The Issue Whether Respondent Five Brothers Produce Inc. is indebted to Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner grows tomatoes on its farm in Dade County. Jack Wishart is in charge of the farm's operations. Five Brothers Produce, Inc., is a dealer in agricultural products. At all times material hereto, Pete Johnson was responsible for buying and selling produce for Five Brothers. He was assisted by Robert Barbare. On Friday, January 19, 1990, Johnson met with Wishart at Petitioner's farm. During their meeting, they discussed the possibility of Five Brothers purchasing all of Petitioner's 6x7 tomatoes. They ultimately entered into a verbal agreement concerning the matter. Under the terms of the agreement, Five Brothers agreed to purchase from Petitioner, and Petitioner agreed to sell to Five Brothers, Petitioner's supply of 6x7 tomatoes, which consisted of 293 packages, for $26.00 a package. At the time, tomatoes were in scarce supply because of the damage that had been done to the South Florida tomato crop by the freeze of the prior month. As a result, the market price for U.S.#1 grade 6x7 tomatoes was $32.00 a package. Wishhart agreed to a lower price for Petitioner's 6x7 tomatoes because they were U.S.#2 grade. The 293 packages of tomatoes were delivered to Five Brothers on the following day, Saturday, January 20, 1990. Johnson had purchased the tomatoes for Five Brothers to resell to a customer in Atlanta, Georgia. Upon inspecting the tomatoes after their arrival at Five Brothers' loading dock in Florida City, Johnson determined that they did not meet the needs of this particular customer because, in Johnson's opinion, they were too ripe to be shipped out of state. Johnson thereupon telephoned Wishart to tell him that the tomatoes were not suitable for his Atlanta customer. Later that same day, January 20, 1990, pursuant to Johnson's instructions, Barbare, Five Brothers' "late night clerk," contacted Wishart and advised him that Five Brothers wanted to return the tomatoes to Petitioner. The gates of Petitioner's farm were closed, and Wishart so informed Barbare. He then asked Barbare to store the tomatoes in Five Brothers' cooler until they could be returned to Petitioner's farm. Barbare agreed to do so. Approximately a day or two later, Barbare again telephoned Wishart. He told Wishart that Five Brothers had found a customer to whom it could sell the tomatoes, which were still in Five Brothers' cooler. Wishart, in response, stated that Petitioner would lower its sale price and "take $20.00," instead of $26.00 as previously agreed, for the tomatoes. 1/ On Monday, January 22, 1990, Five Brothers consummated a deal with Leo Genecco & Sons, Inc., (Genecco) of Rochester, New York, which agreed to purchase the tomatoes from Five Brothers. 2/ The tomatoes were priced "open," that is, the price of the tomatoes was to be established after the sale. Five Brothers ultimately received $3,149.75 ($10.75 a package) for the 293 packages of 6x7 tomatoes it had sold to Genecco. It thereupon sent a check in that amount to Petitioner as payment for these tomatoes. In the transaction at issue in the instant case, Five Brothers was not acting as a broker or agent for Petitioner. It purchased the tomatoes from Petitioner. The sales price was initially $26.00 a package and was later reduced to $20.00 a package. Accordingly, for the 293 packages of tomatoes Petitioner sold Five Brothers, it should have received from Five Bothers $5,860.00, $2,710.25 more than it was paid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order (1) finding that Five Brothers is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $2,710.25, (2) directing Five Brothers to make payment to Petitioner in the amount of $2,710.25 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, and (3) announcing that, if such payment is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., Five Brother's surety. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of March, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 18th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Wishart Pine Islands Farms, Inc. Post Office Box 247 Goulds, Florida 33170 Pete Johnson Five Brothers Produce, Inc. Post Office Box 3592 Florida City, Florida 33034 Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 5700 Southwest 34th Street Gainesville, Florida 32608 Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether respondents owe petitioner money on account of sales of potatoes?
Findings Of Fact In order to finance his 1991 crops, petitioner Daniel Methvin of Hastings, had to borrow money at the end of the year before. To do that, he was told, he needed to execute contracts for the sale of the potatoes he intended to grow. He had been glad to have future contracts for the 1990 season, when a glut of potatoes pushed the price below three dollars a hundredweight (cwt). Respondent J.P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. (or the company of which it is a subsidiary) had honored those contracts and paid considerably more than the market price for potatoes then. On November 24, 1990, Mr. Methvin executed a contract entitled "Sales Confirmation" agreeing to sell 10,000 cwt of "REPACK REDS", Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 ("92% US #1 INCH AND 1/2 MIN. AT LEAST 95% SKIN, Id.) to J.P. Mach, Inc. during the period April 28 to May 31, 1991, at $6.50 per cwt. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Consolidating smaller, earlier agreements, Mr. Methvin executed another contract entitled "Sales Confirmation" agreeing to sell 45,000 cwt of Atlantics ("85% U.S. #1") to J.P. Mach, Inc. during the period April 28 to May 31, 1991, at $5.75 per cwt, guaranteeing the potatoes would be suitable for chips. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. With these contracts (or, as to the chipping potatoes, their predecessors) as collateral, Mr. Methvin raised the funds necessary to plant. Both contracts between Mr. Methvin and J.P. Mach, Inc. had "act of god clauses" excusing Mr. Methvin's nondelivery of potatoes he failed to harvest on account of, among other things, tornadoes or hail. As it happened, tornadoes and hail prevented Mr. Methvin's reaping all he had sown. Petitioner only harvested 6,300 cwt of red potatoes and approximately 43,000 cwt of Atlantic potatoes. Another result of the bad weather was extremely high market prices, at some times exceeding $20 per cwt. On April 27, 1991, J.P. Mach visited Mr. Methvin's farm and the two men discussed incentives to keep Mr. Methvin from "jumping his contract," i.e., selling his potatoes to others at the market price. In the course of their conversation, Mr. Methvin said he needed to realize $450,000 from that year's potatoes; and Mr. Mach replied, "I will help you out", and "I will keep you in business." There was general talk of incentives and bonuses. Eventually, Mr. Mach said he would pay a premium over the contract price if Mr. Methvin fulfilled the original contracts to the fullest extent possible, by delivering all the potatoes he had; and Mr. Mach began remitting premium prices, as promised. On June 1, 1991, however, Mr. Methvin advised Mr. Mach of his intention to sell what remained of his harvest, some 1100 cwt of Atlantics, on the open market. When he carried through on this, Mr. Methvin realized approximately $200,000. Even at that, he lost $40,000 that season. Meanwhile Mr. Mach and his companies were sued for $550,000 for failure to deliver potatoes; and were not paid another $172,000 for potatoes they shipped to chip plants and others to whom they had promised still more potatoes. (Mr. Methvin was not the only grower who defaulted on contracts to ship potatoes to J.P. Mach, Inc.) As of June 1, 1991, Mr. Mach, his companies or his agents had paid Mr. Methvin "about $200,000," which was more than the contract price of the potatoes Mr. Methvin had loaded. Neither Mr. Mach nor his companies paid Mr. Methvin anything after June 1, 1991. At hearing, Mr. Methvin calculated the value of the loads as to which nothing had been remitted as of June 1, 1991, as "a few hundred more than $36,000," assuming the contract price plus the premium. But Mr. Mach and his companies or employees recalculated the price of the loads he had paid for by eliminating the premium, since Mr. Methvin had not, as promised on his side, delivered all his potatoes. J.P. Mach, Inc. was duly licensed during the 1990 season. After its license lapsed, a new license was issued to J.P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. on April 24, 1991. A $50,000 certificate of deposit was filed with First Performance Bank as a condition of licensure.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's complaint be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 3rd day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Methvin Route 1, Box 92 Palatka, Florida 32131 Jeffrey P. Mach, President J. P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. P.O. Box 7 Plover, Wisconsin 54467 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agricutlure 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based upon the stipulation of the parties, as well as the evidence presented at hearing, including the demeanor of the witnesses: Polynesian Isles Developers, Ltd., was a developer of a time-share property, within the meaning of Section 721.05(9), Florida Statutes, in Osceola County in 1984. Bailey M. Weldon was a general partner of Polynesian Isles Developers, Ltd., and a developer of time-share property known as Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium I from November 23, 1982 to January 16, 1985. Polynesian Isles Developers, Ltd., submitted certain advertising to Petitioner for approval on January 9, 1984, and was noticed of deficiencies in its Polynesian Isles- Super Bowl advertising materials by notice issued by the Petitioner on January 17, 1984. These advertising materials were distributed in the January 18, 1984 Super Bowl Supplement to the St. Petersburg Times without correction of the noticed deficiencies. No time-share unit weeks were sold as a result of this ad. It was represented in the Polynesian Isles Developers, Ltd., public offering statement, and its sales contract with purchasers of time-share unit weeks, that purchasers would obtain fee title to purchased unit weeks free and clear of encumbrances. It was also represented in such sales contracts with purchasers of time-share unit weeks that Polynesian Isles Developments, Ltd., as Seller, would provide purchasers with an owner's title insurance policy upon closing Respondent agrees and stipulates that no owner's title insurance policy was issued for some of the unit weeks sold and closed in 1984. The evidence establishes that no title insurance policies were issued for 329 unit weeks. Respondent established an escrow account for the deposit and withdrawal of all funds received from, or on behalf of, time-share purchasers. Daniel Giannini served as escrow agent for Polynesian Isles Developers, Ltd., for the purpose of receiving and disbursing funds pursuant to Section 721.08 Florida Statutes. Respondent agrees and stipulates that some affidavits for release of escrow funds were delivered to Daniel Giannini as escrow agent when all conditions required by Section 721.08, Florida Statutes, had not occurred. The evidence establishes that these affidavits falsely stated that all conditions for closing had occurred when, in fact, closing had not properly occurred on 331 unit weeks in 1984 because title was not conveyed free and clear of all encumbrances. As a result, purchasers' funds in escrow were released to Respondent without the conveyance of free and clear title or the issuance of title insurance policies. Goldome Savings Association held the primary mortgage on the first phase of the Polynesian Isles Development. This mortgage encumbered unit weeks sold by the Development. Respondent failed to obtain partial releases from Goldome of the mortgages on 331 unit weeks which closed in 1984, and therefore the sale of these weeks closed without free and clear title. Deeds to the 331 unit weeks were recorded without disclosure of the underlying mortgage. Title insurance policies were not issued on 329 of these unit weeks as a result of the failure to obtain releases. Respondent Weldon was the general partner who was in charge of legal matters, closings and title insurance. He also supervised the general manager of Polynesian Isles with his other general partner, Richard Barcley. It was Weldon's general practice to sign escrow affidavits in blank and to rely on his employees to insure that they were used properly at closings. The general manager of the development during 1984 was Frank Cuyler. Respondent terminated Cuyler when he learned that Cuyler had agreed to an unfavorable change in the terms of Goldome's mortgage as an inducement to obtaining financing for phase II of the development, and had failed to report such change to Respondent, or obtain his approval. The effect of the change which was agreed to by Cuyler was to increase the amount the development had to pay to Goldome for a partial release on each unit-week from $1800 to approximately $3800. When it became apparent that it was not financially feasible for the development to pay this increased amount for releases, Cuyler simply proceeded to close on 331 unit-weeks without releases. Respondent was unaware of this practice, and when it came to his attention he immediately gave instructions that it be discontinued, and terminated Cuyler. In addition, he raised approximately $1.4 million, including $300,000 of his own money, to obtain the releases on these 331 unit-weeks, and to cure any mortgage default. However, the evidence does not establish that releases were ever obtained.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order assessing an administrative penalty against Respondent Bailey M. Weldon in the amount of $10,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 86-1003) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1.(a)-(c) Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 1(d) Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 1(e) Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 1(f)-(g) Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 1(h)-(i) Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 2(a)-(b) Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 2(c)-(e) Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 2(f) Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 2(g)-(h) Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 2(i)-(j) Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 2(k) Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Rejected since this is a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 3A Rejected as irrelevant to the charges in this case. 3B Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3C Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5. 3D Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, assuming typographical error of 229 which should be 329. 3E Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 3F(a) Rejected in Finding of Fact 7. 3F(b) Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence in the record. 3F(c) Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 8. 3F(d) Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 4, 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela S. Leslie, Esquire Eric H. Miller, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Charles Edwin Ray, Esquire 6534 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33707 E. James Kearney Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
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.”
The Issue The Department of Professional Regulation charged Dr. Samy Hassan Helmy, D.V.M., with violation of Sections 474.215 and 474.214(1)(g), Florida Statutes, for failure to have a premises permit. The primary issue for factual determination is whether Citrus Fair Animal Hospital applied for licensure within thirty days subsequent to its opening. Both parties have submitted post-hearing Proposed Findings of Fact. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Helmy is, and has been at all times material herein, a licensed veterinarian in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0028884 by the Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine. In January of 1985 the wife of Dr. Samy Hassan Helmy purchased real property in Inverness, Florida. Between January 1985 and April 1985 said facility was extensively remodeled to make it suitable as an animal hospital. Dr. Helmy frequently worked at this facility, supervising workmen and participating in the remodeling. On February 19, 1985 an investigator of the Department of Professional Regulation inspected Dr. Helmy's licensed facility in Wildwood, Florida. At that time, Dr. Helmy was not at the facility. Certain equipment required at an animal hospital was not found during this inspection. The inspector called and spoke with Dr. Helmy who was at the Inverness facility, hereinafter referred to as "Citrus Fair." Dr. Helmy advised the inspector that he had the equipment with him. Dr. Helmy told the inspector that he only treated animals at the Wildwood clinic. (See Transcript page 60, line 11-12.) After notice to their customers and the public, Dr. Helmy began to receive patients regularly at the Citrus Fair facility during the first part of April 1985. Dr. Helmy admitted that he had seen animals on an emergency basis at the facility prior to that date as opposed to transporting them to Wildwood; however, the Citrus Fair facility was not open to the public until the first part of April. A receipt for professional services dated April 9, 1985 was introduced into evidence as Respondent's exhibit #2. Although introduced by Respondent, this exhibit was part of the Petitioner's investigative file. An inspection was conducted of the Citrus Fair facility on April 12, 1985 by an employee of the Department of Professional Regulation. At the time of this inspection veterinary medicine was being practiced on the premises. An inspection of the Citrus Fair facility was conducted by an employee of the Department of Professional Regulation on April 19, 1985. At the time of said inspection, veterinary medicine was being practiced on the premises. The Citrus Fair facility is wholly owned by the wife of Dr. Helmy. Dr. Helmy is the professional veterinarian responsible for the Citrus Fair facility. On April 29, 1985, Dr. Helmy's application for licensure of the Citrus Fair facility was received by the Department of Professional Regulation. (See Petitioner's Exhibit #2)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and having determined the Respondent did not violate any of the statutes as alleged, it is recommended that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of February 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mildred Gardner,Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Roche,Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino,General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Cecilia Bradley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 William E. Lackay, Esquire M. C. of Florida Building P. O. Box 279 Bushnell, FL 33513 APPENDIX Respondent's Findings of Fact Adopted. Adopted. Conclusion of Law. Adopted. Adopted. Adopted. Rejected as not relevant. Adopted. It appears Respondent erroneously labeled Conclusions of Law as Findings of Fact. Petitioner's Findings of Fact Adopted. Contrary to facts - rejected. Rejected to the extent the application was dated April 23, 1985. Adopted that application was received on April 29, 1985. Adopted. While true, this proposed finding lacks any reference to when this occurred which is the key issue and is therefore rejected. Rejected. No evidence was submitted showing that Citrus Fair was operated as a veterinary facility on February 18, 1985. Evidence to the contrary was received which is more credible. See TX-60, lines 11-12. Rejected as contrary to evidence on TX-61. The Respondent stated he carried the kits to both clinics, not that he used them at both clinics. Rejected. The proposed facts are not consistent with the testimony on TX 61 & 62 and the facts presented are not probative that veterinary medicine was practiced at the Citrus Fair facility. Rejected. The witness says nothing about going to Wildwood by appointment in TX-70. The statement by Respondent that "he was working between the two offices" is not inconsistent with the Respondent's testimony that he was remodeling the Citrus Fair facility. Adopted. Adopted. Rejected as cumulative of the fact that after April 9, 1985 veterinary medicine was practiced at Citrus Fair. Same as No. 12 above.
The Issue Under Section 9.5-540(b) of the LDRs, the issue on this appeal is whether the Planning Commission's decision should be affirmed, reversed, or modified.
Findings Of Fact The Planning Commission's Resolution No. P32-01 lists the following findings of fact in support of its decision, while noting that the Lesicks' request was denied by a vote of 2-2: [T]he Lesicks have a single-family structure, on 5.24 acres on Money Key, in the Offshore Island Land Use District. . . . . [I]t is the intent of the LDRs and the 2010 Plan that nonconforming uses should not be rebuilt if destroyed. Based on the Monroe County Code and the Monroe County 2010 Plan, we find that the "grandfather clauses" in Section 9.5-268 and Policy 101.3.23 are intended to protect existing residents of the County by permitting the replacement of their homes if destroyed and that Money Key currently is not being used as a principal residence. [T]he structure on Money Key is currently being used for vacation rentals and therefore does not qualify for the exemption in Section 9.5-268 of the [LDRs], even though the property had both a homestead exemption and a public lodging license in 1996. Therefore, we conclude that approval of the applicant's request would violate the intent of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the [LDRs]. Other "findings of fact" listed in Resolution No. P32-01 clearly were conclusions of law. To the extent that they are findings of fact, statements as to the intent of the County's Plan and LDRs are not supported by competent substantial evidence. They are contrary to the unambiguous language of the County's Plan and LDRs, as indicated in the Conclusions of Law, infra. Otherwise, the findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence. The evidence was that the Lesicks occupied the structure on Money Key from on April 19, 1994, and claimed a homestead exemption beginning in 1995. They applied for a Florida Public Lodging License on May 19, 1995, and the structure was registered with an opening date of May 25, 1995. Until renting the structure in March 1996, they continued to occupy it (including on January 4, 1996, a critical date under the Plan and the LDRs). After renting it in March 1996, they ceased occupying it; however, they continued to claim homestead exemption on the property through 1998.
