The Issue Is Ann L. Bell (Ms. Bell) entitled to the issuance of a license to act as an independent motor vehicle dealer through A & B Auto Sales of Jacksonville, Inc. (A & B), that license to be issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Department)? See Section 320.27, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Bell made application to the Department for an independent motor vehicle dealer license. The name of the business would be A & B. The location of the business would be 7046 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. In furtherance of the application Ms. Bell received a certificate of completion of the motor vehicle dealer training school conducted by the Florida Independent Automobile Dealers Association on January 26 and 27, 1999. Ms. Bell submitted the necessary fees and other information required by the Department to complete the application for the license, to include the necessary surety bond. At present Ms. Bell lives at 98 Kent Mill Pond Road, Alford, Florida, some distance from Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Bell intends to move to Jacksonville, Florida, if she obtains the license. Ms. Bell's work history includes a 35-year career with the State of Florida, Department of Insurance, from which she retired as a Deputy Insurance Commissioner. Her duties included supervision of employees and auditing. More recently Ms. Bell has worked as an insurance agent for approximately five years with Allstate Insurance. Ms. Bell also had 17 years' experience involving a business with her former husband in retail floor covering in which she dealt with sales staff and contracts. During another marriage, her then-husband was involved in the automobile business in Mobile, Alabama, as well as the Florida panhandle. Ms. Bell was not an employee of the automobile business conducted by her husband. Ms. Bell was "in and out" of the dealership and attended automobile auctions with her husband. Ms. Bell intends to locate her dealership at the address where Mr. Badreddine formerly operated an independent motor vehicle dealership. Ms. Bell has known Mr. Badreddine for approximately 10 to 12 years. Ms. Bell has purchased cars from Mr. Badreddine. Ms. Bell has borrowed money from Mr. Badreddine. Mr. Badreddine has borrowed money from Ms. Bell. Ms. Bell has a lease related to the location where she would operate her dealership. At present Ms. Bell is using the prospective business location to collect on some accounts for automobiles purchased through Mr. Badreddine in which Ms. Bell has bought the accounts receivable from Mr. Badreddine. The arrangement concerning the accounts receivable is one in which Mr. Badreddine is expected to assist in the collection of monies owed on the accounts. The customers involved with those accounts are Arabs and African Americans. Mr. Badreddine is fluent in Arabic. The amount of money which Ms. Bell has invested is approximately $35,000, in relation to the purchase of the accounts receivable. If Ms. Bell obtains the license she intends to employ Mr. Badreddine to sell automobiles at her lot and to be involved in the purchase of cars at automobile auctions. These duties would be in addition to the collection on the accounts receivable which Ms. Bell purchased from Mr. Badreddine. Ms. Bell does not intend to allow Mr. Badreddine access to the company bank accounts or the completion of the necessary paperwork when cars are sold to the public from her business. In the past, Mr. Badreddine held independent motor vehicle dealer licenses issued by the Department. He lost those licenses based upon unacceptable performance under their terms. Ms. Bell is not unmindful of Mr. Badreddine's performance as a licensee, being informed by the Department in the details. Mr. Badreddine held an independent motor vehicle dealer's license under the name A & D Wholesale, Inc. (A & D), for a business at 9944 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. The Department issued an administrative complaint against that license in Case No. DMV-94FY-566, concerning problems in cars sold by A & D in which the titles and registrations were not transferred appropriately and emissions tests were not performed appropriately. This case was disposed of through an informal hearing and a $5,000 administrative fine was imposed. A further complaint was made against the licensee for the business A & D under an administrative complaint drawn by the Department in Case No. DMV-97FY-621. This complaint involved problems in title and registration transfer, failure to pay an existing lien on a trade-in, and the payment for automobiles obtained in automobile auctions upon which the drafts were not honored. No request for an administrative proceeding was received in relation to this administrative complaint. A final order was entered which revoked the independent motor vehicle dealer's license in relation to A & D. Subsequently, Mr. Badreddine made an application for an independent motor vehicle dealer's license under the business name King Kar Auto Sales, Inc. (King Kar) for the address at which Ms. Bell would operate her business. The decision was made to grant Mr. Badreddine's request for an automobile dealer license for King Kar. Following the grant of the license to King Kar an administrative complaint was brought in Case Nos. DMV-99FY-165 and DMV-99FY-166. The complaint involved the failure to pay off a lien, in which a check intended to settle the account with the lien holder was dishonored and falsification of the application in support of the license for King Kar. The final order disposing of these cases was premised upon the recognition that the license for King Kar had been revoked by virtue of the failure to maintain the necessary surety bond, rendering the allegations in the complaint moot. In the conduct of his automobile business Mr. Badreddine was accused of obtaining property in return for a worthless check involved in dealings with GMAC Corporation. The check was in the amount of $16,671.38. This action was taken in the case of State of Florida vs. Amine Badreddine, in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, Case No. 98-13690CFCR-E. Mr. Badreddine entered a plea of guilty to obtaining property in return for a worthless check and was placed upon probation for a period of one year, with a requirement to make restitution. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In a discussion between Ms. Bell and Cindy King, Department Compliance Examiner and Nadine Allain, Regional Administrator for the Department, Ms. Bell told the Department employees that Ms. Bell would need Mr. Badreddine to go to the automobile auctions and that "she didn't think it was lady-like to go to an auction." This is taken to mean that Ms. Bell did not believe she should go to the automobile auctions. Ms. Bell also told the Department employees that she needed Mr. Badreddine to sell automobiles for her, that he was a good salesman and that he was good at dealing with Arabs and she was not. Ms. Bell noted that she didn't live in the area where the dealership would be operated and referred to her purchase of the accounts receivable. Ms. Bell told the Department employees that Mr. Badreddine would be given an office in the back of the dealership or in the dealership. Ms. Bell told the Department employees that "she knew absolutely nothing about selling cars." Ms. Bell indicated that she would be relying upon Mr. Badreddine for advise in running her dealership. The reliance on Mr. Badreddine to deal with Arab clients was mentioned pertaining to the circumstances with the previous accounts receivable. The Department offered to license Ms. Bell upon condition that Ms. Bell provide an affidavit to the effect that Mr. Badreddine would not be involved with her dealership. Ultimately, Ms. Bell did not accept this overture. In denying the application for the independent motor vehicle dealer's license the Department gave the following reasons: Your admission of not knowing anything about the car business coupled with your stated intention to rely on the advice and experience of Mr. Amine Badreddine to operate your dealership means that Mr. Badreddine is, de facto, the dealer. Mr. Badreddine previously held independent motor vehicle dealer license number VI-15265, as A & D Wholesale, Inc. An administrative complaint was filed by the department against his dealership involving consumer complaints filed by Gladys L. Stevens, complaint number 93110148; Merrian A. Coe, complaint number 94010340; and Richard Green, complaint number 94030339. As a result of the administrative action, Mr. Badreddine's license was found in violation and fined $5,000.00 for failure to apply for transfer of title within 30 days, issuing more than two temporary tags to the same person for use on the same vehicle, violation of any other law of the state having to do with dealing in motor vehicles, failure to have a vehicle pass an emissions inspection within 90 days prior to retail sale and failure to transfer title. On December 23, 1996, a second administrative complaint was filed against A & D Wholesale, Inc. because of complaints received from Mark S. Smith, complaint number 96020168; Telmesa C. Porter, complaint number 96050435; Nijole Hall, complaint number 96070365; Ella Didenko, complaint number 96080083; Salih Ferozovic, complaint number 96100067; Charles R. Wells, complaint number 9610068; and Adessa Auto Auction, complaint number 96110372. As a result of this administrative action, a Final Order was issued on January 27, 1997 revoking Mr. Badreddine's independent motor vehicle dealers [sic] license for failure to apply for a transfer of title within 30 days, - failure to comply with the provisions of section 319.23(6), F.S., failure to have a vehicle pass an emission inspection prior to retail sale, issuance of more than two temporary tags to the same person for use on the same vehicle, failure to have a title or other indicia of ownership in possession of the dealership from the time of acquiring the vehicle until the time of disposing of the vehicle, failure of a motor vehicle dealer to honor a check or draft. Mr. Badreddine applied for and was issued another motor vehicle dealer's license on April 24, 1998, under the name King Kar Auto Sales, Inc. The license was revoked on October 20, 1998, because of a surety bond cancellation. On November 24, 1998, the department received a complaint from Treflyn N. Congraves, complaint number 98070299. Ms. Congraves filed a complaint with the state attorney which resulted in Mr. Bareddine [sic] being placed on probation for issuing a bad check to GMAC and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $16,571.38. Mr. Badreddine is currently on probation. The department's investigation showed that Mr. Badreddine had a history of bad credit, failed to continually meet the requirements of the licensure law, failed to honor a bank draft or check given to a motor vehicle dealer for the purchase of a motor vehicle by another motor vehicle dealer, and had failed to satisfy a lien. Consequently, Mr. Badreddine's poor performance as a dealer forces us to deny a license where he may have a financial interest, active participation in the management, sales or any part in the operation of the dealership.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Facts Found and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which grants Ann L. Bell an independent motor vehicle dealer license for the business A & B. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 17th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. Jackson, Esquire Jackson & Mason, P.A. 516 West Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Duval Motor Company, is a holding company operating two Ford franchises, one exclusive Honda dealership, one Isuzu dealership in Jacksonville, and one Isuzu dealership in Tallahassee. Duval Motor Company was founded in 1916 and its president, Walter A. McRae, has been in the automobile business some 42 years. The Duval Honda dealership in Jacksonville has been in existence for ten years; and Petitioner is fully qualified, both financially and by experience, to successfully operate the dealership requested in Tampa, Florida. Petitioner has acquired a site for the proposed dealership, to be known as Tampa Honda Land, at 11024 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida. This site comprises a tract of land 200 feet wide fronting on North Florida Avenue and is 500 feet deep. It is located in the North Florida Avenue automobile row. Honda is the exclusive distributor for Honda automobiles within the United States. It is responsible for the importation and allocation of Honda automobiles throughout the United States and for the creation and maintenance of an independent dealer network to retail and provide service facilities for these automobiles. Honda imports have increased dramatically in the United States, from 102,000 vehicles in 1975 to 375,000 vehicles in 1980. However, the demand for these vehicles during this period has exceeded the supply. This has resulted in a bonanza, as well as a frustration, to Honda dealers. The demand has been such that many of these automobiles are sold at prices exceeding the manufacturer's suggested retail price, resulting in higher profits for the dealer. Because of the finite number of Hondas imported, the dealers are allocated automobiles by Honda rather than being furnished all they request. The allocation system is similar to that used by other popular imports and the number of cars allocated to each dealer is determined by the dealer's rate of vehicle sales for the previous 44 days and his inventory. The more rapidly the dealer sells the cars he receives and thereby deplete's his inventory, the more cars he will get. Protestant Lindell Motors, Inc., d/b/a Lindell Honda, is located in the Dale Mabry auto row, 11 miles from Petitioner's proposed site. Lindell is the only Honda dealer in Hillsborough County and operates a dual Volkswagen-Honda dealership. In 1976 Lindell purchased the Honda dealership located in North Florida Avenue auto row and relocated it to his Volkswagen dealership site on Kennedy Avenue near Dale Mabry. Hondas sold by Lindell: 1977, 459; 1978, 609; 1979, 611; 1980, 597; and 1981, 672. Protestant Globe Honda operates an exclusive Honda dealership in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, on U.S. 19 in an area in which numerous other dealerships are located. Globe is located some 28 miles from Petitioner's proposed site. Globe was a dual dealer until June 1980. Hondas sold by Globe: 1976, 166; 1977, 246; 1978, 392; 1979, 531; 1980, 729; and 1981, 1171. Globe received an additional allocation of 50 automobiles when it became an exclusive dealer in June 1980. Protestant Crown Honda is a dual dealer located at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida, and sells Pontiac, Datsun, Jaguar, Ferarri, Peugot, De Lorean, Fiat and Honda automobiles. Hondas sold by Crown: 1975, 212; 1976, 243; 1977, 292; 1978, 348; 1979, 375; 1980, 364; and 1981, 286. Gateway Motors is a dual dealer located in Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida, and sells Volkswagen and Honda automobiles. It is located some 33 miles from Petitioner's proposed site. Hondas sold by Gateway: 1979, 76; 1980, 365; and 1981, 300. Regal Honda is a dual dealer in Lakeland, Polk County, Florida, and sells Pontiac, Fiat and Honda automobiles. It is located some 31 miles from Petitioner's proposed site. Hondas sold by Regal: 1976, 42; 1977, 111; 1978, 114; 1979, 104; 1980, 127; and 1981, 157. All of these Protestants are members of an advertising group to which they contribute to pay for Honda radio and other advertising spots which are delivered to Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Polk and Manatee counties. Many of these dealers testified that because of their membership in this group and the advertising thereby generated in these five counties they considered these five counties their marketing area. The Territory Hillsborough County has a population in excess of 600,000 people and Pinellas County is of comparable population. The older section of Tampa comprises the city limits of Tampa south of Hillsborough Avenue (Interbay area) and constitutes a population center and marketing area served by the southern auto row on Dale Mabry Avenue. During the decade between 1970 and 1980 the population of the Interbay area decreased slightly from 242,369 to 225,476, while the northwest part of Hillsborough County grew from 135,587 to 233,686. While the population maps admitted into evidence do not indicate a separate population grouping in northwest Hillsborough County from the Interbay area in the sense that there is a green area of low population density between the Interbay area and northwest Hillsborough County, numerous shopping malls and residential communities have developed north of Hillsborough Avenue to serve the population in this area of Hillsborough County. In addition the University of South Florida, Busch Gardens, Busch Brewery, Schlitz Brewery, Pepsi Bottling Company, the V.A. Hospital, University Community Hospital, and other newly constructed establishments exist in northwest Hillsborough County which provide substantial employment and make it a prime retail area. The Hillsborough County Planning Commission recognizes northwest Hillsborough County as a distinct area, as does the Tampa Tribune which publishes a special newspaper supplement limited to news and advertising directed toward the northwest area. These factors have created a distinct marketing area in northwest Hillsborough County. East Hillsborough County may be described as that part of the county east of U.S. 301, which includes the communities of Brandon, Plant City and Thonotosassa. This area is much larger geographically than the northwest area of the county and the Interbay area combined, but contains less than 25 percent of the county's population. The population centers of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties are separated by Old Tampa Bay, which is crossed by three bridges and causeways. The southern two, Candy (U.S. 92) and Franklin (I-275), connect Tampa and St. Petersburg, while Courtney Campbell (S.R. 60) connects Tampa and Clearwater. The proximity of these cities to each other and the adequate connecting roads lead to a multiple market situation where people living in one city will frequently shop in another city in the Tampa Bay area. In many instances it is quicker to go from a facility near the I-275 in Tampa to a facility near the I- 275 in St. Petersburg than to go across Tampa or St. Petersburg. Representation Honda's market penetration, or share of the total import sales, in Hillsborough County in 1981 was 11.7 percent, which is 2 percent behind its penetration in the Southeast Zone of 13.7 percent. The Southeast Zone includes Florida, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee. It currently ranks third behind Toyota and Datsun in market penetration. Sales into a market area from outside that market area are called "pump-in" sales. In 1981 nearly 40 percent of the Hondas sold in Hillsborough County were "pump-in" sales. The average automobile dealer generates about 50 percent of his sales within six and one-half miles of his dealership and 75 percent of his sales within ten miles of his dealership. This "geographical advantage" is enjoyed by all dealers with respect to the potential sales close to the dealership. In 1980 Lindell registered 50 percent of its sales slightly more than six and one-half miles from its dealership location and 75 percent of its sales slightly more than ten miles from its location. Globe, the largest volume seller of Hondas in the Tampa Bay area, made 50 percent of its sales to people living less than 7.5 miles from its location and 75 percent of those sales to people living within ten miles. All of Globe's sales in Hillsborough County were more than ten miles from the location of its dealership. Customers for sales and services of new automobiles in Hillsborough County, exclusive of the east portion, are served primarily at two separate locations previously described as the North Florida Avenue auto row and the Dale Mabry auto row. There are approximately 30 automobile dealers in Hillsborough County, 24 of which are in the northwest county and Interbay area. Of these 24, 19 are located in one of these two auto rows. Location of an automobile dealership in an auto row is advantageous both to the dealer and to the customer. Presence within an auto row provides dealers with greater access to customers who come to one dealer then comparative shop at the adjacent showrooms. Such grouping is advantageous to the customers, as it facilitates their shopping for a new or used automobile by having the dealers concentrated in one area. The fact that many customers want to buy a car from a dealer reasonably close to residences or place of work to facilitate repairs and maintenance gives dealers so located a geographical advantage so far as that customer is concerned. This grouping of dealers in auto rows does not deprive them of the geographical advantage they have over dealers offering the same product because manufacturers do not generally allow two franchisees selling the same product in one auto row. Nor does the grouping of dealers materially affect the statistic that dealers sell 50 percent of their product within six and one-half miles and 75 percent within ten miles of the location of their dealership. Honda's principal competitors are Toyota, Datsun and Volkswagen. All of these manufacturers are represented by dealerships at both of these auto rows, while Honda is represented only by Lindell at the Dale Mabry auto row. In addition Ford, Chevrolet, American Motors and Dodge are represented by dealers on both auto rows. While Honda imports have increased some 350 percent, from 102,000 vehicles in 1975 to 375,000 in 1980, Lindell's sales increased approximately 30 percent in 1977 and 1978 and have remained flat since that time; Crown's sales increased 15-20 percent each year between 1975 and 1978, then slowed in 1979, and actually declined in 1980 and 1981; Gateway's sales increased some 20 percent between 1980 and 1981; and Regal's sales from 1977 to 1981 increased from 111 to 157, an increase of some 40 percent over the five-year period. Of the protesting dealers only Globe's sales showed an increase comparable to the increase of Honda imports, as Globe's percent increase over the previous year was 48 percent in 1977, 59 percent in 1978, 35 percent in 1979, 37 percent in 1980 and 60 percent in 1981. In 1981 75 percent of those sales were within ten miles of the location of its dealership in Clearwater. Although Honda sales in Hillsborough County increased from 606 in 1979 to 775 in 1980, its percent of the import market in Hillsborough County still remains two percentage points below the zone level of penetration. In 1981 Lindell sold nearly as many Hondas north of Hillsborough Avenue as it sold south of Hillsborough Avenue, yet 40 percent of the sales in northwest Hillsborough Avenue were pumped in from outside Hillsborough County. High "pump-in" sales are an indication of inadequate penetration by the dealers. Availability of Automobiles Protestants contend that the reason they do not sell more Honda automobiles is because Honda does not supply them with the vehicles they need and can sell. All offered to pay in advance for an additional number of Hondas each month into the foreseeable future. Furthermore, a voluntary import restriction has been imposed on all Japanese automobile imports commencing in 1981 and continuing until 1983. This will further restrict the availability of Honda autos and create less need for an additional dealer, as there will be less cars available to the United States market. Honda contends that the allocation system allows dealers to "earn" more vehicles by expeditiously selling those received and those that do so will continue to get an increasing supply of vehicles. Protestants' contention that Globe sold more vehicles because Globe obtained a one-time additional allocation when it became an exclusive dealer in mid-1980 overlooks the yearly increases in allocated vehicles received by Globe during the period 1976 through 1979 before going exclusive. During this period Globe went from 166 vehicles in 1976 to 531 in 1979. More aggressive selling by the other Protestants would have increased their allocation of vehicles and increased Honda's penetration of the Hillsborough County market. Honda of America manufacturing company, which is 80 percent owned by Honda of America and 20 percent by Honda, Ltd.; in Japan, will commence producing Honda automobiles in the United States in 1982. First production of 50 automobiles per day is expected to start in October or November of 1982, with full production of 600 units per day some 18 months thereafter. Thus, in 1984 production of 144,000 units is projected. Open Point in Hillsborough County Honda determined in the early 1970's that an additional open point existed in Hillsborough County. This point was not filled and, when Lindell acquired his dealership in 1976, he was told Honda did not plan to open a second point in Hillsborough County in the near future. Petitioner applied for a second dealership in Jacksonville when that point became open; however, the dealership was awarded to another applicant because Honda liked his proposal better and preferred the two points in Jacksonville be owned by different people to promote competition. Petitioner was then offered open points in St. Augustine, Florida, and Brunswick, Georgia, which he declined. When told that an open point existed in Tampa Petitioner expressed interest and submitted a proposal. Petitioner initially selected the site for the new dealership in the Dale Mabry auto row but when told by the Southeast Zone sales manager he would not recommend approval of a location that close to Lindell, Petitioner located a site in the North Florida Avenue row. In January 1981 Petitioner met with Honda officials in Los Angeles, California, and after presenting his proposal was told that he could have the open point in Hillsborough County. Acting upon this verbal approval, Petitioner acquired the property at 11024 North Florida Avenue and presented his formal application for the point. At about this time the voluntary moratorium on imports from Japan came into effect and Honda announced a moratorium on new points in the United States except for those already approved where applicants had expended funds in reliance upon the approval. Since Petitioner's application fitted into that category, Honda approved his franchise in Hillsborough County and his application was filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles for a license. Protestant Lindell, the closest dealer to the site of this application, acknowledges that someday Honda would be justified in opening a second point in Hillsborough County, but contends that a second point should not be opened until after the import restrictions are lifted and an adequate supply of vehicles is available for the dealers who are now selling into that market.
Findings Of Fact In November 1986, Sport Products received approval of its application with American Honda to establish a Honda motorcycle, all terrain vehicle (ATV), and motor scooter dealership in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. By application dated December 2, 1986, Sport Products applied to the Department for a motor vehicle dealer license to establish its dealership at 1030 West Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The application of Sport Products was protested by Stanmar and Honda West, existing dealers in Broward County. Stanmar's dealership is located near the intersection of Copans and Powerline Roads, Pompano Beach, Florida. As sited, Stanmar is located approximately 9.5 miles due north of the proposed dealership. Honda West's dealership is located at the intersection of University Drive and Stirling Road, Davie, Florida. As sited, Honda West is located a straightline distance of approximately 9 miles southwest, but a substantially greater distance over any available route of travel, from the proposed dealership. 1/ Replacement Dealer Or New Dealer Point? The proposed site for the Sport Product dealership, 1030 West Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, is the same location previously occupied by another Honda dealer, Satnam Enterprises, Inc. (Satnam). Satnam conducted business at that location from 1979 until late December 1985, when it ceased doing business. Satnam's dealership agreements with American Honda were terminated on January 22, 1986. Upon termination of Satnam's dealership, American Honda immediately began its search for a replacement dealer in Fort Lauderdale. Typically, it takes from six months to one year to advertise open dealership points, evaluate applications, and select a replacement dealer. In this case, the replacement dealer, Sport Products, was located and approved within one year. If licensed, Sport Products would resurrect the third Honda motorcycle, all terrain vehicle (ATV) and motor scooter dealership in Broward County since the demise of Satnam. The issue of American Honda's right to establish a third Honda dealership in Broward County was previously addressed in the matter of Satnam Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Honda of Fort Lauderdale, et al. v. S.G. Silverman, et al., DOAH Case No. 85- 0836. In that case, Satnam and Honda West protested Stan Silverman's (Stanmar's) proposal to establish a third dealership in Broward County at the intersection of Copans and Powerline Roads, Pompano Beach, Florida. The case proceeded to hearing on September 11 and 12, 1985, and the hearing officer entered his recommended order on November 13, 1985. The Department's final order, which adopted the recommended order in toto, was entered December 30, 1985, and found that Broward County was the relevant market area, community or territory to be considered and that American Honda was inadequately represented in that area by the two existing dealers. Subsequently, Stanmar received its dealer's license. 2/ As appears more fully from the findings of fact which address the adequacy of the existing two dealers representation of Honda in Broward County, infra, there have been no changes in circumstance that would warrant a departure from the final order rendered in Satnam Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Honda of Fort Lauderdale, et al. v. S.G. Silverman, et al., supra. The need for three dealership points having been established in that case, it is concluded that the subject application is for a replacement dealership and not a new dealership point. Adequacy Of Existing Dealer Representation Broward County is the relevant market area, community or territory under consideration in this case. The proof establishes that American Honda is not being adequately represented in Broward County. This is evidenced by the following: As of November 1986, R.L. Polk & Co. reported that Honda's market share in the entire State of Florida was 51.06 percent, while Honda's market share in Broward County was 26.65 percent. Simply stated, this means that whereas throughout the State of Florida 51 of every 100 motorcycles and motorscooters sold was a Honda vehicle, only 27 of every 100 sold in Broward County was a Honda vehicle. 3/ By comparison, at the time of Case No. 85-0836, supra, which concluded that a third dealership in Broward County was needed, Honda's market share for Broward County was 48.07 percent, whereas its state- wide share was 55.73 percent. The R.L. Polk Reports demonstrate that Honda's market share in Broward County has been steadily erroding over the past five years. Currently, there are 52 Honda dealerships in the State of Florida. Since the population for the entire state was estimated in 1986 to be 11,668,638 people, there is currently one Honda dealer for every 224,397 people in the State of Florida. There are now only two Honda dealers in Broward County, which had an estimated population in 1986 of 1,203,210 people. This equates to a dealership per population ration of one dealership for every 603,605 people. With the re-establishment of the third dealership in Broward County, that ratio would be reduced to one dealership for every 401.070 people in Broward County, whereas the state ratio, calculated with the additional dealership, would then be one dealership for every 220,163 people. Clearly, the dealership per population ratio in Broward County far exceeds the state-wide ratio, and would continue to greatly exceed the state- wide ratio even if Sport Products is licensed. Since 1982, there have been an increasing number of Broward County residents who have gone outside Broward County to purchase their Honda vehicles. In contrast, a significantly lesser number of customers from outside Broward County have traveled into Broward County to purchase their vehicles. In 1984, one Honda vehicle was sold in the State of Florida for every 367 people within the state. In Broward County for 1984, that figure was one vehicle for every 503 people. In 1985, whereas one Honda vehicle was sold throughout the state for every 402 people, that figure in Broward County was one Honda vehicle for every 702 people. In 1986, whereas one Honda vehicle was sold throughout the state for every 516 people, that figure in Broward County had plummeted to one Honda vehicle sold for every 1,133 people. If the ratio of sales to population in Broward County had been the same as the state-wide ratio in 1986, 2,332 American Honda units would have been sold. In fact, the two existing Broward County dealers sold 638 units, while non-Broward County dealers sold 424 units to Broward County residents. Consequently, there was an estimated unmet sales potential of 1,270 units for 1986. Even if sales by Stanmar for 1986 are doubled (in essence, providing Stanmar with 14 months of sales to account for the fact that it started in business in June 1986), the unmet sales potential in Broward County still exceeds 1,000 units, which is more than sufficient to support the proposed dealership and still leave substantial room for sales increases by the two existing dealers. The foregoing sales projection figures are based upon emperical data showing the sales per population of Broward County residents, and is therefore intrinsically credible. Further, such projections have been validated. Hence, the evidence establishes not only the reasonableness of the projections calculated by Honda's expert, Dr. Ford, but also the inadequacy of current representation. The evidence establishing inadequacy of representation was particularly acute with respect to American Honda's motor scooter product line. Whereas in the state and throughout the nation more than 7 out of every 10 motor scooters sold is a Honda vehicle, in Broward County, less than 3 out of every 10 motor scooters sold is a Honda vehicle. This situation is particularly significant in that the motor scooter product line, which was introduced by American Honda in 1983, is very important to American Honda, since it is intended to be marketed to persons outside the traditional motorcycle market. Through such marketing, American Honda should be able to introduce a new segment of the population to its product line, and thereby increase its consumer base. Broward County is a good motor scooter market, as it is blessed with year-round favorable weather, many beach communities, and an emphasis on recreation. In addition, in the Fort Lauderdale area, there are a number of low income households. Low income areas are fertile markets for the motor scooter product line. Notwithstanding these factors favoring the sale of the Honda motor scooter product line, the existing Broward County dealers are either unwilling or unable to adequately represent that product line in this community, particularly in the Fort Lauderdale area. For example, neither of the protesting dealers participated significantly in a recent promotion conducted by American Honda with respect to the lower priced model motor scooter, notwithstanding the fact that a representative from American Honda visited both dealers to explain the program and its benefits, and to recommend that the dealers participate. It appears that Honda West considers itself too far removed from what it considers the primary market for the motor scooter, and Stanmar considers itself unable to compete with the local Yamaha motor scooter dealer. Further, the evidence established that the motor scooter purchaser is more likely to be a localized shopper, such that the physical separation of the two protesting dealers from the greater Fort Lauderdale area is a significant factor contributing to the inability of those dealers adequately to represent American Honda's motor scooter product line. Failure of a dealer to adequately represent a particular product line is tantamount to inadequate representation of the manufacturer or distributor. The population in Broward County has shown tremendous growth, as has Florida, and is projected to continue that growth through at least the year 2020. Significantly, the east central sector of Broward County, in which the proposed dealership would be established, is the most densely populated sector of Broward County, and is likewise projected to increase its population through the year 2020. Substantial growth is also projected for the southwest and southeast sectors, in which Honda West's dealership is located, and in the northwest and northeast sectors, in which Stanmar's dealership is located. Accordingly, it is anticipated that there will be an increasing need for the third Broward County dealership in the future. Broward County is an economically viable market, ranking second among all counties in such things as total and per capita Effective Buying Income, Buying Power Index, and total per capita Retail Sales. Additionally, Broward County has shown substantial growth in these figures through 1986. These are the economic indices typically used to gauge the vitality of a market. The protesting dealers did not dispute the deficient market share for Honda products in Broward County, but attempted to rationalize the disparity by citing to a number of factors. One such factor was certain adverse publicity associated with the previous Fort Lauderdale Honda dealership. Such evidence was, however, unpersuasive. First, protestants offered no proof that a nexus existed between the previous dealer's reputation and the inadequate market share. Second, the proof established that the previous dealer was a Honda- Yamaha-Suzuki dealer and, consequently, any adverse impact would have afflicted those product lines also. Other factors cited by the protesting dealers in an attempt to explain or rationalize Honda's poor market penetration in Broward County included the timing of product releases by the manufacturer, pricing policies, the quantity and models available for dealers to sell, insurance rates, the lack of off-road riding areas, and safety concerns regarding the 3-wheeled ATVs. Such factors are, however, unpersuasive in explaining Honda's lack of penetration into the Broward County market. To the extent such factors existed, they would have affected either all brand vehicles equally, or at least all Honda dealers equally if the factor was peculiar to a specific Honda product. Other evidence presented by the protesting dealers, such as Mr. Silverman's contention that an American Honda representative told him that the Fort Lauderdale dealership would not be replaced, is not only inherently improbable, but was rebutted by credible proof. That proof established that American Honda consistently advised Mr. Silverman that the Fort Lauderdale dealership would be re-established, and that Mr. Silverman's only concern was that it not be located any closer to his dealership than previously sited. Finally, protestants suggest that Honda's poor performance in the Broward market in 1986 can be explained by the fact that following Satnam's closure in December 1985, there was only one Honda dealer, Honda West, for Broward County until Stanmar opened in June 1986. While such dealer turnover and lack of representation could have affected Honda's performance in 1986, it does nothing to explain Honda's consistently poor market penetration in the preceding years. Consequently, protestants' assertion does not detract from the conclusion that American Honda is not adequately represented in Broward County, and more particularly in Fort Lauderdale. "Market share" and "sales penetration" are reliable measures of dealer representation. "Market share" measures a manufacturer's percentage of a given market based upon registration data obtained by R.L. Polk from the various states, and recorded monthly on a county-by-county, state-by-state, and national basis. All terrain vehicle sales are not reflected in R.L. Polk data for the State of Florida since they are not used on the roads and highways and therefore are not registered in the state. "Sales penetration" measures actual unit sales compared with total sales potential using manufacturer warranty data, whether or not the vehicle is registered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles process Sport Products' application for a motor vehicle dealer license, and that the protests of Stanmar, Inc. and International Cycle, Inc. be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 17th day of April, 1987.
The Issue Whether Gorilla Motor Works, LLC (Gorilla) should be permitted over Petitioner's protest to establish an additional dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Taizhou Zhongneng Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (ZHNG) at 188 North Federal Highway, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441 (the proposed location).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an existing franchised dealer of ZHNG Motorcycles. Petitioner's dealership is located at 550 North Flagler Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. Petitioner's dealership is approximately 7.2 miles from the proposed location. Respondents offered no evidence that Petitioner has failed to adequately represent ZHNG.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order denying the request to establish a new ZHNG dealership at the proposed location. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 7th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether General Motors' decision not to renew its franchise agreement with Gallman Pontiac was "unfair" as the term is defined by Section 320.641(3), Florida statutes.
Findings Of Fact Background On or about October 28, 1988, (general Motors Corporation, Pontiac Division (General Motors) notified it franchisee, Bill Gallman Pontiac, GMC Truck, Inc. (Gallman Pontiac), a licensed motor vehicle dealer in the State of Florida, of its election not to renew the franchise agreement, effective ninety days from the date of the delivery of the notice of its decision. Because the franchise agreement was scheduled to expire on November 20, 1988, Bill Gallman would have the option to void the nonrenewal due to General Motor's failure to notify the motor vehicle dealer ninety days in advance of the proposed nonrenewal. To avoid this result and to comply with the franchise agreement, General Motors informed the dealer in the same notification that the current agreement was being extended for the same ninety day period in which the dealer had been given notice of the proposed nonrenewal. General Motors' extension of the term of the franchise agreement was a unilateral proposed novation that was accepted by Gallman Pontiac when he relied upon the modification and continued to do business under the novation. Gallman Pontiac's acceptance of the novation is clearly demonstrated by the timing of the verified complaint in this proceeding, which was filed on January 12, 1989. The specific reason stated by General Motors for its decision not to renew its franchise agreement beyond the ninety-day period was that Gallman Pontiac failed to fulfill its minimum sales performance responsibilities pursuant to its contractual obligations as set forth in the Dealer Sales and Service Agreement. Gallman Pontiac subsequently filed a verified complaint, pursuant to Section 320.641, Florida Statutes, to contest the proposed nonrenewal of the franchise agreement. The complaint alleges that the proposed nonrenewal is unfair and that the grounds asserted for the nonrenewal were factually untrue and/or legally insufficient for the intended purpose. The Mathematical Formula for Sales Effectiveness The manufacturer's primary purpose for entering into a franchise agreement with a dealer is to have its automobiles sold. To determine whether a dealer is meeting its responsibilities in this regard, the franchise agreement contains a mathematical formula which is used to evaluate the sales performance of all dealers who sell Pontiacs. Pursuant to the formula, which is expressed in the agreement and tide annual sales performance evaluation form, a dealer's sales ratio and registration ratio must be calculated. A dealer's sales ratio is determined by dividing the dealer's actual unit sales of new motor vehicles, wherever registered, by industry new unit registrations in the Dealer's Area of Prime Responsibility. A dealer's registration ratio is determined by dividing new motor vehicle unit registrations by industry new unit registrations in the Dealer's Area of Prime Responsibility. After these ratios are recorded, the dealer's sales and registration ratios are compared to zone and national registration ratio levels to determine sales and registration effectiveness. If the individual dealer's sales and registration performances reach a comparative level of 85 percent effectiveness to the zone and national levels, the dealer's performance is considered effective by General Motors. When the comparisons were made in this case, the dealer's sales effectiveness was 53.6 percent in 1987 and 68.5 percent in 1988. Registration effectiveness was 56.5 percent in 1987 and 74.1 percent in 1988. These levels of performance do not meet the minimum levels required by the franchise agreement. Other Considerations Under the Agreement In addition to the mathematical formula, the franchise agreement states that General Motors will consider other relevant factors in its sales evaluation, including the following factors: the trend over a reasonable period of time of dealer's sales performance; the manner in which dealer has conducted the sales operations, including advertising, sales promotion and treatment of customers; sales to fleet customers if they have affected registrations; the manner in which dealer has submitted orders for new motor vehicles to the Pontiac Division; the availability of new motor vehicles to dealer; and significant local conditions that may have directly affected dealer's performance. If the mathematical formulas regarding sales and registration effectiveness set forth in the franchise agreement were the sole measure used to determine Gallman Pontiac's sales performance through January 1989, it is clear that the dealer was not meeting its contractual obligations to General Motors in this area of responsibility. However, under the terms of the agreement, General Motors must look to other relevant factors that may have directly affected dealer's performance before a final determination can be made regarding an individual dealer's sales effectiveness. Contrary to the terms of the agreement, the annual evaluation forms show that Gallman Pontiac's performance was evaluated on retail sales only. The other relevant factors in the franchise agreement were not reviewed before the decision not to renew the franchise agreement was made. Other Relative Factors in the Agreement Which Should Have Been Considered in the Dealers Evaluation When the trend of the Gallman Pontiac's sales performance is reviewed, the evidence shows that Gallman Pontiac's sales performance over the life of the franchise agreement has improved relative to market growth by a small percentage (7.51%). This slight upward trend does not demonstrate an effective performance as the sales were below an acceptable standard before the increase in sales, and the improvement barely exceeded the local market growth. The time period over which the trend evaluation occurred is reasonable in this case because both parties agreed to a two-year term in the franchise agreement, which was subject to an overall evaluation prior to a renewal of the agreement. Although there was opinion testimony from a former sales manager from the dealership that Gaillman Pontiac did not order sufficient quantities and mix of vehicles, and imprudently focused the advertising towards the limited, younger group of buyers in Naples, this testimony was not found to be credible by the Hearing Officer. All of the other evidence presented by both sides regarding the manner in which the dealer conducted sales operations demonstrates that Gallman Pontiac met or exceeded his contractual obligations in this area of responsibility. Sales to fleet customers did not affect registrations in 1988. The dealer chose not to compete in the fleet market because the later resale of these vehicles interferes with the sale of new vehicles at this dealership. The manner in which the dealer submitted orders to the Pontiac Division was not criticized by General Motors. The dealer's procedures were continuously reviewed and evaluated through the Dealer Assistance Program. There was no showing that the dealer's ordering procedures directly affected its sales performance. The allocation procedures were applied to Gallman Pontiac in the same manner they were applied to other dealers. The evidence did not show that imprudent selections were made by the dealer in the ordering process, nor was it sufficiently established that manufacturer delays or the unavailability of certain products interfered with the dealer's sales in Naples. A significant local condition that may have directly affected the dealer's sales performance was the lack of receptivity in the Naples market area for linemakes in the class of automobiles offered by Pontiac. Actual sales performance data for all new car registrations in the area show that the Naples market prefers to purchase automobiles from the high group of automobiles such as Cadillac, Lincoln, BMW, Mercedes Benz, and Porsche. Pontiac does not have a linemake designed to compete in this market segment. Application of the Other Relevant Factors To The Decision Not To Renew Because the franchise agreement and the annual sales evaluation form have not made provisions for any adjustments to the original statistical formula based upon the additional considerations mentioned in paragraphs 9-13, these factors are to be considered independently from the initial mathematical calculation. The purpose of the review of these factors is to determine if the statistical analysis is a reliable indicator of the sales performance of the dealer who is being evaluated before General Motors makes its final decision regarding termination. There has been no showing that General Motors ever used the additional considerations for any other purpose in its course of dealings with other dealers in the past or that any other interpretation has been given to these factors. In this case, when the additional relevant factors are reviewed in addition to the ineffective sales and registration performance statistics, the mathematical formula continues to be a reliable indicator that the sales performance at the Gallman Pontiac dealership does not meet required standards. The additional considerations set forth in the franchise agreement which are relevant to this case, do not seriously undermine the fairness of the application of the initial mathematical calculation to the sales performance of Gallman Pontiac. While the local market's lack of receptivity directly affects Gallman Pontiac's performance, the statistical formula takes this into account to a large degree when a dealer is required to meet eighty-five percent of the zone or national average to demonstrate minimum performance. If yet another mathematical formula was created to give additional weight to this local condition beyond the provision in the minimum standards formula, the manufacturer could be harmed by a individual dealer's lack of market penetration efforts. Because it is difficult to determine the primary cause and effect of poor market penetration in a specific area, the statistical formula is generally fair to both sides in most situations. It does not unfairly accuse either the dealer or the manufacturer as being responsible for the lack of sales. One indicator of the fairness involved in the application of the formula as designed can be found in Mr. Anderson's comparative analysis of the Naples automobile market and the Sarasota market. Mr. Anderson is the expert in automobile marketing analysis presented by General Motors. This analysis refutes the opinion of Dr. Ostlund, the expert presented by Gallman Pontiac during the hearing regarding automobile marketing analysis. It is Dr. Ostlund's opinion that Naples is a unique market in which the usual statistical formula becomes unfair if it is applied to all registrations in the Dealer's Area of Responsibility. Based upon this analysis, Dr. Ostlund suggests that a weighted average be applied in the standard formula to all of the sales made by Gallman Pontiac during the franchise period. However, even if this were done, Gallman Pontiac's performance would have been 84.7 percent, which is still below the required standard of 85 percent. Contrary to Dr. Ostlund's analysis, the Naples-Sarasota comparison conducted by Mr. Anderson demonstrates that Pontiac can compete in a high income area with similar demographics to Naples within the same zone along the same Florida coast. Therefore, the usual statistical formula remains a reliable indicator of the sales effectiveness of a Pontiac dealer in Naples, Florida, and should be applied without any further weighting of averages in the statistical analysis required by the franchise agreement. Application of Additional Factors Relevant to the Decision Not to Renew Pursuant to Statute A nonrenewal of the franchise agreement is clearly permitted by the franchise agreement. The nonrenewal has been undertaken in good faith and good cause. The manufacturer has continuously encouraged the dealer to meet sales performance standards and has worked with Gallman Pontiac in an effort to achieve this goal within the time frame agreed to by the parties. Because franchise dealers are the major outlet the manufacturer has for the sale of new automobiles, it is essential that minimum levels of sales performance are achieved on a regular basis. Failure to meet the minimum sales performance over the term of this agreement by Gallman Pontiac is a material and substantial breach of the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order dismissing Gallman Pontiac's complaint with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 28 day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28 day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0505 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #3. Reject all but last sentence. Conclusions of Law. Accept the last sentence. Rejected. Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Reject that the dealer code problem can be attri- buted to the conduct of the manufacturer. Insufficient proof. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Reject the weighted average basis. See HO #14 and #15.. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Irrelevant. Attempt to shift evidentiary burden. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. See HO #15. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. Accept that additional factor's need to be considered. Rejected Dr. Ostlund's interpretation. See HO #9 through #15. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted, except for the last sentence which is an opinion or closing argument as opposed to a finding of fact. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted, except for Nissan. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Closing argument as opposed to finding of fact. Rejected. Irrelevant and contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Conclusionary. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. See HO #10. Rejected. See HO #17. Rejected. See HO #15 and #17. Rejected. See HO #17. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #17. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO 415. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Redundant. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Rejected. Unreliable conclusion. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Irrelevant. Outside the reasons given for nonrenewal. See HO #8. Rejected. Same reason as given in above. Rejected. Same reason as 49 and 50. Also contrary to fact. Rejected. Irrelevant to this hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant to this hearing. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Redundant and argumentative. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper argument. Rejected. The use of "sales reported" was allowed by the Hearing Officer at hearing. Rejected. Irrelevant in these proceedings. Rejected. Irrelevant and unreliable speculation. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Dr. Ostlund was very credible. Mr. Anderson's analysis, based upon y~he Sarasota- Naples comparison, which tended to refute the testimony of Dr. Ostlund, was given greater weight by the Hearing Officer. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Adams, Esquire Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Feaman, Adams, Harris, Department of Highway Fernandez & Deutch, P.A. Safety And Motor Vehicles Corporate Plaza, Fourth Floor Neil Kirkman Building 4700 N.W. Second Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 S. William Fuller, Jr., Esq. Vasilis C. Katsafanas, Esquire Fuller Johnson & Farrell Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Post Office Box 1739 Cabaniss, Burke & Wechsler Tallahassee, Florida 32302 11 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motors Vehicles William J. Whalen, Esquire Department of Highway Office of General Counsel Safety and Motor Vehicles General Motors Corporation B439 Neil Kirkman Building New Center One Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 3031 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 48232 Enoch J. Whitney, Esquire General Counsel S. Thomas Wienner, Esquire Departments of Highway Dykema Gossett Safety and Motor Vehicles 35th Floor Neil Kirklan Building 400 Renaissance Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Detroit, Michigan 48243
The Issue 1. Whether the applications which are the subjects of DOAH Case Nos. 96-4970 and 96-4971 should be granted. 2a. Whether the respondents in DOAH Case No. 96-5525 committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued in that case. 2b. If so, what sanctions should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency, which, among other things issues motor vehicle retail installment seller (MVRIS) licenses. Jack Bowshier Buick-Pontiac-GMC Trucks, Inc. (Bowshier Buick) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. Bowshier Buick formerly operated an automobile dealership at 2445 Southeast Federal Highway in Stuart, Florida, and held a MVRIS license issued by the Department. At all times material to the instant cases, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., in his capacity as owner/director/president, and Jack D. Bowshier, Jr., in his capacity as general manager/director, exercised control over the policies and practices of Bowshier Buick. On or about October 25, 1995, the Department began an investigation into the business affairs of Bowshier Buick. The Department's investigation revealed, among other things, that Bowshier Buick engaged in the practice of reselling "trade-ins" without timely satisfying the existing liens on the vehicles. Such practice, which was the product of cash flow problems the dealership was experiencing, adversely affected the credit ratings of those who had "traded-in" these vehicles and prevented the ultimate purchasers of the vehicles from timely obtaining new certificates of title. In the "deal jackets" that the dealership created to place the paperwork relating to the transactions involving these "traded-in" vehicles, the Department's investigators found copies of checks which were made payable to those who held the liens on these "trade-in" vehicles. The investigators subsequently discovered, however, that these checks had not been timely sent to the lienholders, but instead had been placed in the desk drawer of the dealership's office manager, Christine Casale. On several occasions, when customers who had "traded-in" vehicles complained to the dealership that the liens on their vehicles had not been satisfied, they were told by Casale that the checks to satisfy the liens had been mailed to the lienholders, when in fact they had not been. Such misrepresentations were made in an effort to mislead and deceive these complaining customers. In making these fraudulent misrepresentations, Casale acted pursuant to instructions that had been given to her by Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., and Jack D. Bowshier, Jr. On November 3, 1995, the Department issued an Emergency Immediate Temporary Final Order to Cease and Desist and Suspension of [Bowshier Buick's] Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Seller's License (Emergency Order) in Administrative Proceeding Nos. 4287-F-11/95, 4287a-F-11/95, and 4287b-F-1195. Bowshier Buick, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., and Jack D. Bowshier, Jr., were named as respondents in the Emergency Order. The Department alleged in the Emergency Order that they had committed the following violations of the law for which they are subject to the penalties as set forth in Section 520.995, Florida Statutes: Violation of Section 520.995(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that they have perpetrated fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or gross negligence in retail installment transactions, regardless of reliance by or damage to the buyer. Violation of Section 520.995(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that they have committed criminal conduct in the course of their Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sellers business. Violation of Section 520.995(3)(d), Florida Statutes, in that they have demonstrated a lack of financial responsibility. On November 13, 1995, an Administrative Complaint for Imposition of Sanctions was filed against Bowshier Buick, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., and Jack D. Bowshier, Jr. Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., subsequently engaged in negotiations with William Chamberlain, the owner and president of WAFC Holdings, Inc. (WAFC) concerning the sale of the assets of Bowshier Buick to WAFC in return for, among other things, the assets of two Chamberlain-owned corporations, South Florida Auto Exchange, Inc., d/b/a Palm Beach Motors, and Stuart Motors, Inc., d/b/a Stuart Motors, that were in the business of selling pre- owned motor vehicles in the West Palm Beach and Stuart areas, respectively. On December 5, 1995, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., and Chamberlain signed paperwork (Sale/Purchase Agreements) in which their corporations agreed to consummate such a transaction. On that same date, they also, on behalf of their corporations, executed Interim Management Agreements, pursuant to which WAFC took over the management of Bowshier Buick's dealership at 2445 Southeast Federal Highway in Stuart and Bowshier Buick assumed responsibility for the management of Palm Beach Motors and Stuart Motors, effective December 5, 1995. Later that month, WPAS, Inc. (WPAS) and DAB, Inc. (DAB) were formed. At all times material to the instant case, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., has been the sole owner, president and director of WPAS, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation. At all times material to the instant case, WPAS maintained its principal place of business at 2815 Okeechobee Boulevard in West Palm Beach, the location of Palm Beach Motors. At all times material to the instant case, Jack D. Bowshier, Jr., was the general manager of Palm Beach Motors. At all times material to the instant case, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., has been the sole owner, president and director of DAB, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation At all times material to the instant case, DAB has maintained its principal place of business at 2695 Southeast Federal Highway in Stuart, the location of Stuart Motors. At all times material to the instant case, Todd Bowshier, has been the general manager of Stuart Motors. A Stipulation for Settlement and Consent to Final Order in Administrative Proceeding Nos. 4287-F-11/95, 4287a-F-11/95, and 4287b-F-1195 (Stipulation) was executed by Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., on behalf of Bowshier Buick and on his own behalf, and by Jack D. Bowshier, Jr., on January 31, 1996, and by Thomas Stouffer, the Regional Director of the Department's Southeast Florida Regional Office, on behalf of the Department, on February 2, 1996. It provided as follows: The State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (hereinafter "Department"), and Respondents Jack Bowshier Buick-Pontiac-GMC Trucks, Inc. (hereinafter "Bowshier Buick"), Jack A. Bowshier (hereinafter "JA Bowshier"), and Jack D. Bowshier (hereinafter "JD Bowshier"), in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained and other good and valuable consideration hereby agree to enter into this Stipulation for Settlement and Consent to Final Order as follows: At all times material hereto Bowshier Buick has been a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located at 2445 SE Federal Highway, Stuart, FL 34994. On or about December 25, 1988 Bowshier Buick was issued a Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Seller's License by the Department, which remains active to date. At all times material hereto JA Bowshier has been a Director, owner and control person of Bowshier Buick. In these capacities JA Bowshier creates, controls, formulates, directs and personally participates in the acts, practices and affairs of Bowshier Buick. At all times material hereto JD Bowshier has been a Director and General Manager of Bowshier Buick. In these capacities JD Bowshier creates, controls, formulates, directs and personally participates in the acts, practices and affairs of Bowshier Buick. On or about October 25, 1995, the Department received information that it believed indicated that Bowshier Buick had accepted motor vehicles as "trade-ins" and resold these vehicles without first satisfying their existing liens. The Department was concerned that purchasers of these motor vehicles could not be issued Certificates of Title. As a result of this information, Department examiners/investigators, on three occasions, visited Bowshier Buick's principal office pursuant to Section 520.996, Florida Statutes. They concluded that Bowshier Buick was engaging in acts and/or practices constituting violations of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes. On November 3, 1995, the Department filed an Emergency Immediate Temporary Final Order to Cease and Desist and Suspension of Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Seller's License (hereinafter "Emergency Order") which was followed, on November 13, 1995, with an Administrative Complaint for Imposition of Sanctions and Notice of Rights (hereinafter "Complaint"). Respondents agree that they have been duly served with both the Emergency Order and Complaint and that the Department has jurisdiction over them and this case. The Department agrees that Respondents timely filed their Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Petition for Formal Proceedings in response to the Complaint. The Department herein makes the following findings of fact, upon which the penalties imposed are based, but which findings Respondents neither admit nor deny: There were approximately thirty trade-ins taken by Bowshier Buick for which the dealership had not satisfied existing liens. Some of these vehicles were resold without first satisfying their existing liens. Some customers who traded in their motor vehicles suffered adverse credit ratings because of the failure of Bowshier Buick to pay off the existing lienholders. Bowshier Buick was experiencing severe cash flow problems. For the month of September, Bowshier Buick incurred a monthly bank charge of $5,000 for dealership bank overdrafts. A total estimated amount of $125,000 in outstanding insufficient funds checks was evident as of November, 1995. Bowshier Buick did not remit premiums collected to the insurance company for credit life, accident & health insurance policies which had been purchased by Bowshier Buick customers. They had not forwarded said premiums for policies purchased by customers since January, 1995. Bowshier Buick records were misleading in that copies of checks made payable to lienholders and in the amount due to satisfy liens were contained within the files for months, when the checks were never delivered and/or funds were never disbursed to the payee. Respondents maintain that subsequent to the Department's filing of its Emergency Order, Bowshier Buick has cooperated with the Department to resolve the lien, title, and premium problems. In an effort to avoid litigation and costs associated therewith, the Department and Respondents now voluntarily agree to enter into this Stipulation for Settlement and Consent to Final Order (hereinafter "Stipulation") addressing the violations raised by the Emergency Order and the Complaint. The Respondents and the Department agree as follows: Respondents will bring and keep all books and records up to date and maintain them accurately and in compliance with the law. Respondents will maintain and keep current all forms required by the automobile dealer's manual, Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department, including the title log. Respondents will keep all title work and registrations current and in compliance with the law. Respondents will write any and all insurance policies and remit all premiums in compliance with the law, including but not limited to credit life, accident and health insurance. Respondents will dismiss with prejudice any and all actions pending in Circuit Court and the District Court of Appeal, not file any further actions in any court which in any fashion or respect arise or tend to arise out of the facts presented by the Emergency Order or the Complaint (see paragraph 6 herein) and, indemnify and hold the Department harmless if such further actions are filed. Respondents shall, within 30 days from the date of execution of this stipulation, reimburse any and all customers who made payment(s) on past due liens which they did not owe. Within 45 days, verifiable proof of reimbursement shall be provided to the Department. Respondent shall, within 90 days from the date of execution of this stipulation, assist any and all customers who have been affected by Respondents untimely payment of liens in repairing their credit. Their assistance shall include, but shall not be limited to, sending letters to lenders wherein Respondents assume all responsibility for the late lien payments. Within 105 days, verifiable proof of such assistance shall be provided to the Department. Respondents shall, within 30 days from the date of execution of this stipulation, reimburse any and all customers due refunds on credit life, accident and health insurance. Within 45 days, verifiable proof of such assistance shall be provided to the Department. Respondents shall, immediately upon execution of this stipulation, pay off any and all outstanding past due customer liens, as well as all liens that have been improperly levied upon customers. Upon repayment, verifiable proof thereof shall be provided to the Department. Respondents shall operate the dealership, at all times in compliance with the law. Respondents shall pay to the Department by cashiers check, within 30 days of the date of execution of this stipulation, $5,000, representing costs of the Department's examination/investigation in this case. Respondents agree to sell Bowshier Buick to WAFC Holdings, Inc., its agents, nominees or assigns. If the sale is cancelled or not consummated within 6 months from the date of the Final Order herein, for any reason: 1.) Respondents will immediately notify the Department, Diane Leeds, Esq., in writing via certified mail, return receipt requested, of that fact. 2.) Respondents' Departmental license(s) shall be placed upon and remain on probation for a period of three (3) years, commencing on the date the sale is cancelled or not consummated. For the duration of the probationary period, Respondents agree to: Provide the Department, on a monthly basis, prior to the 10th day of each month, a copy of the dealership "finance log" attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." Allow the Department to make unannounced visits to the dealership, as frequently as the Department deems necessary, to assure that Respondents are operating in compliance with the law. Prior to the termination of the probationary period the dealership shall have, in reserve, a minimum of three (3) weeks supply of operating capital, to be computed based upon the operating expenses of the dealership at that time, and provide verifiable proof thereof to the Department. The Final Order incorporating the terms of this stipulation constitutes final agency action by the Department for which the Department may seek enforcement pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 120 and 520, Florida Statutes, and Respondents knowingly and voluntarily agree to waive any right to: 1. A formal hearing; 2. To contest the finality of the Final Order; 3. To contest the validity of any term, condition, obligation or duty created hereby; 4. To separately stated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; and 5. To administrative or judicial review hereof. Respondents acknowledge, concur and stipulate that their failure to comply with any of the terms, obligations and conditions of this stipulation and the Final Order adopting it, shall result in their being deemed to be in violation of a written agreement and Final Order issued pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 120 and 520, Florida Statutes, and Respondents stipulate and agree to the issuance of an emergency suspension of their license(s) and a cease and desist order. Respondents waive all rights to prior notice and hearing before entry of such order. However, nothing herein limits Respondents' right to contest any finding or determination made by the Department concerning their alleged failure to comply with any of the terms and provisions of this stipulation or of the Final Order. Respondents waive and release the Department and its agents, representatives, and employees from any and all causes of action they may have including without limitations, any right to attorney fees arising out of this proceeding; libel; slander; violation of a constitutionally protected right; intentional tortious interference with advantageous contractual relationship and the like; arising prior to or out of the filing of the Complaint, Emergency Order, the execution of the stipulation and entry of the Final Order. The Department agrees to accept this release without acknowledging, and expressly denies, that any such causes of action may exist. Respondents further agree that nothing contained herein shall be construed to waive or restrict the Department's right to initiate any legal action based upon facts or information which come to the Department's attention subsequent to the execution of this stipulation and the Department further agrees that nothing contained herein shall be construed to waive or restrict the Respondents' rights to defend any subsequent legal action. The Department and Respondents each agree to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this proceeding and entry of the Final Order, except as stated in paragraph 11k. herein. The Department and Respondents represent that the officer(s) executing this stipulation are authorized to act on behalf of the corporations and agency for settlement purposes. The Department and Respondents acknowledge that they have read this stipulation and fully understand the rights, obligations, terms, conditions, duties, and responsibilities with respect to its contents. Execution of this stipulation by the Department shall not be construed as a final acceptance of its terms and conditions absent entry of a Final Order by the Comptroller adopting same, however, the existing Emergency Order shall be null and void immediately upon entry of the Final Order by the Comptroller. The undersigned parties hereby acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions of the foregoing stipulation by written consent on the last date executed below, subject to final approval by the Comptroller. On February 16, 1996, a Final Order was issued in Administrative Proceeding Nos. 4287-F-11/95, 4287a-F-11/95, and 4287b-F-1195 adopting the parties' Stipulation and requiring the parties to comply with the Stipulation's terms and conditions. The purchases of the assets of Bowshier Buick, South Florida Auto Exchange, Inc., and Stuart Motors, Inc., were finalized in March of 1996. On March 18, 1996, WPAS filed with the Department an Application for Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Seller License (WPAS's Application). In its Application, WPAS indicated that it was doing business as Palm Beach Motors at 2815 Okeechobee Boulevard in West Palm Beach. In response to Question 10 on the application form, which read as follows, WPAS answered "yes" and appended to its completed Application a copy of the Stipulation filed in Administrative Proceeding Nos. 4287-F-11/95, 4287a-F- 11/95, and 4287b-F-1195: Has the applicant, any of the persons listed herein, or any person with power to direct the management or policies of the applicant had a license, registration, or the equivalent, to practice any profession or occupation revoked, suspended, or otherwise acted against? Yes No (If yes, list such persons, give details, and provide a copy of the allegations and documentation of the final disposition of the case.) WPAS's Application was signed by Jack A. Bowshier, Sr. On April 8, 1996, DAB filed with the Department an Application for Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Seller License (DAB's Application). In its Application, which was signed by Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., DAB indicated that it was doing business as Stuart Motors at 2695 Southeast Federal Highway in Stuart. In response to Question 10 on the application form, DAB mistakenly answered "no." Neither a copy of the Stipulation filed in Administrative Proceeding Nos. 4287-F-11/95, 4287a-F-11/95, and 4287b-F-1195, nor a copy of the Final Order entered in these proceedings, was appended to DAB's completed Application. The Department granted DAB's Application and issued DAB a MVRIS license, effective April 11, 1996. On May 1, 1996, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., sent the following letter to the Department: I am voluntarily surrendering my license from the Department of Banking and Finance issued to DAB, Inc., D/B/A Stuart Motors to you today due to the fact that we have made an honest mistake in the application for the license. I apologize for this mistake. I am reapplying for the license for this corporation. I ask that you please reconsider your position. On that same day, May 1, 1996, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., on behalf of WPAS, and William Chamberlain, on behalf of South Florida Auto Exchange, Inc., executed an agreement (WPAS Use of License Agreement), which provided as follows: AGREEMENT made this 1st day of May, 1996 by and between SOUTH FLORIDA AUTO EXCHANGE, INC., DBA PALM BEACH MOTORS, INC., a Florida corporation ("PBM") AND WPAS, INC., a Florida corporation ("Operator"). WHEREAS, PBM and Operator, or Operator's affiliate, entered into an agreement for sale and purchase of assets dated December 5, 1995 (the "Asset Purchase Agreement") for the purchase and sale of certain assets of PBM located at 2815 Okeechobee Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida (the "Dealership"); and WHEREAS, PBM and Operator closed on the sale and purchase on or about the 19th day of March, 1996; and WHEREAS, Operator has submitted an application (the "Application") to the State of Florida, Comptroller's Office, Department of Banking (the "Department") for a license to originate financing in connection with the sale of automobiles at the Dealership, which Application remains pending with the Department; and WHEREAS, Operator has not yet received a license from the Department pursuant to the Application; and WHEREAS, Operator has requested PBM to allow Operator to continue to use PBM's license (the "PBM License") from the Department at the Dealership pending the Department's action on Operator's Application; and WHEREAS, PBM, after obtaining the verbal approval of the Department, has agreed to allow Operator to utilize PBM['s] License at the Dealership on a temporary basis. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of Ten dollars ($10.00) paid by Operator to PBM, as well as other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by PBM, the parties agree as follows: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. PBM hereby authorizes Operator to originate finance paper under the PBM license at the Dealership until the earlier of: PBM notice to Operator of the revocation of such authority, which notice may be given [by] PBM, in PBM's sole and absolute discretion, at any time upon three (3) days prior notice to Operator, upon the Department's disposition of Operator's application, whether such disposition is a granting of a license or the denial of a license, any demand by the Department that Operator cease the use of the PBM license, upon the infraction of any rule or regulation by Operator applicable to the PBM License. Operator agrees to utilize the PBM License only in strict compliance of all applicable rules and regulations, including, but not limited to the rules and regulations of the Department. Operator does hereby agree to indemnify and hold PBM harmless against any claim arising out of the Dealership or Operator's use of the PBM License. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties and may not be changed or modified orally, but only by written instrument signed by the parties hereto. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing, delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by a national overnight courier service, such as Federal Express, and mailed to the parties at the following address: PBM: c/o Stuart Buick Pontiac GMC 2445 S.E. Federal Highway Stuart, Florida 34994 Operator: 2815 Okeechobee Blvd. West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 This agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their successors and assigns. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. In the event litigation is instituted in connection with the enforcement of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and attorneys fees, including attorneys fees and costs on appeal. The "PBM License" referenced in the WPAS Use of License Agreement had an "expiration date" of December 31, 1996. An agreement between DAB and Stuart Motors, Inc. (DAB Use of License Agreement) containing provisions substantially identical to those in the WPAS Use of License Agreement was executed by Jack A. Bowshier, Sr. (on behalf of DAB) and Chamberlain (on behalf of Stuart Motors, Inc.) also on May 1, 1996. The MVRIS license which was the subject of the DAB Use of License Agreement, like the "PBM License," had an expiration date of December 31, 1996. The WPAS and DAB Use of License Agreements were both drafted by Chamberlain's attorney, Michael Botos. Before drafting these agreements, Botos had spoken to Diane Leeds, an attorney with the Department. Botos erroneously believed that Leeds, acting on behalf of the Department, had given the "verbal approval" referenced in the agreements. On May 6, 1996, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., filed a corrected Application for Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Seller License on behalf of DAB (DAB's Second Application). Department investigators visited Palm Beach Motors on July 19, 1996. They discovered, from an examination of WPAS's records, that WPAS (acting through Jack D. Bowshier, Jr., the general manager of Palm Beach Motors) had been involved in retail installment transactions with retail buyers of its vehicles, notwithstanding that it did not have a license from the Department authorizing it to engage in such activity. Ten retail installment contracts (signed by Jack D. Bowshier, Jr., on behalf of WPAS) were found and reviewed. In four of these ten retail installment transactions, the buyer was charged a simple interest rate in excess of 18 percent per annum. By letter mailed on July 19, 1996, the Department notified WPAS of its intention to deny WPAS's Application for a Motor Vehicle Installment Seller License. In its notice, the Department advised that its proposed denial was based upon, among other things, WPAS's engaging in the business of a motor vehicle retail installment seller without a license, in violation of Section 520.03(1), Florida Statutes. Department investigators visited Stuart Motors on July 22, 1996. They discovered, from an examination of DAB's records, that DAB (acting through Todd Bowshier, the general manager of Stuart Motors) had been involved in retail installment transactions with retail buyers of its vehicles, notwithstanding that it did not have a license from the Department authorizing it to engage in such activity. Ten retail installment contracts (signed by Todd Bowshier on behalf of DAB) were found and reviewed. In all of these ten retail installment transactions, the buyer was charged a simple interest rate of 19.95 percent per annum. On or about July 26, 1996, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., met with Department representatives, including Diane Leeds, to discuss the Department's proposed action. At the meeting, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., was told that "he could not finance without a license at that time under anybody's license." Nonetheless, following the meeting, WPAS (doing business as Palm Beach Motors) and DAB (doing business as Stuart Motors), relying on the legal advice of their attorney (and acting through their general managers), continued to operate as motor vehicle retail installment sellers without having MVRIS licenses of their own (as they had done since May of that year, following the execution of the WPAS and DAB Use of License Agreements). In addition, they continued to knowingly charge buyers simple interest rates in excess of 18 percent per annum. Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., was at all material times aware of these activities, which continued at Palm Beach Motors until approximately September or October of 1996, when the used car operation was sold,1 and continued at Stuart Motors until early 1997. By letter mailed on October 1, 1996, the Department notified DAB of its intention to deny DAB's Second Application for a Motor Vehicle Installment Seller License. In its notice, the Department advised that its proposed denial was based upon, among other things, DAB's engaging in the business of a motor vehicle retail installment seller without a license, in violation of Section 520.03(1), Florida Statutes. Department investigators returned to Stuart Motors on October 6, 1996, to examine DAB's records. Their examination revealed nine retail installment contracts that DAB had entered into since the investigators' July 22, 1996, visit. These contracts were signed by Todd Bowshier on behalf of DAB. In all but one of these retail installment transactions, the buyer was charged a simple interest rate of more than 18 percent per annum. In late January of 1997, personnel from the Office of the State Attorney, 19th Judicial Circuit, assisted by Department personnel, conducted a search (pursuant to a search warrant) of the records maintained by DAB at Stuart Motors. Sixty-four retail installment contracts (signed by Todd Bowshier on behalf of DAB) that DAB had entered into from August 10, 1996, to January 25, 1997, (including eight of the nine contracts that Department investigators had discovered during their October 6, 1996, visit to Stuart Motors) were seized. Thirty-seven of these 64 retail installment transactions took place from August 10, 1996, to October 16, 1996. In all but one of these 37 transactions, the buyer was charged a simple interest rate of more than 18 percent per annum. In all of the post-October 16, 1996, transactions (including eight which occurred after the expiration of the MVRIS license which was the subject of the DAB Use of License Agreement), the buyer was charged a simple interest rate of 17.99 percent. It was not until the Bowshiers received a copy of the following letter, dated February 13, 1997, the Office of the State Attorney, 19th Judicial Circuit, sent to the Department regarding the "Jack Bowshier investigation" that DAB stopped engaging in the business of a motor vehicle retail installment seller: This letter is in response to your investigation of DAB, Inc. d/b/a Stuart Motors etc. As you are aware I have spent the last three weeks reviewing the events between your Department, which began on March 18, 1996, and the above named suspect. It is apparent from the outset of your investigation that Mr. Bowshier and associates have done everything in their power to continue operating a business and finance automobiles without the appropriate Retail Installment Sellers license. However, it is my opinion that I would have insurmountable proof problems in a criminal prosecution based on the events that have occurred to date. Mr. Bowshier maintains that he can continue writing installment loan contracts because the validity of the denial of his application continues to be the subject of litigation. Mr. Bowshier continues to suggest that this is his position at the advi[c]e of his attorney, Mr. Ronald LaFace. After speaking with Mr. LaFace regarding the above I can see why the suspect would reasonably rely on his attorney's advice. Even to me, Mr. LaFace continues to maintain the position that the denial of the licensure application is "nonfinal." While we know this position is irrelevant to both the Department of Banking and Finance, and the criminal prosecution, it still creates the appearance of a defense which would remove the "criminal intent" aspect of our case. I have an ethical obligation to only prosecute cases in which I believe, based on my training and experience, there is a reasonable chance for a conviction at trial. Because this case has become so diluted in "my attorney told me" and "my understanding was . . .," I cannot ethically go forward with a criminal prosecution and still meet my burden of proof at trial. However, I understand the frustration in wanting to go forward in a case of this nature. With that in mind this letter will serve two purposes. While my declination to prosecute this case up through the date of this letter is final, it is not absolute. This letter will be sent to both Mr. Bowshier (and associates) and Mr. Ronald LaFace. In doing so, it will serve a very particular purpose. It will inform the above (including Mr. LaFace), that I will not prosecute the criminal acts that Mr. Bowshier and associates have committed to date because of the above explained proof problems. However, I will prosecute from this date forward any and all financing that occur[s] by the suspect and his associates without a license. I should make it perfectly clear to Mr. Bowshier and his attorney that it does not matter what their position is regarding the "appeal" of the denial of license, they cannot finance automobiles. Mr. Bowshier and associates should also know that the advice of their attorney to continue writing contracts during the pendency of the licensure "appeal" is wrong. If the suspect and his associates continue to write contracts, it will constitute a criminal act despite the advice of his attorney. I will prosecute Mr. Bowshier and associates if he continues to write contracts without the appropriate licenses pr[e]scribe[d] by law. The "appeal" referenced in the letter was taken after the Department, by letter mailed October 1, 1996, advised DAB of its intention to deny DAB's Application for a Motor Vehicle Installment Seller License. In its letter, the Department advised that its proposed denial was based upon, among other things, DAB's engaging in the business of a motor vehicle retail installment seller without a license, in violation of Section 520.03(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the Bowshiers guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; (2) directing the Bowshiers to cease and desist from committing such violations; (3) imposing jointly and severally upon WPAS, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., and Jack D. Bowshier, Jr., an administrative fine in the amount of $7,000.00; (4) imposing jointly and severally upon DAB, Jack A. Bowshier, Sr., and Todd Bowshier an administrative fine in the amount of $61,500.00; and (5) denying WPAS's and DAB's applications for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1998.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Filed October 1, 2010 4:40 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ORDERED this / & day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Y , CARL A. FORD, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this_/st day of October, 2010. loos y Nalini Vinayak, Dealer ‘Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Jason T. Allen, Esquire Bass, Sox & Mercer 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William F. Quattlebaum Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
The Issue The issue in the case is whether an application for a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership filed by El Sol Trading, Inc., and Eco-Green Machine, LLC (Petitioners), should be approved.
Findings Of Fact There was no evidence presented at the hearing to establish that the Respondent has a franchise agreement to sell or service ZLMI motor vehicles, the line-make to be sold by Eco-Green Machine, LLC. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that the Respondent's dealership is physically located so as to meet the statutory requirements for standing to protest the establishment of the new point franchise motor vehicle dealership.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing the protest filed in this case by Finish Line Scooters, LLC, and granting the Petitioners' request to establish a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership for the sale of ZLMI motorcycles. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Patcharee Clark ECO Green Machine, LLC, d/b/a ECO Green Machine 7000 Park Boulevard, Suite A Pinellas Park, Florida 33781 John V. Leonard Finish Line Scooters, LLC 6600 Gulf Boulevard St. Pete Beach, Florida 33706 Jennifer Clark Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-308 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Gloria Ma El Sol Trading, Inc., d/b/a Motobravo, Inc. 19877 Quiroz Court City of Industry, California 91789 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
