The Issue Whether or not Petitioner (complainant) is entitled to recover $1,340.50 or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and Respondent surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a grower of watermelons and qualifies as a "producer" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. is listed as surety for Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. The amount and period of the bond have not been established. The time material to the amended complaint is June, 1994. Two or three weeks before Petitioner's melons were ready for harvest, Steve Helms personally came to Petitioner's home and requested to ship Petitioner's melons for ultimate retail sale. Petitioner requested to be paid "up front." Mr. Helms would not agree to pay all the money "up front" but agreed to pay some. He also agreed to pay within 14 days of the first shipment. Petitioner had had a bad experience two years previously, so he got Mr. Helms to promise to "clean up" his field. This expression is subject to some interpretation, and although Petitioner initially stated that the agreement was for Respondent broker-shipper to buy all his melons regardless of condition, Petitioner later modified his statement to say that Mr. Helms only promised not to take the best melons and leave the rest. Harvesting began May 15, 1994. Until June 10, 1994, Petitioner's usual contact with Respondent broker- shipper was Frank Favuzza, who oversaw all weighing and loading and assessed the Petitioner's melons on behalf of Respondent broker-shipper. On June 10, 1994, Mr. Helms was again personally in the field. Petitioner told Mr. Helms that he had to get the remainder of the melons off the field by Sunday, otherwise the heat would ruin them. Mr. Helms said he would wait until Monday. Petitioner believes that if the melons had been harvested by Sunday, June 12, 1994, three truckloads could have been harvested. On Monday, less than a full truckload was in good enough condition to be loaded onto a truck. A lot of melons were going bad and were left in the field to rot. On Tuesday, June 14, 1994, Petitioner's melons were weighed at Romeo, Florida and the poundage established at 29,330 pounds. Frank Favuzza estimated to Petitioner that his melons would only bring $.04/lb. From this conversation, related by Petitioner, it may be clearly inferred that Petitioner knew he would not be paid until after Respondent broker-shipper received payment from the ultimate retailer at the other end of the transaction. Petitioner's amended complaint alleged the amounts due as follows: "On June 1, 1994, #92111, 700 lbs. at $.07 equals $49.00, not $490.00; June 3, 1994, #92117, 900 lbs. at $.07 equals $63.00, not $630.00; and June 3, 1994, #92120, 790 lbs. at $.07 equals $55.30, not $553.00. Therefore Item (12) Complaint Total is amended to $1,340.00." The amendments did not alter the original claim for 6-14-94, invoice 92157 for 29,330 lbs. of melons at $.04 for $1,173.20. There was no claim for the melons that rotted in Petitioner's field. Weight tickets and Respondent's corresponding broker-shipper's bills of lading were admitted in evidence. These showed the following amounts were received by Respondent broker-shipper: 6/1/94 INVOICE 92111 46,020 net weight melons 6/3/94 INVOICE 92117 45,580 net weight melons 6/3/94 INVOICE 92120 44,720 net weight melons 6/14/94 INVOICE 92157 29,330 net weight melons Petitioner testified, without refutation, that he was present at each weighing and that he had agreed to take $.07 per pound on all loads except for the June 14, 1994 load for which he was claiming $.04 per pound. The bills of lading support Petitioner's testimony as to the price per pound. The bills of lading also clearly show that the price per pound was "to farm minus labor." This notation means that the net amount to be paid Petitioner by Respondent was subject to a prior deduction for labor, but it cannot reasonably be inferred to include a deduction for shipping. Petitioner's last load of 29,330 lbs. of melons weighed on June 14, 1994 was less than a full truckload, so Respondent added melons from another farm to that truck to make up a full load. Respondent broker-shipper did not pay Petitioner for 700 pounds of the June 1, 1994, invoice 92111 truckload; for 900 pounds of the first June 3, 1994 invoice 92117 truckload; for 790 pounds of the second June 3, 1994 invoice 92120 truckload; or for any (29,330 pounds) of the June 14, 1994 invoice 92157 truckload, upon grounds that those melons were not saleable at their destination. Petitioner put in evidence Exhibit P-3 which is an accounting Respondent had sent him. It shows that Respondent broker-shipper had deducted $690.30 for labor on invoice 92111 and claimed 700 pounds could not be sold; had deducted $683.70 for labor on invoice 92117 and claimed 900 pounds could not be sold; had deducted $670.80 for labor on invoice 92120 and claimed 790 pounds could not be sold; and had paid Petitioner nothing on a June 14, 1994 truckload, invoice 92159. Invoice 92157, which corresponds to Petitioner's June 14, 1994 partial truckload of 29,330 pounds of melons, is not listed or otherwise explained in the exhibit. The exhibit is conclusionary and inexplicably is dated 1993. There is no back-up evidence to support Respondent's making these deductions. No inspection certificate or labor charges are in evidence. Petitioner's initial complaint, which he put in evidence as P-1, constitutes an admission by him. In the complaint, Petitioner contended (1) that he was selling "direct" to Respondent broker-shipper; (2) that he was selling "f.o.b."; and (3) that he was selling "Fob shipping point excectance (sic) after final inspection." Petitioner also stated therein that he was given an inspection sheet showing 46,310 lbs. of watermelons had failed inspection and he did not feel the melons that failed inspection were his melons because Frank Favuzza approved of all melons loaded from Petitioner's field and the inspection sheet did not say that the bad melons were Petitioner's melons. Somewhat contrariwise, Petitioner testified at formal hearing that he had asked Respondent broker-shipper for a government inspection certificate showing that his melons were bad and never got it. From the credible evidence as a whole, it is inferred that Petitioner sold his watermelons on the June 14, 1994 truckload at $.04 per pound contingent upon the melons arriving at their ultimate destination in saleable condition per a federal inspection. It is further inferred that the prior three loads at issue also were sold contingent upon their arriving in saleable condition. The evidence as a whole also supports a finding that Petitioner's melons left the weigh station in a condition capable of being sold for the respective prices agreed upon between Petitioner and Respondent broker-shipper. Any deterioration of melons between June 10, 1994 when Petitioner requested that the broker-shipper take the last load and June 14, 1994 when the last load actually was weighed and shipped is attributable to Respondent broker-shipper, but that fact is not significant since the lesser rate of $.04/lb. was agreed upon prior to shipping and after Respondent broker-shipper had seen and approved the loaded melons. Petitioner's foregoing evidence of delivering saleable quality melons to Respondent broker-shipper is unrefuted. The presumption is thereby created that but for some failure of Respondent broker-shipper, the melons would have arrived at their ultimate destination in saleable condition. There is no evidence of record to support Respondent's deductions for "labor," or for melons which allegedly could not be sold upon delivery at the ultimate destination. Petitioner moved ore tenus to further amend his complaint to include a prayer for reimbursement for the cost of the melons which rotted in his field and became unsaleable between June 10 and June 14, 1994 due to Respondent broker-shipper's delay in loading and to assert a claim for interest on the $1,340.50 claim. This motion was denied as too late.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order awarding Petitioner $1,340.50, and binding Respondents to pay the full amount of $1,340.50, which in Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.'s case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of June, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 94-6189A The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2 Accepted. Rejected as unnecessary Rejected as subordinate and mere argumentation. 5-6 Rejected as mere argumentation. Rejected as these were not the dates testified. Rejected as mere argumentation. Respondent Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc.'s PFOF: 1 Accepted. 2-4 Rejected as not proven. Accepted as to the June 10-14, 1994 load. Rejected as not proven. Not proven in whole. Covered to the extent proven. While one inference might be that a different invoice number was assigned to the combined load, that is not the only reasonable inference based on the evidence submitted. Likewise, although Petitioner apparently got some inspection certificate, that certificate is not in evidence. There is no record evidence as to what it covered. It is not reasonable to infer or guess that it covered four loads on four trucks on three dates or that there is any way to calculate from it that the only bad melons were Petitioner's melons and not those mixed in from another farm on June 14, 1994. See FOF 19-20. 8-15 Rejected as not proven. Respondent Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.'s PFOF: None filed COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Favuzza, President Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. Post Office Box 1682 Auburndale, Florida 33823 Tom Morton Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. Post Office Box 94-5010 Maitland, Florida 32794-5010 L. C. Stevenson 333 NW 46th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34482 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, F. H. Dicks, III; F. H. Dicks, IV; and F. H. Dicks Company, are wholesale dealers in watermelons which they purchase and sell interstate. The Respondents' agents during the 1991 melon season in the Lake City area were Harold Harmon and his son, Tommy Harmon. The Harmons had purchased watermelons in the Lake City area for several year prior to 1991, and the Petitioner had sold melons to them in previous seasons. The terms of purchase in these prior transactions had always been Freight on Board (FOB) the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. The terms of purchase of the melons sold by Petitioner to the Respondents prior to the loads in question had been FOB the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. One of the Harmons would inspect the load being purchased during the loading and at the scale when the truck was weighed out. After this inspection, the melons accepted by Harmon were Respondents'. Price would vary over the season, but price was agree upon before the melons were loaded. Settlement had always been prompt, and the Harmons enjoyed the confidence of the local farmers. In June 1991, the Harmons left the Lake City area. There were still melons being picked in the area, and Harold Harmon advised the Petitioner that Jim would be handling their business. On June 30, 1991, load F 267 of 48,600 pounds of watermelons was sold to the Respondents through their agent, Jim, for 4 per pound. Fifteen thousand pounds of this load of melons was purchased by Food Lion in Salisbury, NC, for $1,450, and the remaining 33,600 pounds were refused. That portion which was refused was transported back to Respondents' workplace, and 33,600 pounds of the melons were sold at 3 per pound, or $1,008. The Respondents received a total of $2,458 for load F 267, and had transportation cost of $1,202.50 on this load. On July 1, 1991, load F 269 of 43,710 pounds of watermelons was sold to the Respondent through his agent, Jim, for 4 per pound. This load was to be shipped to Rich Food, Richmond, VA. An annotation on the Bill of Laden indicates the load was returned to Respondent and subsequently dumped. The load was not inspected after refusal, and there is no evidence that the load did not grade to standard. Petitioner's testimony is uncontroverted, and there is no indication that the terms for these two loads were different from the earlier transactions between Petitioner and Respondent, that is, FOB the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. Under the terms of sale, FOB purchaser's truck at seller's field, the Respondent bore the costs of transportation and the risk of refusal of the produce. Respondent's recourse was against the purchaser who refused delivery. If there was a problem with the grade, the Respondents also bore the risk of loss on sales which they made and which were rejected. The Petitioner is entitled to his full purchase price on both loads: $1,748.40 on F 269 and $1,944 on F 267.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: Respondents be given 30 days to settle with the Petitioner in the amount of $3,692.40, and the Petitioner be paid $3,692.40 from Respondents' agricultural bond if the account is not settled. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry McDavid, Esquire 128 South Hernando Street Lake City, FL 32055 F. H. Dicks, III c/o F. H. Dicks Company P.O. Box 175 Barnwell, SC 29812 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 South Carolina Insurance Company Legal Department 1501 Lady Street Columbia, SC 29202 Victoria I. Freeman Seibels Bruce Insurance Companies Post Office Box One Columbia, SC 29202 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mecca Farms, Inc. (MFI), is a grower and shipper of fresh produce in Lantana, Florida. Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc. (MBE), is an agricultural dealer in Pompano Beach, Florida, subject to the licensing requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (agency). As such, MBE is obligated to obtain a dealer's license from the agency, and to post a surety bond executed by a surety corpora- tion to ensure that payment is made to producers for agricultural products purchased by the dealer. To meet this latter require- ment, MBE has obtained a surety bond in an undisclosed amount from respondent, Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast. This controversy involves a dispute over payment for a shipment of produce purchased from MFI by MBE, acting as a broker, for further sale to an out-of-state distributor. The origins of the dispute began on or about March 13, 1986, when MFI's sales manager, Peter Andolina, accepted a telephone order from MBE's vice-president, Paul Boris for 1,000 boxes of large peppers. According to the parties' oral agreement, the peppers were to meet U.S. Grade No. 1 standards and were priced at $9.75 per box, or a total price of $9,750. In order to meet U.S. Grade No. 1 standards, the peppers had to be top-grade, and free from bruises, discoloration and decay. As is usual in the business, Andolina had no knowledge who the ultimate buyer was, or where Boris intended to ship the peppers. Boris and Andolina had been dealing with each other for at least six years on a fairly frequent basis. Both understood the shipment was to be free on board (FOB), although they disagree as to whether it was FOB place of destination or FOB place of shipment. If it was the latter, title to the goods passed from MFI to MBE when the goods were loaded on the truck in Lantana. Conversely, a destination contract means the seller (MFI) bears the risk of loss until tender of delivery at final destination. The invoice supporting the transaction does not clarify the matter for it makes no reference to FOB. However, the prior course of conduct between Use parties suggests they intended a destination contract, as did the conduct of Andolina in later dealings with Boris involving this same shipment. On March 13, or the day the order was received, the peppers were placed in cartons at MFI's facility and then stacked inside a refrigerated truck for shipment. Prior to their loading, MFI's foreman claimed he made a cursory inspection of five or ten boxes of peppers and found them to be of satisfactory percent quality. However, he could not recall the details of any other shipments made that day, nor could he recall any other occasion when he inspected a shipment ordered by MBE. Consequently, his testimony is not considered credible, and does not establish whether the goods delivered that day met U.S. Grade No. 1 specifications. It is also noted that there was no requirement in the parties' agreement that MBE perform an inspection prior to loading since MBE relied upon MFI's word and reputation that it would furnish top quality produce. This was not unusual since at least sixty percent of all buyers do not personally inspect the produce at MFI's facility prior to it being shipped to the ultimate buyer. The shipment was destined for a Stop and Shop distributor in Readville, Massachusetts. Although the testimony is conflicting as to normal transit time between Lantana, Florida and the State of Massachusetts, it is found that three to four days transit time is not unusual, although some loads are delivered there in less than two days if the driver puts the pedal to the metal. In any event, petitioner has conceded that if the truck was properly refrigerated, the peppers should have remained in good condition for four days. On March 17, 1986, or some four days after being picked up in Lantana, the peppers were delivered to Stop and Shop in Readville. Stop and Shop apparently made an inspection of the produce prior to being unloaded and found some of the peppers not meeting U.S. Grade No. 1 standards. A federal Department of Agriculture inspector was then called in to make an inspection. The inspection report, which has been received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 1, reflects that the shipment met "quality requirements, but fails to grade U.S. No. 1, only account of condition." Stop and Shop accordingly refused to accept delivery. There is no evidence that other factors such as carrier negligence, inability to unload at destination, or unusually lengthy transit time caused a deterioration in the quality of the produce after being picked up at MFI's facility. After being contacted by Stop and Shop, Boris telephoned Andolina and advised him the shipment had been rejected. Andolina told Boris to "try to give Stop and Shop an adjustment" on the price. Boris did so but was unsuccessful. Boris then telephoned Andolina a second time and asked for instructions on what to do with the peppers. Andolina told Boris to "place the peppers." This meant Boris should sell the produce at a reduced price to a commission merchant who deals in produce that fails to meet grade. It also meant MFI was accepting responsibility for the peppers failing to meet grade. Boris then sold the shipment for $3.57 per carton to W. H. Lailer & Co., Inc., a commission merchant in Chelsea, Massachusetts. After transportation ($1.70 per box) and handling charges and Lailer's commission were taken out of the proceeds, Boris received only $897.50 for the entire shipment. This amount was then forwarded to MFI on April 18, 1986. MFI endorsed the check and deposited it a few days later. Andolina acknowledged at hearing that once goods are rejected by the ultimate buyer because they fail to make grade, it is MFI's standard practice to have the rejected produce sold at the best price possible. It does so by using its own commission merchant, or having the broker perform this task. By following this procedure, MFI accepts responsibility for the less-than-grade produce, and has done so on a number of prior occasions when MBE was forced to sell MFI's produce after it was rejected by the ultimate buyer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the relief requested in the amended complaint filed by Mecca Farms, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 August, 1987.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is indebted to the Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, Oglesby Nursery, Inc., is a commercial nursery providing a variety of landscape agricultural products. The principal office for Petitioner is located at 3714 SW 52nd Avenues Hollywood, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden Landscape and Nursery, Inc., is an agricultural dealer with its office located at 3317 So. Dixie Highway, Delray Beach, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden, is subject to the licensing requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. As such, Garden of Eden is obligated to obtain and to post a surety bond to ensure that payment is made to producers for agricultural products purchased by the dealer. To meet this requirement, Garden of Eden delivered a certificate of deposit from Sun Bank of Palm Beach County to the Department. On or about August 22, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $7673.40 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of nine may pan coconuts and thirty green malayans trees. All of the trees were accepted and no issue was made as to their condition. On or about September 2, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $1190.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of seven coconut malayans dwarf trees. All of the trees were accepted and no issue was made as to their condition. The total amount of the agricultural products purchased by Garden of Eden from Petitioner was $8863.40. The total amount Garden of Eden paid on this account was $5000.00. The balance of indebtedness owed by Garden of Eden t o Petitioner for the purchases listed above is $3863.40. Petitioner claims it is due an additional sum of $247.77 representing interest on the unpaid account since the assessment of interest to an unpaid balance is standard practice in the industry and since Respondent took delivery of additional products knowing interest on past due accounts to be Petitioner's policy. No written agreement of acknowledgment executed by Garden of Eden was presented with regard to the interest claim.
The Issue Whether, under the provisions of sections 604.15 - 604.34, Florida Statutes, Lester Towell Distributors, Inc., is entitled to recover $2,098 for agricultural products ordered by and delivered to VBJ Packing, Inc
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. Lester Towell is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. VBJ is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of extra-large green bell peppers. Lester Towell delivered 200 boxes of such peppers to VBJ on May 23, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 63 boxes of peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 137 boxes from producer Thomas Produce, in Boca Raton, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of yellow corn. Lester Towell delivered 100 boxes of such corn to VBJ on May 24, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 100 boxes of corn from producer Wilkinson-Cooper, in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for this producer; it purchased the products outright. On May 24, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of jalapeno peppers, white corn, and red radishes. Lester Towell delivered two boxes of jalapeno peppers, 26 boxes of white corn, and 20 boxes of red radishes to VBJ on May 25, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 2 boxes of jalapeno peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 26 boxes of white corn and 20 boxes of red radishes from producer American Growers in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. Lester Towell filed its complaint with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("Department") pursuant to the provisions of section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes, because VBJ did not pay for the products identified above. There is, however, no evidence to establish that Lester Towell was a producer or the agent or representative of a producer with respect to the products for which it seeks payment. It is, therefore, not a "person" entitled to file a complaint with the Department against VBJ and its surety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the complaint of Lester Towell Distributors, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 3nd day of July 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July 1996
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Sun Coast Farms, is agent for Strano Farms of Florida City, Florida, a producer of agricultural products. The Respondent, South Dade Produce, is a dealer in agricultural products and is located in Naranja, Florida. On April 4, 1985, Mr. George Mason, salesman for Petitioner, received a call from Respondent proposing to buy some squash. An agreement was reached for the sale of 400 crates of crookneck squash (#1 grade) at a price of $10.20 per unit "FOB Florida City, Florida." The agreed upon price for the full amount of the squash was $4,080. The squash in question was grown and packed by Strano Farms in Florida City, Florida. The 400 cases of squash were received by Respondent on April 4, 1985. During an inspection of the squash, Mr. Cope, owner of South Dade Produce, noticed that some of the squash had wind scar. Mr. Cope felt that the wind scar damage was minor and proceeded to dispose of the squash as planned. One hundred cases of the squash were sold and shipped without difficulty and are not a part of this action. On April 4, 1985, the 300 cartons of squash in question were shipped to Texas in a refrigerator truck and delivered April 6, 1986 to Harrington Produce Company of Dallas, Texas, through Reaves Brokerage Company, also of Dallas. Harrington Produce Company planned to sell the squash to consumers through its own retail outlets. Upon examination of the squash at destination, Harrington Produce Company represented to Reaves Brokerage Company that it believed a portion of the squash were spoiled and unmarketable. Reaves Brokerage Company notified the Respondent of this potential problem and requested instruction. That same day, April 6, 1985, having received notice of the problem in Dallas, the Respondent notified George Mason, a salesman for Petitioner. George Mason indicated that a "federal inspection certificate" (an inspection performed upon receipt to verify the condition of produce) was not required. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent requested a federal inspection to verify the condition of the squash. In an accounting statement provided to Respondent on December 30, 1985 Harrington Produce stated that in order to render the squash sellable, it was necessary to run (sort and repack) the squash twice to assure that each carton contained only sound vegetables. Harrington Produce Company further asserted that the cost of sorting and repacking was $1.50 per finished carton per run or $540.00 for the 180 salvageable cartons which were kept and sold. Harrington Produce stated that it did not charge labor costs for unsellable cartons, but that 120 of the 300 cartons delivered were unsellable, which, at $10.35 per carton, meant an additional deduction of $1,242.00. Because of the foregoing, Harrington Produce Company deducted $1,782.00 as an adjustment to Respondent's bill. Because Harrington Produce deducted $1,782 from Respondent's billing, Respondent deducted $1,782 from Petitioner's payment. The parties stipulated that the unpaid amount on the contract for the 400 units of squash was $1,782. No "federal dump certificate" (a certification of spoilage done at the time that unmarketable produce is discarded) was performed on the 120 cartons of squash which were supposedly dumped by Harrington Produce Company. It is standard practice in the industry that an independent, third-party assessment of produce be performed prior to "dumping". Ordinarily, "certification" of the condition of produce by the ultimate purchaser himself is unacceptable. Where a "federal dump certificate" is unavailable, some other independent assessment of the produce is required. It is standard practice in the industry that the buyer receiving the problematic goods request the necessary inspections. It was the understanding of the parties, who had undertaken similar transactions previously, that adjustments to the price of the goods when subsequently resold could be passed back to the producer. However, it is normal and customary practice in the industry to have an independent entity, be it state, federal or private, inspect agricultural products before they are "dumped" or thrown away as unmarketable. On April 5, 1985, Petitioner invoiced Respondent $4,080 for the full amount of the squash. In May 1985, Respondent remitted to Petitioner the sum of $2,298, leaving a balance due of $1,782. On June 21, 1985, Petitioner requested an accounting from Respondent for the sale of the Dallas squash. On August 1, 1985, Petitioner again requested an accounting from Respondent. On January 2, 1986, Respondent submitted a letter from Harrington Produce, dated December 30, 1985, accounting for the disposition of the 300 units of squash. On April 4, 1985, 1,800 units of squash harvested from the same field as the squash in question, were packaged by Strano Farms and sold without any complaints or returns.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent is indebted to, and required to pay, the amount of $1,782.00 to the Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of July, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1029A The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5 and 12. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Addressed in procedural background section of R.O. Addressed in procedural background section of R.O. COPIES FURNISHED: Vincent J. Fiorica 5856 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33144 Steven F. Brines 48 Northeast 15th Street Homestead, Florida 33133 Hon. Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joe W. Kight Bureau of Lic. & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 F. J. Manuel, Jr., Esquire Welbaum, Zook, Jones & Williams Post Office Box 3626 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Is Skinner Nurseries, Inc. (Skinner), entitled to collect $28,097.10 on account, as a producer of agricultural products allegedly delivered to A & R Landscaping & Lighting, Inc. (A & R), a dealer in agricultural products?
Findings Of Fact From the pleadings it is found that Skinner is a producer of agricultural products and A & R is a dealer in agricultural products in Florida. Old Republic is the surety for the bond to secure A & R's performance consistent with its activities as a dealer. §§ 604.15 through 604.34 Fla. Stat. (2002). Skinner has a business address of 2970 Hartley Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32257. The A & R business address is 739 Long Lake Drive, Oviedo, Florida 32765. The Old Republic business address is 445 South Moorland Road, Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005. On July 31, 2001, A & R applied for a line of credit with Skinner for the provision of plants, shrubs, and trees in their respective capacities as a dealer in agricultural products and a producer of agricultural products. That application was granted and the entities commenced business. This case involves claims by Skinner for agricultural products delivered to A & R that have not been paid for. Within Composite Exhibit 1 by Skinner is a statement of the amount owed by A & R on account no. 3008, a number assigned by Skinner. The account statement depicts transaction dates, invoice numbers, and job descriptions in relation to the charges. In addition, Composite Exhibit 1 by Skinner contains the various invoices in support of the claim. The statement date for account no. 3008 was prepared on July 8, 2003, to support the complaint in this case. But it was, and continues to be, an accurate portrayal of the amount owed by A & R to Skinner for agricultural products provided. The matters set forth in the July 8, 2003, statement of account no. 3008 that accompanies the complaint were in relevant part the same as those in a billing statement that had been mailed to A & R on July 2, 2003, that A & R has not paid. The statement of account no. 3008 for purposes of the complaint excludes certain items from the claim. Among the exclusions are charges that date from December 2002 through January 9, 2003. Those charges were not promoted in the complaint based upon their untimeliness. The dates about which claims are made end on February 26, 2003. In addition, certain charges for what are described as hard goods, mulch, and freight were not claimed. Reference to hard goods refers to items to stake trees sold, also referred to as tree guy kits. Finally, no interest is claimed on the account. Within the July 8, 2003, statement of account no. 3008 an asterisk by invoice numbers indicates that the charges were solely for the provision of mulch. Therefore, these invoices are not included in Skinner's Composite Exhibit numbered 1, as is the case where invoices are associated with the period before January 13, 2003, and after February 26, 2003. At hearing Skinner established without contradiction that, with the exclusions noted, it supplied the plants, shrubs, and trees to A & R and has not been paid $28,097.10 on account no. 3008.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that A & R owes Skinner $28,097.10. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 18th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Diaz, C.P.A. Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 2970 Hartley Road, Suite 302 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Michael A. Jankowski Old Republic Surety Company Post Office Box 1635 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Rita J. Robinson, President A & R Landscaping & Lighting, Inc. 739 Long Lake Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioner relating to the lease of farmland, management of farmland, and the sale of strawberries pursuant to various oral contracts.
Findings Of Fact Tonya Gladney is an individual doing business as Tonya Gladney Farms, an entity dedicated to the business of farming in south central Florida. Gladney learned the farming business from her father. Gladney had been around strawberry farming her whole life and decided to engage in the business independently starting with the 2006-2007 growing season. TGF is a fledgling operation and does not own all of the land, equipment, or resources necessary to actively operate and maintain a farm. That is, TGF found it necessary to lease land from various landowners and to use that land for farming purposes. Further, TGF needed to rent certain farming equipment in order to prepare the leased lands for farming. G&S Melons, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company whose managing member is John Glen Grizzaffe. G&S is a farming operation which has been in existence since 1999. Like Gladney, farming was in Grizzaffe's blood, and his family had been farming since the 1920's. G&S started out as a grower of watermelons, but has grown berries, melons, squash, cucumbers and other produce as well. In recent years, G&S purchased 25 acres of land to be used primarily for strawberry farming, and that area of its business has grown considerably. In 2006, when Grizzaffe and Gladney first started doing business, TGF was G&S's only strawberry producer. G&S markets its produce to several grocery store chains, including SuperValue, Acme, Shaws, Jewel Foods, Food Lion, Sweet Bay, Albertsons and others. Grizzaffe's experience and business relationship with the various chains have allowed him to become a broker of goods produced by other farmers. As a broker, Grizzaffe has experience dealing with buyers and knows how to negotiate the best prices for products in his custody. In 2007, G&S was subleasing some land from C.W. Stump who was leasing the land from its owner, Al Repita. The land, known as Lightfoot Road Farm ("Lightfoot") is located in Wimauma, Hillsborough County. Grizzaffe was paying $325 per acre for the Lightfoot property, which was irrigated, but did not have overhead sprinklers. Grizzaffe held a year-to-year sublease on the property, primarily because Repita had the land up for sale. Grizzaffe expected to retain his lease for the next two or three years, but did not have any long-term expectations. The most credible evidence indicates that Lightfoot encompasses approximately 35 acres. After initial discussions between the parties concerning Lightfoot, Gladney and Grizzaffe met at the farm to further discuss the possible sublease by TGF. Gladney indicated she wanted to grow strawberries and Grizzaffe agreed to sublease the land to her. The sublease agreement was not reduced to writing, nor are there any written terms or conditions associated with the sublease.1 Gladney was unclear as to her understanding of what the terms of the lease were supposed to be. She believed Lightfoot was between 20 and 25 acres in size and would be available for at least two to three years, maybe up to five years. Gladney's testimony was not clear as to what she believed the lease amount to be, but thought $200 to $225 per acre would be about right "if there was any charge." Gladney did not provide any rationale as to why she should not be charged for subleasing the land. Grizzaffe's testimony that he was subleasing Lightfoot to TGF for $325 an acre--exactly what he was paying for it--is credible and makes the most sense in light of all the facts. The size of Lightfoot was a major point of contention between the parties. Inasmuch as there was no written lease, the parties' understanding can only be gleaned from their testimony. Gladney opined the land was 20 to 25 acres based on the fact that TGF had purchased enough plastic to cover 25 acres. Three rolls of plastic (2,400 square feet) would cover one acre and TGF had purchased 75 rolls. It takes 2,000 strawberry plants to cover one acre, and TGF purchased 50,000 plants. Mathematically, Gladney determined there was 25 acres of farmable land at Lightfoot. Grizzaffe's opinion was based on the following evidence: Net acreage is based on 43,560 square feet-per-acre divided by the row center. Strawberries are planted at a distance of four feet between the center of each row, leaving only 10,890 net square feet for planting on the Lightfoot acreage. This equates to 29.8 row acres, plus space in between the rows at Lightfoot, the dirt between the beds, the ditches, and the roadways around the field. So, although there are 20-to-25 acres of ground actually planted, the total gross acreage is higher (in this case approximately 35 acres). Farmland is generally leased by calculating the gross acreage, not merely the part of the land which can be farmed.2 Gladney advised Grizzaffe that between the Lightfoot farm and another farm she was working, G&S could expect between 50 and 60 acres of berries. Such calculations are incredibly important for the effective supply of berries to customers by the broker. Inasmuch as Lightfoot had only drip irrigation available at the time of the subject sublease and because overhead irrigation was necessary to grow strawberries, it was understood between the parties that an overhead irrigation system would have to be installed.3 A major dispute between the parties concerned who would be responsible for installing the overhead irrigation system. Inasmuch as Gladney believed the lease to be less than $225 per acre, it is doubtful she was leasing land with a sprinkler system. Sprinklered farmland usually rents for considerably more, i.e., in the neighborhood of $1,000 per acre. Gladney maintains that Grizzaffe specifically promised to pay for any overhead irrigation system installed on Lightfoot. This made sense to Gladney, because she believed Grizzaffe was going to be able to extend his current lease to a five-year lease. It takes a few years farming a parcel to recoup the expense of an overhead irrigation system. Grizzaffe, on the other hand, knew his lease, which was on a year-to-year basis, might only last two or three more years and that there was no promise of an extension. In fact, the farm is currently being offered for sale, meaning no long- term lease would be available to G&S. Grizzaffe told Gladney that she needed to install the overhead irrigation system in order to assure a quality product, but made no promise to pay for it. While TGF was preparing the farm to plant strawberries for the upcoming season, an overhead sprinkler system was installed. The system was apparently paid for by Gladney, but she claims to have used money furnished by Grizzaffe. There are, however, no written receipts or cancelled checks that indicate a payment by G&S for the sprinkler system. Certain bills or invoices addressing irrigation were generated by James Irrigation, Inc., the company hired to install the overhead system. The James Irrigation statements of account were addressed to Gladney. Other invoices concerning the irrigation system were issued by Gator Pipe and Supply and indicated they were shipped to "Gladney Farms." Gladney made at least one payment of $45,000 directly to James Irrigation as documented in the exhibits admitted at final hearing. The total cost of the overhead irrigation system was approximately $62,000. There are no checks from G&S or Grizzaffe to Gladney or TGF designated as payment for a sprinkler system, nor was there any credible testimony that Grizzaffe would pay for the Lightfoot sprinkler system. When Gladney ceased operations on Lightfoot, she did not take the Rainbird sprinkler heads or pvc pipes with her. In fact, Gladney did not take up the plastic used in growing the strawberries, although that is common practice when leasing land from another producer. Gladney did not, therefore, assert an ownership interest in the sprinkler system. The tenor of the cessation of business between the parties at that time (each seemed angry at the other) may account for Gladney's failure to clean up the Lightfoot property and/or retrieve the sprinkler system. However, Grizzaffe does not assert ownership of the sprinkler system either. It apparently belongs to the owner of the land. The next major point of contention between the parties was the price that G&S was charging TGF to act as intermediary between the grower (TGF) and the buyer (food store chains or others). Gladney contends that G&S agreed to handle and pre-cool all of TGF's berries at the flat rate of $1.00 per box. Gladney further contends that at least one other broker had accepted her berries at the same price. Grizzaffe counters that while his business would not be profitable giving a $1.00 flat rate, some brokers may be able to offer that to growers for ad hoc purchases. However, for a regular arrangement wherein a grower is providing a broker most of its product, that would not be feasible. Grizzaffe maintains the charge for TGF berries was the same charged to all other growers, i.e., 50 cents per box for pre-cooling the berries and 10 percent of the amount of the sale. G&S may charge a slightly higher pre-cool fee based on exceptional circumstances, but 50 cents is the norm. The purchase orders introduced into evidence by G&S include a brokerage fee of 10 percent and a pre-cool fee of 50 cents per box, comporting with his version of the oral contract. Again, the agreement between the parties as to the charge for handling berries was not reduced to writing. The more credible evidence supports G&S's position. TGF alleges that G&S misrepresented the amount it would sell TGF's product to buyers for and that G&S did not sell for the agreed-upon price. Gladney expected her berries to be sold at the USDA Market Price (to be discussed further below). Some purchase orders issued by G&S indicate that TGF berries were sold for several dollars under the USDA Market Price. The USDA Market Price is calculated by USDA utilizing the daily sale of berries by all growers in an area. The average price range is printed in a USDA publication and made available to growers, brokers and buyers as a guideline for negotiating prices in the future. The USDA publication apparently comes out almost daily, setting out the prices paid to local growers on the previous day or days. It is, therefore, a recap of what has been paid, not a projection of future prices to be paid. There is also a less structured means of establishing the "market price." This method involves local growers talking to each other and determining what each had been paid for their product on any given day. Growers often discuss market price, but seldom distinguish between USDA Market Price and the common market price. Gladney maintains that she spoke to Grizzaffe regularly and that he always assured her that her berries would be getting the market price or higher. She seems to believe that Grizzaffe was talking about the USDA Market Price. However, it is generally impossible for any broker to guarantee a price for a product; that is strictly a matter of supply and demand at any given point in time. However, Grizzaffe would benefit from charging the highest price he could get, because he was getting a percentage of the total sale. It is clear from the evidence that TGF berries sometimes were sold at an amount several dollars less than the USDA Market Price. There are reasonable explanations for that fact. For example, if TGF berries were rejected by one buyer, they would be sold as lower quality berries to another buyer who had need for that product. If there was a very high supply, but low demand, at the time the berries were harvested, a lower price may result. However, other than for those exceptions, G&S sold TGF berries for the same price that G&S sold other growers' berries; and due to his long-standing relationship with several chains, G&S often got the very best price in the area. One other price issue (although not largely pertinent to the instant dispute) concerned pre-selling berries by establishing an "ad price" for the product. An ad price was essentially an agreed-upon price well in advance of the actual purchase. This was done in order to allow stores the opportunity to advertise the price of berries in the newspaper or other circulars because the store would know the price well enough in advance. For example, the broker and buyer may agree to a price of $14 per box for berries to be delivered on a date certain. When that date came, the market price might be $12 per box or $16 per box, but the buyer would only pay the ad price ($14 per box). So, some of the TGF berries may have been sold at below USDA Market Price because they were part of an ad price arrangement. Gladney contends she was underpaid for supervising another farm for Grizzaffe. There is no documentation whatsoever as to the agreement between the parties. The farm was approximately 25 acres, which would produce about 2,000 to 2,500 flats of berries to the acre (or 50,000 to 62,500 flats). Gladney maintains she was supposed to receive $.25 a flat for berries produced on that farm as her management fee. No accounting of berries produced on the farm was presented into evidence. Gladney received a check for $10,000 from Grizzaffe to pay the management fee for the farm. Gladney said that $10,000 would be a "low amount" for her work, but did not substantiate that more was actually owed. Gladney protested offsets from her earned fees that related to certain products and materials, specifically fuel and packing materials. However, the bills and receipts presented by Grizzaffe justify the materials based on the number of berries produced and packed by Gladney for sale by Grizzaffe. The offsets appear reasonable and consistent with normal farming practices. G&S accurately and appropriately billed TGF for materials, including pallets, eggshells (small cartons used to ship berries), and fuel. The charges for those materials are applied to and deducted from TGF's profits on the berries delivered to G&S. The last primary point of contention between the parties is whether or not G&S loaned money to TGF and, if so, how much was loaned, the interest rate, and whether the loan was repaid. Again, there is no written loan agreement between the parties. According to Grizzaffe, G&S agreed to lend TGF up to $50,000 during the 2007-2008 growing season at a flat ten percent interest rate. The loan was offered in recognition of the fact that Gladney was just beginning her farming practice and would need some assistance on the front end. G&S expected to recoup its loan as TGF began delivering berries for sale. Gladney maintains that there was no loan to TGF or herself from Grizzaffe. Rather, she states that any checks for other than produce were G&S's payments for the promised irrigation system. G&S issued a number of checks to Gladney identified as "farm advance" or "loan" or "payroll." These checks were issued prior to the first sale of TGF berries by G&S. That is, TGF was not yet entitled to a check from the sale of proceeds at the time the checks were issued. Grizzaffe says the purpose of the checks was to advance money to Gladney so that she would have the funds necessary to rent equipment to prepare the land for planting, to install the sprinkler system, to pay her workers, and to cover her farming costs before proceeds from sales starting coming in. The first check representing sale of TGF berries by G&S was issued to Gladney on February 7, 2008 (although TGF had started delivering berries in November 2007). It is clear that Grizzaffe was providing money to Gladney before money had been earned. Whether it is called an advance or a loan, the net effect is the same. The total amount loaned by Grizzaffe to Gladney was far in excess of the agreed-upon $50,000. As TGF experienced unforeseen start-up expenses, Grizzaffe would write a check to help them meet any shortfall. These checks, which Gladney characterized as payments for the irrigation system, far exceed the cost of that system. The most credible evidence is that Grizzaffe fronted money to Gladney in the amount of $203,717.00. Further, G&S's charges to TGF exactly reflect a ten percent charge for certain checks, clearly evidencing the loan as described by Grizzaffe. Platte River Insurance Company ("Platte River") is a foreign insurance company authorized to do business in Florida. Platt River bonded G&S as required under Section 604.20, Florida Statutes (2008).4 Platte River did not make an appearance or file an answer to the Complaint filed by Petitioner in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services dismissing the Petition of Tonya Gladney, d/b/a Tonya Gladney Farms. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 23rd day of February, 2009.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, L. J. Crawford was a dealer in agricultural products, specifically watermelons. He sold the watermelons to Valhalla Produce in North Carolina. Crawford contracted to purchase watermelons from J. G. Campbell and Dale Hedge, who are agricultural producers. The agreement of the parties was that the watermelons would be loaded on the truck by Campbell and Hedge's crew, the truck would be weighed before and after loading, and the price Campbell and Hedge would receive was local market price less two cents per pound. At the first of the season, Crawford's settlement with Campbell and Hedge was in cash at the scale where the load was weighed or shortly thereafter. However, as the season progressed, the payments became less and less timely, until they stopped altogether. Crawford admitted receiving the watermelons. However, he stated the watermelons were sold on consignment; that is, he paid Campbell and Hedge when he was paid. Crawford's assertion in this regard is not consistent with the facts, which indicate that the sale was F.O.B. in the field in Gainesville, at which time the title to the watermelons passed to Crawford and Campbell and Hedge were immediately entitled to their money. While it appears that Valhalla Produce was not paying Crawford for watermelons delivered to Valhalla by Crawford, and Crawford did have difficulties in meeting his financial obligations to Campbell and Hedge, this in no way affected Crawford's obligations to Campbell and Hedge. Crawford eventually sued Valhalla Produce, and Campbell and Hedge joined in the litigation; however, they were dismissed when the court held that they had no interest because title had passed. Valhalla eventually settled the claim with Crawford for $9,000. Based upon the records of Campbell and Hedge, which were the only records introduced at the hearing, Crawford owed Campbell and Hedge $35,282.23.
Recommendation Having determined the allegations of the complaint to have been established, and having determined that L. J. Crawford owes J. G. Campbell and Dale Hedge the sum of $35,282.23, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services order Crawford to pay Campbell and Hedge jointly $35,282.23. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Valentine Bates, Esquire 234 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 L. J. Crawford Route 3, Box 169 Lake City, Florida 32055 Peter H. Murphy, Esquire Peninsula Florida Building, Suite 800 200 SE First Street Miami, Florida 33131 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Glenn Bissett, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Room 418, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Roderick Bowdoin, Esquire 327 North Hernando Street Post Office Drawer 1707 Lake City, Florida 32055 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture & Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the claims of $98,935.20 and $19,147.70, filed by Petitioner under the Agricultural Bond and License Law, are valid. §§ 604.15 - 604.34, Fla. Stat. (2008).
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been a producer of agricultural products located in Plant City, Florida. At all material times, American Growers has been a dealer in agricultural products. Respondent Lincoln General Insurance Company, as surety, issued a bond to American Growers, as principal. American Growers is licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("DACS"). Between December 16, 2008, and February 4, 2009, Petitioner sold strawberries to American Growers, each sale being accompanied by a Passing and Bill of Lading. Petitioner sent an Invoice for each shipment, and payment was due in full following receipt of the Invoice. Partial payments have been made on some of the invoices, and as of the date of this Recommended Order, the amount that remains unpaid by American Growers to Petitioner is $117,982.90, comprising: Invoice No. Invoice Date Amount Balance Due 103894 12/16/08 $7,419.00 $1,296.00 103952 12/22/08 $18,370.80 $1,944.00 103953 12/23/08 $3,123.60 $648.00 193955 12/26/08 $8,164.80 $1,728.00 103984 12/28/08 $28,764.40 $28,764.40 104076 12/31/08 $17,236.80 $17,236.80 104077 1/5/09 $17,658.00 $17,658.00 104189 1/5/09 $1,320.90 $1,320.90 104386 1/20/09 $16,480.80 $16,480.80 104517 1/29/09 $17,449.20 $17,449.20 104496 2/4/09 $13,456.80 $13,456.80 TOTAL $117,982.90
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring Respondent, American Growers, Inc., and/or its surety, Respondent, Lincoln General Insurance Company, to pay Petitioner, Crown Harvest Produce Sales, LLC, the total amount of $117,982.90. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 18th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capital, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Glenn Thomason, President American Growers, Inc. 14888 Horseshoe Trace Wellington, Florida 33414 Katy Koestner Esquivel, Esquire Meuers Law Firm, P.L. 5395 Park Central Court Naples, Florida 34109 Renee Herder Surety Bond Claims Lincoln General Insurance Company 4902 Eisenhower Boulevard, Suite 155 Tampa, Florida 33634 Glenn C. Thomason, Registered Agent American Growers, Inc. Post Office Box 1207 Loxahatchee, Florida 33470
