The Issue Whether or not Respondent, Dixie Growers, Inc., is indebted to Petitioner, Leah Raulerson, for agriculture produce purchased and not paid for in the amount of $3,722.49.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. During times material, Petitioner, Leah Raulerson, was an agricultural producer within the meaning of Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes and concentrated primarily in the production of peppers. During times material, Respondent, Dixie Growers, Inc., was an agricultural dealer within the meaning of Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, and wholesaler and purchased peppers from Petitioner during May and June, 1992. Respondent, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, issued a surety bond to Respondent Dixie during times material. During late May and June, 1992, Petitioner sold various types of pepper including hungarian wax, finger hots, long hots, bell pepper, fancy cubanelle and jalopeno to Respondent Dixie. During times material, Petitioner inquired of one of Respondent Dixie's owners, Charles Lawton, what the wholesale market was bringing for the type of peppers that she produced and desired to sell. Respondent Dixie advised that the average wholesale price was $8.00 per box. Petitioner told Respondent Dixie, that she could sell her peppers for that price but if the market deteriorated to the point where the price was $4.00 or less per box that she should be advised whereupon she would cease picking the peppers as her labor and other related costs would be below her breakeven point of $4.00 per box. Respondent Dixie, advised Petitioner that he (Charles Lawton) would let her know if the market declined. The agreement was struck and Petitioner was advised by Respondent Dixie to "bring the peppers on." Based on their agreement, Petitioner continued picking the peppers. Petitioner delivered to Respondent Dixie, a load of the various types of peppers that she produced and expected to be compensated at the rate of an average of $8.00 per box for her produce. Petitioner was not paid for the peppers at that time nor was she told that she should not bring any more peppers to Respondent's warehouse. Approximately two weeks from the date of delivery, Petitioner was paid an average of $1.03 per box by Respondent Dixie. Petitioner provided copies of the wholesale market reports for the types of peppers that she produced and sold to Respondent, Dixie, during May and June, 1992. The reports reflect an average wholesale price of $8.00 per box. Petitioner is owed by Respondent Dixie, the sum of $3,722.49 for nonpayment of produce (peppers) that she delivered to Respondent Dixie during May and June, 1992. Respondent Dixie, has countered that Petitioner's produce was bad and that the market had declined to the point whereupon they (Dixie Growers) were only able to obtain approximately $1.03 per box for the produce that Petitioner sold to Respondent Dixie. However, Respondent Dixie, failed to present any credible evidence which would establish that either Petitioner's produce was bad or that they were only able to obtain $1.03 as contended. No evidence was presented that the market declined or situation was anything different from the prices Petitioner was quoted and as reflected by the prices shown in the wholesale market reports. It is more probable than not that Respondent Dixie received the amounts reflected in the wholesale market reports for the produce that it purchased from Petitioner during May and June, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Agriculture, Bureau of License and Bond, issue a Final Order requiring that Respondent, Dixie Growers, Inc., pay to Petitioner the sum of $3,722.49 as claimed for agricultural produce purchased from Petitioner. In the event that Respondent Dixie fails to pay Petitioner, within 30 days of the date of the Department's Final Order, the sum of $3,722.49, that Respondent, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, as surety, remit to the Department that sum which should then be timely remitted to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 17th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Terry Lawton P. O. Box 1686 Plant City, Florida 33564 U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company Legal Department P. O. Box 1138 Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0000 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture The Capitol - PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Dixie Growers, Inc. P. O. Box 1686 Plant City, Florida 33564 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol - PL 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0350
The Issue Whether Respondent owes payment to Petitioner for tomatoes sold by Petitioner to Respondent and, if so, in what amount payment is due.
Findings Of Fact Six L's Packing Company, Inc., (Six L's) is a corporation doing business in Immokalee, Florida. Insofar as relevant to this case, Six L's produces tomatoes for shipment and sale. DeBruyn Produce Company (DeBruyn) is a corporation headquartered in Michigan and doing business in Castleberry, Florida. Insofar as relevant to this case, DeBruyn purchases produce for resale to other buyers. On March 3, 1992, DeBruyn contacted Six L's and inquired about availability of "vine ripe" tomatoes. DeBruyn subsequently placed orders for Six L's tomatoes. DeBruyn purchased the tomatoes on behalf of and for resale to C. H. Robinson Company. Under the terms of the sales, the tomatoes were purchased F. O. B. ("Free On Board") point of shipping. The term F.O.B. point of shipping means that the buyer assumes responsibility for product in suitable shipping condition at time of delivery from the seller to the buyer. Otherwise stated, Six L's was not responsible for shipment of the tomatoes. The tomatoes were shipped pursuant to arrangements made by representatives of DeBruyn and C. H. Robinson Company. DeBruyn did not inform Six L's of the final destination of the tomatoes. DeBruyn asserts that, as to both loads of tomatoes, the tomatoes were defective when shipped and were not in suitable shipping condition. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that during all relevant periods of time, tomatoes shipped by Six L's were inspected pursuant to federal guidelines by a state inspector prior to shipment and were found to be within tolerances allowed by the State of Florida for shipment outside the state. On March 4, 1992, Six L's sold 640 cartons of tomatoes to DeBruyn. The tomatoes were largely mature green, with some breakers and pinks. Prior to shipment of the March 4 tomatoes, the Florida inspector noted that the produce displayed internal discoloration (commonly referred to as "gray wall") not exceeding four per cent of the produce examined. Such meets standards for suitable shipping condition of the produce. Gray wall is a common disorder which occurs throughout agricultural regions. The causes of gray wall are unknown. The malady causes discoloration spreading from the stem through the fruit. If gray wall occurs, it will be found throughout the entire harvest from a specific growing field. Tomatoes ripen at a temperature between 55 and 75 degrees. Gray wall is exacerbated when tomatoes are chilled to below 50 degrees. The damage will become apparent when the tomatoes become warm and begin to further ripen. DeBruyn took delivery of the produce and shipped it to Salt Lake City, Utah, where it arrived on March 8, 1992. Upon arrival, the quality of the tomatoes was unsatisfactory. An inspection was requested and performed on March 10, 1992. The inspection at the delivery point indicated gray wall discoloration of approximately 70 per cent of the lot. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that such damage occurred through improper chilling and shipment of the tomatoes after control of the produce passed to DeBruyn. On March 6, 1992, Six L's sold 1,120 cartons of tomatoes to DeBruyn. Again, the tomatoes were largely mature green, with some breakers and pinks. Prior to shipment of the March 6 tomatoes, the Florida inspector noted that the produce displayed internal discoloration (commonly referred to as "gray wall") not exceeding four per cent of the produce examined. As previously stated, such produce meets standards for suitable shipping condition. DeBruyn took delivery and shipped the produce to Salt Lake City where it arrived on March 10, 1992. Again, the quality of the tomatoes was unsatisfactory upon arrival. An inspection was requested and performed on March 11, 1992. The inspection at the delivery point found light red to red tomatoes. A large quantity of the tomatoes were bruised and rotting. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that such damage occurred through lack of proper refrigeration of the produce during shipment. DeBruyn asserts that the March 6 tomato shipment was improperly packed in bulk boxes and should have been packed in layers to prevent bruising during the shipment to Salt Lake City. There is no evidence that DeBruyn informed Six L's that the tomatoes should have been packed in layered boxes or that the March 6 tomatoes would be shipped a substantial distance. Six L's was to have received $11,888 for the March 4 shipment. Six L's was to have received $20,167.50 for the March 6 shipment. The total of the two shipments is $32,055.50. DeBruyn salvaged 354 cartons of the March 4 load of tomatoes and dumped the remainder. The salvaged tomatoes were sold for a total of $6,170. DeBruyn paid to Six L's $4,953.60 for the produce which Six L's rejected. DeBruyn salvaged 640 cartons of the March 6 load of tomatoes and dumped the remainder. The salvaged tomatoes were sold for a total of $10,459.10. DeBruyn paid to Six L's $8,897.50 for the produce which Six L's retained. Six L's is due a balance of $23,158 for the tomato shipments. Six L's asserts that, based on the sales invoices, it is due interest on the outstanding balance due at an annual rate of 18 per cent compounded monthly. However, none of the sales invoices relevant to this proceeding indicate any agreement between the parties as to interest charges and the evidence fails to establish that any interest is due to be paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Respondent DeBruyn Produce Company to pay to Petitioner Six L's Packing Company, Inc., the sum of $23,158. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4925A To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3, 7-9, 11, 13-14. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. 15. Rejected. Request for fees is not supported by citation to legal authority. 16-17. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6-8, 13, 18. Rejected, contrary to credited evidence. The fact that tomatoes had ripened between inspections does not preclude improper shipping conditions. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that sufficient time passed between initial inspection, shipping, delivery, and subsequent inspection to permit the tomatoes to have continued ripening. 9, 19-21, 23, 29. Rejected, unnecessary. 17, 28. Rejected, immaterial. 22. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Mark S. London, Esq. 4030-C Sheraton Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 Clayton D. Simmons, Esquire 200 West First Street, Suite 22 Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Donald Jones caused peppers he had grown "on high ground" to be delivered to respondent's packing house in Center Hill, Florida, on May 16, May 27 (in the rain) and June 4, 1991. As was customary, respondent undertook to grade, size, pack and load the vegetables, to arrange transportation to market, to get the best price possible, and to account for the proceeds, all for an unspecified "reasonable fee." The parties had no written agreement. Petitioner, who had dealt with respondent in eight preceding seasons, does not take issue with any of the "packing charges" respondent imposed for its services (on average $3.56 per box on May 27, 1991 and $2.36 per box on June 4, 1991), or raise any question regarding the physical handling of the peppers. He makes no claim of any kind regarding the peppers he delivered on May 16, 1991. It affirmatively appears from his verified complaint that respondent gave a timely accounting, and the evidence left no doubt as to the accuracy of the accounting, with one trivial exception. On May 27, 1991, petitioner delivered to respondent enough large green peppers to fill 903 boxes, enough medium green peppers to fill 1195 boxes, enough small (also called select) green peppers to fill 461 boxes, and enough red peppers to fill 278 boxes. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 12 and 16. Respondent authorized Gator Produce, Inc. to sell petitioner's produce for a commission of seven percent, which is within the industry norm. Mr. Odom had known Bob Rutledge, the principal in Gator Produce, Inc. with whom he dealt, for some 25 years. At Mr. Rutledge's direction, Mr. Odom shipped the peppers to their various destinations "free on board, inspection after arrival," in keeping with industry practice. Respondent loaded 150 boxes of large green peppers and 50 boxes of small green peppers on a truck bound for Columbia, South Carolina, on May 27, 1991. Senn Brothers received the produce that night and eventually paid $16.50 a box for the large and $7.20 a box for the small peppers. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. By a second refrigerated truck, respondent shipped another 150 boxes of large green peppers on the night of May 27, 1991, to Mushroom Growers in Chicago, Illinois, and a like number of boxes each of red, small green and medium green peppers to the same buyer. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. When the peppers reached Chicago, Bob Rutledge of Gator Produce reported to Mr. Odom, "We've got a problem [with decay]." Instructed by Mr. Odom to "work it out," Mr. Rutledge sold the peppers at prices below those that fresh peppers without decay brought. Respondent received $6.27 a box for large peppers, $7.11 a box for medium peppers, $7.39 a box for small peppers, and $7.57 a box for red peppers. Respondent's Exhibit No. 18. On May 28, 1991, at about two o'clock in the morning, respondent shipped 128 boxes of red peppers, 153 boxes of large peppers and 229 boxes of small peppers to Ag Fresh in Oklahoma City. Respondent received $7.44 a box for the large peppers, $3.72 a box for the small peppers and $4.19 a box for the red peppers. The $9.30 a box for 125 boxes of medium peppers respondent shipped an hour earlier and the $9.06 a box for the 919 boxes of medium peppers respondent shipped to Memphis later the same day represent market price for peppers free from decay. The $6.51 a box to respondent for 450 boxes of large peppers respondent shipped to New York on May 28, 1991, like the price on the large peppers respondent shipped for petitioner to Chicago and Oklahoma City included an adjustment for decay. Although the New York buyer was billed for 32 boxes of red peppers, it actually received 32 boxes of small or select peppers, for which respondent was eventually paid $4.18 a box. On June 4, 1991, petitioner delivered to respondent enough large green peppers to fill 205 boxes, enough medium peppers to fill 330 boxes, enough small or select peppers to fill 220 boxes and enough red peppers to fill 120 boxes. On June 6, 1991, respondent shipped all of the large green peppers and all of the red peppers along with 200 boxes of medium peppers he had received from petitioner on June 4, 1991, to Philadelphia. On account of sales in Philadelphia, respondent realized $6.05 a box for large peppers, $4.65 a box for medium peppers, and $3.72 a box for red peppers. The same day respondent shipped all the small green peppers and 120 boxes of medium green peppers to Lexington Produce in Baltimore, Maryland, the only buyer of petitioner's peppers with whom it had not dealt extensively before. When Lexington Produce reported that petitioner's peppers had decay, respondent or its agent ordered and paid for a "federal inspection" which confirmed the report. After authorizing its agent to work it out, respondent received $2.79 per box for the small peppers and $5.58 per box for the medium peppers. In the 1991 pepper season, "everybody's" peppers had decay. Peppers rot from the inside out. Whether rot begins around the stem, as usually happens, or shows up suddenly as sidewall rot, it often escapes detection in its early stages. Even an experienced eye may see no sign of rot one day, while the morrow makes decay unmistakable. Several buyers reported that petitioner's peppers had decayed by the time they reached them. In consultation with Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Odom decided against incurring the expense of government inspections, when spoliage reports came from dealers on whom they had come to rely over many years. As far as the evidence shows, petitioner received fair market value, taking the peppers' condition into account, for each shipment, less commission and packing charges. Respondent fully accounted to petitioner for every penny that came into its hands, and disbursed some moneys to petitioner before it had itself received the sale proceeds. When asked, respondent made all of its invoices and other records available to petitioner. There is, however, one box of medium peppers petitioner delivered on May 27, 1991, which has not been accounted for. On average, those boxes of medium peppers yielded respondent $8.84 from which a $3.56 packing charge should be deducted to determine the value of the missing box to petitioner: $5.28.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That DACS order respondent Jeff Odom, Inc. to pay petitioner five dollars and twenty-eight cents ($5.28) within fifteen (15) days of the final order. That, in the event Jeff M. Odom, Inc. fails to pay petitioner five dollars and twenty-eight cents ($5.28) within (15) days of the final order, DACS order Lawyers Surety Corporation to pay five dollars and twenty-eight cents ($5.28) or such lesser sum as satisfies the requirements of Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes (1991), for disbursal to petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1993, at 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 10th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX Petitioner filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2 are properly proposed conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3-8, 10, 11, 13-19 and 21-27 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 9, the destinations included Oklahoma City, Memphis and New York, but not Philadelphia and Baltimore. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, respondent apparently absorbs inspection fees. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 20 is adopted, except that the payments to petitioner were $5.28 short. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 John Coniglio, Esquire Post Office Box 1119 Wildwood, Florida 34785 W. Scott Wynn, Esquire Post Office Box 447 Groveland, Florida 34736
Findings Of Fact In 1983 William Lovett, Jr., Complainant, planted 65 acres of water melons, most of which were bought by Doyle L. Wadsworth, Respondent, either for himself or for William Manis Company. The only entity for which Respondent acted as agent was the Manis Company, for whom he has bought melons as its agent for many years. On behalf of himself or Manis, Respondent, in 1983, purchased melons from Complainant on June 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 29. Complainant's melons were bought at prices ranging from seven cents to ten cents per pound. The melons were paid for by check signed by Respondent, dated zero to five days after the invoice date, on either Respondent's checking account at the Barnett Bank of Brandon or on Manis Company's account at Sun Bank of Tampa. Total payments to Complainant for these melons were $285,104.25 (Exhibits 2 and 3). Complainant and Respondent had met shortly before the 1983 water melon season through a mutual friend. Wadsworth agreed to buy water melons from Lovett, not to act as his broker. The grower had the water melons harvested, the buyer provided trucks and trailers to pick up the melons at the field, and the sale occurred when the melons were loaded. Wadsworth testified that he explained to Lovett that he buys melons on a load basis which he has done for many years, that he does not act as a broker to sell the melons, and that once the melons are loaded they are the responsibility of the then-owner, Wadsworth. 1983 was a good year for water melons and Wadwsorth bought nearly all of Lovett's production. Lovett asked Wadsworth if he would handle his melons if Lovett planted a crop in 1984 and Wadsworth agreed. Wadsworth also told Lovett that he preferred "grays," which Lovett planted. Lovett understood that Wadsworth had agreed to buy all of his water melons except for those Lovett sold independently, and to pay the prevailing prices. Wadsworth had no such understanding. Lovett's primary occupation is doctor of veterinary medicine and he relied on others for harvesting information. For reasons not fully explained at the hearing, the harvesting of Lovett's 1984 crop of water melons was a little late. Accordingly, any further delays resulted in overripe or sunburned water melons. The first harvesting of Lovett's melons occurred on Saturday, June 2, 1984, and Wadsworth bought 46,480 pounds at 3-1/2 cents per pound on behalf of Manis Company. Harvesting next occurred Monday, June 4, 1984, when Wadsworth bought 40,680 pounds for Manis and just over 100,000 pounds for himself. Payment for these water melons was made June 5, 1984, by a check in the amount of $3,050.60 on the Manis bank and $3,626.70 00 Wadsworth's bank. During the loading on June 4 a large number of water melons were discarded as culls. This made the task of grading and overseeing the grading much more onerous, and Wadsworth advised Lovett he would not be buying any more water melons from him that season. Lovett came to Wadsworth's motel to persuade him to do otherwise, but without success. Lovett asked Wadsworth if he could refer him to someone else to handle his melons, which request Wadsworth declined. Lovett subsequently obtained the services of a broker to handle his water melons but the additional delay in getting the crop harvested and the extra brokerage cost he incurred resulted in less income to Lovett than he would have received had Wadsworth bought all of Lovett's melons. Conflicting evidence was presented regarding the condition of the water melons grown by Lovett in 1984. Lovett's witnesses described the field as the finest ever seen, while Wadsworth testified that recent excess rainfall left part of the field wet, and some vines were wilting. All witnesses agreed that there were a large number of culls discarded from the water melons graded No. 1 on the first harvesting. In view of the recommended disposition of this case, a definitive finding of fact on this issue is unnecessary.
The Issue This case arises from a complaint filed by Jay Nelson and Ernest Leclercq, d/b/a Sun Coast Farms, in which it is asserted that H. M. Shield, Inc., is indebted to the Complainants in the amount of $7,266.20 for agricultural products sold to the Respondent. At the hearing the representative for the Complainant stated that most of the matters asserted in the complaint had been resolved by settlement, but that six items remained in dispute and that the total amount remaining in dispute was $1,041.20. Ms. Ernst testified as a witness for the Complainant and also offered several documents as exhibits, which documents were marked as a composite exhibit and received in evidence.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witness and on the exhibits offered and received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: On February 23, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans, Wax Beans, and Zukes (Lot No. 1116) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $327.00 on this sale. On March 8, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Wax Beans (Lot No. 1294) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $184.20 on this sale. On March 8, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Wax Beans (Lot No. 1295) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $184.20 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1453) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $202.50 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1454) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $110.00 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1457) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $202.50. The total amount owed for agricultural products by the Respondent to the Complainant, which amount was unpaid as of the time of the hearing, is $1,401.20.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered directing H. M. Shield, Inc., to pay Jay Nelson and Ernest Leclercq, d/b/a Sun Coast Farms, the amount of $1,401.20 for the agricultural products described in the findings of fact, above. In the event the Respondent fails to make such payment within 15 days of the Final Order, it is recommended that the surety be required to pay pursuant to the bond. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of June, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 6th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Nelson & Ernest Leclercq d/b/a Sun Coast Farms P.O. Box 3064 Florida City, Florida 33034 H. M. Shield, Inc. Room 82 State Farmer's Market Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast 200 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent owes Petitioner $2,377.20 as alleged in the complaint filed by Petitioner in July 1997.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Bigham Hide Company, Inc. (Petitioner), is a watermelon grower in Coleman and Lake Panasoffkee, Florida. Respondent, Florida-Georgia Produce, Inc. (Respondent), is a licensed dealer in agricultural products having been issued License Number 7666 by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). Respondent has posted a bond in the amount of $30,000.00 written by Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company, as surety, to assure proper accounting and payment to producers such as Petitioner. In a complaint filed with the Department in July 1997, Petitioner alleged that he entered into an agreement with Bobby Patton (Patton) on behalf of Respondent to sell one truckload of "pee wee" watermelons. Under that agreement, Respondent agreed to pay seven cents per pound for the watermelons, and it would advance Petitioner $700.00 to cover the labor costs associated with loading the truck. The remainder would be paid upon final delivery. The complaint goes on to allege that Petitioner subsequently learned that there was "some problem" with the delivered produce. After Respondent inspected Petitioner's field to verify the quality of the crop, Petitioner was told that Respondent would "fight the fight" to get the shipment accepted. Since that time, however, the complaint alleges that Petitioner did not receive payment, an accounting of the transaction, an inspection report, or any further explanation. Accordingly, Petitioner filed this complaint seeking $3,077.20, less the $700.00 advance, or a total of $2,377.20. In its answer, Respondent has alleged that it actually received a truckload of "old diseased watermelons that had been lying in the field or on [the] field truck for a week," and the receiver refused to accept the load. Since it received nothing for the shipment, Respondent contends it is owed $700.00 for the money advanced to Petitioner. The parties agree that in late May 1997, Petitioner was contacted by Bobby Patton, who was representing Respondent, regarding the sale of small size watermelons. Patton offered to buy one truckload of "pee wee" watermelons at a price of seven cents per pound, to be paid after delivery to the receiver. Patton also agreed to advance Petitioner $700.00 to cover his loading costs. Petitioner agreed to these terms, and the truck was loaded from his field on June 3, 1997. The net weight of the loaded produce was 43,960 pounds. The vehicle's tag number was recorded on the loading slip as "AH 39099" from the province of Quebec, Canada. There is no evidence that the crop was diseased when it was loaded, or that it had been picked and lying in the field for several days before being loaded, as suggested in Respondent's answer to the complaint. The shipment was destined for Ontario, Canada. On or about June 5, 1997, the product was delivered to the customer, Direct Produce, Inc., in Etobicoke, Ontario. Because of a perceived lack of quality, the buyer refused to accept the load. Respondent immediately requested a government inspection which was performed on June 6, 1997. The results of that inspection are found in Respondent's Exhibit 3. It reveals that 1 percent of the load was decayed, 3 percent were bruised, 6 percent had Anthrocnose (belly rot), and 75 percent had "yellow internal discolouration." In addition, a composite sample reflected that 20 percent had "Whitish Stracked Flesh" while 5 percent had "Hollow Heart." In other words, virtually the entire shipment was tainted with defects or disease. The report also reflected that the net weight of the shipment was 44,500 pounds, and the tag number of the vehicle was "ALP 390999." The weight and tag number were slightly different from those recorded on the loading slip at Petitioner's field. After learning of the results of the inspection, Respondent's president, James B. Oglesby, immediately contacted Petitioner's president, Greg Bigham, and requested an inspection of Bigham's field to verify the quality of watermelons. During the inspection, Oglesby did not find any signs of belly rot or other problems similar to those noted in the government inspection. If there had been any incidence of belly rot in Petitioner's field, it would have been present in other unpicked watermelons. At the end of his inspection, Oglesby told Petitioner that he would "fight the fight" to get the shipment delivered and sold. Oglesby eventually found a buyer who would accept the shipment as feed for cattle. The buyer agreed to pay the freight charges for hauling the watermelons to Canada but nothing more. Therefore, Respondent was not paid for the load. Petitioner was led to believe that he would receive payment and paperwork, including the inspection report, within a few days. When he did not receive any documentation, payment, or further explanation within a reasonable period of time, he filed this complaint. It would be highly unlikely that a farmer would have one completely bad load from a field without the same problems being present in other loads shipped from the field at the same time. Petitioner presented uncontroverted testimony that no other shipments from that field during the same time period were rejected or had similar problems. In addition, it was established that poor ventilation on the truck, or leaving the loaded truck unprotected in the sun, could be causes of the crop being spoiled or damaged before it was delivered to Canada. Finally, at hearing, Respondent suggested that Bigham may have shown him a different field than the one from which his load was picked. However, this assertion has been rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs enter a final order determining that Respondent owes Petitioner $2,377.20. In the event payment is not timely made, the surety should be responsible for the indebtedness. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 6th of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Terry T. Neal, Esquire Post Office Box 490327 Leesburge, Florida 34749-0327 James B. Oglesby Post Office Box 6214 Lakeland, Florida 33807 Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company 4311 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioner relating to the lease of farmland, management of farmland, and the sale of strawberries pursuant to various oral contracts.
Findings Of Fact Tonya Gladney is an individual doing business as Tonya Gladney Farms, an entity dedicated to the business of farming in south central Florida. Gladney learned the farming business from her father. Gladney had been around strawberry farming her whole life and decided to engage in the business independently starting with the 2006-2007 growing season. TGF is a fledgling operation and does not own all of the land, equipment, or resources necessary to actively operate and maintain a farm. That is, TGF found it necessary to lease land from various landowners and to use that land for farming purposes. Further, TGF needed to rent certain farming equipment in order to prepare the leased lands for farming. G&S Melons, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company whose managing member is John Glen Grizzaffe. G&S is a farming operation which has been in existence since 1999. Like Gladney, farming was in Grizzaffe's blood, and his family had been farming since the 1920's. G&S started out as a grower of watermelons, but has grown berries, melons, squash, cucumbers and other produce as well. In recent years, G&S purchased 25 acres of land to be used primarily for strawberry farming, and that area of its business has grown considerably. In 2006, when Grizzaffe and Gladney first started doing business, TGF was G&S's only strawberry producer. G&S markets its produce to several grocery store chains, including SuperValue, Acme, Shaws, Jewel Foods, Food Lion, Sweet Bay, Albertsons and others. Grizzaffe's experience and business relationship with the various chains have allowed him to become a broker of goods produced by other farmers. As a broker, Grizzaffe has experience dealing with buyers and knows how to negotiate the best prices for products in his custody. In 2007, G&S was subleasing some land from C.W. Stump who was leasing the land from its owner, Al Repita. The land, known as Lightfoot Road Farm ("Lightfoot") is located in Wimauma, Hillsborough County. Grizzaffe was paying $325 per acre for the Lightfoot property, which was irrigated, but did not have overhead sprinklers. Grizzaffe held a year-to-year sublease on the property, primarily because Repita had the land up for sale. Grizzaffe expected to retain his lease for the next two or three years, but did not have any long-term expectations. The most credible evidence indicates that Lightfoot encompasses approximately 35 acres. After initial discussions between the parties concerning Lightfoot, Gladney and Grizzaffe met at the farm to further discuss the possible sublease by TGF. Gladney indicated she wanted to grow strawberries and Grizzaffe agreed to sublease the land to her. The sublease agreement was not reduced to writing, nor are there any written terms or conditions associated with the sublease.1 Gladney was unclear as to her understanding of what the terms of the lease were supposed to be. She believed Lightfoot was between 20 and 25 acres in size and would be available for at least two to three years, maybe up to five years. Gladney's testimony was not clear as to what she believed the lease amount to be, but thought $200 to $225 per acre would be about right "if there was any charge." Gladney did not provide any rationale as to why she should not be charged for subleasing the land. Grizzaffe's testimony that he was subleasing Lightfoot to TGF for $325 an acre--exactly what he was paying for it--is credible and makes the most sense in light of all the facts. The size of Lightfoot was a major point of contention between the parties. Inasmuch as there was no written lease, the parties' understanding can only be gleaned from their testimony. Gladney opined the land was 20 to 25 acres based on the fact that TGF had purchased enough plastic to cover 25 acres. Three rolls of plastic (2,400 square feet) would cover one acre and TGF had purchased 75 rolls. It takes 2,000 strawberry plants to cover one acre, and TGF purchased 50,000 plants. Mathematically, Gladney determined there was 25 acres of farmable land at Lightfoot. Grizzaffe's opinion was based on the following evidence: Net acreage is based on 43,560 square feet-per-acre divided by the row center. Strawberries are planted at a distance of four feet between the center of each row, leaving only 10,890 net square feet for planting on the Lightfoot acreage. This equates to 29.8 row acres, plus space in between the rows at Lightfoot, the dirt between the beds, the ditches, and the roadways around the field. So, although there are 20-to-25 acres of ground actually planted, the total gross acreage is higher (in this case approximately 35 acres). Farmland is generally leased by calculating the gross acreage, not merely the part of the land which can be farmed.2 Gladney advised Grizzaffe that between the Lightfoot farm and another farm she was working, G&S could expect between 50 and 60 acres of berries. Such calculations are incredibly important for the effective supply of berries to customers by the broker. Inasmuch as Lightfoot had only drip irrigation available at the time of the subject sublease and because overhead irrigation was necessary to grow strawberries, it was understood between the parties that an overhead irrigation system would have to be installed.3 A major dispute between the parties concerned who would be responsible for installing the overhead irrigation system. Inasmuch as Gladney believed the lease to be less than $225 per acre, it is doubtful she was leasing land with a sprinkler system. Sprinklered farmland usually rents for considerably more, i.e., in the neighborhood of $1,000 per acre. Gladney maintains that Grizzaffe specifically promised to pay for any overhead irrigation system installed on Lightfoot. This made sense to Gladney, because she believed Grizzaffe was going to be able to extend his current lease to a five-year lease. It takes a few years farming a parcel to recoup the expense of an overhead irrigation system. Grizzaffe, on the other hand, knew his lease, which was on a year-to-year basis, might only last two or three more years and that there was no promise of an extension. In fact, the farm is currently being offered for sale, meaning no long- term lease would be available to G&S. Grizzaffe told Gladney that she needed to install the overhead irrigation system in order to assure a quality product, but made no promise to pay for it. While TGF was preparing the farm to plant strawberries for the upcoming season, an overhead sprinkler system was installed. The system was apparently paid for by Gladney, but she claims to have used money furnished by Grizzaffe. There are, however, no written receipts or cancelled checks that indicate a payment by G&S for the sprinkler system. Certain bills or invoices addressing irrigation were generated by James Irrigation, Inc., the company hired to install the overhead system. The James Irrigation statements of account were addressed to Gladney. Other invoices concerning the irrigation system were issued by Gator Pipe and Supply and indicated they were shipped to "Gladney Farms." Gladney made at least one payment of $45,000 directly to James Irrigation as documented in the exhibits admitted at final hearing. The total cost of the overhead irrigation system was approximately $62,000. There are no checks from G&S or Grizzaffe to Gladney or TGF designated as payment for a sprinkler system, nor was there any credible testimony that Grizzaffe would pay for the Lightfoot sprinkler system. When Gladney ceased operations on Lightfoot, she did not take the Rainbird sprinkler heads or pvc pipes with her. In fact, Gladney did not take up the plastic used in growing the strawberries, although that is common practice when leasing land from another producer. Gladney did not, therefore, assert an ownership interest in the sprinkler system. The tenor of the cessation of business between the parties at that time (each seemed angry at the other) may account for Gladney's failure to clean up the Lightfoot property and/or retrieve the sprinkler system. However, Grizzaffe does not assert ownership of the sprinkler system either. It apparently belongs to the owner of the land. The next major point of contention between the parties was the price that G&S was charging TGF to act as intermediary between the grower (TGF) and the buyer (food store chains or others). Gladney contends that G&S agreed to handle and pre-cool all of TGF's berries at the flat rate of $1.00 per box. Gladney further contends that at least one other broker had accepted her berries at the same price. Grizzaffe counters that while his business would not be profitable giving a $1.00 flat rate, some brokers may be able to offer that to growers for ad hoc purchases. However, for a regular arrangement wherein a grower is providing a broker most of its product, that would not be feasible. Grizzaffe maintains the charge for TGF berries was the same charged to all other growers, i.e., 50 cents per box for pre-cooling the berries and 10 percent of the amount of the sale. G&S may charge a slightly higher pre-cool fee based on exceptional circumstances, but 50 cents is the norm. The purchase orders introduced into evidence by G&S include a brokerage fee of 10 percent and a pre-cool fee of 50 cents per box, comporting with his version of the oral contract. Again, the agreement between the parties as to the charge for handling berries was not reduced to writing. The more credible evidence supports G&S's position. TGF alleges that G&S misrepresented the amount it would sell TGF's product to buyers for and that G&S did not sell for the agreed-upon price. Gladney expected her berries to be sold at the USDA Market Price (to be discussed further below). Some purchase orders issued by G&S indicate that TGF berries were sold for several dollars under the USDA Market Price. The USDA Market Price is calculated by USDA utilizing the daily sale of berries by all growers in an area. The average price range is printed in a USDA publication and made available to growers, brokers and buyers as a guideline for negotiating prices in the future. The USDA publication apparently comes out almost daily, setting out the prices paid to local growers on the previous day or days. It is, therefore, a recap of what has been paid, not a projection of future prices to be paid. There is also a less structured means of establishing the "market price." This method involves local growers talking to each other and determining what each had been paid for their product on any given day. Growers often discuss market price, but seldom distinguish between USDA Market Price and the common market price. Gladney maintains that she spoke to Grizzaffe regularly and that he always assured her that her berries would be getting the market price or higher. She seems to believe that Grizzaffe was talking about the USDA Market Price. However, it is generally impossible for any broker to guarantee a price for a product; that is strictly a matter of supply and demand at any given point in time. However, Grizzaffe would benefit from charging the highest price he could get, because he was getting a percentage of the total sale. It is clear from the evidence that TGF berries sometimes were sold at an amount several dollars less than the USDA Market Price. There are reasonable explanations for that fact. For example, if TGF berries were rejected by one buyer, they would be sold as lower quality berries to another buyer who had need for that product. If there was a very high supply, but low demand, at the time the berries were harvested, a lower price may result. However, other than for those exceptions, G&S sold TGF berries for the same price that G&S sold other growers' berries; and due to his long-standing relationship with several chains, G&S often got the very best price in the area. One other price issue (although not largely pertinent to the instant dispute) concerned pre-selling berries by establishing an "ad price" for the product. An ad price was essentially an agreed-upon price well in advance of the actual purchase. This was done in order to allow stores the opportunity to advertise the price of berries in the newspaper or other circulars because the store would know the price well enough in advance. For example, the broker and buyer may agree to a price of $14 per box for berries to be delivered on a date certain. When that date came, the market price might be $12 per box or $16 per box, but the buyer would only pay the ad price ($14 per box). So, some of the TGF berries may have been sold at below USDA Market Price because they were part of an ad price arrangement. Gladney contends she was underpaid for supervising another farm for Grizzaffe. There is no documentation whatsoever as to the agreement between the parties. The farm was approximately 25 acres, which would produce about 2,000 to 2,500 flats of berries to the acre (or 50,000 to 62,500 flats). Gladney maintains she was supposed to receive $.25 a flat for berries produced on that farm as her management fee. No accounting of berries produced on the farm was presented into evidence. Gladney received a check for $10,000 from Grizzaffe to pay the management fee for the farm. Gladney said that $10,000 would be a "low amount" for her work, but did not substantiate that more was actually owed. Gladney protested offsets from her earned fees that related to certain products and materials, specifically fuel and packing materials. However, the bills and receipts presented by Grizzaffe justify the materials based on the number of berries produced and packed by Gladney for sale by Grizzaffe. The offsets appear reasonable and consistent with normal farming practices. G&S accurately and appropriately billed TGF for materials, including pallets, eggshells (small cartons used to ship berries), and fuel. The charges for those materials are applied to and deducted from TGF's profits on the berries delivered to G&S. The last primary point of contention between the parties is whether or not G&S loaned money to TGF and, if so, how much was loaned, the interest rate, and whether the loan was repaid. Again, there is no written loan agreement between the parties. According to Grizzaffe, G&S agreed to lend TGF up to $50,000 during the 2007-2008 growing season at a flat ten percent interest rate. The loan was offered in recognition of the fact that Gladney was just beginning her farming practice and would need some assistance on the front end. G&S expected to recoup its loan as TGF began delivering berries for sale. Gladney maintains that there was no loan to TGF or herself from Grizzaffe. Rather, she states that any checks for other than produce were G&S's payments for the promised irrigation system. G&S issued a number of checks to Gladney identified as "farm advance" or "loan" or "payroll." These checks were issued prior to the first sale of TGF berries by G&S. That is, TGF was not yet entitled to a check from the sale of proceeds at the time the checks were issued. Grizzaffe says the purpose of the checks was to advance money to Gladney so that she would have the funds necessary to rent equipment to prepare the land for planting, to install the sprinkler system, to pay her workers, and to cover her farming costs before proceeds from sales starting coming in. The first check representing sale of TGF berries by G&S was issued to Gladney on February 7, 2008 (although TGF had started delivering berries in November 2007). It is clear that Grizzaffe was providing money to Gladney before money had been earned. Whether it is called an advance or a loan, the net effect is the same. The total amount loaned by Grizzaffe to Gladney was far in excess of the agreed-upon $50,000. As TGF experienced unforeseen start-up expenses, Grizzaffe would write a check to help them meet any shortfall. These checks, which Gladney characterized as payments for the irrigation system, far exceed the cost of that system. The most credible evidence is that Grizzaffe fronted money to Gladney in the amount of $203,717.00. Further, G&S's charges to TGF exactly reflect a ten percent charge for certain checks, clearly evidencing the loan as described by Grizzaffe. Platte River Insurance Company ("Platte River") is a foreign insurance company authorized to do business in Florida. Platt River bonded G&S as required under Section 604.20, Florida Statutes (2008).4 Platte River did not make an appearance or file an answer to the Complaint filed by Petitioner in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services dismissing the Petition of Tonya Gladney, d/b/a Tonya Gladney Farms. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, 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 23rd day of February, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations entered into the record, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The parties: The Petitioners, Buck Flowers and Ray Thornton, are commercial fishermen doing business within the State of Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect their business interests. The Petitioner, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc., is an association of commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants, and fish retailers doing business in the State of Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect its interests and the interests of its membership. The Petitioner, Tim Adams, is a commercial fisherman doing business in Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect his interests. The Petitioner, Bird Island Fishery, is a harvester and wholesaler of fish within the State of Florida and its interests would be substantially affected by the enactment of the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Kim Gerz, is a commercial fisherman whose interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Goodrich Seafood, is a company that unloads and ships fresh fish in the State of Florida. Its interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Lee County Fisherman's Cooperative, Inc., is a company that unloads and ships fresh fish. Its interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Sigma International Co., is an exporter of mullet roe. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect its business. The Respondent, Marine Fisheries Commission, is an entity created by statute to serve within the Department of Natural Resources and empowered with rulemaking authority as set forth in Section 370.027, Florida Statutes. The Intervenor, Florida League of Anglers, Inc., is a corporation whose purpose is to protect and enhance Florida's fisheries and their habitats. The Intervenor, Florida Conservation Association, is an affiliate of the Coastal Conservation Association, whose main interests are to protect and enhance Florida's fisheries and marine environments for recreational fishing in Florida. The Intervenor, Florida Audubon Society, is a corporation whose main purpose is to protect Florida's natural outdoor environment and wildlife. The Intervenor, Florida Wildlife Federation, is a corporation whose main purpose is to protect Florida's natural outdoor environment and wildlife. Background of the proposed rules: The Department of Natural Resources began a study of issues related to the black mullet fishery within this state in 1987. The study was to cover a five year period beginning in 1987-88. It was anticipated that the study would serve as the genesis for regulations to be imposed on black mullet fishing within the State of Florida. In 1989, the Commission adopted rules related to black mullet fishing. Those rules specified periods during which black mullet could not be fished, set gear restrictions, closed designated areas to fishing, amended qualifications to catch commercial quantities of mullet, and set recreational limits. The rules specified that during 15 weekends of the year, black mullet fishing would be closed for 30 hour periods. Another restriction, to become effective July 1, 1992, established a minimum net mesh size of three inches. In 1990, the Commission adopted additional rules related to black mullet fishing: new areas were closed to fishing, minimum net mesh size during roe season was increased to four inches, commercial fishermen were prohibited from using spotter aircraft to locate schools, and weekend closures were extended from 30 to 54 hours with the additional stipulation that the fish had to be at the dock by closing time. Further, two additional weekends were closed to fishing. In June, 1991, the Commission met to consider new, more stringent rules related to the black mullet fishery. As a result of the discussions at that meeting, proposed new rules and amendments to rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 32, August 9, 1991. The proposed rules: Rule Chapter 46-39, as set forth in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 32, August 9, 1991, provided, in pertinent part: MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION RULE CHAPTER TITLE: RULE CHAPTER NO.: Mullet 46-39 RULE TITLES: RULE NOS.: Recreational Harvest Seasons 46-39.0035 Commercial Harvest, Statewide Regulations 46-39.005 Northwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions 46-39.0055 Southwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions 46-39.0075 East Florida Commercial Harvest estrictions 46-39.0095 PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of these proposed new rules and rule amendments is to implement additional, more stringent controls on commercial mullet harvest to begin rebuilding mullet populations over the long term to achieve a 35 percent spawning stock biomass ratio (SSBR) for the species statewide. The Commission established the SSBR goal after receiving the results of a five-year study of Florida mullet conducted by the Department of Natural Resources scientists. The state is divided into three areas (Northwest, Southwest, and East Florida) and differential rules are imposed in each area, with the Southwest area being more stringently regulated to coincide with scientific evidence showing a significantly lower SSBR in the area. Week-long closures, year-round in the Southwest and during roe season elsewhere, are considered to be more effective methods to reduce fishing mortality than roe season weekend closures, which are being eliminated. The closures will also apply to recreational harvesters, thus eliminating enforcement problems that occur during periods when recreational mullet harvest is allowed and commercial fishing is prohibited. Limiting gill and trammel nets to a maximum of 600 yards will result in a significant reduction in length of nets being fished in some areas, and may also result in a harvest reduction. Commercial daily vessel limits of 500 pounds during non-roe season are intended to reduce harvest during those periods when mullet are least highly valued. SUMMARY: New Rule 46-39.0035 establishes recreational week-long closures to coincide with commercial closures in the three areas established by new Rules 46-39.0055,46-39.0075, and 46-39.0095. The week-long closures will be during roe season in Northwest and East Florida, and year-round in Southwest Florida. A new paragraph is added to subsection (2) of Rule 46-39.005 to limit gill and trammel nets used to harvest mullet to 600 yards maximum statewide. New Rule 46-39.0055 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through the 28th days of the months of September, October, November, and December in the Panhandle and Wakulla-Hernando Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of January through August of each year. New Rule 46-39.0075 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through 28th days of the each month of the year in the Pasco-Lee, Collier-Monroe Gulf, and Lake Okeechobee Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of February through September of each year. New Rule 46-39.0095 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through the 28th days of the months of October, November, December, and January in the East Coast and St. Johns Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of February through September of each year. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY: Section 370.027(2), Florida Statutes. LAW IMPLEMENTED: Sections 370.025, 370.027, Florida Statutes. SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE RULES: The proposed amendments will directly affect those persons who harvest mullet for commerce. The proposal will indirectly affect wholesale dealers, retail dealers and consumers. The benefit of the measures is to ensure the sustained yield of the renewable mullet resource for human consumption and the food web. The cost of the proposal will be reduced levels of harvest and intermittent supplies of black mullet. The cost will vary regionally with the greatest reductions in the southwest Florida area. The proposed amendments will create a competitive advantage due to the differential regional regulations. The rule will not affect the open market for employment. The rule will affect small businesses. The rule will not increase paperwork or reporting requirements. Agency implementation costs for promulgation, hearings and filing will be approximately $6,500.00; enforcement costs total $38.00/hr. THE MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RULES AT THE TIME, DATE AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW: TIME AND PLACE: 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., September 5, 1991; and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., September 6, 1991 PLACE: Holiday Inn Tampa International Airport, 4500 West Cypress Street, Tampa Florida All written material received by the Commission within 21 days of the date of publication of this notice shall be made part of the official record. Subsequent to the publication of the notice described above, the Petitioners timely filed challenges to the proposed rules. Pursuant to the notice described above, the Commission met on September 5-6, 1991, for the purpose of conducting a public rulemaking hearing for the proposed new rules and proposed amendments to rules. At the meeting of September 5, 1991, members of the public were permitted to comment on the proposed rules and amendments. On September 6, 1991, the Commission allowed its staff to make a presentation regarding the options available to the Commission and deliberated the proposals before it. As a result of those deliberations, the Commission made substantial changes to the proposed rules. At that time the Commission acknowledged the challenges filed by the Petitioners herein and resolved to submit the changed proposed rules to the Governor and Cabinet for approval upon the favorable resolution of the administrative challenges. The substantially changed proposed rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 39, September 27, 1991, and provided, in substance, for the following restrictions: 46-39.0035 Recreational Harvest Seasons--prohibits harvesting during the period of the first day and continuing through the seventh day of each month during the months of September through December of each year for the state waters from the Florida-Alabama border to the Hernando-Pasco County line; prohibits mullet harvesting during the period of the first day and continuing through the fourteenth day of each month during the months of January and September through December of each year for the state waters from the Hernando- Pasco County line to the Dade-Monroe County line, excluding state waters of the Atlantic Ocean in Monroe County and including all waters of Lake Okeechobee; and prohibits harvesting beginning on the first day of the month through the seventh day of each month during the months of January and October through December of each year in all state waters from the Florida-Georgia border to the Collier- Monroe County line, excluding state waters of the Gulf of Mexico in Monroe County and including all waters of the St. Johns River. 46-39.0055 Northwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions-- prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the Panhandle and Wakulla-Hernando Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, during the period beginning on the first day and continuing through the seventh day of each month during the months of September through December of each year. 46-39.0075 Southwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions-- prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the Pasco-Lee, Collier- Monroe Gulf, and Lake Okeechobee Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, during the period of the first day and continuing through the fourteenth day of each month during the months of January and September through December of each year. 46-39.0095 East Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions--prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the East Coast and St. Johns Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, beginning on the first day of the month through the seventh day of each month during the months of January and October through December of each year. The Commission abandoned the 500 pound trip limit previously proposed for each region but retained the limit for gill and trammel nets to 600 yards maximum, statewide. The Commission asserts that the changes to the proposed rules were generated by virtue of the written comments, public testimony, and Commission discussion contained in the record of the public hearing held on September 5-6, 1991. Scientific data: In determining an appropriate guide for managing the black mullet fishery, the Commission staff elected to utilize a system based upon a computer model commonly known as "DSPOPS." The DSPOPS model was designed by Dr. Ault, working with Dr. Mahmoudi, for use in mullet stock assessment. While Dr. Ault developed the model with the intention that Dr. Mahmoudi would use it in mullet stock assessment, Dr. Ault did not prescribe the variables to be inserted into the model or comment to Dr. Mahmoudi as to the advisability of his choices. In fact, the reliability of the model is dependent on utilizing reasonable scientific inputs where variables must be inserted. The spawning stock biomass ratio (SSBR) measures the total mature biomass or weight of the fish stock in an exploited fishery in relation to what it would be if it were unfished. The Commission determined, and the Petitioners have not challenged, that the desirable SSBR for mullet would be 35 percent. By using data from 1988 and 1989, and inserting variables into the DSPOPS model the Commission staff attempted to compute the baseline SSBR for mullet in Florida. The SSBR was calculated by region and was intended to depict the conditions of the mullet stock by each region. The use of SSBR as a tool to evaluate a fishery and propose management of it has been accepted in the past by the Commission and other entities charged with management responsibility. The target of 35 percent SSBR for mullet is a reasonable management goal. In electing which variable to plug into the DSPOPS model, Commission staff chose the conservative estimate or value for the parameter to be inserted. "Conservative" herein is used to mean that choice which would depict the "worst case scenario" and, would, therefore, in theory, err on the side of the preservation of the fish. Such selections, as will be addressed below, were not based upon the best scientific data available and constituted an improper use of the model. In utilizing the DSPOPS model, reasonable and appropriate scientific methodology dictate the use of reasonable values for the variables to be inserted into the model. When values from either extreme of the spectrum are used, the reliability of the output is diminished. That is, the less the probability of the occurrence in the real world would be. In this case, the Commission staff found in its initial stock assessment that the SSBR for mullet in the southwest region was 15.1 and 22.4 in the northwest region. That assessment required inputs in the DSPOPS model for the following parameters: recruitment function; natural mortality; fishing mortality; and sexual maturity. In choosing which input for recruitment function, the Commission staff used a Getz recruitment function. The recruitment function is intended to show the relationship among a designation of the fish population and the amount of new fish born into that population each year. Utilizing the Getz function, instead of the other available recruitment function options, consistently produces the lowest estimate of spawning stock biomass. Had the Commission staff utilized the Beverton and Holt density dependent option, the spawning stock biomass in the northwest region would have increased by 11.73 and in the southwest region by 5.29. With regard to the natural mortality parameter, the Commission staff chose a natural mortality of 0.3. The data available suggests that in Florida the mullet fishery has a natural mortality rate of 0.5. By using the lower value, the DSPOPS model calculated the SSBR at an arbitrarily lower level. Had the Commission staff used 0.43 for the natural mortality input the SSBR would have increased in the northwest region by 3.07 and by 4.79 in the southwest region. Similarly, the Commission staff used extreme variables when inputting the handling mortality. Thus, the computed spawning stock biomass was lower than a midrange option would have produced. Finally, with regard to sexual maturity, mullet achieve sexual maturity at age 4. That age is supported by competent scientific data and is established by the evidence presented in this case. Regardless, Commission staff used a sexual maturity matrix in the DSPOPS model that assumed some fish were still sexually immature at 6 and 7 years. If corrected, the SSBR results would have been increased by 10 percent. By relying on the DSPOPS modeling results for the SSBR assessment, as computed by the Commission staff, the Commission failed to consider the best available biological information regarding the mullet stock. When corrected parameters are input into the DSPOPS model, the SSBR assessment for mullet is dramatically increased. The amount of the increase depends on which parameter is changed. If midpoint values are selected and all inputs are changed, the model produces a SSBR for the northwest region of 52.74 and for the southwest region of 36.19. Economic data: Economic impact and small business impact statements were prepared for the proposed rules first published in August, 1991. Statements were not prepared for the amended proposed rules which were approved by the Commission at the September, 1991, meeting. Mullet have a shelf life of four days if handled properly. The bulk of the market demand is for fresh mullet with demand for frozen or smoked mullet being significantly smaller. Closures of longer than four days would require mullet customers to seek other markets for fresh mullet. Restaurants and other entities seeking a constant source of fresh mullet would look to other markets such as Louisiana to fill orders. If lost, such customers are hard to recapture as in the instance of the spanish mackerel market. It is anticipated that businesses relying on the fresh mullet market will lay off employees if extended closures go into effect. The economic impact statement did not estimate the number of people who would be unemployed or underemployed as a result of the closures. The monetary amounts of the lost market created by the reductions expected in the harvest of mullet was not included in the economic impact statement. The short-term and long-term values of lost market could be computed for those directly and indirectly impacted by the proposed rules. It is expected that the financial losses to commercial fishermen, fish wholesalers, and distributors will be considerable. Additionally, loss of mullet roe sales will result in loss of market since no fish stocks are available to substitute for the mullet roe. Options which would minimize the adverse economic impacts the proposed rules would cause for small businesses have not been presented or considered by the Commission. Closures of shorter duration but of more frequency would lessen the economic damage to small businesses. For example, four day closures would not result in the interruption of the availability of fresh mullet. As opposed to what is proposed, regulations which would increase the net mesh size to allow younger fish to remain uncaught would also lessen the economic damage to small businesses. An increase in the year of first capture would increase SSBR. As opposed to what is proposed, regulations setting trip limits for harvesting mullet would lessen the economic damage to small businesses. Setting net restrictions as proposed allows harvesting and lessens the economic damage to small businesses.
The Issue Whether Mo-Bo contracted to buy Spencer's peppers at the following price per box based upon size: $18 for large, $13 for medium, or $7 for small?
Findings Of Fact On May 27, 1991, Ronnie Spenser called Rick Moore at approximately 10:00 a.m. Mr. Spenser had already had a crew picking peppers for delivery to Respondent's packing house since early that morning. Mr. Spenser asked Mr. Moore for a quote on peppers. A controversy exists about the quote Mr. Moore gave Mr. Spenser. However, they both agree that Mr. Moore quoted the amounts of $18, $13, $7, and it was understood that the quote was the price for which Respondent would purchase the peppers. Mr. Moore testified the market was unstable in peppers, and, upon the advise of his superiors, he quoted Mr. Spenser a price per box of $18 for extra large peppers, $13 for large peppers, and $7 for medium peppers. Mr. Spenser testified that Mr. Moore quoted the price per box as $18 for large peppers, $13 for medium peppers, and $7 for small peppers. Both men agree that the same thing occurred on the following day, May 28, 1991. The Respondent paid Mr. Spenser $14 for large peppers, $7 for medium peppers, and $5 for small peppers. There was no written contract for the transaction. There is no dispute about the quantity or the quality of the peppers. The market prices for May 27, 1991, as reported May 28, 1991, were as follows: Extra Large $22-25, Mostly $25 Large $18-20 Medium $12-14.25 Mostly $14 Small $8-10 The market prices for May 28, 1991, as reported on May 29, 1991, were as follows: Extra large $20-25.25 Mostly $22-25 Large $16-20.25 Mostly $18-20 Medium $12-14.25 Small $8-10.25 The market reports for May 24 and May 30, 1991 indicate a relatively stable market. On May 24, 1991 the prices were exactly the same as May 28, 1991. Not until May 30, 1991 did the prices for extra large, large and medium peppers dropped about $2.00 per box. Although the Respondent asserts it did not quote a price for small peppers, it bought the small peppers from Petitioner. Extra large peppers are a specialty item, and generally are quoted separately. The prices to which Mr. Spenser testified were closer to the market prices than those alleged to have been quoted by Mr. Moore: Spenser Market Report Moore Extra large $22 $18 Large $18 $18 $13 Medium $13 $12 $ 7 Small $ 7 $ 8 The market price is FOB shipping point, and the cost for Respondent to process is $.50-$1.00 per box. The prices paid by Respondent were as follows for the peppers it purchased from Petitioner: Large $14 x 883 boxes = $12,362 Medium $ 7 x 1541 boxes = $10,787 Small $ 5 x 759 boxes = $ 3,795 The difference in what was paid and what is claimed per size of pepper is: Large 4 x 883 = $3,532 Medium 6 x 1541 = $9,246 Small 2 x 759 = $1,518 $14,296 Farmers keep up with the prices of produce. It is highly unlikely that Petitioner would have agreed to sell his peppers at $5, $6, $2 less per size of pepper than the going market price. There is substantial and competent evidence to find that the contracted price for the peppers was $18/box for large peppers, $13/box for medium peppers, and $7/box for small peppers, and Petitioner has a valid claim in the amount of $14,296.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Agriculture enter its order substantiating the Petitioner's claim of $14,296 and awarding the amount of the claim from Respondent's agricultural bond. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 30th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX The Respondent submitted a proposed finding which was read and considered. The following paragraphs were adopted, or rejected for the reasons stated: Paragraphs 1.Stated in detail paragraph 15. The peppers were sold by "size" which relates to how many will fill a standard box. 3, 4, 5, 6.Irrelevant 7.The market reports for May 24, 28, 29 and 30, 1991 were introduced. 8.To the extent that Mo-Bo asserts this; the statement is correct. The Petitioner's assertion was found more credible. Paragraph 6. Irrelevant, however, if so why was the price for extra large peppers quoted to him. 11.Irrelevant. 12.Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agricutlure The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Smith & Fletcher, P.A. P.O. Box 628 Alachua, Florida 32615 William Robert Leonard, Esquire Ste. 402, 633 S. Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Lawyers Surety Corporation Legal Department 1025 S. Semoran, Suite 1085 Winter Park, Florida 32792
Findings Of Fact In 1987, Petitioner grew thirty (30) pounds of marijuana with a fair market value of $20,000. The marijuana was grown within the State of Florida. In 1988, Petitioner grew 116 pounds of marijuana with a fair market value of $500 per pound for a total of $58,000. This marijuana was also grown within the State of Florida. The growing of marijuana is a taxable event in Florida pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes. The tax is assessed at the fair market value of the marijuana grown. Additionally, there are surcharges and penalties assessable under the same statute for growing marijuana. The tax attributable to Petitioner's enterprise is as follows: 20% tax of fair market value $15,600.00 5% penalty per month up to 25% of tax due 3,900.00 Additional 50% penalty 7,800.00 1% interest per month as of date of final hearing (October 24, 1989) ($5.13 per day) from date of hearing) 2,746.14 Total $30,046.14 Petitioner did not demonstrate any defense to the assessment of this tax by the Department and did not demonstrate a defense to the payment of the above assessment. Petitioner, therefore, owes the Department $30,046.14 in penalties and taxes plus interest at the rate of $5.13 per day from October 24, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order upholding the jeopardy assessment, dated March 8, 1989, assessing the Respondent $30,046.14 in penalties and taxes plus $5.13 per day from October 24, 1989. DONE and ENTERED this 31 day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 31 day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted, in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 9, 19, 20 and 23 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: William D. Moore General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Katie D. Tucker Executive Director 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 William Clayton Sapp #114370 Cross City Correctional Institution Work Camp P.O. Box 1500-236WC Cross City, Florida 32628 Lee Rohe, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
