The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and if so, what administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the business of buying, selling, or dealing in motor vehicles or offering or displaying motor vehicles for sale. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed independent motor vehicle dealer in Florida, having been issued license number VI-29558. Petitioner issued the license based upon an application signed by Brenda L. Johnson, as President. Respondent's address of record is 3707 N. Main Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32206. On or about August 30, 2001, two of Petitioner's compliance examiners conducted an initial records inspection of Respondent's dealership. The purpose of the initial inspection was to determine whether the dealership was complying with statutory and rule requirements. Because the initial inspection was of an educational nature, it gave the compliance examiners an opportunity to provide Respondent with guidance in areas that needed improvement. During the August 30, 2001, inspection, the compliance examiners found violations of Sections 319.23(6), 320.131(7), 320.27(6), 320.27(7), 320.27(9)(b)16, and 320.27(9)(b)17, Florida Statutes. The compliance examiners also found violations of Rule 15C-1.004(3), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the August 30, 2001, inspection, included but was not limited to the following violations: (a) titles on vehicles not properly filled out; (b) buyer's guides not posted; (c) no titles to prove ownership on vehicles; (d) no proof of purchase for one vehicle; (d) titles not transferred within 30 days of sale; and (e) temporary tag log not properly filled out. The compliance examiners discussed the above-referenced violations with Respondent's general manager, Steve Landers, advising him that Petitioner would conduct a follow-up inspection within 60 days. The inspectors also advised Respondent's president, Barbara Johnson, about the violations via telephone. On or about October 10, 2001, Petitioner's compliance examiners conducted the 60-day follow-up inspection of Respondent's records. During this inspection, Respondent did not provide the examiners with a title or other proof of ownership for a 1991 Lincoln, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 1LNCM82W0MY78. The Lincoln was parked in an area where other vehicles were displayed for sale. There is no credible evidence that the Lincoln was Mr. Lander's personal vehicle. The October 10, 2001, inspection also revealed that Respondent had issued a total of 50 temporary tags. However, there were no records to verify the sale of the vehicles listed in the temporary tag log. During the October 10, 2001, inspection, the compliance examiners requested Mr. Landers to take copies of all of Respondent's records to Petitioner's office in Jacksonville, Florida, for a continuation of the follow-up inspection. The examiners also made a request for Mrs. Johnson to accompany Mr. Landers to the Jacksonville office. On or about October 25, 2001, Petitioner's compliance examiners conducted the continuation of the 60-day follow-up inspection of Respondent's record at the Jacksonville office. During the inspection, the examiners reviewed a total of 30 motor vehicle records, finding the following violations: (a) no proof of purchase for 30 vehicles; (b) no documentation indicating that Respondent had applied for titles for 20 vehicles; (c) no copy of registration for tag and title issuance documentation on 26 vehicles; and (d) no documentation indicating the date sold and odometer disclosure for 27 vehicles. On or about August 21, 2002, Petitioner's compliance examiners conducted another follow-up records inspection on Respondent's premises. At that time, Respondent did not have a title or other proof of ownership for a blue Pontiac Grand Am, VIN 1G2NE5432NM052548, or a red Dodge Shadow, VIN 1B3XP24D6PN566374, both of which were displayed for sale. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever had the required proof of ownership for these vehicles. On August 21, 2002, Respondent's records indicated that it had sold three vehicles: (a) a 1985 Ford, VIN 1CLEG25K047; (b) a 1994 Chevrolet, VIN 2C1MR2464R6749435; and (c) a 1989 Buick, VIN 1G4NJ14D1kM026233. Respondent's records relating to the purchase and sale of these vehicles were incomplete. For instance, there was no proof of purchase/sale for two of the vehicles. Additionally, Respondent did not have records of the odometer disclosure at the time of purchase or sale for any of the three vehicles. Finally, Respondent had issued more than two temporary tags for one vehicle. While the examiners were conducting the August 21, 2002, inspection, Respondent had six vehicles displayed for sale. None of the vehicles had buyer's guides posted in their windows. The examiners reviewed Respondent's temporary tag records on August 21, 2002. They found that several such records lacked required signatures and VINs. On or about October 11, 2002, Petitioner's compliance examiners conducted a third follow-up records inspection on Respondent's premises. At that time, Respondent did not have title or any other proof of ownership for the following: (a) a 1989 Plymouth, VIN 1P3BA56J8KF504260; (b) a 1992 Toyota, VIN JT2EL46B8N0@@8549; and a 1988 Toyota, VIN 1NYAE82G4JZZ536776. Additionally, the 1989 Plymouth and the 1992 Toyota did not have a buyer's guide properly posted. The review of Respondent's sales records on October 11, 2002, revealed that Respondent had sold a 1993 Ford, VIN 1FAPP14JPW130409. However, Respondent did not have proof of purchase or an odometer disclosure statement for this vehicle. On October 11, 2002, Respondent's temporary tag records indicated that it had issued three temporary tags to L. Smith for the 1993 Ford. Respondent issued these tags on June 26, July 26, and August 24, 2002. The October 11, 2002, inspection revealed that Respondent sold the 1993 Ford on June 26, 2002, and applied for the title on September 5, 2002. Thus, Respondent failed to file the application for certificate of title by July 26, 2002, or within 30 days of June 26, 2002. At the conclusion of every inspection referenced above, Petitioner's compliance examiners reviewed the deficiencies they found with Mr. Landers. They discussed the statutes and rules that Respondent had violated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner issue a final order revoking Respondent's motor vehicle dealer's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 14th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kenneth Steven Landers Officer/Director 433 Safer Lane Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure and licensure status of motor vehicle dealers and enforcing the statutory and regulatory authority related to standards of business practice by such dealers. D.J.M. RV Center, Inc. (Respondent) holds recreational vehicle dealer license no. 5RV-1222 issued by the Petitioner. The Respondent's licensed place of business is located at 3635 Fowler Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901. The Respondent is engaged in the business of buying, selling and trading recreational vehicles. It operates under the name D.J.M. RV Center, Inc. That name alone is depicted on the only exterior sign on the Respondent's place of business at the above address. For approximately a two-year period, one George Pieropan, with Respondent's permission, occupied an office in the building occupied by Respondent and bought and sold recreational vehicles at that same location as Respondent. Pieropan purported to be operating a separate recreational vehicle consignment dealer business named "Suncoast RV," a proprietorship. There was, however, no sign on the exterior of the Respondent's dealership building advertising Suncoast RV. Both businesses operated from the same location. There was no segregation of the recreational vehicle inventory of Suncoast RV and D.J.M. RV Center, Inc. The vehicles were intermingled on the display lot. George Pieropan was not a licensed motor vehicle dealer. George Pieropan and Suncoast RV had a separate checking account, but recreational vehicles purportedly being offered for sale by Suncoast RV were advertised in the newspaper as being offered for sale by D.J.M. RV Center, Inc., the Respondent. When individuals came to the sales lot to shop for are creational vehicle, they were shown vehicles by employees of both Suncoast RV and the Respondent, regardless of which entity the vehicle was being sold by or consigned to. Keys for the recreational vehicles purportedly being sold by Suncoast RV or Pieropan, were intermingled with the keys for vehicles being sold by the Respondent on a keyboard in the Respondent's office. Mr. Don Meyer, the President of the Respondent corporation, established that the Respondent purchased a 1978 "Honey" recreational vehicle from George Pieropan which George Pieropan had taken in trade from Mr. and Mrs. Leroy Kehrer. The Respondent sold that vehicle to one James Killem. The bill of sale to Killem for the vehicle was signed by George Pieropan on behalf of the Respondent corporation, D.J.M. RV Center, Inc. In approximately October of 1984, Mr. and Mrs. Kehrer had gone to the Respondent's location to shop for a recreational vehicle. While they were at the Respondent's dealership, Mr. and Mrs. Kehrer were shown a Yellowstone recreational vehicle by Howard Turner. Howard Turner was a salesman for the Respondent and also sold vehicles for Suncoast RV (Pieropan). During their initial visit, Salesman Turner advised the Kehrers that they would have to bring in their current recreational vehicle to have its trade-in value appraised. The Kehrers thus brought in their "Honey" recreational vehicle the next day and Mr. Turner discussed a price with them, with D.J.M. RV Center, Inc. ultimately purchasing the 1978 Honey vehicle. After Mr. Turner and the Kehrers agreed upon an appraised value for their Honey vehicle, which was to be a trade-in, they traded it in on a Yellowstone recreational vehicle which Mr. Turner showed them. The Yellowstone vehicle had been placed on consignment with George Pieropan by its owner, Marcus Heck. During this visit Mr. Turner introduced the Kehrers to George Pieropan, referring to him as "one of the owners of the business" or "his boss." The next day, Pieropan called Mr. Kehrer and shortly thereafter came to the Kehrer's home where a sales agreement was executed for purchase of the new Yellowstone recreational vehicle which had been shown them by Howard Turner, the Respondent and Pieropan's sales employee. As a result of the purchase agreement, the Kehrers issued a check and, at Pieropan's behest, made out the check to "Suncoast RV." At this same time, however, Pieropan told them that Suncoast RV was the branch of the Respondent's dealership that handled used recreational vehicles on consignment such as the subject Yellowstone vehicle. In any event, the Kehrer's paid George Pieropan $17,200 in cash and traded in their "Honey" recreational vehicle with an accompanying trade-in allowance of $13,542 to make up the purchase price for the Yellowstone recreational vehicle. Ultimately, D.J.M. RV Center, Inc. sold that Yellowstone vehicle to one James Killem and George Pieropan executed the bill of sale to Killem on behalf of the Respondent corporation, D.J.M. RV Center, Inc., after D.J.M. purportedly purchased that vehicle from Pieropan. The Kehrers have never received a title for the Yellowstone recreational vehicle they purchased through George Pieropan. Marcus Heck, the previous owner of that vehicle was contacted by Don Meyer, co-owner of the Respondent corporation and had been quoted a sales price for the Yellowstone vehicle by Meyer. Mr. Heck received a check for $15,200 from Pieropan, but that check was dishonored for insufficient funds. Sometime thereafter, Mr. Heck received another check for partial payment of the amount due him in the amount of $9,000. That check was drawn on the Respondent's account and signed by Richard E. Tessier, who was the Respondent corporation's sales manager at the time. Thus, although the Yellowstone vehicle was purportedly consigned by Marcus Heck its original owner to George Pieropan, George Pieropan was acting on behalf of the Respondent corporation in selling the vehicle to the Kehrers' with the assistance of Howard Turner, who was clearly the Respondent's salesman, as evidenced in part by the Respondent corporation's attempt to partially honor the check issued on insufficient funds by George Pieropan who had since left the state. Thus, although Pieropan purported to be operating a separate recreational vehicle dealer business named "Suncoast RV," his business and the Respondent's were so intermingled as to constitute one business entity for all practical purposes. This is borne out by testimony of Marcus Heck, who established that on one occasion when Don Meyer (owner of the Respondent) was on an extended vacation, the Respondent's entire business operation was run by Pieropan in his absence. The businesses were not segregated as to office space, office entrances, driveways, or fences and inventories were co-mingled. Marcus Heck had been contacted by Don Meyer, the co-owner of the Respondent corporation, and quoted the sales price for the Yellowstone vehicle which was to be sold to the Kehrers through Suncoast RV. Suncoast RV was described by Pieropan to Heck as being part of D.J.M. RV Center, Inc. Both Suncoast RV Center, Inc. and Pieropan paid office rent to the brother of Don Meyer, one of the co-owners of D.J.M. RV Center, Inc. Finally, it was established by Howard Turner, the salesman for both D.J.M. and Suncoast and Respondent's witness, that both entities used one common telephone line and that he, Turner, sold recreational vehicles for both Pieropan and Suncoast and D.J.M. RV Center and signed sales orders for both.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the licensure of D.J.M. RV Center, Inc. be suspended for a period of one year and that Respondent pay to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles a fine of $1,000, and it is further RECOMMENDED that the suspension may be abated at such time as the Respondent provides good and sufficient proof to the Department that the seller of the motor home in question has been reimbursed in full for the sale price of the subject recreational vehicle and that, concomitantly, title to the same has been effectively transferred to the purchasers, Mr. and Mrs. Kehrer. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. _ P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 18th day of October, 1985. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted. 10. Accepted. 19. Accepted. 2. Accepted. 11. Accepted. 20. Accepted. 3. Accepted. 12. Accepted. 21. Accepted. 4. Accepted. 13. Accepted. 22. Accepted. 5. Accepted. 14. Accepted. 23. Accepted. 6. Accepted. 15. Accepted. 24. Accepted. 7. Accepted. 16. Accepted. 25. Accepted. 8. Accepted. 17. Accepted. 26. Accepted. 9. Accepted. 18. Accepted. 27. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Undisputed and accepted. Undisputed and accepted. Undisputed and accepted. This proposed finding is rejected as not being supported by the competent, substantial and credible evidence and testimony of record. This proposed finding is rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial and credible evidence and testimony of record. This proposed finding is rejected as not supported by competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony of record. This proposed finding is accepted, but is not dispositive in itself of any issue at bar. This proposed finding is accepted, but it in turn is not dispositive of any issue at bar. This proposed finding is rejected as not being in accord with the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony of record in its entirety. This proposed finding of fact is accepted. This proposed finding of fact is accepted. This proposed finding of fact is accepted. 12 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory E. White, Esq. PAVESE, SHIELDS, GARNER, HAVERFIELD, DALTON & HARRISON Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Leonard R. Mellon, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by June C. McKinney, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s letter of withdrawal of protest of the establishment of AutoNation Dodge of Pembroke Pines, Inc., a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Respondent, AutoNation Dodge of Pembroke Pines, Inc. be granted a license for the sale and service of Jeepr passenger cars and light trucks manufactured by Chrysler (JEEP) 13601 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines (Broward County), Filed January 27, 2012 3:47 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Florida 33027 upon compliance with all applicable requirements of section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. DONE AND ORDERED this A‘! day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. skill, Assistant Deputy Director Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this | __ day of January, 2012. Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Ycense Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. MDM/jde Copies furnished: Thomas H. Yardley, Esquire Law Office of Thomas H. Yardley 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building D Cocoa, Florida 32922 Phil Langley Chrysler Motors, LLC 10300 Boggy Creek Road Orlando, Florida 32824 R. Craig Spickard, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 June C. McKinney Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS MASSEY-YARDLEY CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC., Petitioner, vs. Case No. 11-6492 CHRYSLER GROUP CARCO, LLC, AND AUTONATION DODGE OF PEMBROKE PINES, INC., Respondents.
The Issue Is Ann L. Bell (Ms. Bell) entitled to the issuance of a license to act as an independent motor vehicle dealer through A & B Auto Sales of Jacksonville, Inc. (A & B), that license to be issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Department)? See Section 320.27, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Bell made application to the Department for an independent motor vehicle dealer license. The name of the business would be A & B. The location of the business would be 7046 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. In furtherance of the application Ms. Bell received a certificate of completion of the motor vehicle dealer training school conducted by the Florida Independent Automobile Dealers Association on January 26 and 27, 1999. Ms. Bell submitted the necessary fees and other information required by the Department to complete the application for the license, to include the necessary surety bond. At present Ms. Bell lives at 98 Kent Mill Pond Road, Alford, Florida, some distance from Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Bell intends to move to Jacksonville, Florida, if she obtains the license. Ms. Bell's work history includes a 35-year career with the State of Florida, Department of Insurance, from which she retired as a Deputy Insurance Commissioner. Her duties included supervision of employees and auditing. More recently Ms. Bell has worked as an insurance agent for approximately five years with Allstate Insurance. Ms. Bell also had 17 years' experience involving a business with her former husband in retail floor covering in which she dealt with sales staff and contracts. During another marriage, her then-husband was involved in the automobile business in Mobile, Alabama, as well as the Florida panhandle. Ms. Bell was not an employee of the automobile business conducted by her husband. Ms. Bell was "in and out" of the dealership and attended automobile auctions with her husband. Ms. Bell intends to locate her dealership at the address where Mr. Badreddine formerly operated an independent motor vehicle dealership. Ms. Bell has known Mr. Badreddine for approximately 10 to 12 years. Ms. Bell has purchased cars from Mr. Badreddine. Ms. Bell has borrowed money from Mr. Badreddine. Mr. Badreddine has borrowed money from Ms. Bell. Ms. Bell has a lease related to the location where she would operate her dealership. At present Ms. Bell is using the prospective business location to collect on some accounts for automobiles purchased through Mr. Badreddine in which Ms. Bell has bought the accounts receivable from Mr. Badreddine. The arrangement concerning the accounts receivable is one in which Mr. Badreddine is expected to assist in the collection of monies owed on the accounts. The customers involved with those accounts are Arabs and African Americans. Mr. Badreddine is fluent in Arabic. The amount of money which Ms. Bell has invested is approximately $35,000, in relation to the purchase of the accounts receivable. If Ms. Bell obtains the license she intends to employ Mr. Badreddine to sell automobiles at her lot and to be involved in the purchase of cars at automobile auctions. These duties would be in addition to the collection on the accounts receivable which Ms. Bell purchased from Mr. Badreddine. Ms. Bell does not intend to allow Mr. Badreddine access to the company bank accounts or the completion of the necessary paperwork when cars are sold to the public from her business. In the past, Mr. Badreddine held independent motor vehicle dealer licenses issued by the Department. He lost those licenses based upon unacceptable performance under their terms. Ms. Bell is not unmindful of Mr. Badreddine's performance as a licensee, being informed by the Department in the details. Mr. Badreddine held an independent motor vehicle dealer's license under the name A & D Wholesale, Inc. (A & D), for a business at 9944 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. The Department issued an administrative complaint against that license in Case No. DMV-94FY-566, concerning problems in cars sold by A & D in which the titles and registrations were not transferred appropriately and emissions tests were not performed appropriately. This case was disposed of through an informal hearing and a $5,000 administrative fine was imposed. A further complaint was made against the licensee for the business A & D under an administrative complaint drawn by the Department in Case No. DMV-97FY-621. This complaint involved problems in title and registration transfer, failure to pay an existing lien on a trade-in, and the payment for automobiles obtained in automobile auctions upon which the drafts were not honored. No request for an administrative proceeding was received in relation to this administrative complaint. A final order was entered which revoked the independent motor vehicle dealer's license in relation to A & D. Subsequently, Mr. Badreddine made an application for an independent motor vehicle dealer's license under the business name King Kar Auto Sales, Inc. (King Kar) for the address at which Ms. Bell would operate her business. The decision was made to grant Mr. Badreddine's request for an automobile dealer license for King Kar. Following the grant of the license to King Kar an administrative complaint was brought in Case Nos. DMV-99FY-165 and DMV-99FY-166. The complaint involved the failure to pay off a lien, in which a check intended to settle the account with the lien holder was dishonored and falsification of the application in support of the license for King Kar. The final order disposing of these cases was premised upon the recognition that the license for King Kar had been revoked by virtue of the failure to maintain the necessary surety bond, rendering the allegations in the complaint moot. In the conduct of his automobile business Mr. Badreddine was accused of obtaining property in return for a worthless check involved in dealings with GMAC Corporation. The check was in the amount of $16,671.38. This action was taken in the case of State of Florida vs. Amine Badreddine, in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, Case No. 98-13690CFCR-E. Mr. Badreddine entered a plea of guilty to obtaining property in return for a worthless check and was placed upon probation for a period of one year, with a requirement to make restitution. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In a discussion between Ms. Bell and Cindy King, Department Compliance Examiner and Nadine Allain, Regional Administrator for the Department, Ms. Bell told the Department employees that Ms. Bell would need Mr. Badreddine to go to the automobile auctions and that "she didn't think it was lady-like to go to an auction." This is taken to mean that Ms. Bell did not believe she should go to the automobile auctions. Ms. Bell also told the Department employees that she needed Mr. Badreddine to sell automobiles for her, that he was a good salesman and that he was good at dealing with Arabs and she was not. Ms. Bell noted that she didn't live in the area where the dealership would be operated and referred to her purchase of the accounts receivable. Ms. Bell told the Department employees that Mr. Badreddine would be given an office in the back of the dealership or in the dealership. Ms. Bell told the Department employees that "she knew absolutely nothing about selling cars." Ms. Bell indicated that she would be relying upon Mr. Badreddine for advise in running her dealership. The reliance on Mr. Badreddine to deal with Arab clients was mentioned pertaining to the circumstances with the previous accounts receivable. The Department offered to license Ms. Bell upon condition that Ms. Bell provide an affidavit to the effect that Mr. Badreddine would not be involved with her dealership. Ultimately, Ms. Bell did not accept this overture. In denying the application for the independent motor vehicle dealer's license the Department gave the following reasons: Your admission of not knowing anything about the car business coupled with your stated intention to rely on the advice and experience of Mr. Amine Badreddine to operate your dealership means that Mr. Badreddine is, de facto, the dealer. Mr. Badreddine previously held independent motor vehicle dealer license number VI-15265, as A & D Wholesale, Inc. An administrative complaint was filed by the department against his dealership involving consumer complaints filed by Gladys L. Stevens, complaint number 93110148; Merrian A. Coe, complaint number 94010340; and Richard Green, complaint number 94030339. As a result of the administrative action, Mr. Badreddine's license was found in violation and fined $5,000.00 for failure to apply for transfer of title within 30 days, issuing more than two temporary tags to the same person for use on the same vehicle, violation of any other law of the state having to do with dealing in motor vehicles, failure to have a vehicle pass an emissions inspection within 90 days prior to retail sale and failure to transfer title. On December 23, 1996, a second administrative complaint was filed against A & D Wholesale, Inc. because of complaints received from Mark S. Smith, complaint number 96020168; Telmesa C. Porter, complaint number 96050435; Nijole Hall, complaint number 96070365; Ella Didenko, complaint number 96080083; Salih Ferozovic, complaint number 96100067; Charles R. Wells, complaint number 9610068; and Adessa Auto Auction, complaint number 96110372. As a result of this administrative action, a Final Order was issued on January 27, 1997 revoking Mr. Badreddine's independent motor vehicle dealers [sic] license for failure to apply for a transfer of title within 30 days, - failure to comply with the provisions of section 319.23(6), F.S., failure to have a vehicle pass an emission inspection prior to retail sale, issuance of more than two temporary tags to the same person for use on the same vehicle, failure to have a title or other indicia of ownership in possession of the dealership from the time of acquiring the vehicle until the time of disposing of the vehicle, failure of a motor vehicle dealer to honor a check or draft. Mr. Badreddine applied for and was issued another motor vehicle dealer's license on April 24, 1998, under the name King Kar Auto Sales, Inc. The license was revoked on October 20, 1998, because of a surety bond cancellation. On November 24, 1998, the department received a complaint from Treflyn N. Congraves, complaint number 98070299. Ms. Congraves filed a complaint with the state attorney which resulted in Mr. Bareddine [sic] being placed on probation for issuing a bad check to GMAC and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $16,571.38. Mr. Badreddine is currently on probation. The department's investigation showed that Mr. Badreddine had a history of bad credit, failed to continually meet the requirements of the licensure law, failed to honor a bank draft or check given to a motor vehicle dealer for the purchase of a motor vehicle by another motor vehicle dealer, and had failed to satisfy a lien. Consequently, Mr. Badreddine's poor performance as a dealer forces us to deny a license where he may have a financial interest, active participation in the management, sales or any part in the operation of the dealership.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Facts Found and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which grants Ann L. Bell an independent motor vehicle dealer license for the business A & B. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 17th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. Jackson, Esquire Jackson & Mason, P.A. 516 West Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a motor vehicle dealer license should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Global Express, LLC. (Global Express), is a limited liability company which has submitted to Respondent an application for a license as a motor vehicle dealer under the fictitious name of Auto Zone Auto Sales (the subject application). Johnny Romero and Rosangela Romero, who are husband and wife, are the members and managers of Global Express. Mr. Romero is also known as Johnny Guillermo Romero Peguero.1 Both Mr. and Mrs. Romero signed the subject application on behalf of Global Express before a notary public on May 4, 2009. The following language is contained above the signature lines: Under penalty of perjury, I do swear or affirm that the information contained in this application is true and correct . . . Part 5 of the application form requires that the “applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director” answer yes or no to certain questions (the Certifications). Each dealership officer is required to answer these questions under penalties of perjury. Relevant to this proceeding, both Mr. and Mrs. Romero answered the following question in the negative: Has this applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director ever had a surety bond cancelled? Relevant to this proceeding, both Mr. and Mrs. Romero answered the following question in the negative: Has this applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director ever been denied or had a dealer license suspended or revoked in Florida or any other jurisdiction? In addition to the foregoing, Mr. and Mrs. Romero answered the following question in the affirmative: Has this applicant, partner, or corporate officer or director ever been a licensed dealer in Florida or any other jurisdiction? Under their affirmative response Mr. and Mrs. Romero inserted information reflecting that they had previously been licensed dealers under the license numbered VI/1018283. Pursuant to application executed by Mr. and Mrs. Romero on January 11, 2007, Respondent issued motor vehicle dealer license numbered VI/1018283 to Pronto Cars Corp. (Pronto). Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license bond was cancelled by its surety, Nova Casualty Company, by notice dated December 18, 2007. Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license was suspended by Respondent by Order of Emergency Suspension and Administrative Complaint dated March 20, 2008. That case was assigned the following case number by Respondent: DMV-08-479. The Order suspended Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license because Pronto’s surety had cancelled its bond. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Mr. Romero ever received a copy of the Emergency Final Order and Administrative Complaint in case DMV-08-479. That conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Pierre-Lys, acting in her capacity as a compliance officer for Respondent, served a copy of the Order of Emergency Suspension and Administrative Complaint on Mr. Romero on April 16, 2008. Mr. Romero, on behalf of Pronto, signed and submitted an election of rights form dated May 5, 2008, which provided, in relevant part, as follows: “I have read the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter [DMV-08-479] and understand my options.” Immediately before Mr. Romero’s signature is a check in a box indicating that Mr. Romero was exercising the following option: “I have not obtained a surety bond and wish to voluntarily relinquish my motor vehicle license. I have completed and am returning the Voluntary Relinquishment of License form within 21 days from the date of my receipt of this administrative complaint.” On May 23, 2008,2 Respondent issued its Final Order in its case number DMV-08-479, thereby canceling Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer’s license. The Final Order directed Pronto to surrender its license and all dealer and temporary tags in its possession. The Final Order also contained the following: It is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Order of Emergency Suspension and Administrative Complaint filed herein is DISMISSED and this case is hereby CLOSED. Mr. Romero called Respondent’s compliance officer, Luz Irizarry, on March 6, 2009, told her that he wanted to obtain a motor vehicle dealer license, and asked whether he would have to go to a school for new dealers. Ms. Irizarry referred the inquiry to Ms. Buck, who determined that Mr. Romero would have to attend the school because Pronto had received consumer complaints, Pronto’s surety had cancelled its bond, and Pronto’s license had been suspended and subsequently revoked. On March 9, 2009, Ms. Irizarry informed Mr. Romero of the reasons he would have to go to dealer school, and specifically discussed with him the fact that Pronto’s operations had been suspended. When he signed the Certifications on May 4, 2009, Mr. Romero had actual knowledge that Pronto’s surety bond had been revoked and that Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license had been suspended. Mr. Romero’s contends that he was confused about his answers because he thought he had bought the surety bond for its full term and because he thought the Final Order entered by Respondent dismissed the suspension of his license. Those contentions are rejected. It is clear from his answer pertaining to the license that had been issued to Pronto that Mr. Romero understood as a principal of Pronto he would have to disclose the revocation of Pronto’s surety bond and the suspension of Pronto’s motor vehicle dealer license on the subject application. Mr. and Mr. Romero’s Certifications under section 5 of the subject application pertaining to the revocation of a surety bond and the suspension of a motor vehicle dealer license are willful, material misrepresentations of fact. On February 26, 2008, Respondent discovered that Pronto had moved its business location and was doing business at a location that had not been approved by Respondent. On April 1, 2009, Mrs. Romero drove a motor vehicle displaying a “For Sale” sign. The vehicle had a temporary tag on it that had been issued to Pronto. The possession of that temporary tag violated the Final Order entered in Respondent’s case number DMV-08-479, which ordered Pronto to immediately surrender all temporary tags to Respondent. On April 27, 2009, Mrs. Romero displayed, or acquiesced in the display of, another car with a “For Sale” sign on it parked in front of Global Express’s proposed, but unlicensed, location. That car had a temporary tag on it that had been issued to Pronto. The temporary tag was filled out to show the name of another dealer. The possession of that temporary tag violated the Final Order entered in Respondent’s case number DMV-08-479, which ordered Pronto to immediately surrender all temporary tags to Respondent. On April 2, 2009, Mr. Romero had 13 motor vehicles titled in his name. Although he asserts that some of the motor vehicles were bought in conjunction with a taxi service he operated, he admitted that some of these vehicles had been purchased for resale. Mr. Romero acquired a 1966 Ford motor vehicle on May 9, 209, and sold the vehicle on May 21, 2009. Mr. Romero acquired a 1999 Chevrolet motor vehicle on May 18, 2009, and sold the vehicle on May 25, 2009. Mr. Romero acquired another Chevrolet motor vehicle on May 20, 2008, and sold the vehicle on May 31, 2009. Respondent established that during April and May 2009, Mr. Romero engaged in the business of dealing in motor vehicles without a license. On March 30, 2009, Mr. Romero paid Respondent for the registrations of ten motor vehicles with worthless checks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order deny the subject application. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 30th day of November, 2009.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by June C. McKinney, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s letter of withdrawal of protest of the establishment of AutoNation Dodge of Pembroke Pines, Inc., a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Respondent, AutoNation Dodge of Pembroke Pines, Inc. be granted a license for the sale and service of Chrysler passenger cars and light trucks (CHRY) 13601 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines (Broward County), Florida 33027 upon Filed January 27, 2012 3:47 PM Division of Administrative Hearings compliance with all applicable requirements of section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. DONE AND ORDERED this 2 q day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Michael D. Le Assistant Deputy Director Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this _A\\__ day of January, 2012. Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Hicense Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. MDM/jde Copies furnished: Thomas H. Yardley, Esquire Law Office of Thomas H. Yardley 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building D Cocoa, Florida 32922 Phil Langley Chrysler Motors, LLC 10300 Boggy Creek Road Orlando, Florida 32824 R. Craig Spickard, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 June C. McKinney Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS MASSEY-YARDLEY CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC., Petitioner, vs. Case No. 11-6491 CHRYSLER GROUP CARCO, LLC, AND AUTONATION DODGE OF PEMBROKE PINES, INC., Respondents.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in business activities requiring a motor vehicle dealer license while its license was suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a motor vehicle dealer that, at all material times, has been located at 5800 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami. Except for the period of suspension discussed below, at all material times, Respondent has been licensed to operate as a motor vehicle dealer, holding license number VI-1005997. In the course of business, Respondent acquired possession of a 2007 Suzuki motor vehicle, bearing VIN KL5JD66Z97K644005. Respondent acquired title to the Suzuki by a state of Maryland Certificate of Salvage issued by Nationwide Insurance on August 13, 2010. The certificate shows "damage greater than 75% and repairable" and Respondent as the buyer. Following an informal hearing on May 2, 2012, Petitioner issued a final order on June 18, 2012, that, among other penalties, suspended Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license for 90 days, effective July 1, 2012, for issuing more than two temporary tags to the same person for the same vehicle, in violation of section 320.27(9)(b)17, Florida Statutes, and for issuing fraudulent temporary tags, in violation of section 320.131, Florida Statutes. On August 12, 2012, Respondent sold the Suzuki to 4A Body Shop, Inc. On August 2, 2012, Respondent executed the documentation necessary to complete this transaction.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 31st day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Herminio Frometa 5800 Northwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Boyd Walden, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-435 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Steve Hurm, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
