. Lein "income property" on land slated for development. In the conversation, Larry Lewis guaranteed he could resell the land at a profit within 3 to 4years. After the call, but before the purchase, Mr. Lein traveled to Miami to inspect the property. Larry Lewis took him to the end of west Kendall Drive in Dade County, Florida. Larry Lewis said the property offered was some 2 1/2 to 3 miles to the west of the pavement's end, but that Kendall Drive would be extended out past the property. Larry Lewis further said that as the urban area developed, the city would pay for extending such services as roads and water utilities to the property. Thomas Bezelik purchased lot 54 D, Miami Kendall Estates in January 1980 after a telephone solicitation in which the caller said the property would be a good investment and possibly purchased for industrial use. Bezelik was told an aerospace business was located close to the property he was being offered and was a potential purchaser of the site. Bezelik is still paying for the property. Robert Welch was solicited by telephone to purchase a lot in Central Florida Estates and was told the subdivision had been improved with paved streets and all utilities such as electricity, gas, telephone service, water, and sidewalks. He was further told the property would definitely appreciate in value. On the basis of this and other telephone conversations with the solicitor, Mr. Welch purchased lot 28 in Central Florida Estates. He subsequently spoke with Virginia Young by telephone, who identified herself as the president of Central Florida Estates, Inc., and affirmed the statements that had been made in soliciting him to purchase the property. She also stated Welch could redivide his 1 1/4-acre parcel into 4 lots. Eileen O. Gometz, together with her husband, since deceased, purchased a lot in West Miami Estates as a result of a telephone conversation with Larry Lewis. Larry Lewis said the property was suitable for building and would be developed within 3 to 4 years from purchase. Larry Lewis told her the property was close to a large commercial company but that the actual property itself would be home sites. At no time was she advised of the actual zoning or any rezoning of the property. Paul J. Matrullo purchased a lot in Gateway Acres after a telephone call from Larry Lewis in which Lewis assured him the property was good quality, "buildable land." Prior to his purchase, Mr. Matrullo visited the general area of the property with Larry Lewis. During the physical inspection, Lewis stated the land would be developed for residential housing or the State of Florida would purchase the property to develop a highway. Lewis further stated the property had been purchased by himself and his father, and the land was of such quality that it would double or triple in value within 12 months to 2 years. Larry Lewis gave no information specifically describing the zoning of the property. Primarily based on Lewis' representation that the property would double or triple in value within a 2-year period, Mr. Matrullo purchased lot 56 in Gateway Acres. He is currently paying for the property. William Somerset purchased lot 17 in Maingate Acres after receiving a telephone solicitation. He was told the intent of the offering was not to develop the land but to hold it as an investment for approximately 1 1/2 years and then sell it to developers. He purchased lot 17 because he was told the property would be quickly resold at a profit within "...perhaps a year and a half." He is still paying for the property. Similar sales methods were utilized in the marketing of the lots in all of the subject subdivisions. For example, solicitations for sales were made by telephone and prospective purchasers were told that they should purchase for investment purposes. Much of the land offered for sale by the Respondents was a poor investment at any price. The uses to which the property in sections 16 and 19, township 25 south, range 27 east in Osceola County, Florida, may be put are primarily agricultural. The minimum lot area is five acres and the density for residential development is one residence per five-acre lot. The purchasers of lots in Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid-Florida Acres would not be permitted to build a separate structure on their individual lots; a minimum of four contiguous lots would have to be merged in order to create a parcel on which one residence could be built. The property purchased from Sand Hills Corporation and resold as Gateway Acres and Maingate Acres is entirely contained within the "Davenport Creek Swamp." The property is low, poorly drained, wet Florida swampland subject to periodic flooding. The single parcel sold as Central Florida Estates and Mid-Florida Acres, and in part conveyed to Kissimmee Hills, Inc., contains three distinct types of property. Roughly 45 percent of the tract is a "typical central Florida grass pond." During periods of dry weather portions of the pond dry up, but the property is subject to periodic flooding during the year. The second portion of the property is a "transitional zone" between the actual grass pond and potentially more usable land. The transitional property is low and poorly drained, again subject to occasional flooding. The smallest portion of the property, primarily found in the northern portion sold as Mid-Florida Acres, is sufficiently elevated and dry. No clear public access exists to either Gateway Acres or Maingate Acres. Access is obtained either by four-wheel drive vehicle or by foot. In soliciting purchasers for either Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid-Florida Acres, Larry Lewis stated the offered real property was located in an area undergoing rapid growth and development. In fact, none of the parcels sold as West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, or Mid-Florida Acres have been developed. Nor has West Kendall Drive in Miami, Florida, been extended westward to Lot 73, Miami Kendall West. Neither South Florida Properties, Inc., nor Melvin Lewis explained to the previous purchasers of South Florida Properties that the reason that they were being offered an exchange of their property was because South Florida Properties had been deeded back to the original mortgage holder in lieu of foreclosure. The lots offered for sale by the Respondents in West Miami Estates, Miami Kendall Estates, Miami Kendall West, Gateway Acres, Maingate Acres, Central Florida Estates, and Mid-Florida Acres were all offered as part of a common promotional plan by Melvin Lewis and Larry Lewis, with the assistance of a few of their relatives, friends, and employees. In his various capacities described in paragraph 11 of these Findings of Fact, Melvin Lewis participated in the disposition of 143 lots of subdivided lands in Florida. In his various capacities described in paragraph 12 of these Findings of Fact, Larry Lewis participated in the disposition of 186 lots of subdivided lands in Florida. In her capacities described in paragraph 15 of these Findings of Fact, Virginia Young participated in the disposition of 15 lots of subdivided lands in Florida. In his capacities described in paragraph 19 of these Findings of Fact, Julio Bercowicz participate in the disposition of at least 2 lots of subdivided lands in Florida.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Florida "Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes enter a final order in this case to the following effect: Finding each Respondent in these consolidated cases guilty of the violations charged in the respective Notices to Show Cause and Amended Notices to Show Cause. Melvin Lewis shall be ordered to pay to the Division civil penalties totaling One Million Four Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($1,440,000.00) comprised of one $10,000.00 penalty for participating in the offering of unregistered lots and one $10,000.00 penalty for each of the 143 dispositions of lots in which he participated. Larry Lewis shall be ordered to pay to the Division civil penalties totaling One Million Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($1,870,000.00) comprised of one $10,000.00 penalty for participating in the offering of unregistered lots and one $10,000.00 penalty for each of the 186 dispositions of lots in which he participated. Virginia Young shall be ordered to pay to the Division civil penalties totaling One Hundred Sixty Thousand 43 Dollars ($160,000.00) comprised of one $10,000.00 penalty for participating in the offering of unregistered lots and one $10,000.00 penalty for each of the 15 dispositions of lots in which she participated. Julio Bercowicz shall be ordered to pay to the Division civil penalties totaling Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) comprised of one $10,000.00 penalty for participating in the offering of unregistered lots and one $10,000.00 penalty for each of the 2 dispositions of lots in which he participated. West Miami Estates, Inc., shall be ordered to pay to the Division civil penalties totaling Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) comprised of one $10,000.00 penalty for participating in the offering of unregistered lots and one $10,000.00 penalty for each of the 19 dispositions of lots in which it participated. Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., shall be ordered to pay to the Division civil penalties totaling Two Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($230,000.00) comprised of one $10,000.00 penalty for participating in the offering of unregistered lots and one $10,000.00 penalty for each of the 22 dispositions of lots in which it participated. Gateway Acres, Inc., shall be ordered to pay to the Division civil penalties totaling Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000.00) comprised of one $10,000.00 penalty for participating in the offering of unregistered lots and one $10,000.00 penalty for each of the 44 dispositions of lots in which it participated. Maingate Acres, Inc., shall be ordered to pay to the Division civil penalties totaling Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) comprised of one $10,000.00 penalty for participating in the offering of unregistered lots and one $10,000.00 penalty for each of the 24 dispositions of lots in which it participated. Central Florida Estates, Inc., shall be ordered to pay to the Division civil penalties totaling One Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($160,000.00) comprised of one $10,000.00 penalty for participating in the offering of unregistered lots and one $10,000.00 penalty for each of the 15 dispositions of lots in which it participated. Mid-Florida Acres, Inc., shall be ordered to pay to the Division civil penalties totaling Four Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($440,000.00) comprised of one $10,000.00 penalty for participating in the offering of unregistered lots and one $10,000.00 penalty for each of the 43 dispositions of lots in which it participated. In addition to the civil penalties recited above, West Miami Estates, Inc., Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., Gateway Acres, Inc., Maingate Acres, Inc., Central Florida Estates, Inc., and Mid-Florida Acres, Inc., each shall be ordered to, under the supervision and approval of the Division, offer each purchaser of a lot from each respective corporation, the opportunity to rescind the purchase contact and receive a refund of all principal and interest paid in purchasing the lot. The offers of rescission and refund should be made to each purchaser. The offer to rescind shall be made within 60 days from the rendition of the final order by the Director of the Division. Those purchasers who elect to rescind their contract and receive a refund shall receive their payments no later than 90 days from the date they request their refund. The Division should impose such terms of compensation and require such security as will assure the maximum recovery by those purchasers selecting a refund, including, but not limited to requiring full disclosure of all facts material to the actual lot acquired by each respective purchaser, escrowing funds or posting bonds, or the appointment of a trustee or receiver to supervise the programs of rescission and refund whose fees are to be paid by the Respondents. Melvin Lewis and Larry Lewis shall also be ordered to be jointly and severally liable for the civil penalties and other remedies ordered against West Miami Estates Inc., Miami Kendall Estates, Inc., Gateway Acres, Inc., and Maingate Acres, Inc. Melvin Lewis, Larry Lewis, and Virginia Young shall also be ordered to be jointly and severally liable for the civil penalties and other remedies ordered against Central Florida Estates, Inc. Julio Bercowicz and Larry Lewis shall also be ordered to be jointly and severally liable for the civil penalties and other remedies ordered against Mid-Florida Acres, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of November 1989. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1989.
The Issue The issue presented for decision is whether Proposed Rules 20-15.001, 20-15.002, and 20-15.003 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated facts, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Florida Citrus Commission was established in 1935 to organize and promote the growing and sale of various citrus products, fresh and processed, in the State of Florida. The purpose of the Citrus Commission is today reflected in Section 601.02, Florida Statutes. The powers of the Florida Citrus Commission ("the Commission") and the Department, are set forth in full in Section 601.10, Florida Statutes. The powers of the Department include the power to tax and raise other revenue to achieve the purposes of the Department. In particular, Section 601.10(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, state: The Department of Citrus shall have and shall exercise such general and specific powers as are delegated to it by this chapter and other statutes of the state, which powers shall include, but shall not be confined to, the following: To adopt and, from time to time, alter, rescind, modify, or amend all proper and necessary rules, regulations, and orders for the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties under this chapter and other statutes of the state, which rules and regulations shall have the force and effect of law when not inconsistent therewith. To act as the general supervisory authority over the administration and enforcement of this chapter and to exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be imposed upon it by other laws of the state. The Department is authorized to set standards by Section 601.11, Florida Statutes, as follows: The Department of Citrus shall have full and plenary power to, and may, establish state grades and minimum maturity and quality standards not inconsistent with existing laws for citrus fruits and food products thereof containing 20 percent or more citrus or citrus juice, whether canned or concentrated, or otherwise processed, including standards for frozen concentrate for manufacturing purposes, and for containers therefor, and shall prescribe rules or regulations governing the marking, branding, labeling, tagging, or stamping of citrus fruit, or products thereof whether canned or concentrated, or otherwise processed, and upon containers therefor for the purpose of showing the name and address of the person marketing such citrus fruit or products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed; the grade, quality, variety, type, or size of citrus fruit, the grade, quality, variety, type, and amount of the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, and the quality, type, size, dimensions, and shape of containers therefor, and to regulate or prohibit the use of containers which have been previously used for the sale, transportation, or shipment of citrus fruit or the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, or any other commodity; provided, however, that the use of secondhand containers for sale and delivery of citrus fruit for retail consumption within the state shall not be prohibited; provided, however, that no standard, regulation, rule, or order under this section which is repugnant to any requirement made mandatory under federal law or regulations shall apply to citrus fruit, or the products thereof, whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, or to containers therefor, which are being shipped from this state in interstate commerce. All citrus fruit and the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed sold, or offered for sale, or offered for shipment within or without the state shall be graded and marked as required by this section and the regulations, rules, and orders adopted and made under authority of this section, which regulations, rules, and orders shall, when not inconsistent with state or federal law, have the force and effect of law. The Department is authorized to conduct citrus research by Section 601.13, Florida Statutes. To help pay for these duties of the Department, the Legislature first enacted the "box tax" in 1949. The box tax is now codified as Section 601.15(3), Florida Statutes. Section 601.15(3)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part: There is hereby levied and imposed upon each standard-packed box of citrus fruit grown and placed into the primary channel of trade in this state an excise tax at annual rates for each citrus season as determined from the tables in this paragraph and based upon the previous season's actual statewide production as reported in the United States Department of Agriculture Citrus Crop Production Forecast as of June 1. Section 601.15(3)(a), Florida Statutes, goes on to set forth specific rates for fresh grapefruit, processed grapefruit, fresh oranges, processed oranges, and fresh or processed tangerines and citrus hybrids. Section 601.15(1), Florida Statutes, sets forth the Department's authority to administer the box tax, as follows: The administration of this section shall be vested in the Department of Citrus, which shall prescribe suitable and reasonable rules and regulations for the enforcement hereof, and the Department of Citrus shall administer the taxes levied and imposed hereby. All funds collected under this section and the interest accrued on such funds are consideration for a social contract between the state and the citrus growers of the state whereby the state must hold such funds in trust and inviolate and use them only for the purposes prescribed in this chapter. The Department of Citrus shall have power to cause its duly authorized agent or representative to enter upon the premises of any handler of citrus fruits and to examine or cause to be examined any books, papers, records, or memoranda bearing on the amount of taxes payable and to secure other information directly or indirectly concerned in the enforcement hereof. Any person who is required to pay the taxes levied and imposed and who by any practice or evasion makes it difficult to enforce the provisions hereof by inspection, or any person who, after demand by the Department of Citrus or any agent or representative designated by it for that purpose, refuses to allow full inspection of the premises or any part thereof or any books, records, documents, or other instruments in any manner relating to the liability of the taxpayer for the tax imposed or hinders or in anywise delays or prevents such inspection, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The box tax was challenged in 1936 under various provisions of the Florida Constitution as well as the Export Clause, Article 1, s. 9, cl. 5, of the United States Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in 1937 upholding the validity of the box tax. C.V. Floyd Fruit Company v. Florida Citrus Commission, 128 Fla. 565, 175 So. 248 (1937). In 1970, the Legislature enacted the "equalization tax," codified as Section 601.155, Florida Statutes. The statute mirrored Section 601.15, Florida Statutes, but added certain processors who were mixing foreign citrus products with Florida products. The purpose of the equalization tax was to have all Florida processors of citrus products help pay for the costs of the Department, rather than have the burden fall entirely on the Florida growers subject to the box tax. Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part: The first person who exercises in this state the privilege of processing, reprocessing, blending, or mixing processed orange products or processed grapefruit products or the privilege of packaging or repackaging processed orange products or processed grapefruit products into retail or institutional size containers or, except as provided in subsection (9) or except if a tax is levied and collected on the exercise of one of the foregoing privileges, the first person having title to or possession of any processed orange product or any processed grapefruit product who exercises the privilege in this state of storing such product or removing any portion of such product from the original container in which it arrived in this state for purposes other than official inspection or direct consumption by the consumer and not for resale shall be assessed and shall pay an excise tax upon the exercise of such privilege at the rate described in subsection (2). Upon the exercise of any privilege described in subsection (1), the excise tax levied by this section shall be at the same rate per box of oranges or grapefruit utilized in the initial production of the processed citrus products so handled as that imposed, at the time of exercise of the taxable privilege, by s. 601.15 per box of oranges. In order to administer the tax, the Legislature provided the following relevant provisions in Section 601.155, Florida Statutes: Every person liable for the excise tax imposed by this section shall keep a complete and accurate record of the receipt, storage, handling, exercise of any taxable privilege under this section, and shipment of all products subject to the tax imposed by this section. Such record shall be preserved for a period of 1 year and shall be offered for inspection upon oral or written request by the Department of Citrus or its duly authorized agent. Every person liable for the excise tax imposed by this section shall, at such times and in such manner as the Department of Citrus may by rule require, file with the Department of Citrus a return, certified as true and correct, on forms to be prescribed and furnished by the Department of Citrus, stating, in addition to other information reasonably required by the Department of Citrus, the number of units of processed orange or grapefruit products subject to this section upon which any taxable privilege under this section was exercised during the period of time covered by the return. Full payment of excise taxes due for the period reported shall accompany each return. All taxes levied and imposed by this section shall be due and payable within 61 days after the first of the taxable privileges is exercised in this state. Periodic payment of the excise taxes imposed by this section by the person first exercising the taxable privileges and liable for such payment shall be permitted only in accordance with Department of Citrus rules, and the payment thereof shall be guaranteed by the posting of an appropriate certificate of deposit, approved surety bond, or cash deposit in an amount and manner as prescribed by the Department of Citrus. * * * (11) This section shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes set forth and as additional and supplemental powers vested in the Department of Citrus under the police power of this state. In March 2000, certain citrus businesses challenged Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, as being unconstitutional. At the time of the suit, Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, read as follows: All products subject to the taxable privileges under this section, which products are produced in whole or in part from citrus fruit grown within the United States, are exempt from the tax imposed by this section to the extent that the products are derived from oranges or grapefruit grown within the United States. In the case of products made in part from citrus fruit grown within the United States, it shall be the burden of the persons liable for the excise tax to show the Department of Citrus, through competent evidence, proof of that part which is not subject to a taxable privilege. The citrus businesses claimed the exemption in Section 601.155(5) rendered the tax unconstitutionally discriminatory, in that processors who imported juice from foreign countries to be blended with Florida juice were subject to the equalization tax, whereas processors who imported juice from places such as California, Arizona and Texas enjoyed an exemption from the tax. The case, Tampa Juice Service, Inc., et al. v. Department of Citrus, Case No. GCG-00-3718 (Consolidated) ("Tampa Juice"), was brought in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Polk County. Judge Dennis P. Maloney of that court continues to preside over that case. In a partial final declaratory judgment effective March 15, 2002, Judge Maloney found Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution due to its discriminatory effect in favor of non-Florida United States juice. In an order dated April 15, 2002, Judge Maloney severed the exemption in Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, from the remainder of the statute. The court's decision necessitated the formulation of a remedy for the injured plaintiffs. While the parties were briefing the issue before the court, the Florida Legislature met and passed Chapter 2002-26, Laws of Florida, which amended Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, to read as follows: Products made in whole or in part from citrus fruit on which an equivalent tax is levied pursuant to s. 601.15 are exempt from the tax imposed by this section. In the case of products made in part from citrus fruit exempt from the tax imposed by this section, it shall be the burden of the persons liable for the excise tax to show the Department of Citrus, through competent evidence, proof of that part which is not subject to a taxable privilege. Chapter 2002-26, Laws of Florida, was given an effective date of July 1, 2002. By order dated August 8, 2002, Judge Maloney set forth his decision as to the remedy for the plaintiffs injured by the discriminatory effect of Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes. Judge Maloney expressly relied on the rationale set forth in Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corporation, 574 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1991)("McKesson II"). In its initial McKesson decision, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corporation, 524 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment ruling that Florida's alcoholic beverage tax scheme, which gave tax preferences and exemptions to certain alcoholic beverages made from Florida crops, unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce. The Florida Supreme Court also affirmed that portion of the summary judgment giving the ruling prospective effect, thus denying the plaintiff a refund of taxes paid pursuant to the unconstitutional scheme. The decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In McKesson Corporation v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (1990), the United States Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court's decision as to the prospective effect of its decision. The United States Supreme Court held that: The question before us is whether prospective relief, by itself, exhausts the requirements of federal law. The answer is no: If a State places a taxpayer under duress promptly to pay a tax when due and relegates him to a postpayment refund action in which he can challenge the tax's legality, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment obligates the State to provide meaningful backward-looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation. 496 U.S. at 31 (footnotes omitted). The United States Supreme Court set forth the following options by which the state could meet its obligation to provide "meaningful backward-looking relief": [T]he State may cure the invalidity of the Liquor Tax by refunding to petitioner the difference between the tax it paid and the tax it would have been assessed were it extended the same rate reductions that its competitors actually received. . . . Alternatively, to the extent consistent with other constitutional restrictions, the State may assess and collect back taxes from petitioner's competitors who benefited from the rate reductions during the contested tax period, calibrating the retroactive assessment to create in hindsight a nondiscriminatory scheme. . . . Finally, a combination of a partial refund to petitioner and a partial retroactive assessment of tax increases on favored competitors, so long as the resultant tax actually assessed during the contested tax period reflects a scheme that does not discriminate against interstate commerce, would render Petitioner's resultant deprivation lawful and therefore satisfy the Due Process Clause's requirement of a fully adequate postdeprivation procedure. 496 U.S. at 40-41 (citations and footnotes omitted). The United States Supreme Court expressly provided that the state has the option of choosing the form of relief it will grant. In keeping with the United States Supreme Court opinion, the Florida Supreme Court granted the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the "Division") leave to advise the Court as to the form of relief the state wished to provide. The Division proposed to retroactively assess and collect taxes from those of McKesson's competitors who had benefited from the discriminatory tax scheme. McKesson contended that a refund of the taxes it had paid was the only clear and certain remedy, because retroactive taxation of its competitors would violate their due process rights. McKesson II, 574 So. 2d at 116. The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on McKesson's refund claim, with the following instructions: While McKesson may not necessarily be entitled to a refund, it is entitled to a "clear and certain remedy," as outlined in the Supreme Court's opinion. Because nonparties, such as amici, will be directly affected by the retroactive tax scheme proposed by the state, all affected by the proposed emergency rule must be given notice and an opportunity to intervene in this action. Therefore, on remand, the trial court not only must determine whether the state's proposal meets "the minimum federal requirements" outlined in the Supreme Court's opinion, it also must determine whether the proposal comports with federal and state protections afforded those against whom the proposed tax will be assessed. We emphasize that the state has the option of choosing the manner in which it will reformulate the alcoholic beverage tax during the contested period so that the resultant tax actually assessed during that period reflects a scheme which does not discriminate against interstate commerce. Therefore, if the trial court should rule that the state's proposal to retroactively assess and collect taxes from McKesson's competitors does not meet constitutional muster and such ruling is upheld on appeal, the state may offer an alternative remedy for the trial court's review. However, any such proposal likewise must satisfy the standards set forth by the Supreme Court as well as be consistent with other constitutional restrictions. 574 So. 2d at 116. In the Tampa Juice case, Judge Maloney assessed the options prescribed by the series of McKesson cases and concluded that the only fair remedy was to assess and collect back assessments from those who benefited from the unconstitutional equalization tax exemption. His August 8, 2002, order directed the Department to "take appropriate steps, consistent with existing law, to assess and collect the Equalization tax from those entities which [benefited] from the unconstitutional exemption." On September 18, 2002, the Department promulgated the Emergency Rules that were at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-3648RE. The Emergency Rules were filed with the Department of State on September 24, 2002, and took effect on that date. Those emergency rules were held invalid in Peace River, and are not at issue in the instant case. In the November 15, 2002 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly (vol. 28, no. 46, pp. 4996-4998), the Department published the Proposed Rules that were at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-4607RP. In the March 7, 2003, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly (vol. 29, no. 10, p. 1036), the Department published amendments to the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rules, as amended, read as follows: EQUALIZATION TAX ON NON-FLORIDA UNITED STATES JUICE 20-15.001 Intent. The Court in Tampa Juice Service, et al v. Florida Department of Citrus in Consolidated Case Number GCG-003718 (Circuit Court in and for Polk County, Florida) severed the exemption contained in Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, that provided an exemption for persons who exercised one of the enumerated Equalization Tax privileges on non-Florida, United States juice. The Court had previously determined that the stricken provisions operated in a manner that violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. On August 8, 2002, the Court ordered that the Florida Department of Citrus "take appropriate steps, consistent with existing law, to assess and collect the Equalization tax from those entities which [benefited] from the unconstitutional exemption." It is the Florida Department of Citrus' intent by promulgating the following remedial rule to implement a non- discriminatory tax scheme, which does not impose a significant tax burden that is so harsh and oppressive as to transgress constitutional limitations. These rules shall be applicable to those previously favored persons who received favorable tax treatment under the statutory sections cited above. Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, , 601.155 FS. History-- New . 20-15.002 Definitions. "Previously favored persons" shall be defined as any person who exercised an enumerated Equalization Tax privilege as defined by Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, but who was exempt from payment of the Equalization Tax due to the exemption for non-Florida, United States juice set forth in the statutory provision, which was ultimately determined to be unconstitutional and severed from Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes. The "tax period" during which the severed provisions of Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, were in effect shall be defined as commencing on October 6, 1997, and ending on March 14, 2002. "Tax liability" shall be defined as the total amount of taxes due to the Florida Department of Citrus during the "tax period," at the following rates per box for each respective fiscal year: Fiscal Year Processed Rate Orange Grapefruit 1997-1998 .175 .30 1998-1999 .17 .30 1999-2000 .18 .325 2000-2001 .175 .30 2001-2002 .165 .18 Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, , 601.155 FS. History-- New . 20-15.003 Collection. The Florida Department of Citrus shall calculate the tax liability for each person or entity that exercised an enumerated Equalization Tax privilege outlined in section 601.155, Florida Statutes, upon non-Florida, United States juice based upon inspection records maintained by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the United States Department of Agriculture. Subsequent to adoption of this rule, the Florida Department of Citrus will provide to the previously favored persons by certified mail a Notice of Tax Liability which shall contain a demand for payment consistent with the above-referenced itemized statement. The Department will deem late payment of Equalization Taxes owed by previously favored persons to constitute good cause, and shall waive the 5 percent penalty authorized by Section 601.155(10), F.S., as compliance with either of the following is established by Department [sic]: Lump sum payment of the tax liability remitted with the filing of Department of Citrus Form 4R (incorporated by reference in Rule 20-100.004, F.A.C.) for the relevant years and then-applicable tax rate(s) per subsection 20-15.002(3), F.A.C., within 61 days of receiving Notice of Tax Liability; or Equal installment payments remitted with the filing of Department of Citrus Form 4R (incorporated by reference in Rule 20- 100.004, F.A.C.) for the relevant years and then-applicable tax rate(s) per subsection subsection [sic] 20-15.002(3), F.A.C., over a 60-month period, the first payment being due within 61 days of receiving Notice of Tax Liability pursuant to subsection 20- 15.003(2), F.A.C.; or The Good Cause provisions of 601.155(10), F.S., shall not apply to persons who do not comply with paragraph 20- 15.003(2)(a), F.A.C., or paragraph 20- 15.003(2)(b), F.A.C. Failure to pay the taxes or penalties due under 601.155, F.S. and Chapter 20-15, F.A.C., shall constitute grounds for revocation or suspension of a previously favored person's citrus fruit dealer's license pursuant to 601.56(4), F.S., 601.64(6), F.S., 601.64(7), F.S., and/or 601.67(1), F.S. The Florida Department of Citrus will not oppose the timely intervention of persons who previously enjoyed the subject exemption that wish to present a claim to the Court in the Tampa Juice Service, Inc., et al v. Florida Department of Citrus. However, the Florida Department of Citrus does not waive any argument regarding the validity of the calculation of the tax liability or that imposition of this tax is constitutional. Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. History-- New . The Final Order in Peace River held that the Proposed Rules were not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, for reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law below. Judge Maloney has yet to rule on the backward-looking remedy proposed by the Department. On March 26, 2003, Judge Maloney entered an order extending until May 1, 2003, the time for interested parties to file motions to intervene with regard to the Department's proposed backward-looking relief. The order noted that the parties have stipulated to the suspension of the back tax as to plaintiffs and objecting non-parties until further order of the court. On February 19, 2003, Judge Maloney entered an "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment-- Import-Export." The sole issue before Judge Maloney was "whether Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, (the 'Equalization Tax'), as it existed in 1997, violates Article I, Section 10, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States (the 'Import- Export Clause')." (Emphasis in original) After setting forth the standard for analysis of whether a taxing scheme violates the Import-Export Clause under Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276, 96 S. Ct. 535, 46 L.Ed.2d 495 (1976), Judge Maloney ruled as follows: It is precisely [the exemption for United States products found in 601.155(5), Florida Statutes] that causes the 1997 Equalization Tax to contravene the Import-Export Clause. Specifically, the court finds that because the statute exempts "citrus fruit grown within the United States," but does not exempt citrus fruit grown in foreign countries, the exemption causes the tax to "fall on imports as such simply because of their place of origin." Michelin, 423 U.S. at 286. Additionally, because the tax falls on foreign-grown citrus as such simply because of its origin but does not fall on domestic-grown citrus, the Equalization Tax, with the exemption, creates a "special tariff or particular preference for certain domestic goods." Id. (i.e. California, Arizona, and Texas citrus products). * * * In conclusion, because the court finds the exemption contained within the 1997 Equalization Tax violates both the first and third elements of the Michelin test,1 the court finds the 1997 Equalization Tax violates Article I, Section 10, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States (the "Import-Export Clause"). On March 31, 2003, Judge Maloney entered an "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment." In this order, Judge Maloney found that the box tax itself, Section 601.15, Florida Statutes, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioners and Intervenor in the instant case are licensed citrus fruit dealers regulated by Chapter 601, Florida Statutes. As such, they are subject to the rules of the Department. Petitioners and Intervenor buy, sell, and manufacture citrus juices. They shipped products made with non- Florida U.S. juice during the tax period without paying equalization taxes. Petitioners and Intervenor have been notified by the Department that they are liable to pay back taxes pursuant to the Proposed Rules, as well as the invalid Emergency Rules.
The Issue Whether Respondent, C & J Fruit and Melons, Inc. (C & J Fruit), a citrus fruit dealer and registered packer, owes Petitioner, John Stephens, Inc., a citrus dealer, a sum of money for grapefruit and oranges sold and delivered to C & J Fruit's citrus fruit-packing house for processing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John Stephens, Inc., is a Florida-licensed citrus fruit dealer operating within the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent, C & J Fruit & Melons, Inc., was a Florida- licensed citrus fruit dealer and operated a registered packing house in Frostproof, Florida, during the 2001-2002 citrus shipping season. Respondent, Auto Owners Insurance, was the surety for C & J Fruit's citrus fruit dealer's license in the amount of $14,000.00, for the 2001-2002 season. At the beginning of the 2001-2002 season, Petitioner and C & J Fruit entered into a verbal contract under which Petitioner agreed to contract with various grove owners and grove harvesters in the Polk County, Florida, area. The understanding was that Petitioner would obtain various varieties of grapefruit, oranges, and tangerines from the growers and harvesters and deliver the fruit to C & J Fruit's packing house. Petitioner was responsible for payment to the grove owners and harvesters. C & J Fruit would process the fruit, supply the citrus fruit to retail and wholesale suppliers, and account and pay for the fruit received from Petitioner. Petitioner and C & J Fruit had conducted business in this fashion for many years prior to this season. On October 23, 2001, C & J Fruit sought protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Case No. 01-19821-8W1. Following the filing of bankruptcy, no other supplier would provide C & J Fruit with citrus fruit. With Petitioner's consent, C & J Fruit filed an emergency motion to authorize a secured interest to Petitioner, if it would continue to supply C & J Fruit's packing house with fruit. The bankruptcy court granted the motion, and in November 2001, Petitioner began supplying C & J Fruit's packing house with fresh citrus fruit. The preponderance of evidence proves that Petitioner delivered to C & J Fruit's packing house during November 2001 pursuant to the contract: 540 boxes of grapefruit at $3.00 per box for a total of $1,620.00; 3,044 boxes of oranges at $4.00 per box for a total of $12,176.00; 330 boxes of tangerines at $3.50 per box for a total of $1,155.00; and 1,953 boxes of navel oranges at $2.00 per box for a total of $3,906.00. C & J Fruit was billed for this amount. Accordingly, C & J Fruit was obligated to pay Petitioner the total sum of $18,857.00 for the fruit. When payment was not received in a timely matter, shipment of citrus fruit to the packing house was discontinued. Petitioner performed all of its duties under the contract, and C & J Fruit failed to pay or account for the citrus fruit delivered to its packing house under the terms of the contract. C & J Fruit is, therefore, indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $18,857.00
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered requiring Respondent, C & J Fruit and Melons, Inc., to pay to Petitioner, John Stephens, Inc., the sum of $18,857.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Clemon Browne, President C & J Fruit & Melons, Inc. Post Office Box 130 Lake Hamilton, Florida 33851-0130 John A. Stephens John Stephens, Inc. Post Office Box 1098 Fort Meade, Florida 33841 Jason Lowe, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. Post Office Box 3 Lakeland, Florida 33802
