Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the holder of Oyster Leases NO. 892 and 893. The annual rent for both leases was paid on December 16, 1988, and both leases are currently in full force and effect. No formal action has been brought by DNR to revoke these oyster leases. In July 1988, Petitioner filed a valid and adequate application for a special activity license to use mechanical harvesting implements on these leases. Petitioner furnished a bond payable to the Governor of the State of Florida and approved by DNR in the sum of $3,000.00 at the time he filed his special activity license application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Natural Resources enter a Final Order and therein grant the application of Harley L. Vause for a special activity license to use mechanical harvesting implements on Oyster Leases NO. 892 and 893. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold A. McLean Deputy General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Suite 1003 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Lynn C. Higby Attorney at Law Bryant, Higby & Williams Post Office Drawer 860 Panama City, FL 32402-0860 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-5988 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Harley L. Vause Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(3) and 2(4). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Natural Resources The only finding of fact proposed by DNR is rejected as being irrelevant and unsupported by the competent evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold A. McLean Deputy General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Suite 1003 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Lynn C. Higby Attorney at Law Bryant, Higby & Williams Post Office Drawer 860 Panama City, FL 32402-0860 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated sections 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(1)(o), and 489.1425, Florida Statutes (2007 & 2009),1/ and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the administrative complaints, Mr. Organo was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CGC 1512005. At all times material to the administrative complaints, Mr. Organo was the primary qualifying agent for Bennett Marine Contracting and Construction, Inc. (Bennett Marine). On or about September 29, 2007, Jean Walker (Ms. Walker) entered into a contract with Bennett Marine to construct a dock and a tiki hut at 12305 Boat Shell Drive. The contract (the Walker contract) provided that the contractor would make application for a permit from Lee County, Florida. Mr. Organo signed the Walker contract for Bennett Marine. It is undisputed that the Walker contract did not include a written statement explaining Ms. Walker's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund. On October 24, 2007, Bennett Marine applied for a permit to construct the dock. The application was denied October 29, 2007, because the site plan contained the tiki hut. When the tiki hut was removed from the application, the dock permit was approved. Ms. Walker paid Bennett Marine draws on the construction project. The payments were given to Mr. Organo. The payments totaled $9,200. By February 2008, a tiki hut had been constructed on Ms. Walker's property without a permit. Because the tiki hut was built without a permit, and it was in an illegal location, Lee County required that the tiki hut be removed. By April 2008, the tiki hut had been removed, and another tiki hut had been built in its place. Again, no permit was pulled for the tiki hut, and it was placed in an illegal location. Again, Lee County required that the tiki hut be removed. Mr. Organo subcontracted the construction of the tiki hut to Rick Fewell Chickees. Mr. Fewell of Rick Fewell Chickees, a Seminole Indian,2/ applied for a permit to build a tiki hut, but the application was rejected because the plot plan was not to scale, and the tiki hut did not meet the setback requirements from the water. Another tiki hut was built, and, in March 2009, Lee County again cited Ms. Walker for not having a permit for the tiki hut and for not meeting the setback requirements. In 2010, a permit was finally issued for the construction of a tiki hut on Ms. Walker's property. The permit was issued to Ms. Walker. Bennett Marine commenced work on the tiki hut without obtaining a building permit. On January 5, 2010, Bennett Marine entered into a contract with Chris Bevan (Mr. Bevan) to remove an existing dock, uninstall an existing boatlift, construct a dock, construct a tiki hut, and to reinstall the boatlift. The contract (the Bevan contract) required that the contractor obtain a City of Cape Coral building permit. The Bevan contract was signed by Mr. Organo for Bennett Marine. It is undisputed that the Bevan contract did not contain a written statement explaining Mr. Bevan's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund. On March 17, 2010, Bennett Marine showed up on Mr. Bevan's property and commenced work, by knocking down a cantilever dock that was hanging over a seawall, removing old decking from the boatlift, and rough-framing part of the new dock. Bennett Marine worked until approximately March 25, 2010. That was the last that Mr. Bevan heard from Mr. Organo or Bennett Marine. Mr. Organo applied for a building permit for the Bevan contract on April 1, 2010. The permit was approved on April 13, 2010, but it was not issued. On May 14, 2010, the City of Cape Coral placed a stop-work order on the Bevan project. Mr. Bevan applied for an owner-builder permit for the dock construction, and the permit was issued on June 9, 2010. Mr. Bevan completed the dock construction at additional expense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Organo violated sections 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(o), and 489.1425; imposing a fine of $250 each for the Walker contract and the Bevan contract for a total of $500, for failure to advise the owners of the recovery fund; imposing a fine of $3,000 and placing Mr. Organo on probation for two years for beginning work without a permit for the Walker contract; and imposing a fine of $1,000 and placing Mr. Organo on probation for one year for beginning work on the Bevan contract without a permit with the one-year probation to run concurrently with the probation imposed for the Walker contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 13th day of April, 2011.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Coconut Cove Resort and Marina, Inc., failed to comply with the requirements of Sections 440.10, 440.107, and 440.38, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate amount of penalty which should be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Coconut Cove Resort and Marina, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Coconut Cove”), is a Florida corporation, which at the times relevant operated a small hotel/resort located in Islamorada, Florida. On November 4, 2008, a complaint was received by the Bureau of Compliance Office of the Division of Workers’ Compensation located in Miami, Florida, requesting a determination of whether Coconut Cove was in compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation coverage requirements. The complaint was referred to Xotchilth Valdivia, a Department investigator, for investigation. After performing an in-office audit of the Department’s databases and finding no evidence that Coconut Cove had secured workers’ compensation coverage or had obtained exemptions from Florida workers’ compensation laws, Ms. Valdivia traveled to Coconut Cove’s location on November 6, 2008. Upon arriving at Coconut Cove’s location, Ms. Valdivia spoke with a woman by the named Comeau, who was manning the front desk of the resort. Ms. Valdivia asked to speak with Mr. Bates, but was informed that Mr. Bates, a commercial airline pilot, was away. Ms. Comeau, however, told Ms. Valdivia that Mr. Bates’ wife, Magda was available. While waiting for Ms. Bates to arrive, Ms. Valdivia observed four individuals who appeared to be performing work for the resort, in addition to Ms. Comeau, who was manning the front desk: a male who was working around the swimming pool, and two women who appeared to be maids with cleaning mops. When Ms. Bates arrived, Ms. Valdivia identified herself and the purpose of her visit. During the course of her discussion with Ms. Bates, Ms. Bates identified 18 individuals as employees of Coconut Cove by name and occupation. The 18 individuals included Mr. and Ms. Bates, both officers of Coconut Cove. While indicating that she knew nothing about Florida workers’ compensation requirements, Ms. Bates also stated that Coconut Cove did not have workers’ compensation coverage. Finding that Coconut Cove had four employees as of November 6, 2008, and no workers’ compensation coverage, conclusions not disputed by Ms. Bates, Ms. Valdivia issued Stop- Work Order No. 08-326-D5 and served it on Ms. Bates. A Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (hereinafter referred to as the “Request for Records”), was also served on Ms. Bates. The Request for Records sought payroll records for the three-year period preceding the date of the issuance of the Stop-Work Order. Ms. Valdivia explained the reason why the Stop-Work Order was being issued and the purpose of the Request for Records. She also explained that the business records would be utilized in calculating any penalty owed by Coconut Cove for failing to carry workers’ compensation coverage. Although Coconut Cove attempted to prove that Ms. Valdivia acted arbitrary in her actions to this point, the evidence proved the contrary. Ms. Valdivia acted reasonably, appropriately, and had good cause for the actions taken. In response to the Request for Records, Ms. Bates telephoned the accountant for Coconut Cove and requested that he provide the payroll information being sought by the Department. Almost all that information was immediately faxed to Ms. Bates, who then provided a copy to Ms. Valdivia. The documentation consisted of a payroll report for Coconut Cove for the period January 1, 2008, to November 6, 2008, UCT-6 reports filed by Coconut Cove with the Florida Department of Revenue for the fourth quarter of 2005 through the third quarter of 2008. (Petitioner’s Exhibits 4B, 4E, 4F, and 4G.) Based upon the information contained in the UCT-6 reports provided by Coconut Cove to the Department, the names of employees and the gross income paid to them by Coconut Cove was reported by Coconut Cove to the Department of Revenue. Those reports indicate that Coconut Cove employed four or more individuals each month from October 2005 through September 2008. Subsequently, Coconut Cove provided additional payroll information to the Department concerning payroll for the periods of November 7, 2005, through December 31, 2005, and November 1, 2008, through November 6, 2008. Again, the documents, which were provided by Coconut Cove, indicate that it had employed four or more individuals during the periods of time covered by these documents. The Request for Records included a request for time sheets, check stubs, and check ledgers for the period of time at issue, November 7, 2005, to November 6, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Audit Period”). None of these documents were provided to the Department or at hearing. While Coconut Cove had a stack of documents at hearing which Mr. Bates referred to generally as time cards, those documents were not offered into evidence and no specific testimony concerning the vast majority of the documents was provided. Based upon the documentation provided by Coconut Cove to the Department, documentation which was offered and admitted at hearing, the Department proved clearly and convincingly that Coconut Cove employed four or more individuals during each month of the Audit Period. This finding excludes Mr. and Ms. Bates, who, although employees of Coconut Cove who had not obtained exemptions from coverage during the audit period, received no remuneration from Coconut Cove during the Audit Period. The documentation provided by Coconut Cove was provided to Russell Gray, an employee of the Department since 1986. Mr. Gray reviewed all the payroll information provided by Coconut Cove to Ms. Valdivia, transferred the payroll information to spread sheets, and proceeded to calculate the penalty imposed pursuant to statutes and rules for Coconut Cove’s failure to comply with the insurance coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The manner in which Mr. Gray calculated the penalty is more specifically and accurately described in the Department’s proposed findings of fact numbered 21 through 25 and 27, which are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Mr. Gray determined that the penalty to be assessed against Coconut Cove was $27,897.58. An Amended Order of Penalty Assessment for the penalty was issued December 3, 2008, and served on Coconut Cove by certified mail on December 4, 2008. Subsequently, Mr. Gray concluded that his penalty calculation was incorrect to the extent that he had included gross income in the amount of $1,316.65 to an employee named Gerald Elmore. This figure was the income of another employee and not income attributable to Mr. Elmore. In order to correct his error, the Department filed a Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment on September 18, 2009, seeking to file a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, lowering the penalty assessment to $27,821.74. Despite objections to this amendment raised at hearing by Coconut Cove, the Motion to Amend was granted after hearing the impact of the change and the reason it was required. On December 15, 2008, Coconut Cove entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. The Department, therefore, issued a Conditional Release from Stop- Work Order, also dated December 15, 2008. Coconut Cove’s relevant defense to the foregoing consisted of the assertion by Mr. and Ms. Bates that they simply did not have more than three employees at anytime. It was asserted that employees listed on the documentation provided by Coconut Cove’s accountant to Ms. Bates and given by Ms. Bates to Ms. Valdivia, were actually employees of another entity owned by the Bates, Paul’s Beach Bar and Grill, Inc., which runs an on- site restaurant and catering service. The testimony of Mr. and Ms. Bates on this issue was not convincing and is rejected as unworthy. The testimony was uncertain as to time, short on specifics, and was contrary to the information reported on the payroll records and UCT-6s provided by Coconut Cove’s accountant. That testimony is also rejected because no explanation as to why the individuals had been listed as employees of Coconut Cove on the payroll records and UCT-6s if they were indeed employees of Paul’s Beach Bar and Grill, Inc. The Department proved clearly and convincingly, based upon documentation produced to it by Coconut Cove, that the individuals named on the penalty worksheet attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were employees of Coconut Cove during the Audit Period, that Coconut Cove paid those individuals the gross income included in the penalty worksheet, and that the calculation of the penalty assessment, as amended at hearing, was accurate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Coconut Cove Resort and Marina, Inc., failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees during the Audit Period, in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes; and Assessing a penalty against Coconut Cove Resort and Marina, Inc., in the amount of $27,821.74. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 30th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy L. Newhall, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Paul Bates Magda Bates 8401 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Tracey Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for disposition in this case is whether Respondent has implemented an agency statement that meets the definition of a rule, but which has not been adopted pursuant to section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) is charged with the management of state lands, including sovereign submerged lands. § 253.03(1), Fla. Stat. The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is charged with the duty to “perform all staff duties and functions related to the acquisition, administration, and disposition of state lands, title to which is or will be vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.” § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The City of Titusville operates a municipal marina, which includes a 205-slip docking facility for mooring of commercial and recreational vessels (Marina), on sovereignty submerged lands leased from the Board. Petitioner owns a Florida-registered vessel which he keeps at the Marina pursuant to an annual mooring/dockage agreement. On June 9, 2009, the City of Titusville and the Board entered into a “fee waived” lease renewal and modification for a parcel of sovereignty submerged land in the Indian River (Lease). The Lease allows the Marina to operate “with liveaboards as defined in paragraph 26, as shown and conditioned in Attachment A, and the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 05-287409-001, dated December 31, 2008, incorporated herein and made a part of this lease by reference.” Paragraph 26 of the Lease provides that: 26. LIVEABOARDS: The term “liveaboard” is defined as a vessel docked at the facility and inhabited by a person or persons for any five (5) consecutive days or a total of ten (10) days within a thirty (30) day period. If liveaboards are authorized by paragraph one (1) of this lease, in no event shall such “liveaboard” status exceed six (6) months within any twelve (12) month period, nor shall any such vessel constitute a legal or primary residence. On or about July 31, 2015, Petitioner and the City of Titusville entered into the annual contractual mooring/dockage agreement, paragraph 4 of which provides that: 4. LIVEABOARDS: For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “liveaboard” is defined herein as a vessel docked at the facility and inhabited by a person or persons for any five (5) consecutive days or a total of ten (10) days within a thirty (30) day period. Pursuant to requirements of the City’s Submerged Land Lease with the State of Florida, no vessel shall occupy the Marina in this “1iveaboard” status for more than six (6) months within any twelve (l2) month period, nor shall the Marina Facility constitute a legal or primary residence of the OWNER. Petitioner asserts that the alleged agency statement regarding “liveaboard” vessels “unreasonably and arbitrarily denies me the unrestricted right to stay on my vessel by limiting the number of consecutive days during which I may occupy the vessel,” and that “[t]he Board’s non-rule policy denies me the unrestricted freedom to enjoy my vessel as a second home.”
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated and agreed to the operative facts in their Pre- Hearing Stipulation and those agreed-on facts are adopted herein as Findings of Fact 1-26. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this dispute. Respondent denied Petitioner's requested permit in this case because the status of his leases was currently in question for possible failure to maintain the allegedly required level of cultivation. Respondent applied the provisions of Rule 46-27.0092 F.A.C. (1988) to Petitioner's request for a permit, which rule in fact was not adopted until October 1, 1986, and the pertinent provisions of which did not exist in fact until the rule was amended on July 7, 1988. Rule 46-27.0092 F.A.C. (1988) cites as its specific authority four provisions of Florida statute which did not exist when Petitioner's oyster leases were acquired by contract with the State of Florida. Rule 46-27.0092 F.A.C. (1988) implements laws which did not exist at the time Petitioner acquired his contract interest in these leases. The Department denied Petitioner's request for a permit in reliance on Section 370.06(4), Fla. Stat. (1987), a statute which did not exist at the time Petitioner acquired his interest in these oyster leases by contract. A report by Dr. Charles Rockwood and others commissioned by the Department of Natural Resources of F.S.U. found that "The local contention that dredging [for oysters in Apalachicola Bay] would be ecologically harmful to the Apalachicola oyster population given the relatively soft and muddy bottom, it would cause excess siltation and the oysters would smother and die, is a conclusion not supported by ecological information available to the project researchers." The Marine Fisheries Commission 15 years later arrived at the same conclusion stated in #7. "We do not believe there would be any environmental problem associated with the use of dredges." In Louisiana dredges are allowed to a maximum of 7 Ft. and up to 6 per vessel. Ron Ducas from Louisiana, one of the top shellfish biologist in the southeast, said that the use of dredges does not cause any environmental damage or [un]necessary [sic] damage to the oyster. The findings noted in #7, 8 and 9 were submitted by Mr. Nelson of the DNR and on behalf of Respondent to the governor and cabinet during the Marine Fisheries Commission agenda of the cabinet meeting on June 14, 1988. It was noted in a memorandum from the Office of the Governor to Sally Monroe from Billy Buzzett regarding Apalachicola Bay Oyster Dredging dated July 13, 1988, that the owner of lease numbers 525 and 609 appeared to be in compliance with the requirements of his leases and they were validly held leases from the State of Florida. Most of the currently leased [Apalachicola) bay bottom is not productive because of lack of oyster habitat. Annually, Apalachicola Bay is filled with oyster spawn (spat). The spat would naturally attach to oyster beds of oyster shell and culch if such beds were created where the bottom is now only mud. The owners of leases have the right to create oyster habitat on their leases and to hardest the oysters that may grow thereon. The cost of depositing oyster shell and culch materials on the mud bottom in adequate quantities to create a suitable habitat for spat is about $5,000.00 per acre. In recent years, approximately 90 percent of the oysters processed in Franklin County by shucking and canning have come from outside Florida, and only about 10 percent from Florida. The supply of oysters from outside of Florida is unstable largely due to water quality degradation in other states, as well as the loss of oyster habitat to development. The use of dredges could allow the holders of leases to harvest oysters from the leasehold more quickly and less expensively. The savings in money could then be used to create more oyster habitat. Except for potential illegal use of dredges [on public bars], misuse of dredges on lease holds (scooping of all oyster bar materials, without redeposit of the shell and culch), and fracture of thin shelled oysters on lease holds, there is no evidence that oyster dredges will cause biological or water quality problems in Apalachicola Bay. Those permitted to use dredges on private leases would have the economic incentive to use the dredges in a manner that does not destroy their financial investment in the leasehold. The foregoing facts represented by #l2 through 20, were all positions advanced by Respondent and the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission to defend the validity of Rule 46-27.0092 and were conclusively found by the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings in Franklin County, Seafood Workers Association, Royce Watson and Leroy Hall, Petitioners v. Department of Natural Resources, and Florida Marine Fisheries Commission, Respondents, in the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, Case NO. 87-4438R, 10 FALR 2190 (March 31, 1988) An oyster lease is, among other things, an interest in land. Petitioner is the owner of Oyster Lease Nos. 525 and 609 which were issued pursuant to Chapter 370.16(16)(b), Fla. Stat. (1953). The terms of the leases in question are perpetual and convey interest in parcels located in Apalachicola Bay in Franklin County, Florida. Petitioner applied for a permit to use implements or appliances on his leases on June 30, 1988. Petitioner issued its final order of denial on September 28, 1988. Respondent has not commenced any proceeding to revoke Petitioner's oyster leases. Additionally, the parties stipulated to the facts set forth as Findings of Fact 27-29 in their Stipulation filed February 9, 1989. Petitioner is the lessee of Oyster Leases Nos. 525 and 609, which constitute leased bedding ground. Petitioner has agreed to furnish a bond payable to the Governor of the State of Florida, to be approved by the Division of Marine Resources, in the sum of $3,000.00, that any implements or appliances as he may desire to use on his leased bedding ground shall not be used on the natural oyster reefs contrary to law. The attached form of bond [attached to the Stipulation] is acceptable to and approved by the parties for the above-stated purpose. The only conditions precedent to the issuance of a permit to a lessee to use on leased bedding ground any implements or appliances as he may desire are: 1) that the applicant for the permit be a lessee of an oyster lease, and 2) that he furnish a bond payable to the Governor of the State of Florida, to be approved by the Division of Marine Resources, in the sum of $3,000.00, that any implements or appliances as the lessee may desire to use on his leased bedding ground shall not be used on the natural oyster reefs contrary to law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Natural Resources enter a Final Order and therein grant the application of Olan B. Ward for a special activity license to use mechanical harvesting implements on Oyster Leases No. 525 and 609. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 20th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold A. McLean Deputy General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Suite 1003 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Frank J. Santry Attorney at Law Granger, Santry, Mitchell & Heath, P.A. Post Office Box 14129 (32317) Tallahassee, FL 32308 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Respondent, The Citrus Store, a citrus fruit dealer, owes Petitioner, Hutchinson Groves, Inc., a grower of Florida citrus products, a sum of money for citrus fruit harvested from Petitioner's groves. SUMMARY DISPOSITION On or about December 16, 2003, Petitioner, Hutchinson Groves, Inc., filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the "Department"), alleging that Respondent, The Citrus Store, owes Petitioner the sum of $27,117.59, for oranges harvested from Petitioner's groves by Respondent pursuant to a written contract. Respondent conceded that it owed some lesser amount to the owner of the groves in question. However, the matter was complicated by the fact that, subsequent to the execution of the contract with Respondent, Petitioner had sold those groves to a third party who also asserted a claim to the proceeds from the sale of the fruit to Respondent. The matter was the subject of litigation in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Highlands County (Case No. GC-02-587), which caused the Department to delay forwarding the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings until December 2, 2005. The case was assigned to the undersigned and set for hearing on February 2, 2006. The hearing was convened as scheduled. Prior to the taking of testimony, the parties discussed settlement of the matter. At the conclusion of their discussions, the parties stipulated: that the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties thereto pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2005); that, at all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was a "producer" pursuant to Subsection 601.03(29), Florida Statutes; that, at all times relevant to this proceeding, The Citrus Store was a "citrus fruit dealer" pursuant to Subsection 601.03(8), Florida Statutes; that Respondent owes Petitioner $27,117.59 for the oranges harvested from Petitioner's groves; and that no interest would be sought or assessed against Respondent on the principal amount owing to Petitioner. Based on the foregoing stipulations, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered requiring Respondent, The Citrus Store, to pay to Petitioner, Hutchinson Groves, Inc., the principal sum of $27,117.59, without interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Alves Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 87 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 William Hutchinson Hutchinson Groves, Inc. 1323 Edgewater Point Drive Sebring, Florida 33870 Clifford R. Rhoades, Esquire Clifford R. Rhoades, P.A. 227 North Ridgewood Drive Sebring, Florida 33870 Anthony W. Surber, Esquire Harbsmeier, DeZayas, Harden & DeBari, L.L.P. 5116 South Lakeland Drive Lakeland, Florida 33813 Chris Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Division of Marketing 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent, as a licensed citrus fruit dealer, breached the terms of an oral contract for the purchase of citrus fruit during the 1992-1993 shipping season, whether Respondent misappropriated certain other citrus fruit owned by Petitioner during the 1992-1993 shipping season, and further, whether such actions by Respondent constitute violations of the Florida Citrus Code for which the proceeds of the citrus fruit dealer's bond executed by Co-Respondent should be paid to Petitioner in satisfaction of Petitioner's claim pursuant to Section 601.66, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Riverfront Groves, Inc., is a corporation with an office in Vero Beach, Florida. At all material times, Petitioner was in the business of selling and marketing citrus fruit. At all material times, Daniel R. Richey was vice-president of Petitioner, in charge of the fresh fruit packing operation. Respondent, Bagaley Groves, is a business with an office in Vero Beach, Florida. At all material times, Respondent operated a citrus fruit gift shipping packinghouse. At all material times, Robert G. Bagaley was the owner of Respondent. Co-Respondent, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, is an insurance company, which was authorized to write surety bonds during the 1992-1993 citrus fruit shipping season. On December 10, 1992, Co-Respondent executed, as surety, Citrus Fruit Dealer's Bond No. 77-LP-007-245-0002, in the principal sum of $10,000.00, binding Co-Respondent as surety, to the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture. The terms and conditions of the bond were that Respondent, as the principal executing such bond, would comply with the provisions of the Florida Citrus Code during the 1992-1993 citrus fruit shipping season, and with the terms and conditions of all contracts relating to the purchase, handling, sale, and accounting of citrus fruit. Respondent held a valid citrus fruit dealer's license issued by the Department of Citrus for the 1991-1992 shipping season. On July 16, 1992, Respondent, by and through its owner Robert Bagaley, filed with the Department of Citrus an application for license as a citrus fruit dealer for the 1992-1993 shipping season. As indicated above, Respondent's bond required for licensure was not executed until December 10, 1992, and it was not until January 25, 1993, that Respondent was issued citrus fruit dealer's license No. 0269 for the 1992-1993 shipping season. The license is not specifically retroactive, and merely states that Respondent is ". . . granted a license to engage in the business of Citrus Fruit Dealer through July 31, 1993." At all material times Respondent, by and through its owner Robert Bagaley, held itself out as a licensed citrus fruit dealer in the state of Florida. In the fall of 1992, Respondent learned from a mutual friend, Henry Schacht, that Petitioner had navel oranges located in a grove in Indian River County, Florida, suitable for use in Respondent's fresh fruit packinghouse. In mid-November 1992, Petitioner, through its authorized representative Daniel R. Richey, and Respondent, through its owner Robert Bagaley, agreed that Respondent would purchase approximately 2,400 boxes of navel oranges from Petitioner at $7.00 per box. Respondent did not hold a valid license as a citrus fruit dealer in the state of Florida at the time this oral contract was entered into with Petitioner. Respondent harvested a total of 150 boxes of these navel oranges during the period of November 13 - 17, 1992, for which Respondent paid Petitioner the agreed upon price of $7.00 per box. This payment in the amount of $1,050.00 was made by check dated November 18, 1992. On December 3, 1992, Petitioner delivered a written contract to Respondent setting forth Petitioner's understanding of the terms of their agreement. The contract was executed by Petitioner. Respondent declined to sign the written contract, and the contract was returned to Petitioner on December 10, 1992. In early December 1992, Respondent learned from James Earl Brantley that some of the navel oranges in Petitioner's grove had green mold, a condition that would make the fruit unsuitable for fresh fruit packing. On December 10, 1992, Respondent repudiated the oral contract and notified Petitioner that Respondent could not use, and did not need, any more of Petitioner's navel oranges. Respondent did not inform Petitioner that some of the navel oranges had developed green mold, or that the navel oranges were otherwise not merchantable. At the time Respondent repudiated the oral contract, Respondent did not hold a valid license as a citrus fruit dealer in the state of Florida. By December 10, 1992, the marketing conditions for navel oranges were substantially deteriorating. From December 11 and 15, 1992, Petitioner harvested and processed the balance of the navel orange crop from the grove, some 2,785 boxes. Petitioner attempted to pack the oranges as fresh fruit. The packout ratio of these 2,785 boxes was approximately 18 percent, yielding Petitioner a net return of $78.01, ($129.38 return for 640 boxes picked December 11 and 12, 1992, and a loss of $51.37 on the remainder picked between December 12 and 15, 1992. Petitioner incurred a loss of $19,365.62, as result of Respondent's failure to pay the agreed upon contract price of $7.00 per box for the balance of the navel oranges. At the time Respondent (through Bagaley) notified Petitioner (through Richey) that Respondent did not intend to harvest the balance of the fruit, Petitioner informed Respondent that the remaining fruit would be harvested, that an accounting of the net proceeds for the remaining fruit would be made, and that the parties could then review the matter as to any outstanding indebtedness which might be due under the terms of the oral agreement. Respondent stated that a review after harvesting and accounting was acceptable. Within sixty days thereafter Petitioner (through Richey) received the accounting and met with Respondent (through Bagaley). At that time Respondent did not acknowledge the indebtedness, nor promise to pay the indebtedness to Petitioner. Subsequent to January 25, 1993, Respondent mistakenly picked red grapefruit from a grove owned by Petitioner, which was adjacent to a grapefruit block Respondent had purchased from a different owner. The parties agree that Respondent owes Petitioner $375.00 or $2.50 for 150 boxes of grapefruit picked from this grove. Respondent tendered a check to Petitioner in the amount of $375.00 for payment of the grapefruit; however, Petitioner declined to accept payment for the grapefruit pending resolution of Petitioner's claim for the navel oranges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department enter a Final Order adjudicating the amount of indebtedness owed Petitioner by Respondent in accordance with Section 601.66, Florida Statutes, is $375.00 for 150 boxes of grapefruit mistakenly harvested. It is further recommended that Petitioner's claim for damages resulting from the contract for navel oranges entered into prior to Respondent's licensure as a citrus fruit dealer during the 1992-1993 shipping season be dismissed. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of August, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX As to Petitioner's Proposed Findings: 1-9. Adopted and incorporated. Adopted, except to the extent that Respondent's repudiation of the contract was solely related to market conditions. Adopted except as to Respondent's promise to pay subsequent to January 25, 1993. 12-14. These paragraphs constitute conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Lockwood III, Esquire PETERSON, MYERS, CRAIG, CREWS BRANDON & PUTERBAUGH, P.A. Post Office Drawer 7608 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7608 Eugene J. O'Neill, Esquire GOULD, COOKSEY, FENNELL, BARKETT, O'NEILL & MARINE, P.A. 979 Beachland Boulevard Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Mr. David Z. Cutright Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company 1324 16th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960
