The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Greg Davenport Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Container Grown, is entitled to payment from an Agricultural Bond issued to Respondent, A.W. Kelley’s Gardens, Inc., and, if so, the amount owed to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed producer of an agricultural product: Nursery plants and flowers. Petitioner is duly incorporated by the State of Florida and is in good standing. Greg Davenport is listed as Director and President of the corporation in the Division of Corporations’ web-based records. Respondent is a duly incorporated Florida corporation. Its business address is 6901 Hendry Creek Drive, Ft. Myers, Florida. The directors of the corporation are listed as Dixie Kelley, Drew Kelley, and Kent Kelley. Respondent is a plant retail business. Respondent has been a customer of Petitioner for many years, going back as far as 2006 according to evidence submitted at final hearing. During that time, Respondent has purchased approximately $91,000.00 worth of goods from Petitioner. (In its PRO, Respondent says the relationship goes back 25 years or more, but there was no sworn testimony to that effect.) During the period March 22 through May 24, 2012, Respondent ordered numerous items from Petitioner for which he was billed in accordance with standard practices. The following invoices provide the invoice number, date of invoice, and amount of purchase: Invoice 1399 - March 22, 2012 - $1,570.00 Invoice 1818 – March 27, 2012 - $2,105.00 Invoice 1391 – April 10, 2012 - $1,130.00 Invoice 1303 – April 25, 2012 - $ 850.00 Invoice 1419 – May 16, 2012 - $1,145.00 Invoice 1431 – May 24, 2012 - $1,175.00 TOTAL - $7,975.00 Petitioner contacted Respondent on numerous occasions to request payment on the outstanding invoices. Those efforts were in vain. At first, Respondent would make empty promises to pay, but ultimately just refused to accept Petitioner’s calls. Meanwhile, Respondent’s owner relocated to North Carolina, causing Petitioner to fear that payment may never be forthcoming. Respondent made some promises to make payments “whenever he could” to satisfy the debt. He said, however, that even if he could not pay, Petitioner should not attach his agriculture bond. Respondent’s failure to make any promised payments was the basis for Petitioner seeking payment by way of the bond. Respondent does not deny his failure to pay the outstanding invoices. He does not dispute that the products he received were of acceptable quality. He does, in fact, admit his indebtedness to Petitioner. Respondent does not feel his bond should be attached for payment of this debt. He cites, as reasons, that: 1) his business suffered during the national financial crisis; 2) there was some embezzlement going on in his business that affected his ability to pay obligees; 3) there is a related civil lawsuit underway in circuit court relating to the embezzlement; and 4) Davenport and Kelley have been friends for a long time and thus he should be allowed more time to pay the invoices. Respondent’s PRO sets forth other bases for why he believes it would be improper to attach his agriculture bond. However, none of those bases was addressed by sworn witnesses at final hearing and are thus not evidence in this case. Further, Respondent contends that two witnesses he subpoenaed but failed to show up for final hearing prejudiced his case. He did not prove, however, that either of the supposed witnesses had been properly served. Respondent’s PRO also sets forth facts not elicited through testimony or documentary evidence during final hearing. Respondent relies in part on various documents exchanged between the parties during discovery, but none of those were offered into evidence and thus are not part of the record. Respondent acquired a bond through Suretec Insurance Company. The amount of the bond was not disclosed at final hearing but, per statute, must be at least $5,000.00. The surety company was not represented at final hearing. No defense was raised by the surety company concerning Petitioner’s attempt to attach the bond. Petitioner is entitled to payment in the amount of $7,975.00 for the products it provided to Respondent. Besides the amount set forth above, Petitioner claims the sum of $100.00 paid for the filing of his two claims against Respondent’s bond. The total sum owed to Petitioner by Respondent is $8,075.00.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: Respondent shall pay to Petitioner, within 15 days of the entry of the Final Order, the sum of $8,075.00; If Respondent fails to timely make the aforementioned payment, the Department shall call upon Suretec Surety Company to pay over to the Department the full amount of Respondent’s bond; and The Department shall then turn the proceeds of the bond over to Petitioner to satisfy the debt that has been established. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, M-38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Michael Cronin SureTec Insurance Company Suite 320 9737 Great Hills Trail Austin, Texas 78759 Greg Davenport Greg Davenport Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Container Grown 613 Corbel Drive Naples, Florida 34110-1106 Kent O. Kelley A. W. Kelley’s Gardens Inc. 6901 Hendry Creek Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Lorena Holley, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Adam Putnam Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact C & W Sales, Inc., was licensed as a dealer in agricultural products under license No. 1367 and was so licensed at all times here relevant. At the time of the incorporation of C & W Sales, Inc., Henry T. Watson was listed as an officer (President) and director of the company. The company was run by Philip A. Roberts, the brother-in-law of Watson. Roberts applied on behalf of C & W Sales, Inc., to FFB for an agriculture bond in the amount of $20,000 for the period 5/19/79 until 5/19/80 (Exhibit 1) . As a condition for issuing this bond FFB required and obtained a general agreement of indemnity from Roberts and Watson and their wives (Exhibit 2) which was executed on 2 May 1979. In addition to agreeing to save Florida Farm Bureau harmless from all claims arising out of the bond paragraph 14 provided: That this indemnity is continuing and will apply to any and all bonds, as provided in the opening paragraph of this Agreement which the Company may have executed or procured the execution of from time to time, and over an indefinite period of years; however, any Indemnitor may by written notice to the Company at its Home Office, Gainesville, Florida disavow his liability as to bond(s) which may be executed by the Company subsequent to fifteen days after receipt by the Company of such notice. Agriculture bond (Exhibit 4) was issued on 5/19/79 for one year and upon expiration on 5/19/80 the bond was renewed for an additional period of one year (Exhibit 5). Subsequent to the expiration of the 1979-80 bond (Exhibit 4) and reissuance of the 1980-81 bond (Exhibit 5) but within the prescribed time for submitting a claim against the agriculture dealer and his bond, John T. Brantley, Jr., filed a claim against C & W Sales in the amount of $8,317.05 for payment owed on a transaction which occurred during the 1979-80 period. When C & W Sales failed to pay or respond to the Commissioner of Agriculture's demands for payment, claim was made on the 1979-80 bond and FFB remitted to the Commissioner of Agriculture a check for the Brantley claim (Exhibit 6). Around February 1980 Watson became disenchanted with Roberts' running of C & W Sales, Inc. and wanted out. He told Roberts to get someone to buy his (Watson) stock and to get his name out of the company. Roberts said he would. Watson never advised FFB that he would no longer be an indemnitor under the bond. During the period covered by the bond year beginning 5/19/80 claims against C & W Sales, Inc., were submitted to the Commissioner of Agriculture by Henry L. Watson in the amount of $32,326.50; Hugh D. Martin in the amount of $1,932.80; Jesse J. Wilson in the amount of $1,490.00; John T. Brantley, Jr., in the amount of $15,024.40; and Philip Dean and Willie Bass in the amount of $4,919.13, for a total of $55,692.83. The Commissioner of Agriculture notified C & W Sales of these claims and advised them of the opportunity to contest the validity of the claims. No response was received from C & W Sales and Roberts appears to have departed the area to parts unknown. An order demanding payment was submitted to C & W Sales and when payment of these claims was not made, FFB, as surety on the bond, was notified by the department of its surety on the bond, was notified by the department of its obligation under the bond and a demand for payment of $20,000 to the department was made. There is no dispute regarding the accuracy or validly of the claims against C & W Sales contained in Finding 7 above. Nor does FFB contest its liability under the agriculture bond it issued for the 1980-81 bond year. However, FFB claimed an equitable setoff for the percentage of the $20,000 that would go to Watson. This setoff is claimed by virtue of Watson's indemnity agreement. By the stipulation the parties have agreed that the FFB is entitled to the pro rata share of the $20,000 to Watson.
Findings Of Fact On August 6, 1986, an indemnity bond was executed between RAINMAKER as principal and FIDELITY as surety. The effective dates of the bond were from October 21, 1986, to October 20, 1987. The bond was required under Sections 604.15-604.30, Florida Statutes, in order for RAINMAKER to become licensed as a dealer in agricultural products in Florida. The purpose of the bond is to secure the faithful accounting for a payment to producers or their agents or representatives of the proceeds of all agricultural products handled or purchased by RAINMAKER. The Petitioner, SHAN-RON, is a corporation whose address is 276 Cypress Street, La Belle, Florida. Its purpose is to conduct business by finding buyers for sod located on acreage owned by various cattle ranchers in Lee County, Florida. This practice is commonly known as "bird dogging" in the agricultural trade. The way the business is conducted is as follows: SHAN-RON is contracted by sod installers to whom it sells sod in specific quantities for a fixed price. Once the oral agreement is made, SHAN-RON tells the sod installer where a sod field is located. At this point in the business transaction, the sod installer sends independent truck drivers to the designated sod field. If the sod installer is unable to locate truckers, he telephones a SHAN-RON field foreman. The foreman, as a courtesy, will check to see if any of the independent truckers currently as the sod field can haul a load for the sod installer. Once a trucker is located, employees from SHAN-RON mow the grass, cut the sod, and load it onto pallets owned by SHAN-RON. The truck is loaded with pallets by SHAN-RON employees and the driver is given two copies of the load ticket, one for him and one for the sod installer. The driver delivers the sod and pallets to the address placed upon the load tickets. Upon delivery, the driver has the responsibility to deliver the load ticket to the business office of the sod installer. If he does not deliver the ticket, he does not get paid for hauling the sod. Employees of the sod installer are usually at the delivery site. The sod is laid and the empty pallets are returned to the sod field by the truckers. Every Friday, a representative of SHAN-RON personally delivers a weekly bill to the sod installer in order to collect is owed. When the money is collected, the funds are divided between the rancher whose sod was sold and SHAN-RON. The accountability system used within the sod industry leaves room for a high margin of error at various stages. The SHAN-RON employees occasionally short pallet loads or two layers of sod. The truck drivers occasionally misnamed the sod installer to whom the sod is to be delivered. The truck drivers also occasionally do not take empty pallets under their control back to SHAN-RON. They sell the pallets and pocket the money. The sod installer is financially responsible for the pallet costs. RAINMAKER is a corporation whose address is Post Office Box 7385, Ft. Myers, Florida. The company is primarily in the business of installing sod. It transacted business with SHAN-RON between November 11, 1986, and January 8, 1987. At the time of these transactions, RAINMAKER was licensed as a dealer in agricultural products supported by surety bond number 974 52 23 in the amount of $13,500.00. SHAN-RON, through testimony and the introduction of its business records, proved a prima facie case that RAINMAKER owes $12,964.00 for the purchase of sod between November 11, 1986, and January 8, 1987. Both parties Stipulated that $4,000.00 has been paid on the balance of the account which should be deducted from the balance owed SHAN-RON. In rebuttal to SHAN-RON's presentation, RAINMAKER presented testimony and a business record summary which revealed that six invoices were improperly charged, against its account in the amount of $1,260.00. The record summary was based upon a comparison of load tickets against production records during the time period involved. In addition, RAINMAKER's records reveal that the two drivers, Stormy and Fred Bower, were not paid for delivering the sod to RAINMAKER under the load ticket presentation to the sod installer which was previously described as an accounting method within the business. Because RAINMAKER set forth the issue of delivery discrepancies in its answer to the complaint and competent evidence was presented, $1,260.00 should be deducted from the `balance owed. SHAN-RON presented testimony that it is customary for the company to spray the sod for pest control. RAINMAKER received defective sod from SHAN-RON which contained "Creeping Charlie" weeds during the time of the deliveries in dispute. SHAN-RON was timely notified of the problem, and toad RAINMAKER to have the sod sprayed. A copy of the invoice for $300.00 was sent to SHAN-RON and has not been paid. Although the issue was not raised in RAINMAKER's answer to the complaint, it is properly before the Hearing Officer because of RAINMAKER's timely notification and cure of the defect in the product. The $300.00 should be deducted from the amount owed. Testimony relating to possible sod shortages was rejected as no evidence was presented that shortages occurred in the orders for which SHAN-RON seeks payment. The customary procedure In the sod business for handling credits for shortages requires the buyer to notify the seller within a responsible length of time of the shortages. Such notification did not take place as to the orders in dispute. The amount owed to SHAN-RON by RAINMAKER is $7,404.00. It is officially noticed that SHAN-RON's complaint was originally filed with the department on June 19, 1987, within nine months from the date of sale.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture enter a final order requiring the Respondent RAINMAKER to make payment to the petitioner SHAN-RON in the amount of $7,404.00. In the event that RAINMAKER does not comply with the department's order within fifteen days from the date it final, FIDELITY should be ordered to provide payment and the conditions and provisions of the bond furnished to RAINMAKER. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 12th day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Clinton H. Coutler, JR., Esquire Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ben Pridgeon, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture Lab Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Shan Ron Sod, Inc. 276 Cypress Street LaBELLE, FLORIDA 33935 Rainmaker Sod, Inc. 2290 Bruner Lane, South East Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 1227 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Robert Chastain General Counsel Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issue is whether Smallwood Design Group/Smallwood Landscape, Inc. (Respondent), and its surety, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, owe funds to American Farms, LLC, (Petitioner) for the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was a licensed agricultural producer in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed agricultural dealer in the State of Florida. From May 30 through October 27, 2006, the Respondent purchased agricultural products, specifically foliage plants, from the Petitioner. All charges for the plants sold by the Petitioner to the Respondent were billed on invoices that were sent to the Respondent by the Petitioner. The quantities and prices of the delivered plants were clearly identified on the invoices. The Respondent has failed to pay invoices totaling $11,777.18 that were sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent. There is no evidence that any of the charges were disputed by the Respondent at the time the sales were invoiced. There is no evidence that any of the plants sold by the Petitioner to the Respondent were unsatisfactory in terms of price or quality. As required by law, the Respondent had in place an Agricultural Products Dealer Bond dated December 9, 2005. The bond was executed by Joann Smallwood as "principal" for the Respondent. The bond was effective for one year and included the time period relevant to this proceeding. In correspondence filed during the course of this proceeding, the Respondent asserted that Joann Smallwood sold the business to another owner during the time relevant to this proceeding. The evidence established that at all times material to this case, Joann Smallwood acted as the owner/manager of the business. The plants sold by the Petitioner to the Respondent were picked up by trucks with Smallwood logos and signage. There was no evidence that the Petitioner was ever advised during the time the Respondent was purchasing plants from the Petitioner that Joann Smallwood had sold the business or that the Respondent would not be liable for payment of products purchased from the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order directing that the Respondent pay the total of $11,777.18 to the Petitioner (plus the filing fee paid by the Petitioner to the DACS) and establishing such other procedures as are necessary to provide for satisfaction of the debt. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 3rd day of August, 2007.
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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, H.P. Sod, Inc., is entitled to payment from an Agricultural Bond issued to Respondent, PLS Landscape Services, Inc., and, if so, the amount owed to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed producer of an agricultural product, i.e., sod. Petitioner is a duly incorporated for-profit corporation in the State of Florida and is in good standing. Horacio Pereira is the putative owner of the company, referring to himself at final hearing as “the boss, the guy who tells people what to do.” Respondent is a duly incorporated Florida corporation. Its business address is 6132 Snook Court, Port St. Lucie, Florida. The only officer or director of the corporation is George J. Kijewski. Respondent is a landscaping business. From the period July 23, 2012, through October 16, 2012, Respondent purchased quantities of Bahia sod from Petitioner on numerous occasions. The dates of purchase, quantity of sod purchased, and ticket numbers for each purchase are as follows: 23 – Ticket 36930 – 10 pallets 23 - Ticket 36983 – 16 pallets 30 – Ticket 37185 – 10 pallets 1 – Ticket 36818 – 16 pallets 1 – Ticket 37276 – 16 pallets 1 – Ticket 37283 – 16 pallets 6 – Ticket 36872 – 16 pallets 8 – Ticket 37319 – 16 pallets July July July August August August August August August 10 – Ticket 37339 – 16 pallets September 4 – Ticket 37727 – 16 pallets October 15 – Ticket 38712 – 16 pallets October 16 – Ticket 38720 – 16 pallets Petitioner issued the following invoices to Respondent concerning the aforementioned purchases of Bahia sod: Invoice 6615 – July 26 – Tickets 36930, 36983 $620.20 Invoice 6640 – August 2 – Tickets 36818, 37185, 37276, 37283 - $1,420.96 Invoice 6671 – August 16 – Tickets 36872, 37319, 37339 - $1,104.24 Invoice 6735 – September 6 – Ticket 37727 - $445.12 Invoice 6875 – October 18 – Tickets 38712, 38720 - $890.24 TOTAL - $4,481.11 Respondent did not remit payments on any of the aforementioned invoices. Respondent contends that some of the sod which it purchased from Petitioner was of inferior quality or was in less quantity than ordered. Specifically, Respondent said some of the sod was wet and fell apart when being installed. He also said the wet sod resulted in some pallets containing 370 to 390 square feet of sod rather than the 400 feet that is standard on a pallet. Respondent’s testimony was general in nature, not specific to any particular shipment, and flies in the face of his on-going purchases of sod from Petitioner. Further, there was no credible evidence presented at final hearing that Respondent ever complained to Petitioner about the quality or quantity of the sod. Had he done so, Petitioner said it would have corrected the problem. Respondent did reportedly tell one of his drivers, Mr. Calloway, on occasion that the sod was wet or otherwise not up to par. However, that complaint was never provided to Petitioner so that action could be taken. Respondent acquired a bond in the sum of $5,000.00 through TD Bank, N.A. (also referred to in this matter as United States Corporation Company, as Surety). The bank was not represented at the final hearing held in this matter. No defense was raised by the bank concerning Petitioner’s attempt to attach the bond. Petitioner paid a fee of $50.00 to the Department of Agriculture to bring this action. Petitioner hired an attorney to represent its interest in this matter. The attorney charged $175.00 per hour and, as of the date of the final hearing, had billed approximately five hours of time or $875.00 in fees. Subsequent to the final hearing, the attorney submitted a post-hearing proposed order on behalf of Petitioner. The attorney expended $180.00 in costs for service of a subpoena and witness fees. The total sum demanded by Petitioner in its action against Respondent is $5,586.11. Respondent’s PRO filed in this matter asserts a number of “facts” which were not established by competent testimony at the final hearing. Those facts were not considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as follows: Respondent shall pay to Petitioner, within 15 days of the entry of the Final Order, the sum of $5,586.11; or If Respondent fails to timely make the aforementioned payment, the Department shall call upon TD Bank, N.A., to pay over to the Department the full amount of Respondent’s bond; and The Department shall then turn the entire proceeds of the bond over to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2013.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent, Private Money Mortgage Company (PMMC), was a mortgage brokerage business in the State of Florida holding License Number HB592732699 that had been issued by Petitioner. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Frank Donahue was a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida holding License Number HA267474770 that had been issued by Petitioner. The Department of Banking and Finance, the Petitioner in these proceedings, is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. In 1985, Mr. and Mrs. A. Charles Cinelli bought a house in Palm Beach County, Florida, and moved from upstate New York to Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent, Frank Donahue, assisted Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli in obtaining financing for the home the Cinellis purchased in Palm Beach, County. In connection with this 1985 transaction, Mr. Donahue forwarded to the Cinellis an "Exclusive Broker Agreement", which they executed and returned to him. Because this 1985 transaction involved a purchase, Mr. Donahue ordered an appraisal for this property and charged its cost as a part of the Cinelli's closing costs. Subsequent to that transaction, Mr. Donahue and his wife, Brenda, saw Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli at occasional social events. Franklin T. Smith is a certified public accountant who performed professional services for Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli and for Mr. and Mrs. Donahue. Mr. Smith referred the Cinellis to Mr. Donahue in 1985 and advised the Cinellis during the transaction that is the subject of this proceeding. Prior to December 2, 1988, Mr. Cinelli contacted several mortgage brokers in the Palm Beach County area to discuss the possibility of obtaining a mortgage on certain real property located in upstate New York. Mr. Cinelli contacted Mr. Donahue by telephone and discussed with him his desire to raise capital to begin a business in Florida. Mr. Cinelli estimated that he would require approximately $1,000,000 to start this business. Mr. Cinelli told Mr. Donahue that he and Mrs. Cinelli owned certain commercial real property in upstate New York and that State Farm Insurance Company held an option to purchase this property for the sum of $1,450,000. Mr. Cinelli did not want to wait to learn whether State Farm intended to exercise this option to purchase and he discussed with Mr. Donahue the possibility of obtaining the desired capital by securing a mortgage on this property. Mr. Donahue advised Mr. Cinelli that he could expect to secure a mortgage for approximately $700,000 (which was approximately 50% of the amount of the option contract) and that he would need a current appraisal. Mr. Donahue also informed Mr. Cinelli that he would require the sum of $2,500 as a non-refundable deposit to begin seeking such a commitment. On or about December 2, 1988, Mr. Cinelli provided Mr. Donahue with a copy of the option agreement with State Farm and with a copy of the agreement dated September 21, 1988, which extended the time within which State Farm could exercise its option for an additional six months. Mr. Cinelli reiterated to Mr. Donahue that the option price was for $1,450,000 and that he wanted to mortgage the property for $1,000,000. Mr. Cinelli also provided Mr. Donahue with the name, address, and telephone number of Mr. Wayne Lupe, who was represented by Mr. Cinelli to be his MAI appraiser in Schenectady, New York. On December 15, 1988, Mr. Donahue sent to Mr. Cinelli a letter which attached an "Exclusive Broker Agreement" that had been executed by Mr. Donahue on December 15, 1988. This was the same "Exclusive Broker Agreement" form that Mr. Donahue had used for the 1985 Cinelli transaction. The body of the letter provided as follows: Enclosed please find a copy of my exclusive brokers agreement detailing the probable terms of the loan which you are seeking. This agreement is the same agreement which you signed when you purchased your current resi- dence. The agreement calls for both you & Joan to sign and return along with a nonrefundable deposit in the amount of $2500.00 to Private Money Mortgage Corp. The above noted deposit shall be credited towards your closing costs at the time of closing, if a commitment is offered. I have spoken to several of my investors about your concerns and I am awaiting confirmation of their substantial interests prior to ordering the appraisal. I will contact you as soon as I have received the return of this agreement along with your deposit in order to fill you in on our efforts to secure you the most competitive loan on your desired terms. The Exclusive Broker Agreement reflected that the amount of the mortgage would be $700,000 and disclosed that the total estimated costs that would be incurred in securing the mortgage was $78,346, which included a broker's fee of $35,000 and an estimated appraisal fee of $3,500. The Exclusive Broker Agreement, signed by Mr. Donahue on December 15, 1988, contained the following provision: DEPOSIT: In consideration of the sum of $2,500, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, Broker accepts this application and agrees to exert his/her best effort to obtain a commitment for loan in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. This deposit shall be credited toward closing costs at the time of closing the permanent loan or commitment, less Broker's expenses. Among the "Standards" which were incorporated as terms and conditions of the Exclusive Broker Agreement was the following: Deposit. Client simultaneously with execution of this agreement has deposited with broker the amounts stated in this agreement in order to secure the obligations owed by client to broker in the event of default of client as provided in the agreement and to reimburse broker of any and all expenses, including telephone charges, lodging, and administrative fees for credit checks and processing appraisals and the like, including upon any cancellation by client, reimbursement for broker's time expended incurred by broker, whether or not a loan commitment is obtained by broker. Mr. Cinelli was concerned that he would be incurring substantial fees and costs if Mr. Donahue obtained a commitment and Mr. Cinelli decided not to accept it. Mr. Smith advised Mr. Cinelli that the estimated expenses were not abnormally high, but he suggested that his liability should be limited. In response to those concerns, Mr. Donahue prepared and delivered between December 15, 1988, and the end of the year an addendum to the Exclusive Broker Agreement that would have limited Mr. Cinelli's liability to the sum of $7,500. That addendum provided, in pertinent part, as follows: It is hereby understood and agreed by the parties that in the event a loan commitment is offered to the applicants & they decide to refuse this commitment, the applicants liability will be limited to the sum of Five Thousand Dollars plus the original deposit of $2,500.00 for a total amount of $7,500.00. It is further understood that said commitment must bear approximately the same terms and conditions as the attached agreement. Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli gave Mr. Smith the sum of $2,500 in cash to deliver to Mr. Donahue, but there is conflicting testimony as to when this money was delivered to Mr. Smith for delivery to Mr. Donahue. Mr. Cinelli testified that the money was delivered before the Exclusive Broker Agreement dated December 15, 1988, was prepared. Mr. Donahue testified that the money was delivered after both the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum thereto had been delivered to Mr. Cinelli. Mr. Donahue also testified that the statement contained in the Exclusive Broker Agreement that he signed on December 15, 1988, acknowledging his receipt of the $2,500 deposit was false. He did not explain why the addendum referred to the sum of $2,500 as "the original deposit". Mr. Smith did not recall when he delivered this money to Mr. Donahue, but he did recall having delivered the cash the same day he received it from the Cinellis. While his testimony is that he received the $2,500 during his initial meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Cinelli (which would be before Mr. Cinelli received the Exclusive Broker Agreement) this testimony lacks credibility because of Mr. Smith's lack of certainty as to dates. In addition, this testimony conflicts with the letter Mr. Smith wrote to Mr. Donahue at Mr. Donahue's request on August 28, 1989, which clearly indicates that the $2,500 was not paid until after the addendum to the Exclusive Broker Agreement had been prepared. This conflict is resolved by finding that the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the sum of $2,500 was delivered by Mr. Smith to Mr. Donahue after Mr. Cinelli had received both the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum thereto. Mr. Donahue did not provide the Cinellis with any type of written agreement, other than his letter of December 15, 1998, the Exclusive Broker Agreement, and the addendum when he received the cash from Mr. Smith. There was no written receipt for these funds, nor was there any written memorandum of understanding between Mr. Donahue and the Cinellis as to whether payment for the appraisal that Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli had discussed would be made from the $2,500. Mr. Cinelli was of the belief that $2,000 of the $2,500 deposit would be earmarked for the payment of the appraisal. Mr. Donahue was of the belief that the $2,500 was a non-refundable retainer and he treated that sum as an earned fee. There was no meeting of the minds between Mr. Cinelli and Mr. Donahue as to the nature of the $2,500 deposit, other than it was non-refundable. Specifically, there was no agreement as to what costs, if any, would be paid from that deposit. Mr. Donahue's normal business practice in transactions involving a refinance of property is different than his practice in transactions involving a purchase of property. In purchase transactions (such as the 1985 Cinelli transaction), Mr. Donahue arranges for the appraisals and treats the costs of the appraisal as an expense to be paid by the purchaser at closing. In refinance transactions (such as the 1988 Cinelli transaction), it is his practice to require his customer to deal directly with the appraiser in ordering and paying the costs of the appraisal. Respondents failed to establish that in the subject transaction, Mr. Donahue made it clear that Mr. Cinelli would be responsible for ordering and paying the cost of the appraisal. Mr. Cinelli believed that $2,000 of the $2,500 he later gave Mr. Donahue would be earmarked for the payment of the appraisal. Neither Mr. Donahue's letter of December 15, 1998, the Exclusive Broker Agreement, nor the addendum clearly resolved the dispute. There was a dispute between Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli as to who ordered the appraisal. Mr. Cinelli denied that he ordered the appraisal and that his calls to his appraiser, Mr. Lupe, was only to advise him of Mr. Donahue's forthcoming call. Mr. Donahue denied that he ordered the appraisal and that his contacts with Mr. Lupe were after Mr. Cinelli had ordered the appraisal. Mr. Donahue contends that his contacts with the appraiser were merely to give the appraiser instructions as to the information that should be reflected by the appraisal. This dispute is resolved by finding that Mr. Cinelli ordered the appraisal through Mr. Lupe and that Mr. Donahue advised Mr. Lupe as to the information that should be reflected by the appraisal. It was determined from conversations between Mr. Donahue and Mr. Lupe that Mr. Lupe was not qualified to perform the appraisal and that Mr. Lupe would engage Albert L. Friedman, MAI and William J. McEvoy of Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company of Schenectady, New York, on Mr. Cinelli's behalf to perform the work. Messrs. Friedman and McEvoy prepared the appraisal and certified the same to Mr. Cinelli on March 13, 1989. The appraised value of the property was $2,100,000. As of the date of the formal hearing, the appraiser's bill of $2,000 had not been paid. Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company had billed both Mr. Donahue and Mr. Cinelli and an attorney representing Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company had written Mr. Cinelli a demand letter. It was the dispute over the payment of the appraiser's fee that prompted the complaint the Cinellis filed against Respondents. The Cinellis did not execute the Exclusive Broker Agreement and the addendum because they wanted to wait on the appraisal to see if the appraised value would permit them to borrow more than $700,000 and because they were not satisfied with the amount of the projected costs of consummating the transaction. Mr. Cinelli misled Mr. Donahue as to his intentions to execute these agreements. Mr. Donahue made several requests to the Cinellis that they execute the Exclusive Broker Agreement and addendum and return them to him. Despite the absence of an executed brokerage agreement, Mr. Donahue exerted considerable effort to seek a commitment consistent with the Exclusive Broker's Agreement and succeeded in securing such a commitment in April 1989. No part of the $2,500 Mr. Donahue received from Mr. Smith on behalf of the Cinellis was placed in escrow by Mr. Donahue. Respondents have made no accounting of the $2,500 and have paid no part of the appraisal bill. Mr. Donahue claims the deposit as a non-refundable earned fee, despite the absence of a written agreement to that effect. The Cinellis sold the subject property to State Farm in June 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by Petitioner which finds: that Respondents violated the provisions of Rule 3D-40.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, by accepting the $2,500 deposit from the Cinellis without a written agreement as to the disposition of those funds; that Respondents violated the provisions of Section 494.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3D-40.006(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to place said deposit in escrow; and that Respondents violated the provisions of by Section 494.055(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing to account for said deposit. It is further recommended that an administrative fine be levied against Respondents in the total amount of $1,000.00 for said violations. It is further recommended that the final order place the licenses of Respondents on probation for a period of one year with three special conditions of probation. The first special condition of probation would require Respondents to pay Capitol Real Estate and Appraisal Company the sum of $2,000 within sixty days of the Final Order. The second special condition of probation would terminate Respondents' probation upon timely compliance with the first special condition of probation. The third special condition of probation would prohibit Respondents from conducting any business as mortgage brokers within the State of Florida for a period of six months should Respondents fail to timely comply with the first condition of probation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of January, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4708 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 3-10, and 13 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2 and 11 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being argument. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-3 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 4-6, 14, and 17 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The characterization of the Cinellis having a "long standing relationship" with Mr. Donahue is rejected as being ambiguous and unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9-11 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent that they are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 13 are rejected as being recitation of testimony or as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or as being contrary to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah Guller, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 Marie A. Mattox, Esquire Douglass, Cooper, Coppins & Powell Post Office Box 1674 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1674 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Respondent Charles W. Crowell, a State Farm agent under the terms of an agency agreement declaring him an independent contractor, has never employed 15 or more employees at any one time. During the 20 weeks next before petitioner Donna Clark left his employ, he had no more than three full-time and two part- time employees. As a State Farm agent, Mr. Crowell is contractually bound not to represent other insurance companies. State Farm, which has employed more than 15 persons at all pertinent times, prescribes policy forms, premiums, fees and charges for insurance, and prescribes underwriting rules its agents (and so their employees) must follow. Most premiums reach State Farm in the form of checks drawn by insured persons. But, as required by state law and his agreement with State Farm alike, Mr. Crowell maintains a separate premium fund account, into which customers' cash premium payments are deposited. Moneys are disbursed directly from this account to State Farm, which has the right to audit the account. State Farm determines Crowell's compensation based on the amount of premiums it receives on policies he has written, and writes him checks accordingly. At year's end, State Farm reports these payments to the IRS on a form 1099, not on a W-2 form. Mr. Crowell receives no compensation directly from the premium fund account. When an agent retires and in certain other instances, State Farm allocates policies among remaining agents, while honoring preferences policyholders express for particular agents. But it does not restrict agents to a particular territory or otherwise dictate where its agents conduct business. State Farm reserves the right to approve any advertising by an agency using State Farm's name or logo. But certain business cards bearing the logo are "pre-approved," except for the name of the agent or other employee in the agent's office which is to appear on the card. Mr. Crowell sets his own hours and it was he who decided the office would open at nine and close at five. Some days he does not open his office for business, even though State Farm offices are open. If he closes his office on days State Farm is closed, it may well be because he cannot do business with State Farm. But he is free to keep office hours on such days if he chooses. His compensation does not depend directly on the amount of time his office is open, or on the amount of time he spends at work. Mr. Crowell, not State Farm, decides whom to employ in his office, and sets hours, salaries and benefits for these employees. He, not State Farm, personally pays wages and benefits (if any), along with employment taxes for which employers are liable on account of their employees. But, on unemployment compensation tax forms, gives as the employer's name "CHARLES W. CROWELL STATE FARM INSURANCE COS" and signs as Charles W. Crowell Agent." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. Mr. Crowell drew salary checks in favor of Ms. Clark and other employees in his office on his own business checking account, which is not subject to audit by State Farm. These salary checks did not bear State Farm's name or logo. The parties have stipulated, as follows: "5. Crowell's office is located at 908 Michigan Avenue in Pensacola, Florida, and he personally owns the property and building where his office is located. State Farm has no interest or property rights in this facility. The only forms, manuals, and other documents located in Crowell's office which are the property of State Farm are insurance product information, including names of policyholders. The equipment, furniture and other supplies located at or used in Crowell's office are owned or leased by Crowell, and not State Farm. Crowell personally hired Donna M. Clark, and State Farm took no part in, exercised no control over, and had no input regarding Crowell's decision to hire Ms. Clark. Crowell sets the work hours, wages and benefits of his employees, including the number of employees employed by his business, without consultation with or the approval of State Farm. Crowell personally pays the salaries or wages and employment taxes, including Florida Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, Social Security (FICA) and federal tax withholding, on all of his employees, including Ms. Clark, and State Farm pays no salaries to or taxes on behalf of any of Crowell's employees. State Farm provides no benefits to the employees of its State Farm agents, and Crowell decides whether employment benefits such as health or life insurance are provided to Crowell's employees, including whether there is any cost to the employee. Such policies can be purchased by the State Farm Agent from State Farm, if he chooses to do so. Crowell, not State Farm, maintains all personnel records on his employees, including Ms. Clark. State Farm does not have any personnel records as to petitioner Donna Clark. Crowell's business is to sell State Farm policies and service State Farm policyholders. State Farm prescribes policy forms, premiums, fees and charges for insurance, and prescribes underwriting rules pertaining to writing State Farm insurance. Employees of State Farm Agents such as Mr. Crowell are not required to attend State Farm meetings or training sessions. State Farm offers training on topics selected by State Farm Agents, to which the State Farm Agents, such as Mr. Crowell, may choose to send their employees, for a fee payable to State Farm. State Farm requires Crowell to maintain a premium fund account, which is a trust account for the deposit of insurance premiums which are the property of State Farm. All cash premiums from policyholders are deposited to the premium fund account, and premium funds are promptly forwarded to State Farm. Premiums paid by check are sent directly to State Farm, and the large majority of premiums received by Crowell are by check. The premium fund account is subject to auditing by State Farm. As part of the audit of the premium fund account, State Farm develops a profit and loss statement which compares the claims experience of policies serviced by the Agent to the premiums generated by those policies and thus reflects the profit or loss to State Farm. Such profit and loss statement is for State Farm's own use in determining its own profitability and does not show or indicate the success of Mr. Crowell in his personal business as an insurance agent. Crowell maintains separate accounts for his personal and business funds which are not subject to any auditing by State Farm. Crowell is not paid for his sales activities out of the premium fund account, but is paid on a commission basis after all premium funds have been deposited with State Farm. Crowell personally directed Clark to attend certain training courses conducted by the local district manager of State Farm on underwriting insurance and product knowledge only. State farm does not require State Farm Agents to send their employees to training courses conducted by State Farm. State Farm does not allow employees of State Farm Agents to attend training courses concerning financial management or conduct of the agency, and Clark did not attend any such courses." Although not stipulated by the parties, evidence showed that, at one of the training courses Ms. Clark attended, a speaker told employees in attendance that they comprised State Farm's "front line." State Farm decides, with input from its agents, which courses and seminars to offer, but it is up to individual agents to decide who, if anybody, attends from their offices. State Farm employees known as agency managers coordinate operations of agents in their assigned area. When the agency manager decides another agent is needed, he recruits a trainee, who works for State Farm for two years or so (unless discharged earlier.) After this period of training, State Farm offers most trainees the opportunity to terminate employment and become agents. With State Farm's permission, an agent may incorporate. Even as independent contractors, agents receive contributions from State Farm toward personal insurance premiums, which are treated as part of the agents' income. The State Farm manager for the Pensacola area while Ms. Clark worked in Mr. Crowell's office offered bonuses to agents' employees who won contests, although this violated company policy. Ms. Clark did not, however, participate in any contest or receive a bonus. A number of unlicensed people in Mr. Crowell's office sign policies when he is unavailable. Because this practice is widespread, Insurance Commissioner Gallagher has insisted that insurance agents see that more office staff are licensed. Accordingly, State Farm's agency manager has asked State Farm agents to identify office personnel for licensure. Employees of a State Farm agency must be approved by State Farm, in order to obtain licenses. After an agent identifies an employee and the employee sits for an examination, State Farm does a background check and makes its decision about sponsorship. Ms. Clark did not seek licensure as an insurance agent, although she was among those who signed policies. In the course or her work, she spoke directly with underwriting personnel in Jacksonville, on Mr. Crowell's behalf or with his acquiescance.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Realtions 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Karen Lessard, Esquire 15 West LaRua Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Kathryn Errington, Esquire HARRELL, WILTSHIRE, SWEARINGEN, WILSON & HARRELL, P.A. 201 East Government Street P.O. Drawer 1832 Pensacola, FL 32501 Mary Jarrett, Esquire 2065 Herschel Street P.O. Box 40089 Jacksonville, FL 32203
Findings Of Fact Joseph Rodriguez, Respondent's President, is a licensed dealer in agricultural products under the provisions of Sections 604.15 to 604.30, Florida Statutes, and acts as a negotiating broker between the producer and the buyer. Respondent is bonded through Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, co-Respondent in this case, as required by Section 604.19, Florida Statutes. Respondent acted as broker on thirty sales of Petitioner's cabbage between May 21 and June 7, 1984. On each occasion, Respondent provided Petitioner with a written confirmation of sale which specified the buyer, the place of delivery, the amount of cabbage sold and the terms of the sale, the name of the company supplying the truck to pick up the cabbage and who was supplying the truck. On several occasions, Respondent supplied the truck. However, on all written confirmations provided by Respondent, the following appears: BROKER ARRANGES TRUCK FOR GROWER FOR CONVENIENCE PURPOSES ONLY. On June 8, 1984, Respondent contacted Petitioner's salesman, Donald Waters and ordered 150 bags of cabbage to be sold to Harvey Kaiser, Inc. Respondent was acting as a broker in this transaction between the buyer and seller. Respondent contacted Patterson Truck Brokers and ordered a truck to pick up the cabbage at Petitioner's farm on June 9 and make delivery under the terms of the sale. Petitioner could only provide 121 bags of cabbage. Respondent agreed to this lesser amount and was invoiced accordingly by Petitioner on June 9 in the amount of $272.25. The truck from Patterson Truck Brokers never arrived to pick up the cabbage. Petitioner's father, Donald A. Dunn, Jr., testified that he contacted Joseph Rodriguez on two occasions by telephone to find out where the truck was, and was told that Patterson would be sending it. Rodriguez testified that Patterson Truck Brothers had agreed to provide a truck but when they were unable, he then contacted other trucking companies, as well as other buyers, in an attempt to get a truck on June 9 or 10, or to arrange another sale of Petitioner's cabbage. However, he was not successful and the cabbage went bad. Although there was no completed sale of this cabbage and therefore he earned no brokerage fee on the transaction, Respondent paid Petitioner one-third of the invoice amount for this cabbage, $86.21, on July 23, 1984, as an act of "good faith" and in recognition of the good business relationship they had. He also informed Petitioner that Patterson Truck Brothers and Donald Waters had each also agreed to pay one-third and Petitioner should contact them for payment. Petitioner contends that it should be Respondent's responsibility to pay the entire amount still owing, $172.43. Acting as a broker, Respondent earns no commission for making arrangements to supply a truck for the convenience of the seller. He invoices the buyer, collects the total amount due from the buyer, remits the freight charge to the shipping company, and pays the seller minus his brokerage fee.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture issue a Final Order dismissing the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Rodriguez President Golden Touch Corporation 950 Colorado Avenue Stuart, FL 33497 The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 151 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06115 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee FL 32301 Donald A. Dunn, III Route 2, Box 68 Sanford, FL 32771 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301
