The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners sold nursery plant materials to Respondent U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. for which the latter did not pay.
Findings Of Fact On May 24, 1990, Jon's Nursery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. 460 Juniper plants, for $731.40 including tax. The plants were picked up by U.S. Lawns employee Mark Rosetta. U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. does not dispute the validity of the claim arising out of the May 24 sale. However, U.S. Lawns has never paid for these plant materials. On June 6, 1990, Jon's Nursery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. 40 Juniper plants and 50 grass plants for $166.95 including tax. These plants were picked up by Jeffrey Miller, who was an employee of U.S. Lawns. U.S. Lawns disputes the validity of the June 6 sale. However, the owner of U.S. Lawns, Glen Jaffee, never responded to numerous telephone calls from Pen Smith of Jon's Nursery, Inc. concerning the unpaid invoices. Nor did anyone respond to a certified demand letter that Mr. Smith mailed to U.S. Lawns on August 29, 1990, or the numerous monthly statements reflecting the unpaid balances. An officer and employee of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., Pat Oyler, had ordered the plant materials by telephone from Jon's Nursery, Inc. Mr. Oyler had previously ordered plant materials on behalf of U.S. Lawns from Jon's Nursery, which had always been paid. On two occasions subsequent to the sales in question, Mr. Oyler ordered plant materials from Jon's Nursery, Inc. on behalf of U.S. Lawns, but paid for them with his personal check, and Mr. Smith told him that he would need, in such cases, to order the plants in his name. On May 31, 1990, Concepts in Greenery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns ten 15-gallon crepe myrtles for $318 including tax. These items were picked up by Jeffrey Miller driving a U.S. Lawns truck. These plant materials had been ordered by Mr. Oyler of U.S. Lawns. Concepts in Greenery, Inc. had also previously done business with U.S. Lawns and been paid. In a sale which had taken place on March 25, 1990, Mr Oyler had ordered about $400 worth of plant materials on behalf of U.S. Lawns. Additionally, in its application for credit with Concepts in Greenery, Inc. dated April 11, 1988, Mr. Jaffee, as president of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., had certified that Mr. Oyler was vice president of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. Repeated telephone calls and monthly statements from Concepts in Greenery, Inc. to U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., as well as a certified letter dated September 19, 1990, to Mr. Jaffee, were unsuccessful in obtaining any response whatsoever from the latter company. Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. made several sales of a variety of plant materials to U S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. Including tax, these sales were as follows: March 13, 1990, for $131.18; March 26, 1990, for $544.05; April 5, 1990, for $12.24; April 6, 1990, for $90.10; April 17, 1990, for $593.60; April 18, 1990, for $55.65; and April 27, 1990, for $92.75. An eighth invoice dated June 4, 1990, for $581.15 has been excluded because it bears the names of Oyler Construction Company, Inc., Bentley Green, and Pat Oyler as the persons invoiced and nowhere mentions U.S. Lawns. The total of the seven sales to U.S. Lawns is $1519.57. Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. repeatedly tried to contact Mr. Jaffee and U.S. Lawns, including by letter dated August 27, 1990, but never received any response to its demand for payment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. to pay the above-indicated sums to the respective parties. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Pen Smith, Sales Manager Jon's Nursery, Inc. 24546 Nursery Way Eustis, FL 32726 Charles Brown, Nursery Manager Concepts in Greenery, Inc. 16366 Old Cheney Highway Orlando, FL 32833 David Rubright, President Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. 1921 Hill Drive Apopka, FL 32703 Glen Jaffee 612 Bryn Mawr Orlando, FL 32804 Bankers Insurance Company 10051 5th Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33702
The Issue This proceeding was initiated on June 27, 1985, when Petitioner filed its complaint for $51,680.00 with the Florida Department of Agriculture. Respondents were Dade Tomato and its surety, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. of Columbus, Ohio. After payment of $38,880.00 was received, Homestead Tomato reduced its claim to $12,800.00 in an amended complaint dated July 22, 1985. Dade Tomato responded with a timely request for formal hearing. The issue at hearing was whether $12.00 or $16.00 was the price per box of 5 x 7 tomatoes purchased by Dade Tomato from Homestead Tomato on January 13th and 21st, 1985. Homestead Tomato presented the testimony of two witnesses and nineteen exhibits; Dade Tomato presented seven witnesses and thirteen exhibits; State Automobile Insurance Company was noticed, but did not appear. Both parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. These have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order, and an outline of the adoption or rejection of each proposed finding is included in Appendix A, attached to, and incorporated in this order. A document styled Reply Brief of Petitioner Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc., was filed on January 9, 1986. It was not authorized and was not considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Homestead Tomato is agent for Strano Farms of Florida City, Florida, a producer of tomatoes. Rosario Strano is president of Homestead Tomato and co-owner of Strano Farms. (R. Strano) Dade Tomato, a tomato repacking company, is located in Miami, Florida. Its president is Joe Lococo. It is licensed as a dealer in agricultural products and is bonded by State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company. (J. Lococo, Amended Complaint dated July 22, 1985) The week of January 20-26, 1985, was a memorable week for the Florida tomato industry: a savage freeze hit south Florida, crops were devastated and the market awoke from its earlier torpor. For days prior to the 20th, Rosario Strano had carefully watched the weather services. By the 15th, when the freeze forecast appeared to be a sure thing, Strano Farms worked night and day and into the weekend harvesting tomatoes. (T. Banks, R. Strano) On January 19th, a representative from Dade Tomato contacted Tom Banks, an employee of Homestead Tomato, and asked for a load (1600 boxes) of 6 x 7 tomatoes. Banks explained that they were ready to sell, but not ready to price, since they expected a high demand as a result of the impending freeze. It was established that the "following week's price would control." The load was shipped that same day. On Monday, the Dade Tomato called for another load the same size. Prices still had not been established, but the load was shipped, again the same day. (T. Banks) After the freeze, around the middle of the week, Rosario Strano called together Tom Banks and a few other key employees and established a price for their tomatoes: $20.00 box for 5 x 6 (largest) $18.00 box for 6 x 6 (next size down) $16.00 box for 6 x 7 (medium) $12.00 box for 7 x 7 (small) Banks was instructed that the buyers were to be notified the price was set. Anyone "booked in" didn't have to take the order or could back out. Strano wanted to be told immediately of any problems with the tomatoes on the other end, and he would take them back. He was confident that he had a good market for his unique, pre-freeze tomato supply. Several buyers backed out, some tomatoes did come back, but the entire supply was sold (approximately 40-48 loads). (T. Banks. R. Streno) In setting his prices for the week of the freeze, Strano obtained information from the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Report, a daily publication of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, out of Winter Park, Florida. (R. Strano) The sheets include price quotations for a wide variety of commodities in different parts of the state obtained by telephone survey of packing houses and producers the prior date. (Petitioner's Exhibits #15-19) It is a guideline rather than an "official" market price indicator. (J. Strother, R. Cohen) In some eases the prices quoted to the survey are later adjusted by the producer. (R. Cohen) The issue dated January 24, 1985, reflected for #1 quality tomatoes a price of $20.00, $18.00 and $16.00 for 5 x6, 6 x 6, and 6 x 75 respectively. The following two days showed the same. Prior days, January 22 and 23 quoted no prices but stated "practically all sales prices to be established later". (Petitioner's Exhibits #15-19) After hearing the prices established by Strano, some of his customers, including Joe Lococo and his broker, began to protest. (T. Banks, J. Lococo) While refusing to budge, end arguing that he was charging the same price to his other customers for his pre-freeze, quality tomatoes, Strano resorted to offering rebates of 2.00 a box for prompt payment and, later, for settlement of cases that otherwise would have gone to court. (T. Banks) In short, Strano had difficulty getting some of his customers to pay the price he had set. Not all of Strano's customers bought and had tomatoes shipped on a price to be settled basis. Of the ten invoices admitted as Petitioner's Exhibits #5- 14, three represented sales on the same basis as the sales to Dade Tomato: Exhibits 5, 6 and 7. The remaining invoices represented sales to customers who had the price established prior to sale. Each of the invoices reflect the price of a box of 5 x 7 tomatoes to be $15.00. The invoices do not reveal which may have received the $2.00 rebate. Dade Tomato purchased ten loads of tomatoes during the week of the freeze. With the exception of the two loads from Homestead Tomato, the highest price for 6 x 75 was $12.00. Most of the tomatoes picked prior to the freeze were priced from $10- 12.00, with tomatoes picked after the freeze (salvage) going for as low as $6.00 for 6 x 7s. (J. Lococo, Respondent's Exhibits #1- 12) "Market price" is a highly fluid, highly subjective standard. During the course of a tomato season from 25-30% of sales are made on a "market price" basis, that is, the parties do not establish a firm price prior to sale, but wait to see what the market does. The market can be settled in a few days in a normal condition or longer in an abnormal condition, such as after a freeze. Market relates to supply and demand. A price is tried, then accepted or rejected, depending on whether the buyer in turn can find a market to sell at this price. Failure by a seller to adjust downward, or overpricing can result in animosity and the refusal of customers later to purchase at reasonable prices in a different season. (J. Strother, R. Cohen, F. Campisi) Various agents and brokers testified at the hearing on behalf of Dade Tomato as to what they felt was the market during the week of January 20-26th, 1985. James Strother, with thirty- three years in the produce business, came out that week with prices of $16.00, $14.00 and $12.00, and $16.00, $15.00 and $12.00, with $12.00 for the 6 x 75. He told his customers, "You're looking at the low and I expect to get paid for it." He had heard rumblings of a higher market, but set his market price to insure that he would get paid, and he moved his tomatoes. While he avowed respect for Strano, he testified that their thoughts on the market that week differed. He knew others were quoting higher than $12.00, he just wanted to be sure he sold. Florida Tomato Packers, Inc., is one of the largest packers in Florida. They initially sold 6 x 7 tomatoes during the freeze market at $16.00, but later adjusted the invoices down to $12.00. (D. Holden, Respondent's Exhibit #1) No one explained exactly how or why this was done by Florida Tomato Packers. Other exhibits produced by Respondent showed adjustments downward to varying prices. (Respondent's Exhibits # 7 and 8) After the initial complaint was filed by Homestead Tomato, Lococo made two payments for a total which amounts to $12.00 a box, the level which he insists the proper price should be. He does not dispute the quality or condition of the tomatoes sold by Homestead Tomato. (J. Lococo)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered requiring that the balance of $12,800.00 be paid by Dade Tomato to Homestead Tomato. In the absence of payment, Co-Respondent, State Automobile Insurance Company, should be required to pay said sum in accordance with Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1986, in MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3487A The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in paragraph 1, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 2, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 5, except that instead of a set number of loads of tomatoes sold, the testimony of R. Strano was a range from forty to forty-eight loads. Adopted in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. The names of the buyers and total amounts of each purchase are immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6, Findings of Fact. The substance of this paragraph relating to Florida Tomato Packers, Inc., is adopted in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. The sentence relating to the market price is incorporated in essence in paragraph 5, Conclusions of Law. These facts are covered in the "Issues and Procedural Matters" preceding the Findings of Fact, and in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. The substance of this paragraph relating to when the market settles is adopted in paragraph 9, Findings of Fact. The bias of witnesses who testified as to when the market settled is irrelevant as the time that the market settled is irrelevant. The statement that " Respondent agrees that the contract for the tomatoes was at a price to be established during the week of January 21-26 1985' . . . " is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The first sentence is adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. The second sentence is substantially modified in paragraph 4 by a finding that the agreement was that the following week's price would control". Same as paragraph 1, above. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 7, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. The second sentence, relating to all of the sales at $16.00 as being a set price, is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The remaining sentences are adopted in paragraphs 5 and 7, Findings of Fact. Partially adopted in paragraph 8, Findings of Fact. The basis of the price paid is immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as a misconstruction of the testimony. James Strother testified that his price was 12.00 a box. Adopted in paragraph 6, Findings of Fact. 14 - 16. The substance of these paragraphs have been adopted. However, they are presented here as simply testimony of witnesses rather than findings of fact. The "market price" description is rejected for reasons set out in paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law. Adopted in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: David V. Lococo, Esquire LOCOCO, KLEIN, TOUBY & SMITH 901 Northeast 125th Street Suite C North Miami, Florida 33161 Joe W. Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 416 - Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 State Automobile Insurance Company 515 E. Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Alexander Pires, Esquire SCOTT, HARRISON and McLEOD 2501 M. Street N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20037 Robert Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513 - The Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents owe Petitioner $13,512.09 for watermelons, as alleged in the Amended Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. Cook Brown Farms is a melon farm in Punta Gorda, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Cook Brown Farms was a "producer" as defined in Subsection 604.15(5), Florida Statutes, of agricultural products in the State of Florida. Melons come within the definition of "agricultural products" as defined in Subsection 604.15(3), Florida Statutes. J.G.L. Produce is a Florida Corporation, owned by John W. Johnson, Jr., and located in Pompano Beach, Florida. At times pertinent to this proceeding, J.G.L. Produce was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Subsection 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Andrew J. Cook, a principal owner of Cook Brown Farms, and Mr. Johnson of J.G.L. Produce entered into an oral agreement regarding the sale of watermelons grown at Cook Brown Farms. The core of this case is a dispute concerning the nature of this agreement. Mr. Cook testified that, under the agreement, J.G.L. Produce would purchase the melons at the farm at their daily market price, plus 1/2 cent to cover Cook Brown Farms' cost of picking, sorting, and placing the melons in special bins and in special pallets required by the ultimate purchaser, Kroger Supermarkets. J.G.L. Produce would provide the bins and pallets and would provide the trucks to ship the melons. Mr. Johnson testified that the agreement was not for purchase but for brokerage of the melons. J.G.L. Produce would act as broker of Cook Brown Farms' watermelons, use its best efforts to sell the melons at the highest price available, and pay Cook Brown Farms the proceeds of the sale, minus expenses and a brokerage fee of one cent per pound. Mr. Johnson testified that J.G.L. Produce never took title to or purchased the melons, and that the risk of loss always remained on Cook Brown Farms. Mr. Johnson testified that he approached Mr. Cook about the melons because he had a ready buyer in another local dealer, Delk Produce, which had a longstanding arrangement to provide melons to Kroger. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Cook that the arrangement included the provision of bins and pallets by J.G.L. Produce, though Mr. Johnson stated that the arrangement also called for J.G.L. Produce to retain $0.015 per pound from the amount paid to Cook Brown Farms to cover the cost of the bins and pallets. J.G.L. Produce took approximately 24 truck loads of watermelons from Cook Brown Farms. J.G.L. Produce deducted a one cent per pound brokerage fee from each load of melons it took, except for certain loads noted below, without contemporaneous objection from Cook Brown Farms. The Amended Complaint claims that J.G.L. Produce owes money to Cook Brown Farms for five of the loads taken by J.G.L. Produce. In sum, the Amended Complaint states that J.G.L. Produce owes Cook Brown Farms $19,991.74 for the five loads, less $6,479.65 already paid, for a total owing of $13,512.09. Item One of the Amended Complaint alleges that J.G.L. Produce owes $4,438.54 for a load of 38,596 pounds at a price of $0.115 per pound, sold on April 20, 2000. Item Two of the Amended Complaint alleges that J.G.L. Produce owes $4,625.30 for a load of 40,220 pounds at a price of $0.115 per pound, sold on April 21, 2000. The Amended Complaint alleges that the melons on these two loads were inspected and approved for shipment during loading by Delk Produce employee Freddie Ellis. The Amended Complaint states that Cook Brown Farms was paid in full for the loads on May 3, 2000, but that the contested amounts were deducted from subsequent settlements by J.G.L. Produce. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item One were initially sold to Delk Produce for delivery to Kroger. On May 3, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $4,438.54, which constituted the price for 38,596 pounds of melons at $0.125 per pound, less $385.96 for the one cent per pound brokerage fee. Jay Delk, the principal of Delk Produce, testified that this load was rejected by Kroger's buyer in Virginia due to "freshness," meaning that the melons were unsuitably green. Mr. Delk stated that the melons were taken to North Carolina to ripen and eventually sold at $0.06 per pound. The final return on this load, less the brokerage fee, was $1,543.84. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $4,438.54 and the final payment of $1,543.84. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item Two were initially sold to Delk Produce. On May 3, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $5,809.80, which constituted the price for 50,520 pounds of watermelons at $0.125 per pound, less $505.20 for the one cent per pound brokerage fee. Seminole Produce purchased 10,300 pounds of this load at $0.145 per pound, or $1,493.50. The remainder of the load was rejected by Kroger due to freshness and had to be resold at a lesser price of $0.0346 per pound, or $1,391.00. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $5,809.80 and the final payment (after deduction of the brokerage fee) of $2,576.11. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item Three were sold to Delk Produce. On May 9, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $2,731.30, which constituted the price for 42,020 pounds of watermelons at $0.0675 per pound, less $105.05 for the brokerage fee, reduced to $0.0025 per pound. Mr. Johnson testified that he decided to forego the full brokerage fee to save money for Mr. Cook and his farm, because it was "hurting" due to the rapidly plummeting price for watermelons. Mr. Johnson discovered at this time that Delk Produce had not been retaining the agreed- upon $0.015 per pound to cover the cost of bins and pallets and decided not to lose any more money on that item. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $2,731.30 and $2,206.05, deducting $525.25 from the original payment to cover the cost of the bins and pallets. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Items Four and Five were originally shipped to Wal-Mart in Kentucky on April 29, 2000, and were rejected on the ground that the melons were not packed to specifications. The melons were trucked back to Florida at J.G.L. Produce's expense. The melons claimed under Item Four totaled 41,100 pounds. J.G.L. Produce divided the melons into four loads and sold them to four local dealers at an average price of $0.775 per pound, totaling $3,185.41. J.G.L. Produce deducted its $0.015 charge for bins and pallets, reducing the total to $2,671.51. J.G.L. Produce then deducted $1,750.00 from the total as reimbursement for the freight charge it paid to bring the melons back to Florida after their rejection by Wal-Mart. J.G.L. Produce did not include a brokerage fee. On May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid the remaining $921.51 to Cook Brown Farms as part of the final settlement. The melons claimed under Item Five totaled 45,600 pounds. J.G.L. Produce sold 2,426 pounds to Seminole Produce at $0.10 per pound, or $242.60. J.G.L. Produce sold the remaining 43,174 pounds to Belle Glade Produce at $0.065 per pound, or $2,800. From the total for Item Five, J.G.L. Produce deducted its $0.015 charge for bins and pallets and $1,950.00 for the freight charge it paid to bring the melons back to Florida after their rejection by Wal-Mart. J.G.L. Produce did not include a brokerage fee on this load of melons. On May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid the remaining $416.64 to Cook Brown Farms as part of the final settlement. The weight of the credible evidence, excluding the hearsay that was not supported by the direct testimony of Mr. Johnson, leads to the finding that there was a brokerage arrangement between the parties. J.G.L. Produce routinely deducted brokerage fees from its payments, without objection by Cook Brown Farms. This course of dealing strongly indicates a brokerage arrangement. Mr. Cook testified as to prior dealings with J.G.L. Produce, which also involved a brokerage arrangement. The evidence indicated that J.G.L. Produce fully accounted for the five loads of melons at issue, and paid Cook Brown Farms the full amounts due and owing for those loads.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the Amended Complaint filed by Gin Brown Matthews, d/b/a Cook Brown Farms. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Redland Insurance Company 222 South 15th Street, Suite 600, North Omaha, Nebraska 65102 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John W. Johnson, President Post Office Box 1123 Pompano Beach, Florida 33061 Harold M. Stevens, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1440 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Edward L. Myrick, Jr., Esquire Beighley & Myrick, P.A. 1255 West Atlantic Boulevard Suite F-2 Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Terry L. Rhodes Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether the tomatoes sold to A. Sam and Sons Co., Inc. (Sam and Sons), conformed to the terms of the agreement of sale and whether Sam and Sons paid an appropriate adjusted price for the tomatoes.
Findings Of Fact On June 3, 1985, A. Sam and Sons Co., Inc. (Sam and Sons), purchased by telephone two loads of tomatoes from Quincy Tomato Co., Inc. (Quincy Tomato). The terms of this sale were $6.00 per 25 pound box F.O.B. for 85 percent or better per box, U.S. Department of Agriculture number one tomatoes of fine quality. There is contradictory testimony whether the terms included "no rain checked tomatoes." (A rain check tomato is one which has suffered damage due to a combination of rain or humidity and heat which manifests itself in damage to the shoulder of the tomato.) (Testimony of parties and Page 1, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1.) On June 3, 1985, two loads of tomatoes were picked up by Sam and Sons at Quincy Tomato. Of these two loads, one totalling 1520 25 pound boxes of tomatoes is the subject of this case. This load was received by Sam and Sons in Dunkirk, New York, on June 5, 1985, and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The report stated, regarding the grade of the tomatoes: "Meets quality requirements, but fails to grade U.S. No. 1 account condition, now contains approximately 75 percent U.S. No. 1 quality." (Testimony of parties and page 2, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1.) This inspection revealed the following percentages regarding the quality and condition of the tomatoes: Damage 7 percent Decay less than 1 percent Sunscald 1 percent Shoulder bruises 10 percent Skin checks 5 percent Total 23+ percent Sam and Sons sent Quincy Tomato a telegram (See Page 3, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1) on June 5, 1985, which stated as follows: Re UL-127 invoice #3 Arrived June 5 1985 on trailer #811TPZ New Jersey Tomato received under protest. Tomatoes show rain check, decay, sun scaled (sic), brown spot and discoloration. Tomatoes will be reinspected by June 10 1985. An adjustment (sic) on prices will be made. On June 10, 1985, the load of tomatoes was reinspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This inspection report (See Page 4, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1) stated with regard to grade: "Meets quality requirements but fails to grade U.S. No. 1 only account condition. Lot now contains approximately 75 percent U.S. No. 1 Quality." The report revealed the following concerning the quality and condition of the tomatoes: Damage 8 percent Decay 1 percent Shoulder bruises 9 percent Skin checks 9 percent Total 27 percent When first inspected, the shipment contained over 23 percent of tomatoes which failed to meet the quality and grade standards. When reinspected on June 10, 1985, the shipment 27 percent of the tomatoes did not meet the quality and grade standards. Quincy Tomato was permitted up to 15 percent tomatoes which did not meet the quality and grading standards. The load contained an average of 10 per cent more substandard tomatoes that it was permitted to contain. Sam and Sons had the right to refuse the shipment or to accept the shipment and adjust the price after notice. They elected to do the latter. Having been notified and having not responded, the Seller is deemed to have accepted these terms. On September 11, 1985, Sam and Sons tendered a check for $6,266 to Quincy Tomato. (See Page 6, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1.) This worked out to $4.1224 per 25 pound box, or a 31 percent reduction in price. Quincy Tomato accepted the check and proceeded against the agricultural bond of Sam and Sons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Petitioner be permitted to recover up $1,942 from Respondents bond if this amount is not paid by Respondent to Petitioner within 30 days of the entry of the agency's final order. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of December 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Graves Williams Quincy Tomato Company, Inc. Post Office Box 245 Quincy, Florida 32351 Mr. Esau Sam A. Sam and Sons Produce Co., Inc. West Lake Road Dunkirk, NY 14048 William C. Harris, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ted Helms, Chief Bureau of License and Bond 418 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight Bureau of License and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Travelers Indemnity Company One Tower Square Hartford, Conn. 06115
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations entered into the record, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The parties: The Petitioners, Buck Flowers and Ray Thornton, are commercial fishermen doing business within the State of Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect their business interests. The Petitioner, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc., is an association of commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants, and fish retailers doing business in the State of Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect its interests and the interests of its membership. The Petitioner, Tim Adams, is a commercial fisherman doing business in Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect his interests. The Petitioner, Bird Island Fishery, is a harvester and wholesaler of fish within the State of Florida and its interests would be substantially affected by the enactment of the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Kim Gerz, is a commercial fisherman whose interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Goodrich Seafood, is a company that unloads and ships fresh fish in the State of Florida. Its interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Lee County Fisherman's Cooperative, Inc., is a company that unloads and ships fresh fish. Its interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Sigma International Co., is an exporter of mullet roe. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect its business. The Respondent, Marine Fisheries Commission, is an entity created by statute to serve within the Department of Natural Resources and empowered with rulemaking authority as set forth in Section 370.027, Florida Statutes. The Intervenor, Florida League of Anglers, Inc., is a corporation whose purpose is to protect and enhance Florida's fisheries and their habitats. The Intervenor, Florida Conservation Association, is an affiliate of the Coastal Conservation Association, whose main interests are to protect and enhance Florida's fisheries and marine environments for recreational fishing in Florida. The Intervenor, Florida Audubon Society, is a corporation whose main purpose is to protect Florida's natural outdoor environment and wildlife. The Intervenor, Florida Wildlife Federation, is a corporation whose main purpose is to protect Florida's natural outdoor environment and wildlife. Background of the proposed rules: The Department of Natural Resources began a study of issues related to the black mullet fishery within this state in 1987. The study was to cover a five year period beginning in 1987-88. It was anticipated that the study would serve as the genesis for regulations to be imposed on black mullet fishing within the State of Florida. In 1989, the Commission adopted rules related to black mullet fishing. Those rules specified periods during which black mullet could not be fished, set gear restrictions, closed designated areas to fishing, amended qualifications to catch commercial quantities of mullet, and set recreational limits. The rules specified that during 15 weekends of the year, black mullet fishing would be closed for 30 hour periods. Another restriction, to become effective July 1, 1992, established a minimum net mesh size of three inches. In 1990, the Commission adopted additional rules related to black mullet fishing: new areas were closed to fishing, minimum net mesh size during roe season was increased to four inches, commercial fishermen were prohibited from using spotter aircraft to locate schools, and weekend closures were extended from 30 to 54 hours with the additional stipulation that the fish had to be at the dock by closing time. Further, two additional weekends were closed to fishing. In June, 1991, the Commission met to consider new, more stringent rules related to the black mullet fishery. As a result of the discussions at that meeting, proposed new rules and amendments to rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 32, August 9, 1991. The proposed rules: Rule Chapter 46-39, as set forth in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 32, August 9, 1991, provided, in pertinent part: MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION RULE CHAPTER TITLE: RULE CHAPTER NO.: Mullet 46-39 RULE TITLES: RULE NOS.: Recreational Harvest Seasons 46-39.0035 Commercial Harvest, Statewide Regulations 46-39.005 Northwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions 46-39.0055 Southwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions 46-39.0075 East Florida Commercial Harvest estrictions 46-39.0095 PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of these proposed new rules and rule amendments is to implement additional, more stringent controls on commercial mullet harvest to begin rebuilding mullet populations over the long term to achieve a 35 percent spawning stock biomass ratio (SSBR) for the species statewide. The Commission established the SSBR goal after receiving the results of a five-year study of Florida mullet conducted by the Department of Natural Resources scientists. The state is divided into three areas (Northwest, Southwest, and East Florida) and differential rules are imposed in each area, with the Southwest area being more stringently regulated to coincide with scientific evidence showing a significantly lower SSBR in the area. Week-long closures, year-round in the Southwest and during roe season elsewhere, are considered to be more effective methods to reduce fishing mortality than roe season weekend closures, which are being eliminated. The closures will also apply to recreational harvesters, thus eliminating enforcement problems that occur during periods when recreational mullet harvest is allowed and commercial fishing is prohibited. Limiting gill and trammel nets to a maximum of 600 yards will result in a significant reduction in length of nets being fished in some areas, and may also result in a harvest reduction. Commercial daily vessel limits of 500 pounds during non-roe season are intended to reduce harvest during those periods when mullet are least highly valued. SUMMARY: New Rule 46-39.0035 establishes recreational week-long closures to coincide with commercial closures in the three areas established by new Rules 46-39.0055,46-39.0075, and 46-39.0095. The week-long closures will be during roe season in Northwest and East Florida, and year-round in Southwest Florida. A new paragraph is added to subsection (2) of Rule 46-39.005 to limit gill and trammel nets used to harvest mullet to 600 yards maximum statewide. New Rule 46-39.0055 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through the 28th days of the months of September, October, November, and December in the Panhandle and Wakulla-Hernando Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of January through August of each year. New Rule 46-39.0075 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through 28th days of the each month of the year in the Pasco-Lee, Collier-Monroe Gulf, and Lake Okeechobee Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of February through September of each year. New Rule 46-39.0095 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through the 28th days of the months of October, November, December, and January in the East Coast and St. Johns Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of February through September of each year. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY: Section 370.027(2), Florida Statutes. LAW IMPLEMENTED: Sections 370.025, 370.027, Florida Statutes. SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE RULES: The proposed amendments will directly affect those persons who harvest mullet for commerce. The proposal will indirectly affect wholesale dealers, retail dealers and consumers. The benefit of the measures is to ensure the sustained yield of the renewable mullet resource for human consumption and the food web. The cost of the proposal will be reduced levels of harvest and intermittent supplies of black mullet. The cost will vary regionally with the greatest reductions in the southwest Florida area. The proposed amendments will create a competitive advantage due to the differential regional regulations. The rule will not affect the open market for employment. The rule will affect small businesses. The rule will not increase paperwork or reporting requirements. Agency implementation costs for promulgation, hearings and filing will be approximately $6,500.00; enforcement costs total $38.00/hr. THE MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RULES AT THE TIME, DATE AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW: TIME AND PLACE: 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., September 5, 1991; and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., September 6, 1991 PLACE: Holiday Inn Tampa International Airport, 4500 West Cypress Street, Tampa Florida All written material received by the Commission within 21 days of the date of publication of this notice shall be made part of the official record. Subsequent to the publication of the notice described above, the Petitioners timely filed challenges to the proposed rules. Pursuant to the notice described above, the Commission met on September 5-6, 1991, for the purpose of conducting a public rulemaking hearing for the proposed new rules and proposed amendments to rules. At the meeting of September 5, 1991, members of the public were permitted to comment on the proposed rules and amendments. On September 6, 1991, the Commission allowed its staff to make a presentation regarding the options available to the Commission and deliberated the proposals before it. As a result of those deliberations, the Commission made substantial changes to the proposed rules. At that time the Commission acknowledged the challenges filed by the Petitioners herein and resolved to submit the changed proposed rules to the Governor and Cabinet for approval upon the favorable resolution of the administrative challenges. The substantially changed proposed rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 39, September 27, 1991, and provided, in substance, for the following restrictions: 46-39.0035 Recreational Harvest Seasons--prohibits harvesting during the period of the first day and continuing through the seventh day of each month during the months of September through December of each year for the state waters from the Florida-Alabama border to the Hernando-Pasco County line; prohibits mullet harvesting during the period of the first day and continuing through the fourteenth day of each month during the months of January and September through December of each year for the state waters from the Hernando- Pasco County line to the Dade-Monroe County line, excluding state waters of the Atlantic Ocean in Monroe County and including all waters of Lake Okeechobee; and prohibits harvesting beginning on the first day of the month through the seventh day of each month during the months of January and October through December of each year in all state waters from the Florida-Georgia border to the Collier- Monroe County line, excluding state waters of the Gulf of Mexico in Monroe County and including all waters of the St. Johns River. 46-39.0055 Northwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions-- prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the Panhandle and Wakulla-Hernando Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, during the period beginning on the first day and continuing through the seventh day of each month during the months of September through December of each year. 46-39.0075 Southwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions-- prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the Pasco-Lee, Collier- Monroe Gulf, and Lake Okeechobee Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, during the period of the first day and continuing through the fourteenth day of each month during the months of January and September through December of each year. 46-39.0095 East Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions--prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the East Coast and St. Johns Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, beginning on the first day of the month through the seventh day of each month during the months of January and October through December of each year. The Commission abandoned the 500 pound trip limit previously proposed for each region but retained the limit for gill and trammel nets to 600 yards maximum, statewide. The Commission asserts that the changes to the proposed rules were generated by virtue of the written comments, public testimony, and Commission discussion contained in the record of the public hearing held on September 5-6, 1991. Scientific data: In determining an appropriate guide for managing the black mullet fishery, the Commission staff elected to utilize a system based upon a computer model commonly known as "DSPOPS." The DSPOPS model was designed by Dr. Ault, working with Dr. Mahmoudi, for use in mullet stock assessment. While Dr. Ault developed the model with the intention that Dr. Mahmoudi would use it in mullet stock assessment, Dr. Ault did not prescribe the variables to be inserted into the model or comment to Dr. Mahmoudi as to the advisability of his choices. In fact, the reliability of the model is dependent on utilizing reasonable scientific inputs where variables must be inserted. The spawning stock biomass ratio (SSBR) measures the total mature biomass or weight of the fish stock in an exploited fishery in relation to what it would be if it were unfished. The Commission determined, and the Petitioners have not challenged, that the desirable SSBR for mullet would be 35 percent. By using data from 1988 and 1989, and inserting variables into the DSPOPS model the Commission staff attempted to compute the baseline SSBR for mullet in Florida. The SSBR was calculated by region and was intended to depict the conditions of the mullet stock by each region. The use of SSBR as a tool to evaluate a fishery and propose management of it has been accepted in the past by the Commission and other entities charged with management responsibility. The target of 35 percent SSBR for mullet is a reasonable management goal. In electing which variable to plug into the DSPOPS model, Commission staff chose the conservative estimate or value for the parameter to be inserted. "Conservative" herein is used to mean that choice which would depict the "worst case scenario" and, would, therefore, in theory, err on the side of the preservation of the fish. Such selections, as will be addressed below, were not based upon the best scientific data available and constituted an improper use of the model. In utilizing the DSPOPS model, reasonable and appropriate scientific methodology dictate the use of reasonable values for the variables to be inserted into the model. When values from either extreme of the spectrum are used, the reliability of the output is diminished. That is, the less the probability of the occurrence in the real world would be. In this case, the Commission staff found in its initial stock assessment that the SSBR for mullet in the southwest region was 15.1 and 22.4 in the northwest region. That assessment required inputs in the DSPOPS model for the following parameters: recruitment function; natural mortality; fishing mortality; and sexual maturity. In choosing which input for recruitment function, the Commission staff used a Getz recruitment function. The recruitment function is intended to show the relationship among a designation of the fish population and the amount of new fish born into that population each year. Utilizing the Getz function, instead of the other available recruitment function options, consistently produces the lowest estimate of spawning stock biomass. Had the Commission staff utilized the Beverton and Holt density dependent option, the spawning stock biomass in the northwest region would have increased by 11.73 and in the southwest region by 5.29. With regard to the natural mortality parameter, the Commission staff chose a natural mortality of 0.3. The data available suggests that in Florida the mullet fishery has a natural mortality rate of 0.5. By using the lower value, the DSPOPS model calculated the SSBR at an arbitrarily lower level. Had the Commission staff used 0.43 for the natural mortality input the SSBR would have increased in the northwest region by 3.07 and by 4.79 in the southwest region. Similarly, the Commission staff used extreme variables when inputting the handling mortality. Thus, the computed spawning stock biomass was lower than a midrange option would have produced. Finally, with regard to sexual maturity, mullet achieve sexual maturity at age 4. That age is supported by competent scientific data and is established by the evidence presented in this case. Regardless, Commission staff used a sexual maturity matrix in the DSPOPS model that assumed some fish were still sexually immature at 6 and 7 years. If corrected, the SSBR results would have been increased by 10 percent. By relying on the DSPOPS modeling results for the SSBR assessment, as computed by the Commission staff, the Commission failed to consider the best available biological information regarding the mullet stock. When corrected parameters are input into the DSPOPS model, the SSBR assessment for mullet is dramatically increased. The amount of the increase depends on which parameter is changed. If midpoint values are selected and all inputs are changed, the model produces a SSBR for the northwest region of 52.74 and for the southwest region of 36.19. Economic data: Economic impact and small business impact statements were prepared for the proposed rules first published in August, 1991. Statements were not prepared for the amended proposed rules which were approved by the Commission at the September, 1991, meeting. Mullet have a shelf life of four days if handled properly. The bulk of the market demand is for fresh mullet with demand for frozen or smoked mullet being significantly smaller. Closures of longer than four days would require mullet customers to seek other markets for fresh mullet. Restaurants and other entities seeking a constant source of fresh mullet would look to other markets such as Louisiana to fill orders. If lost, such customers are hard to recapture as in the instance of the spanish mackerel market. It is anticipated that businesses relying on the fresh mullet market will lay off employees if extended closures go into effect. The economic impact statement did not estimate the number of people who would be unemployed or underemployed as a result of the closures. The monetary amounts of the lost market created by the reductions expected in the harvest of mullet was not included in the economic impact statement. The short-term and long-term values of lost market could be computed for those directly and indirectly impacted by the proposed rules. It is expected that the financial losses to commercial fishermen, fish wholesalers, and distributors will be considerable. Additionally, loss of mullet roe sales will result in loss of market since no fish stocks are available to substitute for the mullet roe. Options which would minimize the adverse economic impacts the proposed rules would cause for small businesses have not been presented or considered by the Commission. Closures of shorter duration but of more frequency would lessen the economic damage to small businesses. For example, four day closures would not result in the interruption of the availability of fresh mullet. As opposed to what is proposed, regulations which would increase the net mesh size to allow younger fish to remain uncaught would also lessen the economic damage to small businesses. An increase in the year of first capture would increase SSBR. As opposed to what is proposed, regulations setting trip limits for harvesting mullet would lessen the economic damage to small businesses. Setting net restrictions as proposed allows harvesting and lessens the economic damage to small businesses.
Findings Of Fact Junior Martin, Petitioner, is a farmer d/b/a/ Junior Martin Farms in the State of Florida. Bastista Madonia is a farmer doing business in Florida and West Virginia and a licensed broker in Florida and packer of agricultural products d/b/a/ East Coast Brokers and Packers. Madonia holds Florida license no. 3906 supported by bond no. 743F4618 written by Travelers Indemnity Company as surety. In the summer of 1984 James DiMare, Bastista Madonia, and Junior Martin entered into a Farming Agreement (Exhibit 1) to establish a joint venture to grow cherry tomatoes in the fall 1984 farming season and, if successful, to continue this agreement into the spring season. Pursuant to this agreement approximately fifty (50) acres of tomatoes would be grown by Martin. DiMare and Madonia agreed to supply all plants and $500 cash per acre for which they would own 25 percent of the crop and the profits derived therefrom. East Coast Brokers (Madonia) was to supply picking bins and advance all picking money. Two dollars ($2) per package was to be charged for packing and thirty cents ($.30) per package for selling. Costs for growing the tomatoes was approximately $2,250 per acre. With their advance of $500 per acre and providing plants DiMare and Madonia financed approximately 25 percent of the growing cost of which they were to receive 25 percent of the profits. They were also to advance funds to harvest the tomatoes and deliver them to the packing house. In addition, Madonia paid for two (2) deliveries of tomato stakes to Martin's farm. The tomato crop planted in the fall of 1984 froze and was a total loss. DiMare then pulled out of the agreement. The agreement provided that if both parties are satisfied and things are going well by October 15, all parties will continue this venture by planting a spring crop. Madonia offered to contribute DiMare's share as well as his own for a spring Crop and Martin agreed to plant the spring crop. The spring crop was harvested from late March 1985 through late May 1985 (exhibit 4) at a profit. It is from this venture only that Martin bases his claim. In auditing the records, the Department of Agriculture investigator did not consider the transactions involving the fall crop because that had occurred more than nine (9) months before Martin's complaint. Section 604.21(1) Florida Statutes limits the time frame in which a complaint may be brought. Following the harvesting of the spring crop, Martin and Madonia went to Virginia to look into the feasibility of planting a summer crop in Virginia. They obtained suitable land to lease and, under a modification of their agreement, Madonia would put up most of the money required for the land, fertilizer, etc., and would be entitled to 50 percent of the profits. This venture was unsuccessful and resulted in a large loss, none of which has been paid by Martin. This endeavor was not included in the Department of Agriculture's audit because it occurred outside Florida and beyond the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Agriculture. The parties discussed a fall 1985 crop after the debacle in Virginia and the Respondent advanced $10,000 to Petitioner for this crop (exhibit 16). This crop was never planted and the Petitioner has rendered no accounting for this advance. The endeavors by Madonia and Martin to grow fall and spring crops in Florida and a summer crop in Virginia were ongoing farming operations carried out pursuant to the Farming Agreement (Exhibit 1). As such, the endeavor was a joint farming venture with Martin providing the land (in Florida) and the farming expertise while Madonia provided plants and funds equal to one-fourth of the expenses and the marketing experience to sell the crops. Accordingly this endeavor was exempt from the provisions of Section 604.15-604.34 Florida Statutes, by Section 604.16(1) (Florida Statutes). The audit conducted by the Department of Agriculture (exhibit 6) showed Petitioner was owed $18,401.91 by Madonia as a buyer for the 1985 spring crop only. This figure does not include any advances over and above the $500 per acre advanced to Martin by Madonia for the fall crop 1984, or the advances for the Virginia operation in excess of the amount agreed to be provided by Madonia. Nor does this figure reflect the 25 percent of the profits due Madonia pursuant to the Farming Agreement. The amount Petitioner claims is owed to him by the Respondent for the spring crop is $60,632.86 (exhibit 7). This balance was prepared by Mrs. Martin from her records. Numerous checks endorsed by Petitioner which he received from Madonia were not included in those figures. Although cashed by Petitioner, they did not get into Mrs. Martin's bookkeeping records. Mrs. Martin acknowledged that she was not sure that she properly credited all of the checks she did receive from Madonia to the spring crop account. Accordingly, this figure is totally unreliable. Disregarding the fall 1984 crop and the Virginia episode, and accepting the Department of Agriculture's audit figures of $18,401.91 as the profits on the spring crops, 25 percent should go to Respondent pursuant to the Farming Agreement. This would leave $13,801.43 owed to Petitioner. From this should be deducted, at least, the $10,000 advance given to the Petitioner for the fall crop of 1985 which was never planted. The parties are engaged in civil litigation to resolve the disputes engendered by the farming activities above discussed. In those proceedings, all of the activities in which they participated pursuant to the Farming Agreement can be considered by the tribunal and resolved. Accordingly, that is the proper forum to resolve the disputes here in issue.
The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent, George Mason Citrus, Inc. (Mason), owes Petitioner $10,000 for citrus fruit that Mason purchased from Petitioner and, if so, whether the surety is liable for any deficiency in payment from Mason.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation licensed by the Department as a “citrus fruit dealer,” within the meaning of Subsection 601.03(8), Florida Statutes (2005) (dealer).1 The business address for Petitioner is 1103 Southeast Lakeview Drive, Sebring, Florida 33870. Mason is a Florida corporation licensed by the Department as a citrus fruit dealer. The business address for Mason is 140 Holmes Avenue, Lake Placid, Florida 33852. Western is the surety for Mason pursuant to bond number 42292005 issued in the amount of $100,000 (the bond). The term of the bond is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. Petitioner conducts business in Highlands County, Florida, as a dealer and as a “broker” defined in Subsection 601.03(3). In relevant part, Petitioner purchases white grapefruit (grapefruit) for resale to others, including Mason. Mason conducts business in Highlands County as either an “agent,” “broker,” or “handler” defined in Subsections 601.03(2), (3), and (23). On January 31, 2003, Mason contracted with Petitioner to purchase grapefruit from Petitioner pursuant to Fruit Contract number 03-307 (the contract). Mason drafted the contract. The terms of the contract require Petitioner to sell grapefruit to Mason for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 “crop years.” The 2003 crop year began in the fall of 2002 and ended at the conclusion of the spring harvest in 2003. The 2004 and 2005 crop years began in the fall of 2003 and 2004 and ended in the spring of 2004 and 2005, respectively. Only the 2005 crop year is at issue in this proceeding. The contract required Petitioner to deliver grapefruit to a person designated by Mason. Mason designated Peace River Citrus Products, Inc. (Peace River), in Arcadia, Florida, for delivery of the grapefruit at issue. Mason was required by the terms of a Participation Agreement with Peace River to deliver 30,000 boxes of grapefruit to Peace River during the 2005 crop year. In an effort to satisfy its obligation to Peace River, Mason entered into the contract with Petitioner for an amount of grapefruit described in the contract as an “Approximate Number of Boxes” that ranged between 12,000 and 14,000. Petitioner delivered only 2,128 boxes of grapefruit to Peace River. The production of grapefruit was significantly decreased by three hurricanes that impacted the area during the 2005 crop year. The parties agree that Mason owed Petitioner $19,070.03 for the delivered boxes of grapefruit. The amount due included a portion of the rise in value over the base purchase price in the contract caused by increases due to market conditions and participation pay out after the parties executed the contract (the rise).2 On or about October 26, 2005, Mason mailed Petitioner a check for $9,070.03. The transmittal letter for the check explained the difference between the payment of $9,070.03 and the amount due of $19,070.03. Mason deducted $10,000 from the $19,070.03 due Petitioner, in part, to cover the cost of grapefruit Mason purchased from other dealers or growers to make up the deficiency in grapefruit delivered by Petitioner (cover). The $10,000 sum also includes interest Mason claims for the cost of cover and Mason's claim for lost profits. Petitioner claims that Mason is not entitled to deduct lost profits and interest from the amount due Petitioner. If Mason were entitled to deduct interest, Petitioner alleges that Mason calculated the interest incorrectly. The larger issue between the parties is whether Mason is entitled to deduct cover charges from the amount due Petitioner. If Mason were not entitled to cover the deficiency in delivered boxes of grapefruit, Mason would not be entitled to interest on the cost of cover and lost profits attributable to the deficiency. The parties agree that resolution of the issue of whether Mason is entitled to cover the deficiency in delivered boxes of grapefruit turns on a determination of whether the contract was a box contract or a production contract. A box contract generally requires a selling dealer such as Petitioner to deliver a specific number of boxes, regardless of the source of grapefruit, and industry practice permits the purchasing dealer to cover any deficiency. A production contract generally requires the selling dealer to deliver an amount of grapefruit produced by a specific source, and industry practice does not permit the purchasing dealer to cover any deficiency. The contract is an ambiguous written agreement. The contract expressly provides that it is a "Fruit Purchase Contract" and a "delivered in" contract but contains no provision that it is either a box or production contract. The contract is silent with respect to the right to cover. Relevant terms in the contract evidence both a box contract and a production contract. Like the typical box contract, the contract between Mason and Petitioner prescribes a number of boxes, specifically no less than 12,000, that are to be delivered pursuant to the contract. However, the typical box contract does not identify the number of boxes to be delivered as "Approximate No. of Boxes" that ranges between 12,000 and 14,000 boxes. Unlike a production contract, the contract does not identify a specific grove as the source of the required grapefruit. Best practice in the industry calls for a production contract to designate the grove by name as well as the number of acres and blocks. However, industry practice does not require a production contract to identify a specific grove as the source of grapefruit. In practice, Mason treated another contract that Mason drafted with a party other than Petitioner as a production contract even though the contract did not identify a specific grove as the source of grapefruit. The absence of a force majure clause in the contract may evidence either type of contract.3 A box contract typically requires the selling dealer to deliver the agreed boxes of grapefruit regardless of weather events, unless stated otherwise in the contract. However, the absence of such a clause may also be consistent with a production contract because "acts of God" are inherent in a production contract. Such acts, including hurricanes, necessarily limit grapefruit production, and a production contract obligates the selling dealer to deliver only the amount of grapefruit produced. The contract between Petitioner and Mason did not contain a penalty provision for failure to deliver the prescribed boxes of grapefruit (box penalty). The absence of a box penalty in the contract evidences a production contract. The contract identifies Petitioner as the "Grower." A grower typically enters into a production contract. A box contract does not limit the source of grapefruit to be delivered, and the selling dealer in a box contract may obtain grapefruit from anywhere in the state. The contract between Petitioner and Mason limits the source of grapefruit to grapefruit grown in Highlands County, Florida. Mason knew that Petitioner sold only grapefruit from groves in Highlands County, Florida, identified in the record as the Clagget Taylor groves. During the 2003 and 2004 crop years, Petitioner sold only grapefruit from the Clagget Taylor groves. Mason received trip tickets and other documentation related to the delivery of no less than 24,000 boxes of grapefruit, all from the Clagget Taylor groves. The boxes of grapefruit delivered during the 2005 crop year came only from the Clagget Taylor groves. Mason received documentation showing the grapefruit came from the Clagget Taylor groves. Ambiguous written agreements are required by judicial decisions discussed in the Conclusions of Law to be construed against the person who drafted the agreement. Mason drafted an ambiguous agreement with Petitioner. The agreement must be construed against Mason as a production contract. Mason owes Petitioner $10,000 for the delivered grapefruit during the 2005 crop year. The terms of the bond make Western liable for any deficiency in payment from Mason.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order directing Mason to pay $10,000 to Petitioner, and, in accordance with Subsections 601.61 and 601.65, requiring Western to pay over to the Department any deficiency in payment by Mason. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional compensation for tomatoes that it sold Respondent.
Findings Of Fact On April 4, 1996, Frank Basso of Petitioner talked to H. D. Budd of Respondent H. D. Budd Farms, Inc. (Respondent). Petitioner represents 31 food brokers in South Florida, of which eight handle tomatoes. Respondent purchases tomatoes for Publix and other chain supermarkets. Respondent and Petitioner have done business in the past, and Mr. Basso knew that Mr. Budd would require tomatoes of the highest quality. In the past, Mr. Basso would ship tomatoes to Mr. Budd, who would take only those tomatoes that met his high standards. During their telephone conversation on April 4, Mr. Budd asked Mr. Basso how many of the tomatoes would make U. S. Grade Number 1. Mr. Basso told him that 85 percent of them would. They agreed on a price of $17 per box, but Mr. Budd warned Mr. Basso that he would only pay $17 per box if the tomatoes graded out at 85 percent U. S. Grade Number 1; if they did not, Mr. Budd stated that he would pay Mr. Basso an unspecified lesser amount. In the past, Mr. Basso has allowed Mr. Budd to retain nonconforming tomatoes and try to sell them for whatever he could. In those cases, the parties' agreement was that Mr. Budd would not pay the asking price for the tomatoes, but the amount he owed Mr. Basso would be based on what he could sell the tomatoes for. The two parties agreed that Petitioner would ship 810 25-pound boxes of tomatoes to Respondent. Petitioner shipped the tomatoes on the evening of April 4 for the six-hour trip to Plant City. The only documentation accompanying the shipment, or in existence at the time, was a shipping manifest. The document contains few conditions of the sale. It describes the tomatoes as vine ripe, extra large. It states that the shipment, which is free on board at the shipper's warehouse, consists of 810 25- pound boxes. The shipping manifest does not refer to any conditions of sale, such as warranties or procedures if the tomatoes are unsatisfactory to Respondent. The tomatoes arrived at Respondent's plant during the early-morning hours of April 5. As soon as the plant opened, Respondent's employees began unloading the tomatoes. Mr. Basso telephoned Mr. Budd first thing in the morning, and Mr. Budd said that he would call back Mr. Basso as soon as they had finished grading the shipment. Later in the day, Mr. Budd and Mr. Basso spoke again on the phone. Mr. Budd informed Mr. Basso that the tomatoes had not graded out as promised. Instead, they were only 70 percent U. S. Grade Number 1. Two days later, Mr. Basso sent Mr. Budd a fax of an invoice showing the shipment of April 4 of 810 25-pound boxes. Unlike the shipping manifest, this invoice showed a price of $18 per box and total price of $14,580. This invoice also contained disclaimers requiring inspections prior to claims and imposing a federal trust interest in the tomatoes pending full payment. These were not conditions of the agreement between Mr. Budd and Mr. Basso. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent mishandled the tomatoes under their agreement. Consistent with their past practice, Respondent sold the nonconforming tomatoes for the best prices that it could get. Mr. Budd accurately calculated that Respondent owed Petitioner $12,150, and Respondent sent Petitioner a check in that amount on April 19, 1996.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the Complaint. ENTERED on October 9, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this October 9, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Basso Iori Farms Post Office Box 3271 Key Largo, Florida 33037 H. D. Budd 3701 East Trapnell Road Plant City, Florida 33567 Ohio Farmers Insurance Company Legal Department One Park Circle Westfield Center, Ohio 44251-5001 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, and to what extent, the Respondent, a licensed citrus fruit dealer, is liable to the Petitioner for damages resulting from the purchase, handling, sale, and accounting of purchases and sales occurring during the 1992-1993 growing season, and further whether the Co- Respondent, Surety Company, is therefore liable on the citrus fruit dealer's bond issued to the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Newbern Groves Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of producing, buying, and selling citrus fruit. Petitioner's business address is in Tampa, Florida. Newbern Groves, Inc. was founded in 1947 by Copeland Newbern, who at all relevant times in this case served as Chairman of the Board of Directors. The President of Newbern Groves, Inc., is John Shepard. The Secretary- Treasurer of Newbern Groves, Inc., is Peter Skemp. At all relevant times, Respondent, Inter-Floridana, Inc., (full name, Inter-Floridana Imports and Exports, Inc.) was a citrus fruit dealer, licensed by the State of Florida during the 1992-1993 growing season. Respondent's business address was Brooksville, Florida, where Respondent operated a processing plant. The 1992-1993 growing season was the first year Respondent operated this processing plant. Respondent also maintained offices and warehouses in Orange County, Florida. In addition to its citrus fruit business, Respondent corporation also engaged in other business enterprises including blending other fruit drinks, processing tomato juice concentrate, and the sale of imported beer. At all relevant times, Jacques Bobbe was President and Chief Executive Officer of Inter-Floridana, Inc. At all relevant times, Larry Cail was the manager of the Respondent's processing plant in Brooksville, Florida. Beginning in May of 1992, Jacques Bobbe, on behalf of Inter-Floridana, and Peter Skemp and Copeland Newbern, on behalf of Newbern Groves, entered into discussions relating to Newbern's supplying Inter-Floridana with citrus fruit for the Inter-Floridana plant in Brooksville, Florida. Prior to this time the parties had not met, and there was no established course of business dealings between the parties. Specific meetings between the parties took place on July 30, 1992 in Brooksville; September 2, 1992 in Tampa; September 17, 1992 in Tampa; September 29, 1992 in Orlando; and November 25, 1992 in Tampa. The discussions conducted by the parties generally related to Newbern supplying Inter-Floridana with 1,500,000 boxes of citrus fruit which would accommodate the capacity of Inter-Floridana's Brooksville plant. The parties also generally discussed prices of various citrus fruit. There is no written documentation of the parties' negotiations. It is common practice in the citrus fruit industry to purchase and sell citrus fruit without written contracts. On November 3, 1992, Newbern delivered its first shipment of citrus fruit to Inter-Floridana's Brooksville plant. The shipment was delivered pursuant to Inter-Floridana's request to conduct a test-run of the processing plant's production capability. In December of 1992, Larry Cail of Inter- Floridana specifically requested grapefruit be delivered from Newbern. At that time Newbern was selling grapefruit to Chapman Fruit Company at $1.15 a pound. Thereafter Newbern continued to deliver citrus fruit shipments to Inter- Floridana's Brooksville plant on a regular basis until April 14, 1993. Inter- Floridana accepted the deliveries of citrus fruit from Newbern. The total pounds solids of Newbern fruit delivered to Inter-Floridana was 1,375,359.98, consisting of: 1,261,323.38 pound solids of orange juice 8,087.87 pound solids of mandarin 63,426.55 pound solids of white grapefruit juice 42,522.18 pound solids of red grapefruit juice. Beginning in December of 1992 Newbern representatives Peter Skemp and Copeland Newbern demanded payment for the fruit delivered to the Inter-Floridana plant in Brooksville. The customary practice in the citrus fruit business is payment is due one week after delivery. In this case, however, Newbern had agreed to a two-week after delivery payment. The price of the citrus fruit was to be calculated on the cost to Newbern of obtaining the fruit from the growers plus .05 for Newbern's expenses in making the deliveries to Inter-Floridana. On February 26, 1993, Inter-Floridana made its first payment to Newbern in the amount of $80,000. Thereafter Inter-Floridana made three more payments of $40,000, $40,000, and $30,000. The final payment from Inter-Floridana was made on April 1, 1993. After the April 1, 1993 payment, representatives of Newbern continued to demand payment from Inter-Floridana. No further payments were received, and Newbern ceased delivery of citrus fruit to Inter-Floridana on April 14, 1993. On May 12, 1993 the parties met in Brooksville, Florida. At this meeting Jacques Bobbe informed Peter Skemp and Copeland Newbern that Inter- Floridana's position was that Inter-Floridana was not purchasing citrus fruit from Newbern, but processing the citrus fruit for Newbern, and accordingly, Newbern owed Inter-Floridana approximately $400,000 for the costs of production, which was documented in a letter from Inter-Floridana to Newbern on May 14, 1993. At hearing on May 10, 1994, Jacques Bobbe testified that Inter-Floridana retracted its previous position, and did purchase citrus fruit from Newbern during the 1992-1993 growing season. On May 24, 1993, Copeland Newbern sent a letter to Jacques Bobbe demanding payment of $789,374.01 based on the Florida Citrus Mutual citrus statistics for the citrus fruit at that time, plus .05 for Newbern's services. On June 1, 1993, Jacques Bobbe sent a letter to Copeland Newbern requesting additional information regarding the calculation of the payment demanded from Newbern. On June 23, 1993, Copeland Newbern sent a certified letter to Jacques Bobbe detailing the problems associated with this transaction, and requesting assistance in resolving the matter in a timely manner. On June 25, 1993, Newbern filed the formal complaint against Inter- Floridana with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which is the basis for this proceeding. Representatives of the parties met again on July 8, 1993; and on July 9, 1993, Jacques Bobbe sent a letter to John Shepard offering to resolve this matter as follows: Inter-Floridana would sell the frozen concentrated orange juice at $1.29 per pound solid; Newbern would receive $.83 per pound solid; Inter-Floridana would receive $.29 for packing and $.17 profit per pound solid. If the product sold for more than $1.29 per pound solid, the parties would divide the excess profit equally. On July 16, 1993, John Shepard, as President of Newbern Groves Inc., wrote to Jacques Bobbe and accepted this agreement. On July 19, 1993, Inter-Floridana filed its answer to the formal complaint filed by Newbern. The answer was verified by Jacques Bobbe. The answer denied that Inter-Floridana purchased citrus fruit from Newbern, and further claimed Newbern owed Inter-Floridana $442,133.21 for various services in connection with the processing and storage of the Newbern fruit. As set forth above, this position was subsequently retracted, and Inter-Floridana acknowledged the purchase of citrus fruit from Newbern. On August 5, 1993, Jacques Bobbe, on behalf of Inter-Floridana, filed a verified statement with the Department of Citrus attesting that Inter-Floridana did not purchase any fruit during the 1992-1993 growing season. The verified statement further attested that Inter-Floridana processed fruit for Newbern, and that Inter-Floridana had accounts payable of $978,580, and accounts receivable of $489,378.83. The accounts payable represented funds owed by Inter-Floridana to Newbern, and the accounts receivable consisted of the various production charges from Newbern as claimed by Inter-Floridana. On August 26, 1993, Newbern received an accounting from Inter-Floridana showing 500,651.26 pound solids of orange juice, 2,512.02 pound solids of mandarin, 39,809 pound solids of white grapefruit, and 11,602.50 pound solids of red grapefruit. This balance was substantially less than the amount delivered to Inter-Floridana. Unbeknown to Newbern, in February of 1993, Inter-Floridana had sold a substantial portion of the Newbern product to Windsor-Premium (Premium), a European business concern that Jacques Bobbe had been negotiating with since February of 1992. On February 26, 1993 Premium paid Inter-Floridana $807,825.29 for the product. This sale was the first part of a proposed ongoing transaction between Premium and Inter-Floridana to market citrus products in Europe. The proposed transaction would have been approximately $2 million; however, Premium did not complete the transaction with Inter-Floridana, and Premium eventually filed for bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The four payments totalling $190,000 that Inter-Floridana made to Newbern were derived from the proceeds of the sale to Premium. On October 1, 1993 Inter-Floridana sent a letter to John Shepard informing Newbern that of 1,375,359.57 pound solids, 848,558.76 had been sold. Thereafter in October of 1993, Inter-Floridana returned to Newbern 501,130.73 pound solids of orange, 18,018.92 pound solids of white grapefruit, and 11,614.39 pound solids of pink grapefruit. Newbern resold the returned orange citrus product to Indian River Fruits by means of a citrus broker, Merrill Lynch, which received a brokerage fee of $5,011.30. Some of the grapefruit citrus product had gelled and could not be resold.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order adjudicating that the amount of indebtedness owed to the Petitioner from Respondent is $543,126.53, that the Respondent shall have thirty (30) days in which to satisfy such indebtedness, and upon failure of the Respondent to satisfy such indebtedness, the citrus fruit dealer's bond in the amount of $24,000 shall be distributed to Petitioner. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 13th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6775 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted in part. Respondent acknowledged discussion of prices for the citrus fruit. Accepted in part. Respondent acknowledged an indebtedness of $978,580. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted. Rejected in part. Rejected as to the frozen concentrated orange juice, accepted as to grapefruit. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy G. Hayes, Esquire 21859 State Road 54, Suite 200 Lutz, Florida 33549 Eric S. Mashburn, Esquire Post Office Box 771277 Winter Garden, Florida 34777-1277 The Honorable Bob Crawford Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
