The Issue Does Respondent Sanford Produce Exchange, Incorporated (Sanford), owe Petitioner for agricultural products purchased by Sanford from Petitioner between April 1, 1997, and April 25, 1997?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was in the business of growing and selling "agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes, and was a "producer" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Sanford was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Sanford was issued license number 9434 by the Department, which is supported by bond number 957712 20250566 in the amount of $31,000, written by Auto Owners, as surety, with an inception date of October 25, 1996, and an expiration date of October 24, 1997. The Complaint was timely filed by Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes. Beginning April 1, 1997, and ending on April 25, 1997, Sanford ordered and agreed to pay for the following agricultural products from Petitioner, which Petitioner shipped by truck to Sanford: Date Item Quantity Price Total 4/1/97 Green Cabbage 100 $ 4.50 $ 450.00 4/1/97 Green Cabbage Bags 325 $ 3.50 $1,137.50 4/2/97 Green Cabbage 125 $ 4.50 $ 562.50 4/2/97 Green Cabbage Bags 100 $ 3.50 $ 350.00 4/17/97 Green Cabbage Bags 226 $ 3.00 $ 678.00 4/17/97 Medium Green Squash 77 $12.35 $ 950.95 4/18/97 Yellow Crookneck Squash 40 $ 5.00 $ 200.00 Fancy Yellow Squash 110 $ 8.35 $ 918.50 Medium Yellow Squash 40 $ 6.35 $ 254.00 Fancy Zucchini 79 $12.35 $ 975.65 Medium Zucchini 40 $10.35 $ 414.00 4/25/97 Yellow Crookneck Squash 40 $ 8.35 $ 334.00 Number 1 Yellow Crookneck Squash 120 $ 5.35 $ 642.00 Number 2 Fancy Zucchini 80 $ 6.35 $ 508.00 Medium Zucchini 50 $ 4.35 $ 217.50 4/25/97 Fancy Zucchini 92 $ 6.35 $ 584.20 Total $9,176.80 The above shipments are represented by invoice numbers 07987, 07991, 07772, 07773, 07785, 07896, and 07802, respectively. Petitioner has billed Sanford for the amount of $9,176.80, which Sanford has failed to pay. The cabbage, squash, and zucchini shipped to Sanford between April 1, 1997, and April 25, 1997, by Petitioner was of the quality purchased by Sanford and was in good condition when shipped.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding that Sanford Produce Exchange, Incorporated, owes Fresh Pride Sales, Incorporated, the sum of $9,176.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Troy Cobb Qualified Representative Fresh Pride Sales, Incorporated Post Office Box 577 Wauchula, Florida 33873 Anthony L. Thomas, President Sanford Produce Exchange, Incorporated 6060 Hensel Road Port Orange, Florida 32119 F. J. Manuel, Jr., Esquire Sears and Manuel, P.A. 511 North Ferncreek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ponsell's Farms, Inc., operates a nursery business in Glen St. Mary (Baker County), Florida. On or about January 16, 1982 Petitioner received a telephone order from Respondent, Reasoner's Tropical Nursery, Inc., for nursery stock consisting mainly of Magnolia trees and tubs at an undisclosed price. The order was subsequently revised by Respondent on January 20 when it added more stock to its order. The total value of the order was placed at $8,800. Respondent operates a nursery business in Oneco (Manatee County) , Florida. There was no written agreement between the parties concerning the sale. However, the parties did orally agree that the trees were needed as soon as possible and that Respondent would provide its own transportation. Respondent also paid a $3,000 cash deposit on the order. After the order was placed, Petitioner immediately dug up the trees and placed them in a holding area pending arrival of Respondent's truck. The trees were wrapped in burlap bags and watered periodically with Petitioner's sprinkling system. Petitioner telephoned Respondent on January 20, 25 and 28 to advise him the trees had been dug and were ready to be picked up immediately. These calls were followed by a written invoice mailed to Respondent on February 10. Additional telephone calls were made during the month of February. On one occasion in January, Respondent advised Petitioner that its truck was disabled and unable to operate; however, Petitioner later learned that the truck was repaired and again operable the day after that advice was given. At some point in February, Petitioner advised Respondent by telephone that the trees were "getting bad" and needed to be picked up immediately. Finally, on March 2, Respondent's truck and driver arrived to pick up the shipment. The driver was given the opportunity to inspect the plants before they were loaded. Only a few plants were rejected. However, Respondent claimed the driver was only that and had no authority to do anything except drive the truck. The driver also borrowed a net to cover the trees while being transported. Its uncontradicted value was placed at approximately $500 and has not yet been returned to Petitioner. Upon receipt of the plants, Respondent immediately wrote Petitioner on March 5 expressing dissatisfaction with the entire shipment. Respondent also invited Petitioner to send a representative to inspect the plants. Further investigations were made by representatives of the Florida Division of Plant Industry and the Manatee County Extension Service. These confirmed that the plants had deteriorated. Petitioner's representative visited Respondent's nursery twice to recover the net and inspect the plants but for some unexplained reason was unable to do either. Respondent presented a registered landscape architect who opined that the damage to the trees was caused by improper sprinkling in the holding area. He also stated that three to four weeks was the most desirable holding time for plants. How ever, the time between which the plants were dug by Petitioner and ultimately picked up by Respondent exceeded this time period. He corroborated the testimony of Respondent that due to the condition of the plants, they will not be saleable for another year, or a total of two years after they were originally delivered. Respondent believes that plants can be dug up and maintained in a holding area for up to a year without incurring shock and damage if properly cared for. Because of this, he felt no urgency to pick up the plants despite repeated calls from Petitioner. He maintains that this is the normally accepted practice in nurseries in Florida, and his failure to pick up the plants was not unusual. Petitioner countered that the trees were properly cared for and only because of Respondent's delay in picking up the shipment did the damage occur. Both sides agree the cost of the plants as originally ordered was $8,800. The value of the net ($500) was not contradicted. Respondent has calculated the value of the shipment in its present state to be only $1,595.70; thus it claims it is entitled to a $1,404.30 reimbursement from the $3,000 deposit. Respondent gave no definitive reason why it ignored the requests of Petitioner and did not pick up the shipment within a reasonable time after placing the order. This delay was a direct cause of the deterioration of the shipment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be paid $5,425 by Respondent within fifteen days after the date of the final order entered in this proceeding. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of May, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of May, 1983.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is indebted to the Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, Holmes Nursery & Gardens Associates, LTD., is a wholesale and retail nursery providing a variety of landscape agricultural products. The east coast regional office for Petitioner is located at 1600 SW 20th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden Landscape and Nursery, Inc., is an agricultural dealer with its office located at 3317 So. Dixie Highways Delray Beach, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden is subject to the licensing requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. As such, Garden of Eden is obligated to obtain and to post a surety bond to ensure that payment is made to producers for agricultural products purchased by the dealer. To meet this requirement, Garden of Eden delivered a certificate of deposit from Sun Bank of Palm Beach County to the Department. On or about April 23, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $1770.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of four viburnum odo., five weeping podocarpus and one bottlebrush. On or about April 25, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $420.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of three live oaks. On or about April 28, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $312.50 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of twenty-five viburnum odo. On or about April 29, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $520.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of four laurel oaks. On or about May 5, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $1,130.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of forty-seven crinum lily and six hundred and twenty-two liriope muscari. On or about May 13, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $2,943.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of seven cattley grava, and six paurotes. On or about May 28, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $315.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of one roebelinii single and one roebelinii double. On or about June 19, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $300.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of one paurotis 5 stem. The total amount of the agricultural products purchased by Garden of Eden was $7,710.50. On August 8, 1986, Garden of Eden paid $1060.00 on the account. On September 24, 1986, another $2500.00 was remitted to Holmes Gardens on this account. The balance of indebtedness owed by Garden of Eden to Holmes Gardens for the purchases listed above is $4,150.00. Petitioner claims it is due an additional sum of $436.04 representing interest on the unpaid account since the assessment of interest to an unpaid balance is standard practice in the industry; however, no written agreement or acknowledgment executed by Garden of Eden was presented with regard to the interest claim.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Gateway Farms, LLC, is entitled to payment from Landscape Service Professionals, Inc., and the Gray Insurance Company, as Surety, pursuant to sections 604.15 through 604.34, Florida Statutes (2015), for the purchase of trees; and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Gateway is a producer and seller of agricultural products, including slash pine trees. Gateway operates tree farms on 200 acres in five different locations in Columbia, Alachua, and Suwannee Counties. David Hajos is the owner and principal operator of Gateway. Mr. Hajos has 17 years of experience in growing, harvesting, and selling pine and other species of trees in Florida. Respondent Landscape is a Florida licensed dealer in agricultural products, pursuant to chapter 604. Landscape is a full-service landscape business located in Tamarac, Florida. Sandy Benton has been the president of Landscape for 18 years. Respondent, Insurance Company, filed a denial of the claim and was represented at hearing by Landscape’s counsel. Gateway has been doing business with Landscape for many years, with no indication of prior problems relating to the quality of trees provided. Lynn Griffith, Landscape’s plant and soil expert, considers Gateway to be a competent and professional grower. The Setting At all relevant times, Landscape was a contractor responsible for installing landscaping at the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority (SWA) site on Jog Road in Palm Beach County, Florida. Pursuant to orders placed by Landscape, Gateway sold a total of 148 slash pines for use at the SWA site. The invoices for those pines are dated January 22 and 23, and February 9 and 16, 2015. Upon their arrival at the site, authorized personnel of Landscape received, inspected, and accepted the 148 slash pine trees. No problems or concerns were expressed regarding the delivery or condition of the slash pines. The Dispute Giving Rise to this Proceeding Between 20 and 30 of the trees ordered from Gateway were intended as replacement trees for the approximately 150 slash pines provided by six other vendors that had been planted by Landscape, and then died. When the dead trees were removed by Landscape, pine beetles were observed infesting the trees. Within several weeks of planting, 58 of the slash pines purchased from Gateway began to show signs of decline, resulting in their eventual death. Landscape consulted with the Palm Beach County Extension Service and industry professionals as to the cause of the death and decline of the slash pine trees, who undertook an investigation into the same. Slash pine trees are very sensitive and can be easily stressed. Stress can be caused by a variety of factors including: transplanting; harsh handling; bark exposure to sunlight, including superficial wounds to the bark; too much or too little water; or planting too deeply. The stress will cause a tree to emit chemicals that attract beetles, which inhabit the trees and may kill a stressed tree within a week or two of the infestation. In March 2015, Lynn Griffith, an agricultural consultant, conducted an SWA site visit. Mr. Griffith noted that a majority of the planted pines were healthy, but there were some that were not doing well; some had holes in them indicative of a pine beetle infestation. In his report dated March 12, 2015, Mr. Griffith opined on the impact of the ambrosia (pine) beetle infestation on the slash pines: The quantities of boreholes in some of the dead or declining pines would lead me to conclude that borers could be a primary cause of death, but in other cases the number of holes was low, indicating the pine decline was initiated by other factors. In an e-mail dated April 24, 2015, Ms. Benton advised Gateway (and JWD Trees, another supplier of slash pines to the SWA site) that the cause of the death and decline of the slash pine trees were because the two suppliers failed to properly prepare them in the nursery, and had sold them to Landscape with root systems inadequate to support the normal performance of the plant. At hearing, Ms. Benton’s opinion regarding the cause of death of the pines was echoed by John Harris, accepted as an expert in landscape economics and arborism. Mr. Harris’s opinion centered on only one possible explanation for the trees’ demise: a failure to have an adequate root system or an inability of the roots to generate new growth. Typically, this is caused by improper “hardening off” of the root system by the grower. However, on cross-examination, Mr. Harris acknowledged that while pine beetles typically infest stressed trees, if the beetle population builds up enough in an area they will attack otherwise healthy trees. At hearing, Mr. Hajos testified that the pine trees he supplied to Landscape had been properly hardened off for a period of six weeks: Hardened off is a process when you dig a tree and you hold it until it starts to regenerate new roots, so instead of just digging it up and selling it we dig it up and hold it under optimal irrigation and nursery conditions before we ship the tree. Mr. Hajos further testified that any trees that are going to die due to the stress of being dug out of the ground will die during the hardening off process. Mr. Hajos attributed the death of the Gateway trees to several factors, including stress caused by improper lifting of the trees during loading and unloading, stress caused by a delay in planting the trees after they arrived at the SWA site, and the pre-existing pine beetle infestation. Mr. Hajos examined a photograph received in evidence and explained that it showed a tree being improperly lifted by Landscape personnel during unloading. The photograph showed the strap around the tree trunk doing the primary lifting. The result is that rather than distributing the pressure between the trunk and the strap on the root ball, the root ball will be loosened, which will stress the tree. Mr. Hajos testified that he was aware that the Gateway trees that had been delivered to the SWA site were left on the ground for days before being planted. This testimony was corroborated by Landscape’s Daily Job Report log which reflected the delivery of the first load of Gateway pines to the SWA site on January 23 and 24, 2015, but that planting of those trees did not begin until January 29, 2015. On one occasion, a Landscape truck that had picked up trees from Gateway, broke down in Ocala on its return trip to Palm Beach County and had to return to the Gateway site in High Springs. There, the trees were unloaded, and then reloaded onto a different truck where they were delivered two days later to the SWA job site. This inordinate delay and additional loading and unloading further stressed the trees. Once Landscape became aware that it had a beetle infestation at the SWA site, it began a preventative spray program. However, once a pine beetle has entered the bark of a pine tree preventative spraying will be ineffective at eradicating the pest. Newly planted pine trees at the SWA site were not sprayed on the day of planting, thereby providing the pine beetles an opportunity to infest the new trees. Guy Michaud was Landscape’s job foreman at the SWA site. Mr. Michaud has been in the business of planting trees since 1983, and has worked for Landscape for 14 years. Mr. Michaud could not testify with certainty that the Gateway trees died of inadequate roots, as opposed to a beetle infestation. None of the other species of trees sold by Gateway for use at the SWA site experienced problems. Based on the totality of the evidence, it is more likely than not that a combination of factors contributed to the SWA slash pine deterioration, including delays in planting the trees after delivery, rough handling, and the beetles. None of these causes are attributable to the actions of Gateway. Likewise, the greater weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that the trees sold by Gateway to Landscape were non- viable nursery stock. Subsequent to filing its claim in the amount of $13,462.30 with the Department, Gateway received a payment of $5,528.84 from Landscape. Thus, the unpaid balance due Gateway for the 58 slash pines is $7,933.46. Gateway is entitled to payment in the amount of $7,933.46 for the slash pine trees it provided to Landscape. Besides the amount set forth above, Gateway claims the sum of $50.00 paid for the filing of the claim against Landscape and its bond. The total sum owed to Gateway by Landscape is $7,983.46.
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 approving the claim of Gateway Farms, LLC, against Landscape Professional Services, Inc., in the total amount of $7,983.46 ($7,933.46 plus $50 filing fee); and if Landscape Professionals Services, Inc., fails to timely pay Gateway Farms, LLC, as ordered, that Respondent, The Gray Insurance Company, as Surety, be ordered to pay the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as required by section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and the Department reimburse the Petitioner as set out in section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent owes payment to Petitioner in the amount of $60,748.78 for watermelons sold by Petitioner to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Between May 18 and June 5, 1990, Petitioner James G. Young sold a total of 40 truckloads of watermelons to Respondent Maddox Brothers Produce, Inc. Petitioner was to have received a price of five cents per pound through May 26, 1990 and four cents per pound through the remainder of the shipping season. Respondent has failed to pay $60,748.78 of the amount owed to Petitioner for such produce. At no time did Petitioner received any complaint that the watermelons were unsatisfactory. Respondent is a licensed agricultural dealer engaged in the business of brokering agricultural products, Florida license #0030. Respondent is subject to regulation by the Department. Respondent has posted a Fireman's Fund Insurance Company surety bond #11141308327 in the amount of $50,000 with the Department. Respondent did not appear at the hearing. No evidence was presented to contradict the testimony of the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Maddox Brothers Produce, Inc., to pay to Petitioner the sum of $60,748.78. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James G. Young Route 3 Box 272-A Wildwood, Florida 34758 Patricia M. Harper, President Maddox Brothers Produce, Inc. 2124 Forest Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37916 Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Surety Claims Center Post Office Box 193136 San Francisco, Florida 94119-3136
The Issue Whether Respondent Southeast Grove Management, Inc., is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $5,560.08 for limes grown by Petitioner and picked and sold by Respondent Southeast?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Joyce McKiness is a grower of limes in Homestead, Florida. Respondent Southeast Grove Management, Inc., (hereinafter "Southeast") goes to individual groves and picks the limes, then brings them to the packing house where they are graded, sized, and shipped to be sold at prices according to size. When the recipient of the limes pays Southeast after receipt of the limes, Southeast ascertains what prices were paid for the limes, and then calculates its costs and pays the grower the difference. Between the weeks ending March 4 and July 8, 1988, Southeast picked 1,165.1 bushels of limes grown by Petitioner. There is no dispute as to the number of bushels of Petitioner's limes picked by Southeast. Petitioner disputes Southeast's calculations as to the price which Southeast received for the limes, the percentage of the limes picked by Southeast which `graded out' for sale, and the amount of picking and inspection fees charged by Southeast. Petitioner bases the price that she claims Southeast received for the limes, for the eight separate pickings in question in this cause, on her belief that 1988 lime prices were 25% higher than 1987 lime prices. She, therefore, added 25% to the prices of limes picked in 1987 for the same months. No competent, substantial evidence was offered in support of Petitioner's belief. In one instance, Southeast paid her a higher price per bushel than she claims. Petitioner claims that 80% of each picking was saleable citrus. Southeast's records reflect that Petitioner was given credit for 80% of her limes on one of the eight pickings. For the remainder of the pickings, however, Southeast gave her credit for as little as 45.4% of the bushels picked and as high as 99.7% of the bushels picked. No competent, substantial evidence was offered to justify Petitioner's selection of 80% for all eight pickings. The 80% figure selected by Petitioner allows for no differences in the amount of marketable limes from each picking, and there is no evidence to support the proposition that no matter when during the season the limes are picked exactly 80% of them will be marketable. No competent, substantial evidence was offered as to how Petitioner computed the picking and inspection fees paid by Southeast, which fees were then deducted by Southeast from the sale price of the limes before crediting Petitioner with the balance of the sale price. In two instances, the picking and inspection fees charged by Southeast were less than what Petitioner claims they should be. Southeast admits that for lime pool #809 for the week ending March 4, 1988, it owes petitioner the amount of $393.36.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Southeast Grove Management, Inc., is indebted to Petitioner Joyce McKiness in the amount of $393.36 and that such monies should be paid to her within fifteen days from the entry of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of January, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 30 day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Cliff Willis Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company 1850 Old Dixie Highway Homestead, Florida 33033 Don Reynolds c/o Aaron Thomas, Inc. 11010 North Kendall Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33176 Joyce McKiness 20350 Southwest 346th Street Homestead, Florida 33034 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Benjamin S. Schwartz, Esquire #1 CenTrust Financial Center 36th Floor 100 Southeast 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ben Pridgeon, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On September 24, 1982, Respondents, James A. Joss, Steven M. Mishkin and Norma Trento, together with Thomas Moskowitz, formed Highland Ranch Acres, Inc. (Highland Ranch), a Florida corporation, for the purpose of acquiring, subdividing and selling certain land in Section 35, Township 24 South, Range 25 East Lake County, Florida. These individuals were the sole principals and stockholders of Highland Ranch, and held, respectively, one-sixth, one-sixth, one-third and one-third of Highland Ranch's capital stock. All of the above- referenced individuals made an initial capital contribution to Highland Ranch, except Joss, who donated his time, knowledge and expertise in land sales. The land in question, acquired from W. D. Land Company consisted of approximately 50 acres, which Highland Ranch "subdivided" into 40 parcels of 1- 1/4 acres each, and consecutively numbered 65 through 104. Highland Ranch marketed the parcels to residents and nonresidents of the State of Florida by telephone solicitation, and a follow-up brochure. On March 3, 1983, the same principals formed Citrus Grove Acres, Inc. (Citrus Grove), a Florida corporation, for the same purposes they had formed Highland Ranch. Their respective ownership of the capital stock of Citrus Grove was the same as it had been in Highland Ranch. Citrus Grove acquired approximately 53 acres of land from W. D. Land Company in the same section, township and range of Lake County, Florida, as those lands acquired by Highland Ranch. Citrus Grove "subdivided" these lands into 42 parcels of 1-1/4 acres each, and consecutively numbered them 105 through 146, and marketed them in the same manner the lands owned by Highland Ranch had been sold. On June 13, 1983, the same principals formed Central Florida Highlands, Inc. (Central Florida), a Florida corporation, for the same purposes they had formed Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove. Their respective ownership of the capital stock of Central Florida was the same as it had been in Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove. Central Florida acquired approximately 15 acres of land from W. D. Land Company in the same section, township and range of Lake County, Florida, as those lands acquired by Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove. Central Florida subdivided these lands into 12 parcels of 1-1/4 acres each, and consecutively numbered them 147 through 158, and marketed them in the same manner the lands owned by Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove had been sold. Highland Ranch, Citrus Grove and Central Florida had the same principals, who performed the same basic duties. Joss, assisted by Mishkin, was responsible for the conception and operation of the business of the three corporations. Joss, as president, executed the purchase and sale agreements on behalf of Highland Ranch; Mishkin, as president, executed the purchase and sales agreements on behalf of Central Florida; and Trento, as president, executed the purchase and sales agreements on behalf of Citrus Grove. The purchase and sale agreements, and the brochures mailed to the telephone prospects, except for the corporate name, were identical in each instance. The photographs in the brochures which purported to depict the lands being offered, were identical. None of the photographs depicted the subject lands but rather were of lands Respondent Joss had marketed 15 years previously through Groveland Ranch Acres, Inc. All of the lands in question were purchased from the same seller, were located in the same section, township and range of Lake County, Florida, were subdivided into 1-1/4 acre lots which were consecutively numbered 65 through 158. The lands were located in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, were zoned agricultural and required a minimum of five acres to be eligible for a building permit, were not platted with the county, and contained no avenues of ingress and egress. Respondents were advised by their attorney, Michael J. Moskowitz, that Chapter 498, Fla. Stat., required registration if they proposed to offer more than 50 parcels to more than 45 persons. He further advised them that if the subsequent corporation(s) had the same principals and other indicia of a common promotional plan that their activities might be deemed a common promotional plan, subjecting them to potential liabilities. Respondent Joss concedes that the sole reason for forming Citrus Grove and Central Florida, and taking title in their names, instead of simply purchasing the additional lands in the name of Highland Ranch, the existing corporation, was to avoid the registration requirements of Chapter 498, Fla. Stat. Highland Ranch, Citrus Grove, and Centra1 Florida did not individually convey more than 50 parcels to more than 45 purchasers. Collectively however, they did convey more than 50 parcels to more than 45 purchasers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (Department), enter a Final Order finding Respondents, James A. Joss, Norma Trento, Steve Mishkin, Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., guilty of violating the provisions of Sections 498.023(1) and (2), Fla. Stat., and ordering that Respondents shall not offer or dispose of, or participate in the offer or disposition of any interest in "subdivided lands," as defined by Section 498.005(17), Fla. Stat., unless the subdivided lands are registered with the Department. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the Final Order, Respondents shall offer all purchasers of land from Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Central Florida Highlands, Inc., an opportunity to rescind their agreement, and to receive a refund of all principal and interest paid. The term "purchaser" as used herein shall mean any person who made any payment to Respondents for lands offered by Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Central Florida Highlands, Inc., whether or not such person is currently making payments. The refund offer shall be in writing, and in a form approved by the Department. After notifying purchasers of the refund offer, Respondents shall determine the total amount of refund liability, based upon purchaser(s) who elect to rescind their agreement, and notify the Department within sixty (60) days of the date of the Final Order of the name(s) of the purchaser(s) electing to rescind their agreement and the amount of refund liability for each such purchaser. Respondents shall establish a trust or escrow account in a financial institution located within the State of Florida to assure the payment of refunds to those purchasers who elect to rescind, and to assure the conveyance of clear and marketable title to those purchasers who do not elect to rescind, transactions. Respondents shall appoint a trustee or escrow agent acceptable to the Department, who shall have such powers as are necessary to fulfill the purpose of his trust. Respondents shall collect and deposit any and all monies paid by all purchasers of lands from Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Central Florida Highland, Inc., into the trust or escrow account established pursuant to paragraph (4). Respondents shall have no right, title or interest in or to the aforesaid monies until such time as those purchasers who have elected to rescind have been paid in full, clear and marketable title has been conveyed to those purchasers who have elected not to rescind, the trustee's or escrow agent's fees, if any, have been paid, and the civil penalties hereinafter imposed have been paid. Respondents shall pay the following civil penalties to the Department, within thirty (30) days from the date of the Final Order: Norma Trento $10,000.00 Steve Mishkin $20,000.00 James Joss $20,000.00 Highland Ranch Acres, Inc. $20,000.00 Citrus Grove Acres, Inc. $20,000 00 DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Scott T. Eber, Esquire 3550 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 504 Miami, Florida 33137 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated sections 475.25(1)(e), 475.42(1)(b), and 475.42(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2- 14.009, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the real estate industry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed real estate sales associate having been issued license number 3101946. During the time relevant to this case, Respondent was a sales associate affiliated with Bahia Real Estate ("Bahia"), a brokerage company owned by Raul and Ricardo Aleman, with offices located in Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, Florida. Respondent was employed in Bahia's Miami location. In 2010, Respondent acted as a sales associate on behalf of Michael Perricone for a real estate transaction involving the purchase of a condominium in the Blue Lagoon Towers ("Blue Lagoon") in Miami which was purchased as an investment. Mr. Perricone's sister, Francesca Palmeri, and her husband, Santo Palmeri, were present at the closing where they met Respondent for the first and only time. During the closing, which lasted approximately one hour, the Palmeris indicated to Respondent that they would be interested in making a similar purchase of investment property if another comparable condominium unit became available at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no further interaction with Respondent until he contacted them at their home in Pueblo, Colorado, in 2011 to advise them of the availability of a condominium for sale at Blue Lagoon. On or about October 6, 2011, Respondent faxed a partially completed Bahia form "'AS IS' Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase" to Mrs. Palmeri for the Palmeris to use in making an offer on a condominium unit located at 5077 Northwest Seventh Street, Miami, Florida. Prior to forwarding the document to Mrs. Palmeri, Respondent wrote on the form the property description, the escrow agent name and address, the initial escrow deposit amount and additional deposit, the time for acceptance, the closing date, and listed himself as the "Cooperating Sales Associate" with "Bahia Realty Group, LLC." The Palmeris decided to offer a $125,000.00 purchase price. Respondent directed Mrs. Palmeri to complete the contract and provide a ten percent escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri entered a purchase price of $125,000.00, initialed each page, and signed the form as "Buyer." Respondent provided Mrs. Palmeri with instructions on how to wire the funds for the escrow deposit. On October 7, 2011, Mr. Palmeri wired $12,000.00 to J.P. Morgan Chase, which was then deposited in an account for Bonaventure Enterprises, LLC ("Bonaventure").1/ The Palmeris had no knowledge of Bonaventure, but, based upon the representations of Respondent, they understood the money they were asked to wire to the J.P. Morgan Chase account of Bonaventure was an escrow deposit for the property they intended to purchase at Blue Lagoon. The Palmeris had no discussion with Respondent regarding the reason for sending the escrow deposit to Bonaventure. They assumed that Bonaventure was somehow related to the seller or its title company. The condominium unit in question was bank owned; however, the Palmeris were not informed of this. No evidence was presented that Respondent had an ownership interest in Bonaventure. However, Bonaventure is owned by Respondent's brother and sister-in-law. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the managing member of Bonaventure. Bonaventure is not a licensed real estate broker. Bahia does not maintain an escrow account, and its sales associates are authorized to use title companies of their choice for receipt of escrow deposits. Respondent was aware that he was unable to accept the escrow deposit of the Palmeris in his own name, because, as a licensed real estate sales associate, he is prohibited from receiving the money associated with a real estate transaction in the name of anyone other than his broker or employer. In fact, Respondent was disciplined in 2010 for a similar violation.2/ Respondent claims that the Palmeris entrusted him with their $12,000.00 to hold for possible investments, not necessarily related to real estate transaction, and he was doing it as a favor for them as "friends." Respondent contradicted himself by stating his intention in directing the Palmeris to deposit their money into the Bonaventure account was to help them have cash on hand in Florida in order to meet the Blue Lagoon condominium seller's requirements to make the escrow deposit with the seller's title company within 24 hours after an offer was accepted. The Palmeris had no knowledge of the seller's unique restrictions on the escrow money. Further, Respondent's asserted motive in requesting the $12,000.00 to have cash on hand in Florida is undermined by the fact that, if the Palmeris could wire $12,000.00 to Bonaventure's bank account, they could also wire the funds directly to a title company chosen by the selling bank after acceptance of their offer. Shortly after returning the contract to Respondent and sending the escrow deposit, Mrs. Palmeri discussed increasing the purchase price by $1,000.00 for a total of $126,000.00. Based upon the language of the proposed contract, the Palmeris expected a response to their offer within 24 hours. Immediately thereafter, Respondent told the Palmeris that they were "in negotiations." However, almost a month passed before they heard from Respondent regarding the status of the purchase of the condominium. On or about November 4, 2011, Respondent contacted Mrs. Palmeri and stated that he had "good news." He indicated that the seller would be willing to sell the property for a price of $129,500.00. According to Respondent, the seller requested documentation from the Palmeris' bank indicating their ability to pay. Mrs. Palmeri indicated that this was not an acceptable counter-offer. Respondent suggested that he could negotiate a sales price of $129,000.00, but he needed the Palmeris to send an additional $9,000.00 to put into escrow. Mrs. Palmeri told Respondent that she was no longer interested in the property because their maximum offer was $126,000.00. During the same conversation, Mrs. Palmeri asked for the return of her deposit. Respondent expressed agitation that she was retreating from the possible purchase because he had done "so much work." Respondent clearly anticipated he would receive a commission if the deal was consummated. The Palmeris did not get an immediate return of their escrow deposit. Mrs. Palmeri called Respondent repeatedly and received no answer. She also sent an e-mail to J.P. Morgan Chase trying to find out the status of the deposit and received no reply. Mrs. Palmeri again attempted to contact Respondent on November 18, 2011, and left him a message that he needed to call her regarding the deposit. After receiving no response, she contacted Bahia and spoke with Ricardo Aleman. Mrs. Palmeri explained to Aleman that she had signed a real estate contract with Respondent on October 6, 2011. She no longer wanted to pursue this real estate transaction and wanted the escrow deposit returned. Aleman was unaware that Respondent was negotiating a real estate transaction for the Palmeris or had accepted their deposit money. Aleman contacted Respondent who confirmed by email that the Palmeris were no longer interested in purchasing the condominium at Blue Lagoon. Respondent wrote, "After a month of hard work . . . the client decided to drop. It was a little bit problematic. I lost time and money because the offer was already accepted and she had no reason to negotiate." Respondent assured Aleman he would return the deposit to the Palmeris. In accordance with Bahia's policies and procedures, its sales associates are required to complete a deposit form at the time of receipt of funds for escrow. No such receipt was received by Bahia from Respondent with regard to the transaction involving the Palmeris. However, it was not unusual for Bahia not to receive information regarding real estate transactions conducted by their sales associates until the time of closing. After discussing the matter with Aleman, Respondent advised the Palmeris that he could return their money within ten days. Respondent advised Mrs. Palmeri that he would send her two checks for the total amount--one check which she could cash immediately and a second check which would be postdated. In order to get a return of their deposit, Mrs. Palmeri agreed. On or about November 28, 2011, the Palmeris received two checks, each in the amount of $6,000.00, including one postdated for December 16, 2011. These checks were written on the account of Bonaventure and signed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a final order imposing on Alfonso Miranda an administrative fine in the amount of $6,000.00 and suspending the real estate sales associate license of Alfonso Miranda for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 2nd day of April, 2014.
