Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Respondent, William R. Daniels, has been a farm labor contractor since 1949. Respondent retained the services of Edward J. Smith to assist him in fruit harvesting activities during the 1987 season. On February 18, 1988, Tommy L. Sumpter, a Compliance Officer employed by Petitioner, performed a compliance check on fruit harvesting activities located off 66th Avenue in Vero Beach, Florida. The compliance check by Sumpter revealed, that Edward J. Smith was supervising citrus workers on behalf of Respondent. Smith transported workers to the citrus field in Vero Beach in van owned by Respondent. Smith displayed his Federal Certificate of Registration which was valid through December 1988. Smith displayed his State Certificate which expired in December 1987. A confirmation check of Smith's Florida Certificate of Registration reveals that his certificate, in fact, expired on December 31, 1987. Smith registered at the Petitioner's Fort Pierce Job Service Office on February 23, 1988. Mr. Smith was cited for failing to register as required by section 450.30, Florida Statutes. Respondent submitted a verification of employment form which indicates that Smith was employed by him on October 15, 1987, and was paid $75.00 minus social security contributions, per truck load of citrus harvested by Smith's workers. By letter dated May 3, 1988, Respondent was issued the subject Administrative Complaint and notified that a civil money penalty was being assessed against him in the amount of $500.00 on the basis that he contracted for the employment of farm workers with a farm labor contractor before that contractor displayed a current certificate of registration issued by Petitioner. When Respondent retained the services of Smith, as a farm labor contractor, Smith's Florida Certificate of Registration was expired and he therefore could not have displayed a current certificate of registration to Respondent before he was employed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $500.00 civil penalty against Respondent payable within thirty days of the issuance of its final order, for contracting for the employment of farmworkers with a farm labor contractor before the farm labor contractor displayed to him a current certificate of registration issued by Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 117, Montgomery Building 590 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 William R. Daniel 227 Sterrett Circle Port St. Lucie, Florida 33395 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
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 in this case is whether Petitioner, Greg Davenport Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Container Grown, is entitled to payment from an Agricultural Bond issued to Respondent, A.W. Kelley’s Gardens, Inc., and, if so, the amount owed to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed producer of an agricultural product: Nursery plants and flowers. Petitioner is duly incorporated by the State of Florida and is in good standing. Greg Davenport is listed as Director and President of the corporation in the Division of Corporations’ web-based records. Respondent is a duly incorporated Florida corporation. Its business address is 6901 Hendry Creek Drive, Ft. Myers, Florida. The directors of the corporation are listed as Dixie Kelley, Drew Kelley, and Kent Kelley. Respondent is a plant retail business. Respondent has been a customer of Petitioner for many years, going back as far as 2006 according to evidence submitted at final hearing. During that time, Respondent has purchased approximately $91,000.00 worth of goods from Petitioner. (In its PRO, Respondent says the relationship goes back 25 years or more, but there was no sworn testimony to that effect.) During the period March 22 through May 24, 2012, Respondent ordered numerous items from Petitioner for which he was billed in accordance with standard practices. The following invoices provide the invoice number, date of invoice, and amount of purchase: Invoice 1399 - March 22, 2012 - $1,570.00 Invoice 1818 – March 27, 2012 - $2,105.00 Invoice 1391 – April 10, 2012 - $1,130.00 Invoice 1303 – April 25, 2012 - $ 850.00 Invoice 1419 – May 16, 2012 - $1,145.00 Invoice 1431 – May 24, 2012 - $1,175.00 TOTAL - $7,975.00 Petitioner contacted Respondent on numerous occasions to request payment on the outstanding invoices. Those efforts were in vain. At first, Respondent would make empty promises to pay, but ultimately just refused to accept Petitioner’s calls. Meanwhile, Respondent’s owner relocated to North Carolina, causing Petitioner to fear that payment may never be forthcoming. Respondent made some promises to make payments “whenever he could” to satisfy the debt. He said, however, that even if he could not pay, Petitioner should not attach his agriculture bond. Respondent’s failure to make any promised payments was the basis for Petitioner seeking payment by way of the bond. Respondent does not deny his failure to pay the outstanding invoices. He does not dispute that the products he received were of acceptable quality. He does, in fact, admit his indebtedness to Petitioner. Respondent does not feel his bond should be attached for payment of this debt. He cites, as reasons, that: 1) his business suffered during the national financial crisis; 2) there was some embezzlement going on in his business that affected his ability to pay obligees; 3) there is a related civil lawsuit underway in circuit court relating to the embezzlement; and 4) Davenport and Kelley have been friends for a long time and thus he should be allowed more time to pay the invoices. Respondent’s PRO sets forth other bases for why he believes it would be improper to attach his agriculture bond. However, none of those bases was addressed by sworn witnesses at final hearing and are thus not evidence in this case. Further, Respondent contends that two witnesses he subpoenaed but failed to show up for final hearing prejudiced his case. He did not prove, however, that either of the supposed witnesses had been properly served. Respondent’s PRO also sets forth facts not elicited through testimony or documentary evidence during final hearing. Respondent relies in part on various documents exchanged between the parties during discovery, but none of those were offered into evidence and thus are not part of the record. Respondent acquired a bond through Suretec Insurance Company. The amount of the bond was not disclosed at final hearing but, per statute, must be at least $5,000.00. The surety company was not represented at final hearing. No defense was raised by the surety company concerning Petitioner’s attempt to attach the bond. Petitioner is entitled to payment in the amount of $7,975.00 for the products it provided to Respondent. Besides the amount set forth above, Petitioner claims the sum of $100.00 paid for the filing of his two claims against Respondent’s bond. The total sum owed to Petitioner by Respondent is $8,075.00.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: Respondent shall pay to Petitioner, within 15 days of the entry of the Final Order, the sum of $8,075.00; If Respondent fails to timely make the aforementioned payment, the Department shall call upon Suretec Surety Company to pay over to the Department the full amount of Respondent’s bond; and The Department shall then turn the proceeds of the bond over to Petitioner to satisfy the debt that has been established. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 26th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, M-38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Michael Cronin SureTec Insurance Company Suite 320 9737 Great Hills Trail Austin, Texas 78759 Greg Davenport Greg Davenport Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Container Grown 613 Corbel Drive Naples, Florida 34110-1106 Kent O. Kelley A. W. Kelley’s Gardens Inc. 6901 Hendry Creek Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Lorena Holley, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Adam Putnam Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral testimony and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioners were producers of agricultural products in the State of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1983). At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent GMS was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1983), issued license no. 936 by the Department and bonded by Commercial Union Insurance Company (Commercial) in the sum of $50,000.00 - Bond No. CZ 7117346. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Commercial was authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The complaint filed by Petitioner was timely filed in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes (1983). Prior to Petitioners selling or delivering any watermelons (melons) to Respondent GMS, Petitioners and Respondent GMS entered into a verbal contract whereby: (a) Petitioners would harvest and load their melons on trucks furnished by Respondent GMS at Petitioners' farm; (b) the loading, grading and inspection, if any, was to be supervised by, and the responsibility of Respondent GMS or its agent; (c) the melons were to be U.S. No. 1 grade; (d) the melons were purchased F.O.B. Petitioner's farm subject to acceptance by Respondent GMS, with title and risk of loss passing to Respondent GMS at point of shipment (See Transcript Page 95 lines 5-7); (e) the price was left open subject to Petitioners being paid the market price for the melons at place of shipment on the day of shipment as determined by Respondent GMS less one (1) or two (2) cent sales charge, depending on the price; and requiring Respondent GMS to notify Petitioners on a daily basis of that price and; (f) the settlement was to be made by Respondent GMS within a reasonable time after the sale of the melons by Respondent GMS. Respondent GMS was not acting as Petitioners agent in the sale of the melons for the account of the Petitioners on a net return basis nor was it acting as a negotiating broker between the Petitioners and the buyers. Respondent GMS did not make the type of accounting to Petitioners as required by Section 604.22, Florida Statutes had it been their agent. Although Respondent GMS purchased over twenty (20) loads of melons from the Petitioners, there are only ten (10) loads of melons in dispute and they are represented by track report numbers 536 dated April 29, 1985, 534 dated April 30, 1985, 2363 and 537, dated May 1, 1985, 2379, 2386 and 538 dated May 2, 1985, and 2385, 2412 and 2387 dated May 3, 1985. Jennings W. Starling (Starling) was the agent of Respondent GMS responsible for loading; grading- inspecting and accepting and approving the loads of melons for shipment that Respondent GMS was purchasing from Petitioners during the 1985 melon season. Petitioners and Starling were both aware that some of the melons had hollow hearth a conditions if known, would cause the melons to be rejected. Aware of this condition in the melons, Starling allowed Petitioners to load the melons on the truck furnished by Respondent GMS. Starling rejected from 20 percent to 40 percent of the melons harvested and brought in from Petitioners' fields before accepting and approving a load for shipment. Starling accepted and approved for shipment all ten (10) of the disputed loads of melons. On a daily basis, Robert E. McDaniel, Sr., one of the Petitioners, would contact the office of Respondent GMS in Lakeland Florida to obtain the price being paid that day by Respondent GMS to Petitioners but was not always successful, however, he would within a day or two obtain the price for a particular day. Robert E. McDaniel did obtain the price to be paid by Respondent GMS for the ten (10) disputed loads and informed his son Robert E. McDaniel, Jr. of those prices. The prices quoted to Robert E. McDaniel, Sr. by Respondent GMS on the ten (10) disputed loads were 12 cents, 10 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 7 cents, 7 cents, and 7 cents on tract reports number 536, 534, 2363, 537, 2379, 2386, 538, 2385, 2412 and 2387, respectively. No written record of their prices was produced at the hearing but the testimony of Robert E. McDaniel Sr. concerning these prices was the most credible evidence presented. After the melons were shipped, sometimes as much as one week after, a track report was given to Robert E. McDaniel Jr. by Starling for initialing. Sometimes a price would be indicated on the track report but this price was based on selling price at point of destination and not the market price at point of shipment. Also, the letters "H.H." would also appear on the track report which, according to the testimony of Starling, indicated hollow heart but the evidence was insufficient to prove that Starling had rejected these loads for shipment because of a hollow heart condition in the melons. The loads in question were paid for by Respondent GMS based on a price at point of destination under its drafts no. 831912 and 851311. The amount in dispute is as follows: DATE TRACK NET AMOUNT AMOUNT SHIPPED
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent GMS be ordered to pay to the Petitioners the sum of $11.212.31. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent GMS fails to timely pay the Petitioners as ordered, then Respondent Commercial be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983) and that the Department reimburse the Petitioners in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 13th day of June, 1986.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., and its surety, Western Surety Company, are liable for funds due to Petitioner from the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Petitioner operates a nursery supply company that produces trees, plants, and other landscaping supplies at a location in Bunnell, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. At the time of the transactions in question, Respondent was a licensed dealer in agricultural products supported by a surety bond provided by Western Surety Company. This matter arose over a Producer Complaint filed by Petitioner on June 24, 2005, in which it alleged that Respondent owed $20,512.97, based upon five invoices for nursery goods delivered to various job sites where Respondent was providing landscaping services. The five invoices set forth in the original Producer Complaint are as follows: Date of Sale Invoice # Amount Dec. 28, 2004 64679 $2,884.72 Jan. 11, 2005 64828 3,878.75 Jan. 11, 2005 64829 1,926.00 Feb. 1, 2005 65229 2,086.50 Feb. 3, 2005 65127 9,737.00 Petitioner later amended its Complaint to withdraw its claims under Invoice Nos. 65229 and 65127, as untimely filed, resulting in an amended amount due of $8,689.47. Respondent filed a Response to the Producer Complaint on August 15, 2005, admitting the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828, totaling $6,763.47, and denying the amount claimed in Invoice No. 64829, $1,926.00, as never having been filled, resulting in Respondent's using another vendor to fill the order. Respondent admitted the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828; therefore, no further discussion is necessary for those items, except to note that Delivery Receipt No. 17751, relating to Invoice No. 64828 contains the note "Reject 1 Live Oak." Therefore, the amount of Invoice No. 64828 must be reduced by $214.00 ($200 for the tree and 7 percent Florida Sales Tax). With respect to Invoice No. 64829, however, Petitioner produced at hearing only an unsigned invoice without either a sales order or a receipt for delivery of goods, as was its custom concerning deliveries of nursery goods. Accordingly, Petitioner provided no proof that the order under Invoice No. 64829 was actually delivered to Respondent. Respondent and its surety, Western Surety Company, currently owe Petitioner $2,884.72 under Invoice No. 64679, and $3,664.75 under Invoice No. 64828, for a total amount owed of $6,549.47.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., or its surety, Respondent, Western Surety Company, to pay Petitioner $6,549.47 for unpaid invoices. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 25th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Marketing 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Joseph Robbins, Jr. Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc. 11025 Southeast Highway 42 Summerfield, Florida 34491 Tom Snyder Western Surety Company Post Office Box 5077 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117-5077 Donald M. DuMond Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 2970 Hartley Road, Suite 302 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Tom Robinson Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 13000 State Road 11 Bunnell, Florida 32110 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, 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
Findings Of Fact From before January 1, 1974, until the time of the final hearing in this matter, petitioner owned a DC-6 airplane, During the calendar year 1974, this airplane was leased to Surinam Air Cargo for approximately a half dozen flights. Petitioner's employees, Messrs. Goodman, Davis and Williams, crewed the airplane back and forth between Miami and Surinam, in accordance with the unwritten agreement between petitioner and Surinam Air Cargo. On some or all of these flights, petitioner transported its own goods as well as Surinam Air Cargo's. The parties stipulated that the purchases listed in schedule B attached to joint exhibit No. 1 were made for the flights back and forth to Surinam. In September of 1975, petitioner entered into agreements with Paul H. Jones & Co., Inc., to lease the DC-6 for approximately four flights, some of which were agreed upon orally; the others were the subject of written agreements. All of the agreements contemplated that petitioner would furnish the airplane crew and petitioner's employees, Messrs. Goodman, Davis and Wright, did in fact operate the DC-6 while it was leased to Paul H. Jones & Co., Inc. Miami International Hatcheries, Inc. (MIH) deals in hatching eggs. CWT Farms of Gainesville, Georgia, is a principal supplier of eggs to MIH and has been for some time. Until the fall of 1975, MIH regularly shipped eggs it received from CWT Farms to Kingston, Jamaica, using the facilities of Pan American Airways or Air Jamaica, which are common carriers. On October 13, 1975, however, petitioner entered into a contract with CWT Farms, which was evidenced by two writings, joint exhibits Nos. 2 and 3. Joint exhibit No. 2 sets up a "proposed flight schedule every Monday and Thursday," requires petitioner "to arrange and pay for cargo insurance" and specifies the manner and amount of CWT Farms' payment to petitioner; payments (covering "all operational costs") vary with the weight of the cargo and are "due and payable at the completion of each flight." Joint exhibit No. 4 is a writing evidencing an extension of the original agreement to a date beyond December 31, 1976. Joint exhibit 3 contains, inter alia, a provision which recites "that the person responsible for the operational control of this aircraft during the term of this lease shall be CWT Farms." The provisions of joint exhibits Nos. 3 and 4 notwithstanding, there was from the beginning a clear understanding between Mr. Goodman, on behalf of petitioner, and Raymond H. Burch, on behalf of CWT Farms, that petitioner would hire the crew and that it was petitioner's "responsibility to take care of the crew and to fly the plane." Petitioner's exhibit No. 5, p. 12. Petitioner's employees, ordinarily Messrs. Goodman, Davis and Wright, did in fact fly the DC-6 twice a week from Miami to Kingston, Jamaica, and back. These employees looked for payment of their salaries to petitioner rather than to CWT Farms or to any predecessor lessee. Occasionally, petitioner transported to Jamaica goods belonging to firms other than CWT Farms, but petitioner did not transport its own cargo on the flights to Jamaica. In aviation jargon, a dry lease is an agreement, analogous to a bareboat charter in maritime law, under which the lessee of aircraft undertakes to furnish the crew and gasoline, takes responsibility for maintenance and pays a pro-rata fee for engine time. A wet lease, in contrast, is an agreement under which the lessor furnishes the crew and gasoline and takes responsibility for maintenance; there is no provision for engine time and no penalty for a failed engine. The Federal Aviation Administration imposes more stringent safety regulations on wet lessors of aircraft than on dry lessors. In February of 1977, the Federal Aviation Administration began an investigation of petitioner which resulted in the filing of a complaint against petitioner and others on April 15, 1977, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. United States of America v. Kimex, Inc., et al., No. 77-1267-CIV-JE. This proceeding eventuated in a stipulation of dismissal in which petitioner agreed to a civil penalty (partially suspended) of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) and admitted that, under the agreement with CWT Farms, it had "engaged in the carriage of property for compensation or hire in air commerce as a private carrier" and that the leases to CWT Farms "were 'wet leases'." During the period of the lease between petitioner and CWT Farms, MIH was normally in debt to CWT Farms because MIH did not pay in advance for the eggs it received from CWT Farms. At CWT Farms' behest, MIH paid petitioner moneys due petitioner from CWT Farms, in partial discharge of MIH's own obligations to CWT Farms. A practice developed under which MIH drew and delivered four checks to petitioner's employees before each flight, which, in the aggregate, constituted CWT Farms' payment to petitioner for the preceding flight. H. Goodman was the payee on one check, in the amount of one hundred seventy-five dollars ($175.00), C. Wright was the payee on one check in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00), R. Davis was the payee on one check, in the amount of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00). These checks also operated to discharge part of petitioner's salary obligations to these employees. Kimex, Inc. was the payee on the fourth check, the amount of which varied, depending on the weight of the cargo petitioner had transported on the previous flight. In calculating the amount of the fourth check, the amount CWT Farms owed petitioner was first computed, and four hundred fifty dollars ($450.00) was then subtracted. Before each flight, MIH delivered eggs in cases, which weighed fifty-two (52) pounds each, to a freight loading company at Miami International Airport. Because MIH kept track of the number of cases it delivered, it was a simple matter to compute CWT Farms' obligation to petitioner, as specified in the lease, viz., "16 per pound for the minimum weight of 26,000 pounds to 30,000 pounds and 15 per pound from 30,001 pounds to 32,000 pounds." Joint exhibit 2. From this figure was subtracted the sum of the checks drawn in favor of petitioner's employees. This procedure obtained until some time after December 31, 1976. By the time of the hearing, however, petitioner's employees were paid with weekly pay checks which petitioner itself drew in their favor; and petitioner received lease payment checks which were not reduced by four hundred fifty dollars ($450.00). Before the change to the practice in effect at the time of the hearing, MIH caused Internal Revenue Service Forms 1099 to be prepared to reflect the total MIH payments to petitioner's employees for each year involved. Petitioner prepared W-2 Forms to reflect the salary moneys it paid to its employees directly for each year involved.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent reduce its proposed assessment to four percent of the total dollar cost of the items listed on schedule B attached to the notice of proposed assessment, together with applicable penalties and interest, if any. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraphs one, two, four through thirteen, fifteen and sixteen of petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance. Paragraph three of petitioner's proposed findings of fact recites that petitioner's lease to Jones & Co. was oral whereas the evidence was that the agreements with Jones & Co. with respect to some of the flights were reduced to writing. Paragraph fourteen of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, assuming that "direction or control" is intended to mean responsibility or authority for navigation of the aircraft. Paragraph one of respondent's proposed findings of fact has been rejected as unsupported by or contrary to the evidence. Petitioner employs Messrs. Goodman, Davis and Wright, Miss Goodman and several mechanics. Mr. Goodman, Mr. Davis and Miss Goodman are petitioner's corporate officers. Petitioner's stockholders are Mr. Davis, Mr. and Mrs. Goodman. The evidence did not establish who petitioner's directors are. Although the evidence showed that petitioner owned a DC-6 airplane based in Miami, it was not proven that petitioner had no other assets. Paragraph two of respondent's proposed findings of fact has been adopted in substance, insofar as relevant, except that there was no evidence that petitioner was exporting its own goods on the flights made pursuant to its agreements with Paul H. Jones & Co. Paragraphs three, four, five and six of respondent's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance, insofar as relevant. The final paragraph of respondent's proposed findings of fact lacks support in the evidence. For a given flight, CWT Farms would owe petitioner at least the agreed price for shipping 26,000 pounds of eggs, regardless of how few eggs were in fact shipped. On a given flight, CWT Farms could ship up to 32,000 pounds, but, if CWT Farms shipped less, petitioner sometimes transported eggs for other firms. The semiweekly flight schedule was set by mutual agreement between petitioner and CWT Farms. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Norman S. Segall, Esquire Suite 607, 100 Biscayne Tower 100 North Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Michael A. Rubin, Esquire Suite 4-B 420 South Dixie Highway Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Mr. Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Robert J. Walsh and Company, Inc. has been in the business of selling agricultural products since 1962. It is a "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in s. 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1985). It is not a "producer" as defined in s. 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1985). Walsh's modus operandi which it has used for many years is to have its salesmen call on landscapers, nurseries and other customers for trees, plants and other agricultural products to determine their needs. These salesmen have the prices of products and their availability from producers and the salesmen take orders from these purchasers. This order is sent to the producer who delivers the product to the purchaser and sends Walsh a copy of the delivery ticket. Walsh bills the customer for the product delivered and the producer bills Walsh for the consumer-cost of the product less a 20-25 percent discount from which Walsh derives its profit from the sale. The producer relies solely on Walsh for payment for the product it produces and delivers to the customer. Walsh has no authority to sell the product at a price other than that set by the producer. In any event, the producer bills Walsh for the product delivered at the producer's established price less the discount it gives Walsh for acting as intermediary in the sale. If products are damaged in transit, the producer's driver will make any necessary adjustment with the customer or return the damaged plant for replacement by the producer. Walsh does not represent the grower if such a situation develops. Similarly, if the product is rejected by the purchaser for not meeting quality standards, that issue is resolved between the grower and the customer without input from Walsh. Whatever agreement is reached between the grower and the customer is reflected on the invoice signed by the customer and forwarded to Walsh who has the responsibility of collecting from the customer. The grower bills Walsh for the cost of the product less Walsh's commission. The sales forming the bases for the complaints filed by Walsh with Respondent involve sales to Paul Pent, d/b/a Paul Pent Landscape Company, Dean Pent and J & W Landscape. On January 31, 1985, Walsh sold Pent three laurel oaks grown by Stewart Tree Service for a total price of $467.46 including sales tax (Ex. 2). On March 27, 1985, Walsh sold various trees and plants grown by Goochland Nurseries to J & W Landscape for a total price of $403.98 (Ex. 3). On April 22, 1985, Walsh sold two live oaks grown by Stewart Tree Service to Pent Landscape Company for a total price of $336.00 (Ex. 4). On July 3, 1985, Walsh sold various plants grown by Goochland Nurseries to J & W Landscape for a total price of $564.96 (Ex. 5). On all of these sales the producers billed Walsh for the product and were paid by Walsh. Walsh billed the customers who did not pay and Walsh filed the complaints (Ex. 8, 9 and 10), denied by Respondent on grounds Walsh was not an agent or representative of the producers. In 1976, Petitioner filed a complaint against the bond of the Ernest Corporation, a licensed dealer in agricultural products and received $5,589.20 from Respondent who recovered from the bonding company. In the complaint Walsh alleged that it was agent for Southeast Growers, Inc., selling their nursery stock throughout Florida. Respondent's witnesses could not recall what additional evidence they saw to conclude that Walsh was, in fact, an agent for the producer. However, these witnesses all testified that had they then believed Walsh was solely responsible to the producer for payment for the products sold they would not have concluded Walsh was the agent or representative of the producer. The bond on which Petitioner is attempting to recover provides that if the principal "shall faithfully and truly account for and make payment to producers, their agents or representatives, as required by Sections 604.15 - 604.30, Florida Statutes, that this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect." (Ex. 11 and 12)
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of these proceedings. Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1985) provides in pertinent part: Any person claiming himself to be damaged by any breach of the conditions of a bond or certificate of deposit, assignment or agreement given by a licensed dealer in agricultural products as herein before provided may enter complaints thereof against the dealer and against the surety, if any, to the department, which complaint shall be a written statement of the facts constituting the complaint. Section 604.15(1) , Florida Statutes (1985) provides: "Dealers in agricultural products" means any person, whether itinerant or domiciled within this state, engaged within this state in the business of purchasing, receiving, or soliciting agricultural products from the producer or his agent or representative for resale or processing for sale; acting as an agent for such producer in the sale of agricultural products for the account of the producer on a net return basis; or acting as a negotiating broker between the producer or his agent or representative and the buyer. (emphasis supplied) One of the complexities of this case which leads to some confusion is the fact that both Pent and Walsh were dealers in agricultural products as above defined. Walsh fits into the category of a person claiming himself to be damaged by a breach of any condition of the bond of Pent. However, he has the burden of showing that he is a person covered by the bond. According to the terms of the bond, coverage is provided only for "producers, their agents or representatives." Walsh is clearly not a producer in this case but claims coverage as an agent or representative. In construing "agent" or "representative" the legislative intent should be considered. The purpose of these provisions of the statute requiring licensing and bonding of dealers in agricultural products, as expressed in Section 604.151, Florida Statutes, is to protect producers from economic harm. Economic harm sustained by an agent or representative is imputed back to the principals, which in this case are the producers. An agency may be defined as a contract either expressed or implied upon a consideration, or a gratuitous undertaking, by which one of the parties confides to the other the management of some business to be transacted in the former's name or on his account, and by which the latter assumes to do the business and render an account of it. 2 Fl. Jur. 2d "Agency," Section 1. Here, Walsh was selling agricultural products on its own account, which products it was purchasing from the producers. The producer sold its product to Walsh and delivered it to the address Walsh indicated. The customer receipted for the product and the producer billed Walsh for the total cost, including transportation, to the ultimate buyer, less the 20-25 percent commission Walsh received. Walsh paid the producer and billed the customer. Whether or not Walsh collected from the customer had no bearing on the debt Walsh owed the producer for the product. It could be said that the producer was the agent for Walsh in delivering the product to the user. Even though Walsh never had actual possession of the product the sale to Walsh was complete when the producer delivered the product to the user. The entire transaction clearly is a buy-and-sell operation by Walsh and not Walsh acting as an agent for the producer. The fact that Walsh sells the producer's product does not make Walsh the agent or representative of the producer, when the producer holds only Walsh responsible to pay for the product. Nor was Walsh a representative of the producers. Representative is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977 Ed.) as: "standing or acting for another esp. through delegated authority." Walsh had no delegation of authority to act for the producer. Walsh had no authority to modify the price, settle disputes, or any other function normally performed by a representative. The above interpretation of those having standing to file a complaint against a dealer in agricultural products is the same interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions that is made by Respondent. As stated in Natelson v. Dept. of Insurance, 454 So.2d 31 (Fl 1st DCA 1984): Agencies are afforded a wide discretion in the interpretation of a statute which it [sic] administers and will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous. The reviewing court will defer to any interpretation within the range of possible interpretations. (citations omitted). This interpretation limiting recovery on an agricultural bond to producers and their agents or representatives is certainly within the range of possible interpretations, especially considering the purpose of these statutory provisions to be the protection of the economic well being of the producer. From the foregoing, it is concluded that Robert J. Walsh & Company, Inc. was not the agent or representative of Goochland Nurseries and Stewart Tree Service and does not have standing to file a complaint against Dean Pent, d/b/a Pent Landscape Company, and Paul Pent, d/b/a Paul Pent Landscape Company, and their surety, Transamerica Insurance Company.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the petition as contained in Petitioner's letter dated March 24, 1986. ENTERED this 14th day of July 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 14th day of July 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas M. Egan, Esquire Phillip Kuhn, Esquire Post Office Box 7323 Winter Haven, Florida 33883 Ronnie H. Weaver, Esquire Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joe W. Right Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondents are indebted to Petitioner for 35 boxes of beans sold by Petitioner to Respondent, Weis-Buy Services, Inc., and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Weis-Buy Services, Inc., is a dealer in agricultural products licensed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Respondent, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company of Maryland acts as surety for Weis-Buy. On January 5, 1995, Mark A. Underwood, Vice President of the Petitioner, sold to Respondent, Weis-Buy Services, Inc., 35 boxes of beans. This sale was the result of the order placed by Hank Douglas, a duly authorized employee of Weis-Buy. The price agreed to by the Petitioner and Weis-Buy was $28.55 per box, for a total purchase price of $999.25. The beans sold by Petitioner to Weis-Buy had been purchased by Petitioner from another grower, Suncoast Farms. There was no written contract between Petitioner and Suncoast or between Petitioner and Weis-Buy. Weis-Buy took delivery of the beans at Petitioner's dock in Homestead, Florida, on January 5, 1995. The beans were loaded into a refrigerated truck in the employ of Weis- Buy on January 5, 1995. From Homestead, the truck drove to Belle Glade, Florida, a trip of approximately 3.5 hours. In Belle Glade, the truck picked up a load of radishes. The truck then went to Immokalee, Florida, where it picked up a quantity of squash. The following day, the truck picked up a load of cherry tomatoes. On January 9, 1995, the beans were inspected by a federal inspector in Columbus, Ohio. 1/ The inspector noted on his inspection report that the beans showed evidence of freeze damage that was ". . . so located as to indicate freezing injury occurred after packing but not at present location". The inspection report noted that the beans were to be dumped. The parties disagree as to when the freeze damage to the beans occurred. Because Weis-Buy believes that the freeze damage occurred before it took delivery of the beans, it has refused to pay Petitioner for the 35 boxes of beans. The reason Weis-Buy believes that the freeze damage occurred before the beans were loaded onto the truck is because the other vegetables that were transported by the refrigerated truck were not damaged. Partly because the beans had been purchased from another grower, Mr. Underwood inspected the beans immediately prior to their being loaded onto Weis- Buy's truck. Based on his testimony, it is found that there was no freeze damage to the beans when they were loaded on Weis-Buy's truck on January 5, 1995. It is found that the freeze damage to the beans revealed by the federal inspection on January 9, 1995, occurred after the beans had been delivered to Weis-Buy. Consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner fulfilled its obligations under the verbal contract and is entitled to be paid the sum of $999.25.
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 that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions contained herein, that finds Respondent Weis-Buy Services, Inc., is indebted to Petitioners in the amount of $999.25, directs Weis-Buy Services, Inc., to make payment to Petitioner in the amount of $999.25 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, and provides that if payment in full of this $999.25 indebtedness is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company of Maryland, as Weis-Buy's surety. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 16th day of February 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, H.P. Sod, Inc., is entitled to payment from an Agricultural Bond issued to Respondent, PLS Landscape Services, Inc., and, if so, the amount owed to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed producer of an agricultural product, i.e., sod. Petitioner is a duly incorporated for-profit corporation in the State of Florida and is in good standing. Horacio Pereira is the putative owner of the company, referring to himself at final hearing as “the boss, the guy who tells people what to do.” Respondent is a duly incorporated Florida corporation. Its business address is 6132 Snook Court, Port St. Lucie, Florida. The only officer or director of the corporation is George J. Kijewski. Respondent is a landscaping business. From the period July 23, 2012, through October 16, 2012, Respondent purchased quantities of Bahia sod from Petitioner on numerous occasions. The dates of purchase, quantity of sod purchased, and ticket numbers for each purchase are as follows: 23 – Ticket 36930 – 10 pallets 23 - Ticket 36983 – 16 pallets 30 – Ticket 37185 – 10 pallets 1 – Ticket 36818 – 16 pallets 1 – Ticket 37276 – 16 pallets 1 – Ticket 37283 – 16 pallets 6 – Ticket 36872 – 16 pallets 8 – Ticket 37319 – 16 pallets July July July August August August August August August 10 – Ticket 37339 – 16 pallets September 4 – Ticket 37727 – 16 pallets October 15 – Ticket 38712 – 16 pallets October 16 – Ticket 38720 – 16 pallets Petitioner issued the following invoices to Respondent concerning the aforementioned purchases of Bahia sod: Invoice 6615 – July 26 – Tickets 36930, 36983 $620.20 Invoice 6640 – August 2 – Tickets 36818, 37185, 37276, 37283 - $1,420.96 Invoice 6671 – August 16 – Tickets 36872, 37319, 37339 - $1,104.24 Invoice 6735 – September 6 – Ticket 37727 - $445.12 Invoice 6875 – October 18 – Tickets 38712, 38720 - $890.24 TOTAL - $4,481.11 Respondent did not remit payments on any of the aforementioned invoices. Respondent contends that some of the sod which it purchased from Petitioner was of inferior quality or was in less quantity than ordered. Specifically, Respondent said some of the sod was wet and fell apart when being installed. He also said the wet sod resulted in some pallets containing 370 to 390 square feet of sod rather than the 400 feet that is standard on a pallet. Respondent’s testimony was general in nature, not specific to any particular shipment, and flies in the face of his on-going purchases of sod from Petitioner. Further, there was no credible evidence presented at final hearing that Respondent ever complained to Petitioner about the quality or quantity of the sod. Had he done so, Petitioner said it would have corrected the problem. Respondent did reportedly tell one of his drivers, Mr. Calloway, on occasion that the sod was wet or otherwise not up to par. However, that complaint was never provided to Petitioner so that action could be taken. Respondent acquired a bond in the sum of $5,000.00 through TD Bank, N.A. (also referred to in this matter as United States Corporation Company, as Surety). The bank was not represented at the final hearing held in this matter. No defense was raised by the bank concerning Petitioner’s attempt to attach the bond. Petitioner paid a fee of $50.00 to the Department of Agriculture to bring this action. Petitioner hired an attorney to represent its interest in this matter. The attorney charged $175.00 per hour and, as of the date of the final hearing, had billed approximately five hours of time or $875.00 in fees. Subsequent to the final hearing, the attorney submitted a post-hearing proposed order on behalf of Petitioner. The attorney expended $180.00 in costs for service of a subpoena and witness fees. The total sum demanded by Petitioner in its action against Respondent is $5,586.11. Respondent’s PRO filed in this matter asserts a number of “facts” which were not established by competent testimony at the final hearing. Those facts were not considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as follows: Respondent shall pay to Petitioner, within 15 days of the entry of the Final Order, the sum of $5,586.11; or If Respondent fails to timely make the aforementioned payment, the Department shall call upon TD Bank, N.A., to pay over to the Department the full amount of Respondent’s bond; and The Department shall then turn the entire proceeds of the bond over to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2013, 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 8th day of March, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Landtech Services, Inc., is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $1,347.07 for the purchase of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Holmberg Farms, Inc., is a producer of agricultural products located in Lithia, Florida. Respondent, Landtech Services, Inc. (Landtech), is an agricultural dealer located in Largo, Florida. Respondent, Western Surety Company, is a surety and issued to Respondent, Landtech, a surety bond for the purchase of agricultural products in Florida. On or about April 9, 1993, Respondent, Landtech, purchased from Petitioner, on invoice number T7284, eleven hundred and ten (1,110) six inch honeysuckle ornamental plants for the price of $1,950.55. The terms of the sale between Petitioner and Respondent, Landtech, were C.O.D. at the time of delivery. However, Petitioner's truck driver was unaware of the terms of the sale and therefore, did not collect full payment at the time he delivered the plants to Landtech. Respondent, Landtech, paid Petitioner's driver the sum of $400.00 toward the purchase of the honeysuckle plants leaving a balance due of $1,550.55. On August 20, 1993, Respondent, Landtech, paid to Petitioner the payment of $250.00 of which $203.48 was applied to the balance and $46.50 was applied to interest owed. Petitioner, now claims the balance of $1,347.07. Respondent, Landtech, is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $1,347.07 as claimed in its complaint. As noted, Respondents, Landtech and Western Surety, did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise refute the allegations in the statement of claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Agriculture issue its final order requiring that Respondent, Landtech Services, Inc., pay to Petitioner, Holmberg Farms, Inc., the amount of $1347,07, within fifteen (15) days of its Final Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent, Landtech, fail to timely remit payment to Petitioner, the Department shall call upon the surety to pay over to the Department, from funds out of the surety certificate, the amount called for in this order. 2/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 March, 1995.
